Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[justasking4]

I’m not talking about the OT Deuterocanonical books (Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc) I’m talking about the NT Deuterocanonical books and passages: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, and certain portions of the Gospels.

i have never seen this term --“NT Deuterocanonical”. Why do you use this term for these books?

 

[twb1621]

And you have yet to prove that it’s biblical.

:doh2:

:doh2:

Again, the Papal statement of the dogma condemns those who reject the it; that’s an unbiblical condemnation based upon an unbibilical dogma.

First I would like to hear how you would refute post 393.
In addition to that, I have come across this argument so many times discrediting all but what is written in the bible but no one has given a reasonable answer as to how you can use scripture verse against scripture verse and not recognize the fact your interpretation must be wrong. If you interprete a verse out of direct wording and it conflicts with a verse that is straight forward in its teaching, the interpretation is corrupt. Secondly, how do you justify discrediting Sacred Tradition when the gospel is portions of the same source… Additionally, the very issues you argue your case with was derived in the same manner as your issues.

 

[sandusky]

First I would like to hear how you would refute post 393.

393?

 

[sandusky]

If one believes the church to truly be Christ’s authority on earth… would it not stand to reason that to hold a belief contrary to church teaching would “condemn” someone to remain OUTSIDE the church? The church has also said “Outside the church there is no salvation.” Which many outside the church have misunderstood to mean that if you’re not catholic you aren’t saved…

I understand what it means.

AshleyBelle:

But this has been discussed time and again in countless threads…probably explained to YOU as a matter of fact.

Outside the church there is no salvation…because anyone who has faith in Christ, in TRUTH, is whether they admit it or not, PART of the Catholic church, however incompletely.

I understand your church’s position on that as well.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

i have never seen this term --“NT Deuterocanonical”. Why do you use this term for these books?

Because that’s exactly what they are. Those books and passages were part of the “second canon” which is what deuterocanon means.

Have you read Where We Got the Bible?

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4385219]Because that’s exactly what they are. Those books and passages were part of the “second canon” which is what deuterocanon means.

There never was a “second” canon of the NT that i’m aware of. These books may have been dispute in the first 3 centuries but they were never referred to as part of some kind of second canon for the NT,

Have you read Where We Got the Bible?

No.

 

[AshleyBelle]

And you have yet to prove that it’s biblical.

:doh2:

:doh2:

Again, the Papal statement of the dogma condemns those who reject the it; that’s an unbiblical condemnation based upon an unbibilical dogma.

How do you know it’s unbiblical?

Is that :doh2: face supposed to be US trying to understand your logic?

I think your definition of “un biblical” is “Not SPECIFFICALLY in the Bible.”

But as we have shown you… there are concepts not SPECIFICALLY in the Bible that we still consider “biblical.” Such as the trinity and the CANON of Scripture.

Our definition of “un biblical” is precisely what it SHOULD be… meaning: “going AGAINST the Bible.” Meaning… the Bible has to say that there is a contradiction.

You have REFUSED to show us a contradiction in the Bible for our marian doctrines. You’ve only shown us an “absence” of them being in the Bible…which is not sufficient. Or else we couldn’t consider the trinity or new testament books as “biblical” either.

 

[sandusky]

How do you know it’s unbiblical?

It’s not in the scripture.

AshleyBelle:

But as we have shown you… there are concepts not SPECIFICALLY in the Bible that we still consider “biblical.” Such as the trinity and the CANON of Scripture.

The Trinity is in Scripture Ashley. That’s why Protestants accept the teaching—it’s in the Scripture.

AshleyBelle:

Our definition of “un biblical” is precisely what it SHOULD be… meaning: “going AGAINST the Bible.” Meaning… the Bible has to say that there is a contradiction.

Where does your 2000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium teach this?

AshleyBelle:

You have REFUSED to show us a contradiction in the Bible for our marian doctrines.

Ashly, how quickly you forget.

Earlier in the day you stated using the illustration of your violin story, that don’t believe the dogma because it can be proven from Scripture, but you believe it because it’s a tradition of your church.

In fact, here are your own words (and the link to your post containing them):**Ok so this story is nothing like the story we have of Mary’s assumption, obviously LOL… But it proves my point. We have stories and traditions handed to us by our families that we believe…not because we have proof or because they’re written down…but because they came to us FROM our family! This is my view of the church… God gave us the Church to pass on our FAMILY story!**Helllllooo!!!

 

[guanophore]

What was the mindset of those who wrote it?

Catholic, of course!

Nonsense. Anyone if they want to can gain a good grasp of the Scriptures without being a Catholic…

I do agree there is a lot that can be grasped. However, we see where the departure from the Apostolic Tradition has spawned all kinds of divisions.

Can you give me a couple of specific examples of Tradition that is not in the Scriptures? Something like a teaching?

This question does not make any sense. The whole NT is Sacred Tradition put to writing.

What happens when it is separated from the Sacred tradition that produced it is that it cannot be understood with the right mindset. This then causes departures from orthodox Apostolic Teaching.

I I could not find any support for your assertion here.

That is good evidence that you have not read the primary source on Catholic Tradition, the Scripture, or another confident source which is the Catechism.

If you read your Bible you will find this:

Jude 3-4
“… contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

This faith was entrusted in the form of Sacred Tradition, the complete teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. Some of this was later committed to writing. There is no new public revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

What i did find is this:

"A Growing Tradition

Tradition is expressed in (and grows from) the Church’s creeds, the records of the Church’s liturgy, the writings of the great teachers, the decrees of popes and councils, the prayer and faith of the people…

I don’t think it is the best way to say it. It is not Tradition that grows, but the church, and the individuals in her. It (the implanted seed) sprouts and grows, and our understanding of it develops over time.

It is true, though, that it is expressed in the Church’s creeds, liturgy, writings of the teachers, decress, prayers and faith of the people. this is why reducing it to a “list” is not possible.

Tradition develops in the sense that the Church probes more deeply into the meaning of all that has been handed on. The Holy Spirit guides its growth and explanation. Each age must express the age-old Tradition of the Church in the forms of its day. The essentials remain, the application and form may change.

This paragraph words it much better. It is our understanding that grows and develops.

The Church is a living organism; in each generation, it must respond to God through the language, culture, problems and opportunities of its own day. The Church remembers its experience and listens to the living Word of Jesus in the Bible and is thus led by the Spirit to show Christ to the world.

Leonard Foley, O.F.M.
Believing in Jesus

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1081.asp

You have failed not only me in giving the right answer but also others who need to know these things…

I think I was too hard on Brother Foley yesterday. It is actually a very good explanation, except for that one word “growth” that appears to refer to the Tradition itself, rather than our experience of it. If you wrote to him, I am sure he would tell you the same thing.

If there is any failure here, it is that of your hardened and resistant heart, unwilling to learn what the church actually teaches, and why, and th persistent nitpicking and fault finding that are reminiscent of the Accuser of the Brethren.

I don’t think this is true.

Well, let’s put it this way. The Teaching of the Church is that there is no new public revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

There is new “revelations” in the Catholic church in regards to Mary.

There have been many private revelations of Mary, but these are not binding on the faithful.

Here is one such statement from the church that can be found in the link below:
“Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.”
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

This is not a new revelation . This is what it means when it speaks of the truth being revealed by God, and not accessible by faculty of the human mind. This is why you stumble over this so much. Your entire faith is based on the faculties of your human mind, that is why so many of the articles of faith are inaccessible to you.

 

[AshleyBelle]

It’s not in the scripture.

The Trinity is in Scripture Ashley. That’s why Protestants accept the teaching—it’s in the Scripture.
Not all protestant denominations accept the trinity. And I don’t see “trinity” in the scripture anywhere…can you help?

Where does your 2000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium teach this?

Ashly, how quickly you forget.

Earlier in the day you stated using the illustration of your violin story, that don’t believe the dogma because it can be proven from Scripture, but you believe it because it’s a tradition of your church.

In fact, here are your own words (and the link to your post containing them):Ok so this story is nothing like the story we have of Mary’s assumption, obviously LOL… But it proves my point. We have stories and traditions handed to us by our families that we believe…not because we have proof or because they’re written down…but because they came to us FROM our family! This is my view of the church… God gave us the Church to pass on our FAMILY story!Helllllooo!!!

As for the family story, you missed the point.

My family includes the traditions, stories and herilooms that make up my knowlege of my heritage.

Just as the teachings of the church are upheld through
-Scripture
-Tradtion
-Magisterium

I couldn’t understand the story of my great great great grandfather if my grandmother
a) didn’t have the family authority to tell family stories to begin with
b) if it went against family documents saying my great great great grandfather NEVER played the violin. (this is what we mean by UN Biblical )
c) if it was just something my Grandma made up and there was no sign anyone else in the family believed it.

The church teaches that Scripture is the inspired word of God…and that it must be illuminated by tradition and magisterium. ALL are equally true… none may stand alone without the others…or we loose truth…we loose they ability to live and understand God’s word.

So again…show me how our marian doctrines are UN Biblical.

 

[guanophore]

As you may know the assumption is not based on the Scriptures.

No. The Catholic faith is not a “religion of the book”. All the Catholic teachings come directly from Jesus, through the Apostles and were whole and entire (see quote from Jude) before a word of the NT was written.

If our understanding could not develop, we would never have been able to defeat the early heresies of gnosticism and arainism. These controversies required the development of the word Trinity, also not found in scripture, and the hypostatic union. Such developments are all done on the basis of the “once for all” deposit of faith. this is how the contents of the NT was determined as well.

Just like all the other doctrines of the faith, the NT scriptures already existed in their inspired-inerrant condition. It was left to the church to identify and proclaim them as such.

No. The books of the Bible themselves attest that they are Scripture.

No, ja4, most of them don’t. This is spreading misinformation. I am going to assume that you wrote this in ignorance, but please don’t do this again.

Its not based on any specific verse that says such and such but on the nature and power of the writings themselves.

Secondly, were any of these books associated with an apostle? This was crucial since the work had to be either written by an apostle or one associated with one since this inspired work was to come through them.

It is interesting that you acknowledge that the inspired writings can come through the Apostles by the Power of God, but you cannot acknowledge that they were able to live their lives in holiness by the power of God, or to accurately pass on the Teachings of Jesus by that same Power.

There is no such definition in Scripture in the modern sense. Rather we can support a modern defintion with various passages from the Scripture that tells us the definition is correct.

Good, you have answered for yourself how the development of doctrine works,a nd what “implicit” means.

Depends what you mean by Tradition and can the Tradition be supported by Scripture. Even if the Tradition can be supported by it that does mean the Tradition itself is inspired-inerrant and has the same authority as Scripture.

This is a logical error. The teachings came from the same Source. It is the Source that inspires. the HS did not lie down on the job after the writing was completed.

There passages that support it. That’s how we know its Scriptural.

Good.

It works equivalently. The Sacred Tradition supports it, that’s how we know it is from the Apostles.

 

[sandusky]

As for the family story, you missed the point.

My family includes the traditions, stories and herilooms that make up my knowlege of my heritage.

Just as the teachings of the church are upheld through
-Scripture
-Tradtion
-Magisterium

I couldn’t understand the story of my great great great grandfather if my grandmother
a) didn’t have the family authority to tell family stories to begin with
b) if it went against family documents saying my great great great grandfather NEVER played the violin. (this is what we mean by UN Biblical )
c) if it was just something my Grandma made up and there was no sign anyone else in the family believed it.

The church teaches that Scripture is the inspired word of God…and that it must be illuminated by tradition and magisterium. ALL are equally true… none may stand alone without the others…or we loose truth…we loose they ability to live and understand God’s word.

So again…show me how our marian doctrines are UN Biblical.

Oh Ashley, you are precious, dear.

You’re playin’ me, Ashley. You’re the one changing her story, so, after you’ve clearly demonstrated from scripture where the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary resides, I’ll show you that you’re wrong.

 

[guanophore]

I have found many times that when a person claims to belong to a church or institution what they believe can be different from what the organization offically teaches.

Its important for me to know not only what the Catholic teaches but what do individual catholics believe. I personally determine what is important to me as you do for yourself.

Actually, good Catholics will allow the Lord to determine what is important to them. This is what it means to have him lord of our lives. In fact, all that is important to us must become as “refuse” compared to His surpassing knowledge.

What would help is to compare exactly those deuterocanonical quotes with the corresponding verses in the NT. Do you have those from the DC’s?

Yes. There are many of these available. I doubt you would find this evidence pursuasive, though since you have already made up your mind to the contrary. A closed mind makes it very difficult to learn at all.

If you can find a quote from a monk on Sacred Tradition that seems to support you believe that Tradition “grows” then I am sure you can find the quotes of Jesus and the Apostles from the Deuteros.

I’m not the final judge here.

Just the earthly, temporary judge? You have been judging Catholics and finding them wanting for two years! Well, probably longer than that, but that is how you have been since you came here.

That examination must start with the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant Word of God.

No, ja4, the scriptures don’t say that. Yes, they are inspired and inerrant, but so is the Sacred Tradition. I agree that things need to be examined in the light of the scriptures, but in order for this to work, one must read them with the mindset of those who wrote them.

True. This is the attitude of a child but not the naive mind of a child. We are to gounded in the faith that we might not be decieved, tricked by false teachings or taken captive by false philosophies.

This is very true. Catholics ground their children in the faith from before birth, and long before they can read. This is what Sacred Tradition is all about.

It may be enough to save you if you believe in Christ but unless you grow in the knowledge of Christ via the Scriptures and your walk with Him you will not be effective for His kingdom. Nor will you grow to maturity without knowledge of Him that is found in the Scriptures.

While Catholics will agree with this, we also acknowledge that there are other equally important avenues for growth in Christ.

i’m not even close to demanding what He did.Just read the Gospels and look at those passages where He demands you count the cost and give up everything to follow Him?

You are way beyond demanding what Christ has from us. Jesus never demanded all the “proofs” that you do. This is one reason we find your approach not to originate from Him.

He has the privilege of asking us to give all for Him, because He gave all for us. YOu have no such privilege, yet you demand all these things anyway.

 

[guanophore]

The question is, does the Bible tell us that Mary was assumed into heaven?

Because it’s an addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it will be rejected by God’s true Church, IMO.

Furthermore, rejection of the dogma results in the unbiblical pronouncement that the rejector of the dogma forfeits salvation.

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

This is not unbiblical at all! In fact, the Catholic Church uses the biblical and Apostolic forumula to this day. God’s plan for Mary was contained in the book of Genesis forward. It is in Revelation that we see her in heaven, crowned. It wasn’t “added” later.

 

[sandusky]

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

This is not unbiblical at all! In fact, the Catholic Church uses the biblical and Apostolic forumula to this day. God’s plan for Mary was contained in the book of Genesis forward. It is in Revelation that we see her in heaven, crowned. It wasn’t “added” later.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

There never was a “second” canon of the NT that i’m aware of. These books may have been dispute in the first 3 centuries but they were never referred to as part of some kind of second canon for the NT,

Well now you have been made aware of it, they were indeed referred to as deuterocanonical. Some popular bibles even go so far as to omit certain deuterocanonical passages from the actual text and place them in the footnotes. Check out John 5 in the ESV, NIV, or NLT. There is no verse 4.

Pixie Dust:

Have you read Where We Got the Bible?

No.

You would find it very informative.

 

[guanophore]

Of course it is. From what do you think the doctrine was formulated? Thin air?

Honestly, some of them seem to be. Sola Scriptura, for example.

It’s not scriptural; therefore, it need not be believed, and certainly, it should carry no penalty for rejection of the dogma, but alas, the church, by her self-proclaimed authority, condemns anyone who rejects it.

Interesting that your definition of what must be believed is different than what the Apostles taught.

It is also puzzling that you would say that the Church has “self-proclaimed” authority. Scripture itself is clear that all authority comes from God, an that Jesus Himself gave authority to the Church.

It is also strange that you do not accept the apostolic teaching on excommunication for those that reject the faith. This is also clear in scripture.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Oh Ashley, you are precious, dear.

You’re playin’ me, Ashley. You’re the one changing her story, so, after you’ve clearly demonstrated from scripture where the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary resides, I’ll show you that you’re wrong.

I’ve demonstrated to you that the marian dogmas do not NEED to come directly from the Bible.

You are the one who has yet to show ME why it needs to be addressed there specifically.

You’ve been shown biblical support for the idea of the assumption (Elijah and Enoch)

You’ve been shown biblical support for Mary’s holiness

You’ve been shown Biblical support for Christ giving us Mary as the mother of all Christians

You’ve been shown Biblical support for Christ establishing His church with Peter as the first pope, given the keys to the kingdom, with the authority to bind and loose

We’ve explained the importance of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all working together. We’ve explained that without Tradtion you do not HAVE the Scriptures.

So please…show me why I am wrong. You’ve gone in circles and you’re taking us all on your wild goose chase, hoping some poor catholic will get caught up in the ride and believe everything you have to say. And yet you can’t give us any proof that you’re right…or that you are being infallibly guided in your interpretations of scripture.

I do not have to rely on the Bible alone as you do.

 

[sandusky]

I’ve demonstrated to you that the marian dogmas do not NEED to come directly from the Bible.

You are precious, dear. :yup:

AshleyBelle:

You are the one who has yet to show ME why it needs to be addressed there specifically.

You’ve been shown biblical support for the idea of the assumption (Elijah and Enoch)

You’ve been shown biblical support for Mary’s holiness

You’ve been shown Biblical support for Christ giving us Mary as the mother of all Christians

You’ve been shown Biblical support for Christ establishing His church with Peter as the first pope, given the keys to the kingdom, with the authority to bind and loose

We’ve explained the importance of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all working together. We’ve explained that without Tradtion you do not HAVE the Scriptures.

So please…show me why I am wrong. You’ve gone in circles and you’re taking us all on your wild goose chase, hoping some poor catholic will get caught up in the ride and believe everything you have to say. And yet you can’t give us any proof that you’re right…or that you are being infallibly guided in your interpretations of scripture.

I do not have to rely on the Bible alone as you do.

The bodily assumption of Mary is not demonstrable in the revelation of God to His people. If it were, you’d have demonstrated it by now.

Pretty simple.

 

[AshleyBelle]

You are precious, dear. :yup:

The bodily assumption of Mary is not demonstrable in the revelation of God to His people. If it were, you’d have demonstrated it by now.

Pretty simple.

It is demonstrated, it's called Sacred tradtion:) The fact that you reject it does not make it any less true.