Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[justasking4]

QUOTE=RobGentner

I see, well that makes sense everything you mentioned. As far as the secret meeting goes, I didn’t know about that or I would have attended for sure. Count me in when the next one comes up if you don’t mind.

By the way, I noticed a few days ago that justasking4 never rebutes my responses to her and him (or whatever) so I imagined early on there was no genuine interest, just the games.
Thats something they will have to deal with sooner or later, one way or another.

Since i have so many “friends” out here i must have missed yours. Can you repost it here?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Where does the Catholic church say that that the public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and says this is a “tradition”?

How did “tradiition” work to come up with the table of contents of the Bible?

Tradition is something that has been handed down. It has been handed down to us by the Church that she believes that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

The table of contents of the bible is another tradition handed down to us via the church.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

guanophore;4340569]If that is true, why do you keep ignoring quotes from the Catechism, as if they did not exist?

i don’ ignore it. You seem to think that an explanation of tradition or Sacred Tradition is the same thing as concrete examples that demonstrate specifically what it is, not in the Scriptures since Sacred Tradition by definition is something different than the Scriptures themselves. If we can get to that then we can look at its origins and compare it with the Scriptures. This is where an offical list of these Sacred Traditions for the past 2000 years would be helpful in our quest for the truth.

This is true, ja4. I will remind you of what I have told you many times. It is likely impossible for a human being to learn about something when they are convinced that it does not exist. It is called denial. This human defense prevents us from seeing what is right in front of our eyes.

No so. We need to get this out in the open so all catholics and protestants can know exactly what these things are. For example:is the rosary a Sacred Tradition? If not, why not? If so, why and who determined it?

Since you have stated that you firmly believe there is no such thing as Sacred Tradition,a nd that it is all “speculations of men”, it is probably impossible for you to “see” it. Also, the Traditions is handed down (paradosis) from the faithful to the faithful.

If we look at the Marian doctrines for example we would have to conclude that since the Scriptures never mention her as being immaculate concieved or assumed into heaven these doctrines would be of men. There is no other conclusion to draw.

Rom 1:17
“…God is revealed through faith for faith…”

Since you lack this faith, you will be unable to receive it.

Actually a better passage to use is found in Romans 10:17–So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

What is written on the heart, the living letter, are the Traditions (Holy way of life) taught by the Apostles. thsi lifestyle (living and thinking in a Christlike manner) is called in the NT “The Way”.

How can something that is found only in the NT Scriptures (Apostles teachings) also be a “Tradition”?

2

Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Cor 3:2-3
" You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

This is Sacred Tradition, the Spirit of the Living God manifest in the Church.

Are there Sacred Traditions being “formed” today?

1 Thess 2:13-14

" We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers." 1 Thess 2:13-14

Sacred Tradition is God’s Word at work in the Church.

Are you thinking that Sacred Tradition is the same as Scripture?

Not necessarily. I accept the theory of relativity, for example.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

Acts 2:41-42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

 

[RobGentner]

I prefer offical Catholic teachings that can be traced if possible. If i can’t get that then i will have to go with second best which is usually what happens here i.e. what catholics think the church offically teaches.

JA4T!T, Sweetheart,:flowers: errr, Kind sir?,

All you had to do was ask! For “official” Catholic teachings go to:
vatican.va/ Tell the Pope, “Rob sent you”! (We are both German! )
We, were humbly by your kind words. Thank you for even considering us to be the second best source. How proud that makes us! :yawn: You know how much your opinion means to all of us!

Were all here to learn. I know this is difficult for catholics since they have heard about it for so long and it sounds great** but when asked for support for it specifically its not be had…**.

There are none so blind as those who will not see". And the most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they have already been taught! Oh, I forgot! You want bible sources sorry!:imsorry:

Matthew 13:13 ~ Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

Jeremiah 5:21 ~ Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

What exactly is written on the heart? Where does the oral teachings of the apostles come in? Why do I continue to ask the same stupid questions?

Did you write that last one or did someone sneak that in when I wasn’t watching? That wouldn’t be nice!:tsktsk: I know you have your list no one should add to it. I know also that you get paid to repeat it. That also isn’t your fault!
I tell the guys at the Secret Catholic meeting. Look JA4 must be gettintg paid to do this. No one is that thickheaded. So if JA4 has a job to do they have to do. It might be the only job they could get! Let’s hope they get paid big bucks to come here and do this. We should respect them! If they don’t do their job they cound get fired!
But the guys don’t listen to me. They mention the Mormans, the JW, the Buddist, the Baptist etc. I try to explain. Who would pay anyone to attack false religions? They always say "But they are lying! They keep asking over and over again, they are driving us crazy! " But don’t worry, I will keep explaining. Like you they don’t want to believe so they ignore my answers. Oh, by the way, Wal-Mart needs greeters for the Holidays!

Anyway what is written on the heart is the meaning of the words of God. But you knew that. Like the 666 is written on the forehead of the followers of the evil one. Christians also have a mark, it is on our hearts. Oh, you didn’t know that?:doh2: Sorry, now I am beginning to understand !

Isaiah 6:9-10 ~ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

If a person accepts things not taught by the apostles have they departed from the faith?

Depends! Were they things taught by a protestant? If so many so!

It is a sacred duty to guard that which has been entrusted (paradosis).

What exactly was Paul referring to?

A sacred duty to guard the paradosis which has been entrusted! The Greek word refers to the process of handing the Word of God. Update your list ! I don’t want your questions to sound so stupid!

I know the Scriptures and that is why its always important to see if catholic teachings are truly grounded in the Scriptures. Sadly in many cases its lacking or nonexistent.

You know of the scriptures. You demonstarte that you do not know scriptures. Only the CC knows the scriptures. Your twisted interpretations explains the problem you have! Not our answers to the 25 questions you ask Every thing in the Catholic Church is grounded in Oral and Written Tradition. I know your next five questions: Where are they at? Is there a list of them? Why don’t you send me them? Is my shift over soon? . Did the apostles approve them?

Answers: The official CC Sacred Traditions Repository. Nope, being worked on by the monks!, Not my job? Ask your supervisor, Of course!
How i wish this was true. The facts of history show otherwise as i have continually demonstrated.

You have continually demonstrated something alright! What is that Smell???

Where then has God defined Sacred Tradiiton?

There are many “lists” in the NT that reflect the teachings of Christ.

No

OK

The body may adapt but a healthy body stays true to core heathy principles. That has not been true in the catholic church.

Would someone remind me to tell the Pope that JA4 doesn’t like the way we are running our Religion! They want us to distort our thruths also like they do!

I just gave you a lsit from Colossians 3. We can go into the details sometime if you like.

Now that should be fun to read!

Lets define the terms first. How has your church offically defined the term “living letter”? This would greatly help our discussions. Thanks----
Darn, and you were doing so good! LIVING LETTER exactly which part gave you the difficulty? You can ask the Pope it is His job to jove official Information out!
Oh, by the way it is “officially” . spell it right!

 

[justasking4]

twb1621;4339829]
How can this be if the church is constantly changing?

justasking4
Again, it doesn’t change doctrine, going through all history of Christianity for 2000 years that has never changed, only been further enlightened and supported and Christ’s word taught and enforced with the very scriptures you have remaining from the original bibles although some corrupted in interpretation for the last 1500 years.

Catholic doctrines have changed in the past 2000 years. Just take the Marian doctrines. These doctrines were not believed by the church in 3rd century for example and yet it is believed today by catholics. Another example would be unmarried bishops. Believed in the NT not practiced today.

By the way, even Luther before his death admitted sola Scriputa was wrong and that it leaves any “milkmaid” the idea she can give the Bible her own interpretations and start her own “religion”.

I don’t know that much about him. How are you defining SOLA SCRIPTURA?

If you look at your history answer me as to whose faith keeps changing even after the founder admitted he was wrong. You’re welcome to look that up also.

Changing in what way?

Now if you honestly want answers that you can research on your own to prove these things to yourself, by all means ask away, but if you are going to claim knowledge and devotion to the gospel, then you will have to choose to believe in the entire gospel or deny all of it. Even Jesus pointed out you can’t have it both ways. The Word of God is not flexible.

You bring up a lot here. Must a person believe all that the Catholic church teaches to be saved?

 

[justasking4]

RobGentner;4341484]

I prefer offical Catholic teachings that can be traced if possible. If i can’t get that then i will have to go with second best which is usually what happens here i.e. what catholics think the church offically teaches.

 

[guanophore]

If you would make sure you get that on the left of the users name, you quotes would come out better looking.

Where does the Catholic church say that that the public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and says this is a “tradition”?

In the Catholic Catechism

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. (St. John of the cross)

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13.

Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

This is the Catholic teaching on public revelation.

How did “tradiition” work to come up with the table of contents of the Bible?

I encourage you to review with the search tools the previous posts on this. You have posted the answers your self, so “you” already know them.

One of the tests is that the book was written by an Apostle, or one closely associatied with an Apostle. There are some of the books whose authors are not mentioned, like the book of Matthew, who we only know wrote it from Sacred Tradition.

You seem to think that an explanation of tradition or Sacred Tradition is the same thing as concrete examples that demonstrate specifically what it is,

No, but you do keep asking for examples, and we, knowing that there are people reading the threads that really do want to know, continue to attempt to patiently answer you.

not in the Scriptures since Sacred Tradition by definition is something different than the Scriptures themselves.

Sacred Tradition is mentioned in the Scripture. You just don’t accept it.

Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Writings are part of the same once for all deposit of faith. They are not “different” except that one is written, and the other is lived. It is not like they can be separated from one another. Your efforts to dissect them are useless.

 

[guanophore]

If we can get to that then we can look at its origins and compare it with the Scriptures. This is where an offical list of these Sacred Traditions for the past 2000 years would be helpful in our quest for the truth.

No, I think not. You have been given dozens of examples over the course of the last two years, and it does not seem to have helped at all.

No so. We need to get this out in the open so all catholics and protestants can know exactly what these things are.

I don’t think so.

For example:is the rosary a Sacred Tradition? If not, why not? If so, why and who determined it?

I think I will write this in a text file, since copying and pasting would be easier.

Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Writings are part of the same once for all deposit of faith. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Do you know what year the Rosary was given to the Church? If so, then you can do the math.

Sacred Tradition is part of public revelation. The Rosary is a private devotion. The first is binding on the whole church, the second is not.

If we look at the Marian doctrines for example we would have to conclude that since the Scriptures never mention her as being immaculate concieved or assumed into heaven these doctrines would be of men. There is no other conclusion to draw. :shrug:

Yes, we know that you are incapable of drawing any other conclusion. What is your point? Is it your intention to take away the gifts of God from others who ARE able to draw another conclusion?

How can something that is found only in the NT Scriptures (Apostles teachings) also be a “Tradition”?

Because that is not the only place it is found, and because the Scripture was never intended to contain everything.

Are there Sacred Traditions being “formed” today?

Go back an re-read the part on the definition of Sacred Tradition, and on Public Revelation. if you can rub these two thoughts together you will be able to answer this question for yourself.

Here is official Catholic teaching about Sacred Tradition:

“The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes”.

This is the official Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition that you have rejected. Instead of accepting it, you insist on having a “list”. So, please show us, using the Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition, how you would generate such a “list.”

Please show how you, in your doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuate and transmit all that you believe in a simple list.

Are you thinking that Sacred Tradition is the same as Scripture?

Same Source, different forms.

How can something that is found only in the NT Scriptures (Apostles teachings) also be a “Tradition”?

I don’t think it can! That is why you cannot access these. You think they don’t exist.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4341551]If you would make sure you get that on the left of the users name, you quotes would come out better looking.

In the Catholic Catechism

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. (St. John of the cross)

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13.

Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

This is the Catholic teaching on public revelation.

Since there are no passages to support the immaculate conception of Mary and her assumption and it was proclaimed by a later pope to be true was this accomplished by some kind of “revelation” to the pope?

I encourage you to review with the search tools the previous posts on this. You have posted the answers your self, so “you” already know them.

One of the tests is that the book was written by an Apostle, or one closely associatied with an Apostle. There are some of the books whose authors are not mentioned, like the book of Matthew, who we only know wrote it from Sacred Tradition.

No, but you do keep asking for examples, and we, knowing that there are people reading the threads that really do want to know, continue to attempt to patiently answer you.

Sacred Tradition is mentioned in the Scripture. You just don’t accept it.

Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Writings are part of the same once for all deposit of faith. They are not “different” except that one is written, and the other is lived. It is not like they can be separated from one another. Your efforts to dissect them are useless.

Since you can only go so far in answering my questions about Sacred Tradition i’ll have to hope and pray there will be a more knowledgeable catholic somewhere in the world that can. I can see by your responses that you just don’t really know…

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4341562]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are there Sacred Traditions being “formed” today?

guanophore
Go back an re-read the part on the definition of Sacred Tradition, and on Public Revelation. if you can rub these two thoughts together you will be able to answer this question for yourself.

This does not answer the question. How do you know that in a couple of hundred years that something like the rosary will be considered a Sacred Tradition?

Here is official Catholic teaching about Sacred Tradition:

“The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes”.

This is the official Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition that you have rejected. Instead of accepting it, you insist on having a “list”.

The list is an outworking of the definition. It helps to get specific. I suspect you don’t like to get specific and i don’t blame you. Its in the details that most doctrines breakdown.

So, please show us, using the Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition, how you would generate such a “list.”

What kind of list are you asking for?

Please show how you, in your doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuate and transmit all that you believe in a simple list.

This is the purpose of Biblical doctrines and teachings which if true will be firmly grounded in the Scriptures and can studied. I can also generate lists.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Part 1

since Sacred Tradition by definition is something different than the Scriptures themselves. If we can get to that then we can look at its origins and compare it with the Scriptures. This is where an offical list of these Sacred Traditions for the past 2000 years would be helpful in our quest for the truth.

*Comment:
I don’t know that we should say Sacred Tradition is different from the Scriptures themselves because it is by Sacred Tradition that we believe the Scriptures to begin with. We must realize Scripture itself is part of Sacred Tradition.

An “official list” of Traditions may not be the right question. How we are to interpret the Bible in light of Tradition may be the better question. Without benefit of Tradition many “traditional” interpretations of Scripture come in to doubt. Sunday worship. The Trinity. The cross. The physical resurrection of Christ. The Eucharist. Baptism. What the Church is. How to be saved. The role of works. Was there an historical Jesus? Why, the modern liberals have even called into doubt so many fundamental Christian beliefs that the Fundamentalists had to draw up a list of the Fundamentals of traditional Christian belief. (That last one was a mouthful.)

The Bible itself is a Tradition. The modernist liberal Protestants, being without benefit of Tradition, have called into doubt Scripture itself. That is the final logical outcome of neglect of Tradition, the reduction of the Christian faith into nothing. (It reminds me of the story of the Jehovah’s Witness who converted to being a Unitarian, but she kept going from door to door for no particular reason. Only tradition kept her going.) *

No so. We need to get this out in the open so all catholics and protestants can know exactly what these things are. For example:is the rosary a Sacred Tradition? If not, why not? If so, why and who determined it?

Comment:
No, the rosary is not a Sacred Tradition. It is a custom, that is, it is a practice and is optional. It is a devotion you may do if you want to. Church pews are also a custom. So is Sunday school.

If we look at the Marian doctrines for example we would have to conclude that since the Scriptures never mention her as being immaculate concieved or assumed into heaven these doctrines would be of men. There is no other conclusion to draw.

*Comment:
No, there are other conclusions to draw. Maybe Marian doctrines are of men and maybe they aren’t. But simply because you may not find them in scripture doesn’t mean thay are of men; they could be something believed from the beginning, that is, part of the deposit of Sacred Tradition.

That is the problem about Sacred Tradition. The crux of the whole debate: The burden of proof. For example, it is difficult for Catholics to prove that Marian doctrines were from the beginning, and equally difficult for non-believers to disprove them. Not being in scripture is not disproof.*

How can something that is found only in the NT Scriptures (Apostles teachings) also be a “Tradition”?

Comment:
Sacred Tradition and Scripture exist together, and they often intersect. In fact, they most often intersect.
Yes, the NT Scriptures are the Apostles teachings. But the whole idea of Sacred Tradition is that not all the apostles teachings are in NT scripture. NT scripture and the apostles teachings are not synonyms.

Are there Sacred Traditions being “formed” today?

Comment:
Not in the sense you are asking. Of course original truths can be better understood as time goes by, that is, original truths can be formulated so as to be better understood by contemporary Christians. This process goes on with both Catholics and Protestants.

Are you thinking that Sacred Tradition is the same as Scripture?

Comment:
Scripture is contained within Sacred Tradition, that is, we know what Scripture is, and believe in it because of Sacred Tradition.

 

[twb1621]

Catholic doctrines have changed in the past 2000 years. Just take the Marian doctrines. These doctrines were not believed by the church in 3rd century for example and yet it is believed today by catholics. Another example would be unmarried bishops. Believed in the NT not practiced today.

What Marian doctrines are you referring to? In 107 AD Saint Ignatius was definative of the virgin Mary. As was Polycarp

I don’t know that much about him. How are you defining SOLA SCRIPTURA?
belief in Bible only.

Changing in what way?
How many times is your faith seperated from the Catholic Church? If you don’t know, tell me your denomination and I will tell you.

You bring up a lot here. Must a person believe all that the Catholic church teaches to be saved?

You must believe and trust in Jesus word and His promise to provide a Church that will never be defeated and alway teach the Word. He is the word. And His word is spoken. in order for you to stand by this, you must accept the following as the word of Our Lord;
15
"…I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.
16
They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.
17
Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
18
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.” John 17: 15-23
Some of that which was spoken was written down b ut not all. For you to claim you know the Scriptures, how can you arbitrarally pick what you want to believe and call the rest false. It is the Catholic Church and History has proven its origin many times even by non-bios investigations and research.

 

[twb1621]

**justasking4 **
Tell me… If you say you know the Bible, tell me how many books are in yours and when did it first become available or your faith be founded?

 

[guanophore]

Since there are no passages to support the immaculate conception of Mary and her assumption and it was proclaimed by a later pope to be true was this accomplished by some kind of “revelation” to the pope?

No. The passages are there, you just cannot understand them the way we do, because you must cling to your anti-Catholicism.

It would be more intellectually honest if you could learn our point of view, or at least, accept that it is our point of view. A person does not have to agree with another point of view in order to understand it.

Public Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostles. All Sacred Tradition was deposited before that time.

Since you can only go so far in answering my questions about Sacred Tradition i’ll have to hope and pray there will be a more knowledgeable catholic somewhere in the world that can. I can see by your responses that you just don’t really know…

The problem has not to do with Catholics, or the availability of knowledge. The problem is your attitude, beliefs, and hardness of heart. Your prayers would do much more on those areas.

This does not answer the question.

That is the answer, ja4. You may not like it, or accept it, but that is the truth.

How do you know that in a couple of hundred years that something like the rosary will be considered a Sacred Tradition?

I am sure if you are in charge, you will try that.

All of Sacred Tradition was deposited prior to the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added, nothing can be subtracted. Private revelations, such as the Rosary, are not binding on the faithful.

The list is an outworking of the definition. It helps to get specific. I suspect you don’t like to get specific and i don’t blame you. Its in the details that most doctrines breakdown.

Show me how? Can you make a list of how you live out your Christian beliefs?

What kind of list are you asking for?

I want you to show me how to create the list you want. I cannot figure out how it can be done.

Here is the definition of Sacred Tradition:

"Sacred Tradition is how the Churh in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes. "

This is the official Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition that you have rejected. Instead of accepting it, you insist on having a “list”. So, please show us, using the Catholic definition of Sacred Tradition, how you would generate such a list.

Try doing it this way:

Justasking4 in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.

Please show us this in “list” form.

If you can’t, it is probably because you don’t know what you believe, or why.

 

[twb1621]

QUOTE]

“Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its Lord was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, the first thousands of converts were Jews and the only Bible it had when Gentiles began flooding into the Church were Jewish Scriptures. As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?
It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.
And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…
…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.
Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?
Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.
The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).
“But doesn’t that mean that the Church believes in continuing revelation like the Mormons?” No. The Church believes in Sacred Tradition, not Sacred New Revelation. It is of the very essence of Sacred Tradition that it is a thing handed down from the apostles, not a thing fadged up later on. And one of the basic truths of Sacred Tradition is that “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 4). And that is the irony. For this dogma, which is at the heart of the Evangelical concern about ongoing revelation, is virtually invisible in Scripture apart from the common teaching, life and worship of the Church…"
Continued next post.

 

[twb1621]

continued post #2 of 3 from previous post;

“…After all, no verse in Scripture says revelation ends with the death of the apostles. Rather, a few verses (such as Paul’s command to Timothy to guard what has been entrusted to him) can be seen to bear an extremely oblique witness to this teaching in light of Sacred Tradition preserved in the ChurchThis pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can “see” that Tradition implied in Paul’s commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. But since Evangelicals have not received the contact lenses with the Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they are unable to see it reflect there. Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, “Let’s see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let’s say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!”
In reality, however, Catholics see the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reflected in Scripture in just the same way the Council of Jerusalem saw the Circumcision Exemption reflected in Amos and Evangelicals see the Closure of Public Revelation reflected in Paul’s command to Timothy. The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.
In this context, we discover not explicit, but implicit testimony to the doctrine, while those verses which appear to speak of Jesus’ siblings or Mary’s relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ can easily be understood in a way compatible with her perpetual virginity. We find, for instance, that mention of Jesus “brothers” can mean “cousins” in the first century Jewish milieu. We find that Matthew 1:25 need not necessarily imply anything about Mary’s subsequent sexual relations with Joseph any more than “Michal had no children till the day of her death” implies that Michal had children after her death. We also find Mary-a woman betrothed-is astonished at Gabriel’s proclamation that “You will bear a son.” This is an odd thing for a betrothed woman to be astonished about. After all, a betrothed woman could expect and hope to bear many sons… unless she had already decided to remain a virgin even after marriage. Then she would be astonished at the prophecy.
We find also the New Testament subtly but clearly identifies Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, wherein dwelt the Presence of God. Luke 1:35 speaks of the power of the Most High “overshadowing” Mary just as the Shekinah glory overshadowed the Ark (Numbers 9:15). John does the same thing in Revelation, juxtaposing the Ark (Rev 11:19) with an image of a woman clothed with the sun who gives birth to a “male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” (Rev. 12:5). The connection between Mary and the Ark, once it is made by with the help of Sacred Tradition, is hard not to see. Knowing the identity of Mary’s “male child” it would be an easy mental connection for any pious Jew to immediately think of her as a kind of Second Ark.
Well, one such pious Jew was a certain Joseph of Nazareth who, after his dream (Mt 1:23) did know the identity of Mary’s “male child.” He also knew, as a Jew steeped in the Old Testament, what happens to people who touch the Ark without authorization (2 Sm 6:6-8). So it becomes very psychologically probable that Joseph, knowing what he knew, also would have chosen celibacy in this rather unusual situation. And so, in short, the Sacred Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, like Sacred Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation, turns out to illuminate Scripture in an unexpected and yet satisfying way. Which is why the Church of the sixth century knows and defines (at the Second Council of Constantinople), that Mary is Ever-Virgin even though it is not written explicitly in the New Testament any more than the words “After the apostles die, there will be no new revelation.” For the Second Council of Constantinople, knowing what the Council of Jerusalem knew, acts like the Council of Jerusalem did: operating in light of the apostolic Tradition that Mary was Ever-Virgin, the Church reads Scripture accordingly and sees its Tradition reflected there.
In summary then, Sacred Tradition is handed down “both by word of mouth and by letter.” In Scripture, as today, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 10) so that the Bible is part, not the whole, of the apostolic paradosis. In Scripture, as today, the Bible is materially, not formally, sufficient to reveal the fullness of the gospel of Christ…”
continued post #3

 

[twb1621]

post #3 of 3

In Scripture, as today, both written and unwritten Tradition are from Christ and made by him to stand inseparably united like hydrogen and oxygen that fuse to form living water or like the words and tune of a single song. In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.
And all this is because, in Scripture, as today, the Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

author, Mark P. Shea
mark-shea.com/tradition_f.html

 

[guanophore]

post #3 of 3

In Scripture, as today, both written and unwritten Tradition are from Christ and made by him to stand inseparably united like hydrogen and oxygen that fuse to form living water or like the words and tune of a single song. In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.
And all this is because, in Scripture, as today, the Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

author, Mark P. Shea
mark-shea.com/tradition_f.html

Your posts are wonderful, twb, but I just want to warn you, it is not likely to benefit ja4. This is a question from the bag of tricks that is really intended to pull catholics away from their faith. Eventually it will get down to this:

… your church makes these great claims based on Sacred Traditions …

… i don’t see the evidence for the claim. Its like trying to nail jello to the wall.

I’m beginning to think that such a thing (Sacred Tradition) really doesn’t exist and is something that is introduced in the discussion that has no real substance. I don’t see how it tells catholics anything.

i know catholics accept these things as true. However due to the nature of these sacred traditons and the claims made in regard to them, they really don’t support what the apostles taught. Your church goes far beyond what the apostles taught with so many of its doctrines.

I’m interested because the truth matters. If what the catholic church teaches is true, then there must be evidence for it. If you want to claim the sacred traditions support your beliefs then i would think you would want to know the foundation of these traditions i.e. who taught it, when and on what scriptural basis are they using to support the claim. **This is the only way to avoid being deceived by false teachers which the scriptures warned would come into the church itself. Sadly i see catholics unwilling or fearful to hold their church accountable. **

The goal of ja4 is to point out to Cathlics they are being deceived by “false teachers”.

 

[RobGentner]

Your posts are wonderful, twb, but I just want to warn you, it is not likely to benefit ja4. This is a question from the bag of tricks that is really intended to pull catholics away from their faith. Eventually it will get down to this:

Hi Guanpphone, :tiphat:
Good thing to tell him, but even Ray Charles and Steve Wonder Could tell JA4T1T isn’t sincere!
BTW, Twb’s last post violates the TOS ~ no extensive quotes. I got my butt chewed out by a Mod for only a two page one! JA4 is all over the place. Hard to catch a moving target guess!

The goal of ja4 is to point out to Cathlics they are being deceived by “false teachers”.

Actually I think Their goal is to play and have fun. He doesn’t try to teach, he constantly ask what sane people consider stupid questions, Not that I would say that. They are only boring to me. :yawn: They are a Joke! :dancing: I treat them like they try to treat us!