Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Realcatholicgk;4379111]Everyone has been there and done that with you JA4! Give up the games.
This is no game but an attempt to get at the truth. I have seen many claim that such and such is a Tradition etc but i have yet to see such statements backed up officially by the church itself.
Click to expand...
They are all laughing behind your back and it makes me angry.
Click to expand...
Please don’t offense for me. I know this kind of behavior is indicator of something far more problematic.
You are playing mind games and they misunderstand.Some of the actually think you are just forgetful, some say hateful, I rather think of you as Playful! Some even said you were full but the TOS prohibit me of tell you of what!
Click to expand...
the Apostles’ Creed :Contains a brief summary of their teachings
Click to expand...

Please don’t try to read my mind as i don’t try with you or others. If you don’t understand something then ask. So many people assume that they know what others are thinking instead of asking questions to clarify. I also think that many take offense at being questioned and want there to be simple answers to important and complex issues. I sometimes wonder how catholics here respond in the real world where they don’t have the support that they have here. Sadly i don’t see much depth but i do see a lot of nastiness when i don’t agree and give a counter view. This could be a great place to sharpen your faith and skills.
 
justasking4 said:
Can you give me a couple of specific examples of Tradition that is not in the Scriptures? Something like a teaching?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Holy Scriptures should not be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them. When this happens, all kinds of error ensues.
 
The Word of God is not just the Bible as others have stated…

The Word of God was not just written down 2000 years ago and left for all of us to figure out for ourselves.

The Word of God was made flesh in Jesus Christ!

The Word of God contains traditions (which are not all written down, but LIVED!)

The Word of God contains the scriptures

and The Word of God speaks through the authority of Christ’s Church!

The Word of God is not of or for the dead, but for the living! For all those alive in Christ! All those who make up the body of Christ! The church militant, the church suffering, and the church triumphant 🙂

The Word of God is truth, innerent and absolute. The Word of God is present in EVERY eucharist! The Word of God is inscribed in our hearts, minds and souls…And the Word of God is greater than “the Bible Alone.”
 
justasking4 said:
This is no game but an attempt to get at the truth. I have seen many claim that such and such is a Tradition etc but i have yet to see such statements backed up officially by the church itself.
Click to expand...
You have been referred to the Catechism on many occasions. That is where you will find statements regarding Sacred Tradition “backed up officially” complete with footnotes that answer the “where is that in Scripture” where applicable, and “where is that in Tradition” as well. You have also been given numerous examples of Sacred Tradition that even you, as a non-Catholic, adhere to, including but not limited to:
  • The Hypostatic Union - Christ Jesus is 100% God, 100% Man
  • The Holy Trinity - One God in Three Distinct Persons
  • The Canon of the New Testament, 27 books (including the Deuterocanonical books and passages: Hebrews, James, 2
    Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation, Mk. 16:19-20, Lk. 22:43-44, Jn. 5:4, and Jn. 8:1-11.)
  • Communal Worship on the Lord’s Day, Sunday
Do you deny any of these?
 
Pixie_Dust said:
You have been referred to the Catechism on many occasions. That is where you will find statements regarding Sacred Tradition “backed up officially” complete with footnotes that answer the “where is that in Scripture” where applicable, and “where is that in Tradition” as well. You have also been given numerous examples of Sacred Tradition that even you, as a non-Catholic, adhere to, including but not limited to:
  • The Hypostatic Union - Christ Jesus is 100% God, 100% Man
  • The Holy Trinity - One God in Three Distinct Persons
  • The Canon of the New Testament, 27 books (including the Deuterocanonical books and passages: Hebrews, James, 2
    Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation, Mk. 16:19-20, Lk. 22:43-44, Jn. 5:4, and Jn. 8:1-11.)
  • Communal Worship on the Lord’s Day, Sunday
Do you deny any of these?
Click to expand...
I agree with most. I do not accept the DC’s as Scripture for various reasons.

Is Sacred Tradition still “forming” forming today?
 
twb1621 said:
I think the time has come you refer yourself to the on line Catechism to answer your questions if you want the answers and stop playing with people who actually cared enough to try and help you. You are now in a position that if you are truly interested you will research the CCC on your own to get your answers or you will prove yourself to be thoughtless and careless only playing games in regard to all your previous posts.
Click to expand...
Have you read the entire catechism? Do you think you know it well?
 
justasking4 said:
Why don’t you give me an example out of the catechism that says something to the effect that it is a Tradition that is not found in Scripture? Secondly for this Tradition to be equal to the inspired-inerrant Scriptures it to must be inspired-inerrant.
Click to expand...
Because you have been given this information dozens of times on hundreds of threads and we have finally realized that your question is disinegenuous. You are not here to learn anything, but to nitpick and criticize our faith experience.

Second, we are tired of doing your homework for you. It seems that you just enjoy sending sincere people on wild goose chases for your entertainment, and don’t benefit at all from all the work that is done to give you information.
40.png
justasking4:
This is no game but an attempt to get at the truth. I have seen many claim that such and such is a Tradition etc but i have yet to see such statements backed up officially by the church itself.
Click to expand...
No, ja4, I think not. You have already made it plain that you believe there is no truth other than what you see in your bible, and therefore, you already have all the truth you need. There is no need for you to "get at"anything.

Furthermore, you have been given official statements from the church multiple times and have refused them all. You have stated that the Catholic Church has no authority to make any pronouncements because false teachers have crept in and taught false doctrines, leading the faithful astray, so you don’t accept anything from the church. This is just an effort to get us on a wild goose chase, so we can end up back at the beginning. 🤷
40.png
justasking4:
Please don’t try to read my mind as i don’t try with you or others. If you don’t understand something then ask. So many people assume that they know what others are thinking instead of asking questions to clarify.
Click to expand...
There is no need for that, as your posts have said it all. If you would like, I can past them here for you to review again, or you can have some integrity, and search “justasking4 and sacred tradition” and reread what you wrote the last 12 times we had this discussion. 😃
40.png
justasking4:
Sadly i don’t see much depth but i do see a lot of nastiness when i don’t agree and give a counter view. This could be a great place to sharpen your faith and skills.
Click to expand...
I gotta hand it to you, ja4, I was totally hoodwinked by your questions at one point, and believed you were sincere. Your presence here has put me in a position to work on my charity more than any other. I have never been subjected to so much detraction, calumny, nitpicking, scolding and disrespect over such a long period of time by anyone. 👍
 
justasking4 said:
I agree with most. I do not accept the DC’s as Scripture for various reasons.
Click to expand...
So you don’t read Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation, Mk. 16:19-20, Lk. 22:43-44, Jn. 5:4, and Jn. 8:1-11?
Is Sacred Tradition still “forming” forming today?
Click to expand...
We might develop a better understanding of it, but there are no new revelations.
 
justasking4 said:
Why don’t you give me an example out of the catechism that says something to the effect that it is a Tradition that is not found in Scripture? Secondly for this Tradition to be equal to the inspired-inerrant Scriptures it to must be inspired-inerrant.
Click to expand...
It has been pointed out many times that the table of contents of the New Testament, and of the whole Bible, is a Tradition of the Church not found in Scripture.
 
justasking4 said:
I agree with most. I do not accept the DC’s as Scripture for various reasons.

Is Sacred Tradition still “forming” forming today?
Click to expand...
Only in the details. Sacred Tradition is the lived experience of the Church throughout the ages. Sacred Tradition, based on the foundational principles of Christian teaching throughout the ages, is what brings the Church to articulate her position on human embryonic stem cell research.

The address by Bishop Bruskewitz on the development of Christian Doctrine mentioned up-thread discusses how doctrine can neither change, expand, nor contract while at the same time developing. It is not a massive treatise but a very clear summary.
 
mercygate said:
It has been pointed out many times that the table of contents of the New Testament, and of the whole Bible is a tradition of the Church not found in Scripture.
Click to expand...
I don’t see this as some kind of Tradition. This canon i.e. the table of contents does not stand alone but is the direct result of what books are inspired-inerrant. The OT certainly predates the church while the NT is not directly from the church like a catechism is but is from Christ Himself Who worked through certain individuals. Its not like the church appointed these men to write the NT but they were guided by the HS to do so.
 
justasking4 said:
I don’t see this as some kind of Tradition. This canon i.e. the table of contents does not stand alone but is the direct result of what books are inspired-inerrant. The OT certainly predates the church while the NT is not directly from the church like a catechism is but is from Christ Himself Who worked through certain individuals. Its not like the church appointed these men to write the NT but they were guided by the HS to do so.
Click to expand...
Please direct me to the nearest book store where I can purchase a copy of “Church history: it’s all in the Bible!” By Ja4 😃
 
justasking4 said:
I don’t see this as some kind of Tradition. This canon i.e. the table of contents does not stand alone but is the direct result of what books are inspired-inerrant. The OT certainly predates the church while the NT is not directly from the church like a catechism is but is from Christ Himself Who worked through certain individuals. Its not like the church appointed these men to write the NT but they were guided by the HS to do so.
Click to expand...
It is a Tradition of the Church that determined that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors of sacred Scripture to write those books. It is the Tradition of the Church that accepted the Old Testament writings as inspired and inerrant. You are correct, however, that the canon does not stand alone. It arises from the heart of the Church that produced it. It was not written by Presbyterians.
 
mercygate said:
It is a Tradition of the Church that determined that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors of sacred Scripture to write those books. It is the Tradition of the Church that accepted the Old Testament writings as inspired and inerrant. You are correct, however, that the canon does not stand alone. It arises from the heart of the Church that produced it. It was not written by Presbyterians.
Click to expand...
How are you using the word “Tradition” here? What were the “tests” that the church used to determine the NT books?
 
justasking4 said:
How are you using the word “Tradition” here? What were the “tests” that the church used to determine the NT books?
Click to expand...
That question was answered by me a mile up thread. Are you actually one person? Or are you a team using the same user name?
  1. Is this book attributed with an apostle or an associate of an apostle?
  2. Is this book in universal or nearly universal use by all the churches in the liturgy?
  3. Does this book contradict the teaching of the Church?
  4. Is this book consistent with the rest of Scripture?
 
justasking4 said:
I don’t see this as some kind of Tradition. This canon i.e. the table of contents does not stand alone but is the direct result of what books are inspired-inerrant. The OT certainly predates the church while the NT is not directly from the church like a catechism is but is from Christ Himself Who worked through certain individuals. Its not like the church appointed these men to write the NT but they were guided by the HS to do so.
Click to expand...
The authors of the NT were the founding members of the Church, so yes, the NT is directly from the Church.

Jesus asked Saul of Tarsus, “Why are you persecuting me?” when he was persecuting the Church. So yes, in a way the Church did appoint men to write the NT. Just depends on what you mean by Church. 😉
 
mercygate said:
That question was answered by me a mile up thread. Are you actually one person? Or are you a team using the same user name?
  1. Is this book attributed with an apostle or an associate of an apostle?
  2. Is this book in universal or nearly universal use by all the churches in the liturgy?
  3. Does this book contradict the teaching of the Church?
  4. Is this book consistent with the rest of Scripture?
Click to expand...
So this would be an example of Tradition in “action”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top