Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[AshleyBelle]

Reading about church history helps to understand how the church grew and various other things. Its quite enriching.
Do you read the Bible?

Now that's just silly... why would I care about church history? How the church grew? And various other "things?"

All we need is the Bible! Besides, there is no visible “church.”

When Christ was telling Peter “on this rock I will build my church” He was telling us that HE is the church, and we are all a nebulous, invisible body of believers!

And my Bible tells me all Christians are saints… But I know it obviously means that only the Christians on earth are saints… It would be silly to consider any kind of conversation with dead Christians!

Oh and…church history isn’t in the Bible…so even if it “helps to know about it” I don’t need it!

And the most important thing to remember, is that even reading church history, NONE of it can be proven! The only truth is in the Bible! How do I know that any of these things I read in books about church history aren’t just a lie? The apostles didn’t write church history.

Church history is NOT divinely inspired. I’m not required to believe it.

Besides if I read church history I might have to become Catholic

 

[mercygate]

So this would be an example of Tradition in “action”?

Yes.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

**SEE Guan, I told you JA4 was good for something! Exellent use of a otherwise useless bother. Now if we could find a use for mosquitos!~ I hope JA4 will wil be allowed to have his bible with him for eternity. I do know they aren’t allowed or needed in Heaven! **

 

[guanophore]

I agree with most. I do not accept the DC’s as Scripture for various reasons.

Is Sacred Tradition still “forming” forming today?

This is yet another disingenuous question, as you have been told dozens of times that Sacred Tradition is part of the Divine Deposit of faith which ended with the death of the last Apostle. What do you suppose it is that motivates you to harass Catholics like this?

Have you read the entire catechism? Do you think you know it well?

More bait, more trolling…

You ask these questions to find ways to engage Catholics in dialogue, so you can try to pull them away from the Faith. You have no respect for what it taught in the Catechism, and you want others to follow in your footsteps to become Bible Christians, rejecting the contents of the Catechism.

I don’t see this as some kind of Tradition.

Well of course not! If you admitted that this was valid you would be obligated to embrace it. Therefore you have to twist and spin, and try to attribute the list of books that belongs in the NT to some other reason, so that you can reject the sacred teachings of the Apostles that are not found in it.

This canon i.e. the table of contents does not stand alone but is the direct result of what books are inspired-inerrant.

spinning, more spinning

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.

Indeed, just as He does today, which is the very thing that makes the Church infallible.

Oops, guess you stuck your foot into that one inadvertantly.

Its not like the church appointed these men to write the NT but they were guided by the HS to do so.

then what happened? Where in scripture does it say that they “lost” the inerrancy and the guidance of the HS?

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

I have not been following this thread because I know what it will lead to and also because it has become too long, repetitious and nitpicking in nature. I have just opened this page and saw this. Judging from the number of pages that this thread has gone through, you have it right, just like what you said. The intention of someone who can manipulate a simple issue that can last this long has to be questionable, I am sorry to say, but I cannot see of any other conclusion.

I salute you for engaging this person on this topic. From an onlooker persepctive it is very obvious who is sincere and who is not. I hope you continue the good work, if not for anything else, at least for the lurkers and the bystanders, who will benefit from all the explanation given. If there is any consolation, it would be to know that any goodness on our part can play a long way towards evangelization. Any hypocrite will be self-exposed simply by his/her own action.

God bless.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I have not been following this thread because I know what it will lead to and also because it has become too long, repetitious and nitpicking in nature. I have just opened this page and saw this. Judging from the number of pages that this thread has gone through, you have it right, just like what you said. The intention of someone who can manipulate a simple issue that can last this long has to be questionable, I am sorry to say, but I cannot see of any other conclusion.

I salute you for engaging this person on this topic. From an onlooker persepctive it is very obvious who is sincere and who is not. I hope you continue the good work, if not for anything else, at least for the lurkers and the bystanders, who will benefit from all the explanation given. If there is any consolation, it would be to know that any goodness on our part can play a long way towards evangelization. Any hypocrite will be self-exposed simply by his/her own action.

God bless.

It is primarily for the lurkers that I continue to answer ja4. You never know who else might be reading along here. S/he/they already know(s) the answers to the questions - unless s/he/they suffer(s) from short-term memory loss. Just for kicks some time, I think I’ll go through and count how many times I’ve listed the same Traditions when ja4 asks for examples.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is primarily for the lurkers that I continue to answer ja4. You never know who else might be reading along here. S/he/they already know(s) the answers to the questions - unless s/he/they suffer(s) from short-term memory loss. Just for kicks some time, I think I’ll go through and count how many times I’ve listed the same Traditions when ja4 asks for examples.

Keep on the good job. Some of the lurkers are quite intelligent people and they deserve the right and reasonable explanation.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

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?

**Mercy, mercy, mercy! Of course, they are a team. One female for sure. One can’t spell too good, One is very smart. They all appear to be sincere, ernest and possible insane! They repeat the same 20 to 25 questions over and over again and again, again and again, over and over! We have watched them for hours without breaks (rest stops) Post after post, thread after thread, Almost 7,000 posts! Boy, If they were Catholic, we could use their energy and determination. Their ability to continue to attack for over two years is awesome. Some says stupid, insane, but it is awe inspiring!

**

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?
   **
   Mercy, They know that, but will respond with something like: Do you claim to know and understand what your church teaches perfectly? Do you claim to obey perfectly?**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Reading about church history helps to understand how the church grew and various other things. Its quite enriching.

** JA4the100thTime,
Since you have read about the past 500 years of your church, do you claim to know and understand what your church teaches perfectly? Do you claim to obey perfectly? I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where this is said. Do you have a reference? Who does this apply to? How are we as individuals to apply this to ourselves? **

Do you read the Bible?

Yes, but as a Catholic I don’t worship it as your church does! Can it intercede for you like Mary? (Opps, sorry! Wrong Thread! ) Is it part of your churches sacred oral and written tradition? ( The OP rules!) Does you church have any sacred oral and written tradition? Did you “borrow” some from US? Did you make some sacred oral and written tradition up? Do you claim to know and understand what your church teaches perfectly? Do you claim to obey perfectly?

justasking4:

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.
**
Wasn’t Christ dead when the NT was written? I am not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify? Where does it say this in scripture? This claim cannot be sustained by Scripture for it does not completely followed the Scripture’s teachings. This is your false understanding. The way to determine if you’re speaking the truth or not is to compare it to the Scriptures. It can be shown that you are teaching something contrary to the Scriptures therefore you are speaking falsely. Does the NT name the certain individuals? How do you know there were more than one writer? I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where this is said. Do you have a reference? **

 

[twb1621]

Have you read the entire catechism? Do you think you know it well?

You are amazing… you can even find a way to draw a question from referring you to the Catechism but I can guarantee you don’t have the interest to use it. You’ll just kEph 4:32

“…Let no one deceive you with empty arguments,
for because of these things
the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient.
So do not be associated with them.
For you were once darkness,
but now you are light in the Lord.
Live as children of light.”

eep anyone going as long as they will bite into your hook.

 

[justasking4]

Realcatholicgk;4380724]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Reading about church history helps to understand how the church grew and various other things. Its quite enriching.

Realcatholicgk
JA4the100thTime,
Since you have read about the past 500 years of your church, do you claim to know and understand what your church teaches perfectly?
Not perfectly but sufficently

Do you claim to obey perfectly?

No

I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where this is said. Do you have a reference?

Not sure what you are asking for here.

Who does this apply to? How are we as individuals to apply this to ourselves?

Good questions. Context helps to determine this.

Do you read the Bible?

Yes

Yes, but as a Catholic I don’t worship it as your church does!

What makes you think my church worships the Bible?

Can it intercede for you like Mary? (Opps, sorry! Wrong Thread! )

No. The Bbile does not intercede nor does Mary.

Is it part of your churches sacred oral and written tradition? ( The OP rules!)

Can you give me an example what you mean?

Does you church have any sacred oral and written tradition?

Not that i’m aware of.

Did you “borrow” some from US?

Catholicism has strongly influenced Protestantism.

Did you make some sacred oral and written tradition up?
No

Do you claim to know and understand what your church teaches perfectly? Do you claim to obey perfectly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.
Realcatholicgk
Wasn’t Christ dead when the NT was written?

Not dead but ascended.

I am not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify? Where does it say this in scripture? This claim cannot be sustained by Scripture for it does not completely followed the Scripture’s teachings. This is your false understanding. The way to determine if you’re speaking the truth or not is to compare it to the Scriptures. It can be shown that you are teaching something contrary to the Scriptures therefore you are speaking falsely. Does the NT name the certain individuals? How do you know there were more than one writer? I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where this is said. Do you have a reference?

 

[justasking4]

twb1621;4382061]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Have you read the entire catechism? Do you think you know it well?

twb1621
You are amazing… you can even find a way to draw a question from referring you to the Catechism but I can guarantee you don’t have the interest to use it. You’ll just kEph 4:32

The point in asking is to know if the source you are recommending is something you know well yourself. Its one thing to recommend something and another to use the source effectively.

“…Let no one deceive you with empty arguments,
for because of these things
the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient.
So do not be associated with them.
For you were once darkness,
but now you are light in the Lord.
Live as children of light.”

These discussions are not empty arguments but matters of great importance.

eep anyone going as long as they will bite into your hook.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4379833]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree with most. I do not accept the DC’s as Scripture for various reasons.

Is Sacred Tradition still “forming” forming today?

guanophore
This is yet another disingenuous question, as you have been told dozens of times that Sacred Tradition is part of the Divine Deposit of faith which ended with the death of the last Apostle. What do you suppose it is that motivates you to harass Catholics like this?

Its not a disingenuous question but a question that helps to better understand what Tradition is and how it works in the church. I could not find any support for your assertion here. 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…

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.

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…

 

[AshleyBelle]

Its not a disingenuous question but a question that helps to better understand what Tradition is and how it works in the church. I could not find any support for your assertion here. 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…

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.

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…

How did he fail? He was absolutely correct in his response.
You’re quote is illustrating how tradition GROWS… Not that we “create” new traditions.

Just as the church was like a tiny seed at its infancy, it continues to grow into a great maple tree.

That is tradition, and that is the Church.

 

[cfrancis]

Its not a disingenuous question but a question that helps to better understand what Tradition is and how it works in the church. I could not find any support for your assertion here. 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…

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.

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…

JA4, please bear with me.
If a non-Christian asked you to define the Trinity, what definition would you give?

 

[justasking4]

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?

We might develop a better understanding of it, but there are no new revelations.

I don’t think this is true. There is new “revelations” in the Catholic church in regards to Mary.
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.”

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

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

 

[AshleyBelle]

I don’t think this is true. There is new “revelations” in the Catholic church in regards to Mary.
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.”

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

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

So God doesn’t reveal truth? The church was speaking about something God never revealed? How is it “NEW” revealed truth, when the Church had always believed Mary to have been assumed bodily into heaven?

Where in the Bible does it say Mary was NOT assumed into heaven?

 

[cfrancis]

I don’t think this is true. There is new “revelations” in the Catholic church in regards to Mary.
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.”

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

Not explicitly, but then, neither is your knowledge and acceptance of what books actually are Scripture based upon Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Not perfectly but sufficently

according to whose standard? where is “sufficient” defined in the bible?

Not sure what you are asking for here.

that was the whole point.

What makes you think my church worships the Bible?

You have placed the written words above the Person of Christ as the source.

Can you give me an example what you mean?

I am sure you can find the best example in the all sufficient pages.

Catholicism has strongly influenced Protestantism.

doggone it! dontcha hate it when that happens?

did you make up some sacred or oral tradition?

no

Then please give the biblical reference for ss!
Otherwise, it is not biblical, and not apostolic, and it is a false teaching brought into the church by false teachers and it is the specualtions of men.
justasking4;4382188:

These discussions are not empty arguments but matters of great importance.

No, ja4, according to the authoritative biblical testimony, what you have presented here are empty arguements designed to cause dissention.

Its not a disingenuous question but a question that helps to better understand what Tradition is and how it works in the church. I could not find any support for your assertion here.

It is disingenuous, ja4. How do we know this? Because you were given authoritative sources to answer your question and you ignore them. :dancing:

I could not find any support for your assertion here.

What i did find is this:
"A Growing Tradition

what you have done is refuse the authoritative reference that was given you in the catechism, and found a personal opinion of someone to support your errant view. this is convincing evidence that you are not interested in learning the truth.

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

Yes, and I fear that this failure will continue. as long as you, and other anti-catholics refuse the official teachings of the church, and continue to place your own opinions over the infallible teachings that come down to us from the apostles, we will not make any progress on this point. :crying:

finding catholics who don’t articulate the truth properly does not nullify the truth.

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4382324]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t think this is true. There is new “revelations” in the Catholic church in regards to Mary.
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.”

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

cfrancis;
Not explicitly, but then, neither is your knowledge and acceptance of what books actually are Scripture based upon Scripture.

What criteria does the church use for something to be “implicit”? How do you know that the church is using the implicit method correctly?