Sacred Tradition

[lanman87]

I’ve been dreading posting this as it will surely get some angry replies, but as a Protestant who is studying Catholicism it is a question that has to be asked. I actually posted this on the James faith/works thread but don’t want to hijack that thread.

Keep in mind, I don’t consider tradition a bad thing and realize that the primary way the gospel was told was orally in the early church. I’m in the middle of my third book on the history of the church and realize that the 2nd century church started to weed out the different writings in order to make sure the correct writings were being uses as scripture. Also, but the writings of the pre-nicene church fathers considered many of the books we used today scripture because they quoted those books often in their writings. They also developed the “rule of faith” and used apostolic succession to combat false teachings, primarily those of the gnostics. So I freely admit that oral teachings played a huge role in the development of the church.

Let me qualify by saying that I don’t consider the development doctrine to be tradition. I see it as being developed by study and scholarship. Certainly, oral tradition, in the early church played a great role in the development of the rule of faith and apostolic succession and the early creeds. The premise I was led to believe (I want say taught because I never remember anyone teaching me this) is that as time passed oral tradition became less and less reliable to the point where the written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice.

Basically it was implied to me that as the centuries passed, the church did exactly what they were warned about in Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

and that the church, in time, essentially did the same thing that the Pharisees did in New Testament times.

Matthew 15:1-9
*Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” *

So in the Faith/Works thread PRmerger said

They were indeed taught and practiced by the Apostles.

We know this through Sacred Tradition.

and I replied

Don’t take this the wrong way, but how do you know that Sacred Tradition is truth?

Anyone who has ever played the gossip game knows that stories change as they are passed from one person to the next.

How do you know that those things aren’t based on legends and fictitious stories and misunderstandings that were passed around and changed to reflect peoples hopes and biases, but eventually accepted as fact? The early church fathers, especially those who came 100+ years after the Apostles were as susceptible as anyone to misinformation. Just because they believed something to be true doesn’t mean it was true.

I’m not asking that question to be snarky or combative. As someone who is trying to learn about Catholicism I think it is a fair question.

There were a couple of replies in the other thread but I thought I would move it over here to get more response. I’m probably not going to reply to the answers you give because that wouldn’t be productive. But this way of thinking is probably what most protestants think, especially in the USA, even if we don’t realize we think this way. I had never really thought about it until I came to this forum. I don’t want to leave this forum without giving you a chance to refute this way of thinking and correct my error This may very well be my last post here.

Thank you all putting up with me.

 

[PJM]

I’ve been dreading posting this as it will surely get some angry replies, but as a Protestant who is studying Catholicism it is a question that has to be asked. I actually posted this on the James faith/works thread but don’t want to hijack that thread.

Keep in mind, I don’t consider tradition a bad thing and realize that the primary way the gospel was told was orally in the early church. I’m in the middle of my third book on the history of the church and realize that the 2nd century church started to weed out the different writings in order to make sure the correct writings were being uses as scripture. Also, but the writings of the pre-nicene church fathers considered many of the books we used today scripture because they quoted those books often in their writings. They also developed the “rule of faith” and used apostolic succession to combat false teachings, primarily those of the gnostics. So I freely admit that oral teachings played a huge role in the development of the church.

Let me qualify by saying that I don’t consider the development doctrine to be tradition. I see it as being developed by study and scholarship. Certainly, oral tradition, in the early church played a great role in the development of the rule of faith and apostolic succession and the early creeds. The premise I was led to believe (I want say taught because I never remember anyone teaching me this) is that as time passed oral tradition became less and less reliable to the point where the written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice.

Basically it was implied to me that as the centuries passed, the church did exactly what they were warned about in Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

and that the church, in time, essentially did the same thing that the Pharisees did in New Testament times.

Matthew 15:1-9
*Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” *

So in the Faith/Works thread PRmerger said

and I replied

There were a couple of replies in the other thread but I thought I would move it over here to get more response. I’m probably not going to reply to the answers you give because that wouldn’t be productive. But this way of thinking is probably what most protestants think, especially in the USA, even if we don’t realize we think this way. I had never really thought about it until I came to this forum. I don’t want to leave this forum without giving you a chance to refute this way of thinking and correct my error This may very well be my last post here.

Thank you all putting up with me.

Thank YOU for sharing in such a thoughtful manner

The Answer is the HOLY SPIRIT who is the GOD-guardian of Catholic Truth; as it is God’s own!

Four passages come to mind:

Isiah 55: 8-9 "[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Mt 16: 15-19 [DIVINELY INFUSED KNOWLEDGE] "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “**You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ** And I tell YOU, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build MY CHURCH [singular], **and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. ** II will give YOU {ALL OF} the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”

John 17: 18 & 20:20 “[18] As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” & .[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” [These are literal]

Mt 28: 19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo,** I am with you always**, to the close of the age.”

So there is a warranty by Jesus Himself:

John 17: 19-20** "And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.** "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,

NO OTHER CHURCH OR FAITH CAN MAKE THIS CLAIM AND SUPPORT IT FACTUALLY!

Christ does not just establish His One True Church and Faith; He remais in Her and guides and protects Her.

GBY

 

[pablope]

I’ve been dreading posting this as it will surely get some angry replies, but as a Protestant who is studying Catholicism it is a question that has to be asked. I actually posted this on the James faith/works thread but don’t want to hijack that thread.

I do not think you will get angry replies…

Let me qualify by saying that I don’t consider the development doctrine to be tradition. I see it as being developed by study and scholarship. Certainly, oral tradition, in the early church played a great role in the development of the rule of faith and apostolic succession and the early creeds.

 

[reggieM]

I echo an agreement on this very thoughtful and good post. I hope it’s not your last!

Keep in mind, I don’t consider tradition a bad thing and realize that the primary way the gospel was told was orally in the early church. I’m in the middle of my third book on the history of the church and realize that the 2nd century church started to weed out the different writings in order to make sure the correct writings were being uses as scripture.

First, this process of weeding was not done on the basis of human scholarship alone. It was the power of God - given to the apostles and successors, that told them infallibly what the inspired Word of God actually is. There is simply no other way to determine which writings are Inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are not. An Inspired Book is one written by the invisible power of God. No amount of human bra(name removed by moderator)ower (unaided by God’s divine gift and promise of certainty) can “find” this aspect of Inspiration. The Holy Spirit is not reducible to human intelligence. To declare that something is God’s Word – to declare that “this is Infallibly what God Wants” – must come from God, not from man. The Prophets of old gave God’s word not by scholarship, but by Divine command. The same is true of the New Testament authoritative teachers - they have God’s promise to rightly understand the true Word. Only they (the Church magisterium) has this power.

Let me qualify by saying that I don’t consider the development doctrine to be tradition. I see it as being developed by study and scholarship.

I answered this above. Sacred Doctrine, meaning, “What God Wants” - is not the product of scholarship. It can only come from a Divine Origin. The Church has this power. A Pope or Council may not even be that intelligent or informed. For example, does the Council that established the New Testament canon have more biblical knowledge than the best 21st century scholars have today? No- obviously, we know a lot more (in human scholarship terms) than they did in the 4th century. But the Council had the power of the Holy Spirit - not human intelligence - to determine the Canon. Today, most Protestants still accept that ruling and no amount of scholarship enables anyone to claim that a particular book should be added or deleted.

The premise I was led to believe (I want say taught because I never remember anyone teaching me this) is that as time passed oral tradition became less and less reliable to the point where the written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice.

I have never seen that, but I think it’s a bit confused. It’s not that “written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice” – since if that was true, we never would have had the correct doctrine in the first place. I would change the word “determine” – to “preserve”. All the doctrine is preserved in the written Word - the doctrine received orally first. The development of that Doctrine creates nothing new - it only enhances it in certain ways.

Basically it was implied to me that as the centuries passed, the church did exactly what they were warned about in Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

If this happened, then this would be the supposed great apostasy and there would be nothing left of Christ’s Church today - which if Protestantism was correct, would actually be true because there is no Church of Christ in the Protestant communions. There is just fragmentary and contradictory ideas of what Christianity really is. If the very standard of orthodoxy itself (the Church) was lost - then nothing can recreate it. Because that standard was not created by men, but by God.

But no Protestant leaders actually ever claim (I guess a rare few do) that they are equivalent to the Prophets like Moses and Isaiah - and God commanded them to re-create the True Church of Christ. If so, where are these new Prophetic Writings where God spoke from heaven declaring to someone that they had to start a new Church of Christ. Where did God say that the Catholic Church went into apostasy and none of the saints and teachers that came after for centuries ever said anything about it? I guess the only one who comes close to this is Joseph Smith and Mormonism. But he’s on the right track - he had to proclaim himself a new Prophet, with new Revelations, creating an entirely new Church. None of the Protestant leaders dared to make that kind of claim. They’re the ones who used human tradition to create their own “Denominations”. Where did God speak from heaven and say He wanted a “Calvinist Church”? Or a Lutheran, etc? Nobody ever says that God did that – those denominations are all of human origin.
The Catholic Church itself says that it is of Divine Origin - not of man but of Jesus. No Pope ever said he was creating a Church. It already existed and was handed down from Christ to the apostles.

If that Church was lost somewhere in time - nobody could bring it back again.

It’s like Jews, deciding on their own, without a Prophet or without Revelation, to build a Temple somewhere. That would be totally false. The same would be of trying to build a Christian Church after the True Church was supposedly lost. If the Catholic Church apostatized, then it is gone forever. No minister or reformer could create one on their own.

 

[reggieM]

Actually, I never thought about this before … so I’ll praise myself for a novel insight (which I’m sure many good apologists already thought of many times already, but hey …)

If the Catholic Church apostatized as all Protestants claim - in other words, the Church was the true Church of God for a while, but then it was heretical. That means the Church was lost.

The same would be true, for example, when the Jews were a small minority and let’s say, an enemy wiped out all the Jews (which they feared would happen many times, e.g. the Book of Esther).

Once all the Jews were wiped off the face of the earth, then what?

Well, let’s imagine that a certain family somewhere declared “we are the new Jews” – because there are none of them. This would be absurd and false., Only God could create a new Chosen People (and he didn’t have to because He protected them).

Now, some will say – “no, not all true Christians were lost in the apostasy, some survived”.

Well, the thing is - the Church was lost. If there’s no Head, there’s no body to be a part of. Can you be a Christian and not a part of the Body (the Church)? If there’s no Church, then you can’t be a part of the Body.

You’d have to be like someone saying “Our family is the new Jews. My father is the Patriarch and we’ll name a king”.

In the Protestant mind (at least some of them), you can be a Christian without being a part of any Church. So, the idea that true Christians survived the apostasy makes sense to them. But these Christians had no head and there was no body of believers – they all were in schism, in that sense.

 

[FatherSebastian]

I’ve been dreading posting this as it will surely get some angry replies, but as a Protestant who is studying Catholicism it is a question that has to be asked. I actually posted this on the James faith/works thread but don’t want to hijack that thread.

Keep in mind, I don’t consider tradition a bad thing and realize that the primary way the gospel was told was orally in the early church. I’m in the middle of my third book on the history of the church and realize that the 2nd century church started to weed out the different writings in order to make sure the correct writings were being uses as scripture. Also, but the writings of the pre-nicene church fathers considered many of the books we used today scripture because they quoted those books often in their writings. They also developed the “rule of faith” and used apostolic succession to combat false teachings, primarily those of the gnostics. So I freely admit that oral teachings played a huge role in the development of the church.

Let me qualify by saying that I don’t consider the development doctrine to be tradition. I see it as being developed by study and scholarship. Certainly, oral tradition, in the early church played a great role in the development of the rule of faith and apostolic succession and the early creeds. The premise I was led to believe (I want say taught because I never remember anyone teaching me this) is that as time passed oral tradition became less and less reliable to the point where the written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice.

Basically it was implied to me that as the centuries passed, the church did exactly what they were warned about in Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

and that the church, in time, essentially did the same thing that the Pharisees did in New Testament times.

Matthew 15:1-9
*Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” *

So in the Faith/Works thread PRmerger said

and I replied

There were a couple of replies in the other thread but I thought I would move it over here to get more response. I’m probably not going to reply to the answers you give because that wouldn’t be productive. But this way of thinking is probably what most protestants think, especially in the USA, even if we don’t realize we think this way. I had never really thought about it until I came to this forum. I don’t want to leave this forum without giving you a chance to refute this way of thinking and correct my error This may very well be my last post here.

Thank you all putting up with me.

Great questions and great insight in the complexity of the issue. I did a lecture on this from and Eastern Christian perspective and a number of lectures on the Apostolic Fathers.

Really the question has to begin with the issue of the Bible Alone
steliasmelkite.org/userfiles/pdf/1479249958.mp3

After listening to that lecture then you will better understand the issue of Tradition, and what the Church means by that. Then listen to this.
steliasmelkite.org/userfiles/pdf/1479250263.mp3

If you enjoy those, there are many more like them recorded here steliasmelkite.org/educational-resources/bible-study/

In Christ,
Fr. Sebastian

 

[ajcstr]

I’m in the middle of my third book on the history of the church and realize that the 2nd century church started to weed out the different writings in order to make sure the correct writings were being uses as scripture.

Can you share what books you are reading?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I hope you don’t leave us, Ian.

You are a decent and respectful poster.

In regards to the topic, I had my protestant antenna up for a long time thinking the same way about tradition. How can anyone who is biblically literate not be on guard about this since Jesus spoke so harshly about man-made traditions of the Jews?

And I have to say that were it not for the 2,000 yr pedigree of the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t have considered anything they had to say that didn’t align with my personal interpretation of the scriptures.

But what I found was that the more I delved into these debates over the years, the more I realized how flawed my own interpretation can be. Some things are crystal clear…Jesus suffered, died, was buried and on the 3rd day rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. That needs no explanation…it’s “mere Christianity” as C.S. Lewis would call it.

But then we have many other aspects that are not so clear and tradition or Church practice clears them up for us. In John 20:21-23 Jesus gives the church the authority to forgive or retain sins. A very peculiar passage of you are a protestant Christian. I looked into it and low and behold, found out this practice of confession of sins and then absolution goes back to the early Church. But yet my protestant Church had no such teaching or ability. That’s just one example of many and it’s a pretty big deal. It just goes to show that if you are wrong about that then you can be wrong about many other things as well.

If Ian shot a book to the moon, then it was recovered 2,000 years later by the Russians, they couldn’t properly interpret your intent as the author unless they had the correct prescription of lenses on. By that time, the English language had changed many times over, the customs of the country had changed, etc, etc. So the point I’m making is that it is imperative that we have on a first century Jewish lense and a early Church lense in order to get the full picture here.

Look at the model of the early Church. You correctly stated that tradition is where the scriptures came from. That’s true, and the bible, itself does NOT claim to be the sole rule of faith for Christianity. It actually points us to Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). It demonstrates to us that the Church had the authority to hold councils (ACTS 15) And to settle matters as FINAL authority(Matt 18:17). This whole idea of each Church being autonomous and doing their own things apart from the rest of us is totally foreign to historical Christianity. I highly recommend you read the work of Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of the apostle John. And he clearly taught submission to the Bishops, Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist and the need for validly ordained clergy in order for Sacraments to be valid. All stuff taught by the Catholic Church of today.

So one of two things happened. Either the Church is who she says she is…or she went off the rails VERY early - like 1st century early.

If the Church went apostate in the 1st or 2nd century then that means Jesus did not keep his promises to the Church of being with her always. The same Jesus who essentially said you can’t separate him from his Church (Acts 9:4) just decided to let her go off into a path of destruction for 1400 years prior to Luther.

Well, I can’t see that happening. That’s why it’s a good idea for you to do objective research on your own. Seems that’s what you have been doing and so I applaud you for that. And whether you stay here or not, I hope you continue on this path. Get both sides of the story by investigating Catholicism from it’s sources instead of it’s enemies like James White.

God bless you.

 

[Lucretius]

In some sense Sacred Tradition is less like “stuff” (doctines, stories, etc.) being passed down, and more like interpretations, viewpoints, approaches, etc. being handed down: Tradition is more the passing down of a perspective than a set of facts.

Tradition is a blueprint, and words of Scripture, science, philosophy, politics, relationships, etc. are the bricks; tradition the form of a bowl, these other things the clay, the material.

And so, it is not so much that everything the Church Fathers write is true (and definitely not that “everything they all agree on” is true), but more that the approach they take in their writings is true, is faithful to the Apostles. I’ll make it as clear as possible: the way the Church Fathers see things, as seen today in their writings, is the same way the Apostles saw things.

But it’s not just the Church Fathers: devotions, art, Liturgies, Creeds, doctrines, etc. also approach things “Apostolically.”

That’s not to say that Tradition doesn’t pass along “stuff” too (the Assumption, for example), or that the Scripture for that matter doesn’t pass on any Apostolic perspective, and is pure raw material for infinite interpretations, but still, Tradition is more about how to think like a saint, and Scripture leaves many vital things undetermined, sometimes in principle, but also practically considering how weaken our minds are due to sin.

Christi pax.

 

[MichaelP3]

If this happened, then this would be the supposed great apostasy and there would be nothing left of Christ’s Church today - which if Protestantism was correct, would actually be true because there is no Church of Christ in the Protestant communions. There is just fragmentary and contradictory ideas of what Christianity really is. If the very standard of orthodoxy itself (the Church) was lost - then nothing can recreate it. Because that standard was not created by men, but by God.

But no Protestant leaders actually ever claim (I guess a rare few do) that they are equivalent to the Prophets like Moses and Isaiah - and God commanded them to re-create the True Church of Christ. If so, where are these new Prophetic Writings where God spoke from heaven declaring to someone that they had to start a new Church of Christ. Where did God say that the Catholic Church went into apostasy and none of the saints and teachers that came after for centuries ever said anything about it? I guess the only one who comes close to this is Joseph Smith and Mormonism. But he’s on the right track - he had to proclaim himself a new Prophet, with new Revelations, creating an entirely new Church. None of the Protestant leaders dared to make that kind of claim. They’re the ones who used human tradition to create their own “Denominations”. Where did God speak from heaven and say He wanted a “Calvinist Church”? Or a Lutheran, etc? Nobody ever says that God did that – those denominations are all of human origin.
The Catholic Church itself says that it is of Divine Origin - not of man but of Jesus. No Pope ever said he was creating a Church. It already existed and was handed down from Christ to the apostles.

If that Church was lost somewhere in time - nobody could bring it back again.

It’s like Jews, deciding on their own, without a Prophet or without Revelation, to build a Temple somewhere. That would be totally false. The same would be of trying to build a Christian Church after the True Church was supposedly lost. If the Catholic Church apostatized, then it is gone forever. No minister or reformer could create one on their own.

Hi reggieM

Not to sound mean but this great apostasy you refer to was never in the mind, teachings or thought of the Reformers.I am not so sure any of them would use the “re-create” idea.

And no, I don’t believe God ever said the Catholic Church went into apostasy and I do not believe they did either. I also very much doubt Luther or Calvin wanted to create a “new” Church and even less have it named after them. (Historically that was what those opposed to them named them and I guess it stuck). And I also very much doubt they would even dream of saying “THEY” created those churches.

And further you are making the assumption that there is a consensus on this site that it was exactly the Catholic Church that was the same as the 1st, 2nd century and Nicaea. That is still something very disputable (Well I guess not if you are Catholic).

But yea, to end it for this one, no Apostasy has been taught by the Reformers.

Actually, I never thought about this before … so I’ll praise myself for a novel insight (which I’m sure many good apologists already thought of many times already, but hey …)

If the Catholic Church apostatized as all Protestants claim - in other words, the Church was the true Church of God for a while, but then it was heretical. That means the Church was lost.

The same would be true, for example, when the Jews were a small minority and let’s say, an enemy wiped out all the Jews (which they feared would happen many times, e.g. the Book of Esther).

Once all the Jews were wiped off the face of the earth, then what?

Well, let’s imagine that a certain family somewhere declared “we are the new Jews” – because there are none of them. This would be absurd and false., Only God could create a new Chosen People (and he didn’t have to because He protected them).

Now, some will say – “no, not all true Christians were lost in the apostasy, some survived”.

Well, the thing is - the Church was lost. If there’s no Head, there’s no body to be a part of. Can you be a Christian and not a part of the Body (the Church)? If there’s no Church, then you can’t be a part of the Body.

You’d have to be like someone saying “Our family is the new Jews. My father is the Patriarch and we’ll name a king”.

In the Protestant mind (at least some of them), you can be a Christian without being a part of any Church. So, the idea that true Christians survived the apostasy makes sense to them. But these Christians had no head and there was no body of believers – they all were in schism, in that sense.

I got to most of this above. I actually have never seen this argument used in a good apologetic debate because it is not a thing.

Regards

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi reggieM

Not to sound mean but this great apostasy you refer to was never in the mind, teachings or thought of the Reformers.I am not so sure any of them would use the “re-create” idea.

And no, I don’t believe God ever said the Catholic Church went into apostasy and I do not believe they did either. I also very much doubt Luther or Calvin wanted to create a “new” Church and even less have it named after them. (Historically that was what those opposed to them named them and I guess it stuck). And I also very much doubt they would even dream of saying “THEY” created those churches.

And further you are making the assumption that there is a consensus on this site that it was exactly the Catholic Church that was the same as the 1st, 2nd century and Nicaea. That is still something very disputable (Well I guess not if you are Catholic).

But yea, to end it for this one, no Apostasy has been taught by the Reformers.

I got to most of this above. I actually have never seen this argument used in a good apologetic debate because it is not a thing.

Regards

I know you are reasonable and do not claim apostasy but many people do, unfortunately

Ironically, the only guys i see out there who give a clear and concise answer about when the supposed apostasy took place is the KJV only crowd. They say it happened in the first century.

Even though i obviously disagree with them, i respect that answer much more than James White who seems to intentionally try and pervert Church history in order to suit his own agenda

 

[Gorgias]

Hi, lanman!

Just a simple question for you, first (maybe since I wasn’t part of the other thread(s)). In your OP, you wrote:

Keep in mind, I don’t consider tradition a bad thing and realize that the primary way the gospel was told was orally in the early church.

So I freely admit that oral teachings played a huge role in the development of the church.

Let me qualify by saying that I don’t consider the development doctrine to be tradition.

Certainly, oral tradition, in the early church played a great role in the development of the rule of faith and apostolic succession and the early creeds.

The premise I was led to believe is that as time passed oral tradition became less and less reliable to the point where the written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice.

Basically it was implied to me that as the centuries passed, the church did exactly what they were warned about in Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

So in the Faith/Works thread PRmerger said

They were indeed taught and practiced by the Apostles.

We know this through Sacred Tradition.

So, let me ask you a question: you seem to use the word ‘tradition’ in a couple of different ways… and neither of them in the way that Catholics mean when they speak of “Sacred Tradition.”

So… what do you intend to mean when you write “tradition”? What do you understand Catholics to mean when we use the term “Sacred Tradition”?

Thanks!

 

[reggieM]

Hi reggieM

Not to sound mean but this great apostasy you refer to was never in the mind, teachings or thought of the Reformers.I am not so sure any of them would use the “re-create” idea.

And no, I don’t believe God ever said the Catholic Church went into apostasy and I do not believe they did either. I also very much doubt Luther or Calvin wanted to create a “new” Church and even less have it named after them. (Historically that was what those opposed to them named them and I guess it stuck). And I also very much doubt they would even dream of saying “THEY” created those churches.

And further you are making the assumption that there is a consensus on this site that it was exactly the Catholic Church that was the same as the 1st, 2nd century and Nicaea. That is still something very disputable (Well I guess not if you are Catholic).

But yea, to end it for this one, no Apostasy has been taught by the Reformers.

I got to most of this above. I actually have never seen this argument used in a good apologetic debate because it is not a thing.

Regards

Hi Michael,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the correction, if I am in fact, wrong here. But I don’t think it’s enough merely to say that “no Apostasy has been taught by the Reformers”.
You failed to give an answer to how this could be the case. It’s very likely that I am not familiar with the argument, so I would appreciate your reply.

What we have is an either-or situation. Either there was an Apostasy or there wasn’t. You’re claiming that there wasn’t?

That seems to conflict with what is said here in the OP:

Certainly, oral tradition, in the early church played a great role in the development of the rule of faith and apostolic succession and the early creeds. The premise I was led to believe (I want say taught because I never remember anyone teaching me this) is that as time passed oral tradition became less and less reliable to the point where the written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice.

Here we have it where Ian says that the early church was doing fine and developed creeds - orthodox. So, there was a Church. But then he says, the teaching became “less reliable” - that means false teaching, heresy - loss of the true faith. In other words, Apostasy.

He says the same here:

Basically it was implied to me that as the centuries passed, the church did exactly what they were warned about in Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The early church fathers, especially those who came 100+ years after the Apostles were as susceptible as anyone to misinformation. Just because they believed something to be true doesn’t mean it was true.

He goes on that the Church did not have infallible teaching as it claimed to and spread “misinformation”. Again, the Church that created the creeds and canonized Scripture, then spread false teaching (supposedly). Again, we call that Apostasy.

There’s a new book published by Catholic Answers called “the Apostasy that Wasn’t” by Rod Bennett. I haven’t read it yet, but the promotional blurb says:

This idea of a Great Apostasy is one of the cornerstones of American Protestantism, along with Mormonism, the Jehovah s Witnesses, and even Islam. Countless millions today profess a faith built on the assumption that the early Church quickly became broken beyond repair, requiring some new prophet or reformer to restore the pure teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

But really, it goes beyond this. It’s not just “American Protestantism” but by simple logic in the either-or scenario - if the church to which Luther and Calvin belonged, did not teach falsely, then there would not have been any reason for them to start their own churches.

Again, they had no mandate from heaven to do so, and there was no Lutheran or Calvinist churches in existence prior to the time they started theirs. They were not part of a succession of belief, but actually claimed to re-create the true belief of the Christian church which supposedly had been lost for centuries.
Luther and Calvin were innovators of doctrine and practices that were nowhere found on earth prior to their creation of them. They were the founders of their respective churches.

 

[reggieM]

Hi reggieM

And further you are making the assumption that there is a consensus on this site that it was exactly the Catholic Church that was the same as the 1st, 2nd century and Nicaea. That is still something very disputable (Well I guess not if you are Catholic).

Michael - one additional thought here.
There was a Church that existed at the time of Nicaea. That Church traced its continuity to the 1st and 2nd century. There is no evidence of a new Church having been founded anywhere during that time - only communions that were condemned as false teachings. The Reformers inherited the apostolic succession from that many centuries back, unbroken line of valid ordinations, with the line of pope traced back to that period.
Even if one were to claim that they were the successors of a previously condemned communion from the 1st century, we would need to have seen Calvin and Luther seeking to join those communions. But instead, they created their own - with no succession or communion with any existing church on earth at the time. They created denominations from nothing. Then later, people have tried to claim some linkage with exiled previously-condemned Christian groups of the past (as Waldensians did or the so called Trail of Blood does) - but even there, those communions no longer existed at the time of the Reformers. So, of those communions disappeared, the Church was lost and the only remaining people on earth calling themselves Christians were part of supposedly false sects.
Eventually, Protestantism proposed an invisible church so the idea of succession became meaningless.
In fact, the idea of Apostasy is meaningless in Protestantism today, since every individual believer can believe as they want and there is no standard of orthodoxy to measure against. There is no Reformed Church as a body of believers since one cannot know how to join it or how to be removed from it. The entire thing is based on subjective, individual belief where the individual is believed to have the infallible knowledge needed for the faith.
Luther and Calvin are not authorities at all - as I said, they were not appointed by God to be such.
With no leadership and divinely appointed authority, there can be no Church.

 

[reggieM]

Maybe just to simplify and improve my own understanding - perhaps taking it a little at a time …

Luther and Calvin established Christian communities. True?
Well, I think that’s true. They established Christian groups, they created rules and norms for governance. New leaders were appointed, local churches were established, practices and usages were set down for liturgy and finally, doctrinal norms were given to the faithful in those communities.

Those Lutheran and Calvinist groups were something new. They did not exist anywhere on earth at the time they were created.

Now, it could be said “no, they were merely continuing the already-existing true Church which had been condemned by Rome but which still existed”.

Yes, that could be - but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Luther or Calvin sought to join that supposed already-existing Church. Did they seek out those supposed communities that had preserved the true Doctrine of the Faith?

As I see it, No, they didn’t do that. They created their own, entirely new, communities.

If I’m right, then there was no “true Church” existing at the time of Luther and Calvin, according to their own actions (since they had to create new churches).

The Catholic Church traces itself back to the apostles. Apostolic succession is traced through the ordination of bishops in union with the See of Peter. That is pretty well documented even in the earliest days of the Christian Church. The bishops of Nicaea came from somewhere. The bishops that followed were successors. I don’t see where anybody disputed that at the time and for centuries after.

To claim later that an entirely new hierarchy, with either Luther or Calvin at the head, was required - is to claim that there was a great Apostasy and the true Church of Christ did not exist at the time. It had to be re-created. This was done without divine mandate - it was entirely man-made.

I think it’s important to contrast this with Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. I find that example more logical and reasonable, actually. Mr. Smith said there was a Great Apostasy of the Catholic Church (and then he included all Protestant Churches also) and that God had appointed him as a Prophet. So, he had a divine mandate to create a new Church.

Again, as I see it - that’s similar to what Luther and Calvin did in practice - they created new communions. However, those Reformers never said that God spoke to them, as He spoke to Moses and Abraham, for example. But in the end, they did the same as Joseph Smith - they created their own, new religions, that had no apostolic succession with any churches existing on earth at the time?

I would appreciate learning about where I’m wrong on this.

Also, I would appreciate a time-line … when did the Catholic Church begin to exist? When did the succession of valid Catholic bishops become false?

 

[Michael68]

The gossip game is just that, a game. Sacred Tradition is not a game

 

[reggieM]

Ironically, the only guys i see out there who give a clear and concise answer about when the supposed apostasy took place is the KJV only crowd. They say it happened in the first century.

I think that’s really interesting. And wouldn’t it be true then, that there was no Christian church existing on earth for a number of centuries, until Jean Calvin or some other Reformer created one?

It’s a very deceptive thing, in my opinion, to not state clearly when they think that the Catholic Church was founded and who founded it.

I discussed the Apostasy with some Mormons a while back and they claimed it happened just after the apostles died. They said that there was no Christianity on earth until God gave the supposed revelation to Joseph Smith.

 

[ajcstr]

Ironically, the only guys i see out there who give a clear and concise answer about when the supposed apostasy took place is the KJV only crowd. They say it happened in the first century.

Then wouldn’t they have to reject Nicaea?

Even though i obviously disagree with them, i respect that answer much more than James White who seems to intentionally try and pervert Church history in order to suit his own agenda

Can you expound on this? I’ve listened to him on youtube and some of his debates. I have heard him pretty much say that the Church “hijacked” its history somewhere in the 4th-5th century. Not sure what he means by that.

 

[ajcstr]

I know you are reasonable and do not claim apostasy but many people do, unfortunately

Ironically, the only guys i see out there who give a clear and concise answer about when the supposed apostasy took place is the KJV only crowd. They say it happened in the first century.

Even though i obviously disagree with them, i respect that answer much more than James White who seems to intentionally try and pervert Church history in order to suit his own agenda

 

[Gara3987]

I recommend that you read Tradition and the Church by Agius, George.