since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[benhur]

What do you suppose the Apostles teachings passed down by word of mouth was?

Well for sure that which they eventually put to writ. The rest, that is the question. Like did Jesus really teach the apostles Mary was Immaculate, and did Peter or John really say she was Assumed ?

Catholics are VERY scriptural when we HOLD FIRM to the Apostles teachings (all inclusive = tradition) passed on by letter (written tradition) and by word of mouth (oral tradition)… Or did you somehow skip over that bible verse? Or if you recall that bible verse commending to Church to hold firm to the Apostles teachings both by letter and word of mouth?

I would definitely hold on to anything an apostle literally spoke to me or our church. Did not skip over that verse. I also did not skip over the verse that says many teachings, even hearsay, shall arise and to beware. So holding on to what an apostle literally tells us (if we were Corinthian or Roman 2000 years ago etc.,) is a bit different than what a successor may say 1800 years later, as in the two cases I noted above.

But I understand your position that I disagree with, that what is said today by the CC is equal in authority as if spoken or written by an apostle himself.

 

[Abu]

The reality is that Tradition is the teachings of Jesus, His Apostles and His Church. (CCC 81,82).
These are the teachings that have been entrusted to the Church and handed down from the Apostles and their successor bishops in union with the Pope.

The other “tradition” is legitimate customs, theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional, over time. (CCC #83). Erroneous traditions are condemned.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

The early Christians had no N.T. to refer to; they learned the faith from ORAL instruction, the Bible being inaccessible to most until the printing press was developed in the 15th century. Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455.

The spiritual helps of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven sacraments instituted by Christ, with Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are the means which enabled the many canonised saints of heroic virtue to be further examples of the efficacy of His Church in leading to the Way, the Truth and the Life

The Apostles all taught what Christ taught and all as Catholics – there was never any breaking away and self-projection so that within 75 years after Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection, Catholic was used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, **“Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” **It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

tinyurl.com/3av8cts
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 03-10-2009:
Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

 

[benhur]

There is no scripture without Tradition.


I’m not sure how you define inerrant (doesn’t matter much how you or I define the word), but the idea that Tradition is the lesser stepchild, or less inspired, or less inerrant, than scripture makes no sense.

Without the Tradition which came through the community of persons, there is no such thing as scripture.
*The bible did not drop from the sky written by the hand of God. *

This persistent suggestion that Tradition is subservient to the book denies the Incarnation. There may be lip service to it, but true faith in the Incarnation requires acceptance of the inspired nature of the community which wrote the scriptures. How could inspired scripture come out of an un-inspired community? How could the book be more than the community that wrote it?
Christ came as a person, not a book. He established a community, he did not write a book. He is the word made flesh. He is…The book is not the word made flesh, Christ is. It baffles me how such basic Christian realities can be glossed over.

The Incarnation of Christ is the heart of the Christian faith.

OK. So Tradition,(OT-Israel,NT-Church) is the light of the world, the “context” of truth. So God then gives us all, thru that Church/Nation/Tradition, inerrant Holy Scripture. God did not give Writ to compete with Tradition. For sure Writ is not subservient to Tradition and I don’t understand the apparent aversion to the opposite . You make it sound undignified for Tradition to have to be subservient to Writ. Even the Incarnation had no problem being obedient so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. Jesus served Writ down to the last jot and tittle. That is also a reality, as much as serving community(Israel/Church).

Scripture is not just a book. Christ is not apart from His written Word. Christ did breathe thru men to write it. It is His Word, beyond Paul or Peter or John or as Clement and Church of Rome wrote, “words spoken by God through us”. Even that letter shows that the Church separated Writ from from non and with reason. That letter was Holy Spirit inspired but not God breathed as Writ. Why bother differentiating if everything the Church says (faith/morals) is inerrant ? There is a reason that letter (Clement) and even the catechism is not in the "bible’’. There is a reason the Talmud (commentary/tradition/catechism) is not in the Hebrew bible.

Tradition began with apostolic teaching and governance and corresponding Writ. No it did not fall from sky. What Tradition continued to be and is today is the question. Just as the church discerned what was Writ and what was not, so we today continue but with what is part of Tradition and what is not, and who decides.

May we all be subservient to Writ, as much so as to our priest/presbyter/pastor

 

[clem456]

OK. So Tradition,(OT-Israel,NT-Church) is the light of the world, the “context” of truth. So God then gives us all, thru that Church/Nation/Tradition, inerrant Holy Scripture. God did not give Writ to compete with Tradition. For sure Writ is not subservient to Tradition and I don’t understand the apparent aversion to the opposite . You make it sound undignified for Tradition to have to be subservient to Writ. Even the Incarnation had no problem being obedient so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. Jesus served Writ down to the last jot and tittle. That is also a reality, as much as serving community(Israel/Church).

Scripture is not just a book. Christ is not apart from His written Word. Christ did breathe thru men to write it. It is His Word, beyond Paul or Peter or John or as Clement and Church of Rome wrote, “words spoken by God through us”. Even that letter shows that the Church separated Writ from from non and with reason. That letter was Holy Spirit inspired but not God breathed as Writ. Why bother differentiating if everything the Church says (faith/morals) is inerrant ? There is a reason that letter (Clement) and even the catechism is not in the "bible’’. There is a reason the Talmud (commentary/tradition/catechism) is not in the Hebrew bible.

Tradition began with apostolic teaching and governance and corresponding Writ. No it did not fall from sky. What Tradition continued to be and is today is the question. Just as the church discerned what was Writ and what was not, so we today continue but with what is part of Tradition and what is not, and who decides.

May we all be subservient to Writ, as much so as to our priest/presbyter/pastor

Call me confused.
Where did I say Tradition and scripture compete with one another???
My point was exactly the opposite. ]

Call me really confused.
This is what you said in your prior post, which I responded to:

Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Again, to say Tradition is as inerrant as Scripture seems untenable to me.

Maybe you can clarify what you meant.

In the end, your objections will lead to the assertion that Tradition died back there somewhere along the road, like so much road-kill in the rear view mirror, as if Christ is not really Christ.
As if the Incarnated and living Christ cannot be as durable as the pages of a book.

Heading off the reflexive objection of Christ being Christ but not sharing his gifts with others…
Why then did he become flesh? Just to show off? Why did he start a ministry with others? Sent them forth with a mission? Breathed his Spirit into them?

Was it all just to show how smart and powerful he was, ordering people around like puppets?

“Hey guys, I was just kidding. I wasn’t serious about you receiving the Holy Spirit!!!) You just sit down and be quiet, I’ll take care of everything. I’ll give you a book and that will make everything clear !!!”

Why would he debase himself by sharing himself with human beings to the point of death, if that sharing was not meant to be durable?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

What you’re saying, then, is that Apostolic teaching recorded in the Bible is inerrant, but Apostolic teaching not recorded in the Bible isn’t inerrant? In other words, that God both protects and doesn’t protect Apostolic teaching?

Pretty much.

You know, I’d be with you if – in the Bible – Jesus said, “write down what I said and share that scroll with everyone.” But, that’s not what He said. Rather, Jesus said to the very apostles to whom he gave authority (in Mt 16:19 and 18:18), “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15).

If you want to assert that this means that Jesus’ command to the Apostles is protected where it’s in writing and unprotected where it’s taught personally… well, that’s an interesting application of the very book you consider your sole guide.

 

[Abu]

Benhur #755
Scripture is not just a book. Christ is not apart from His written Word. Christ did breathe thru men to write it. It is His Word, beyond Paul or Peter or John or as Clement and Church of Rome wrote, “words spoken by God through us”.

Sacred Scripture may be “beyond” (as “an addition to”) St Peter, St John or St Paul only as the “Church of Rome”, Christ’s own Catholic Church, is the only Church that could, and did, authorize all of the writings therein.

May we all be subservient to Writ, as much so as to our priest/presbyter/pastor

The silliness of the *sola scriptura *argument is that Jesus wrote nothing and commanded us to follow His Catholic Church, which authenticated and pronounced infallibly which writings form the Sacred Scriptures.

The early Catholics had no NT to appeal to and learned their faith from oral not written instruction as the Bible was inaccessible to most until the printing press was developed in the 15th century. Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455.

So the complete message of Jesus was, and is, through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of His Church, and no other.

The fallacy of scripture alone is further blatantly exposed by the reality that the ideas of IVF and cloning for humans are not considered in Sacred Scripture, but Christ’s Catholic Church has determined, and always will be able to determine, what is evil and what conforms to the moral law.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Well for sure that which they eventually put to writ. The rest, that is the question. Like did Jesus really teach the apostles Mary was Immaculate, and did Peter or John really say she was Assumed ?
I would definitely hold on to anything an apostle literally spoke to me or our church. Did not skip over that verse. I also did not skip over the verse that says many teachings, even hearsay, shall arise and to beware. So holding on to what an apostle literally tells us (if we were Corinthian or Roman 2000 years ago etc.,) is a bit different than what a successor may say 1800 years later, as in the two cases I noted above.

But I understand your position that I disagree with, that what is said today by the CC is equal in authority as if spoken or written by an apostle himself.

So you’re only going to trust what some people have been teaching for approx. 500 years as opposed to what has been taught historically within the Church since the time Jesus established his Church? yup, that’s makes total sense to me!

But here’s the question, you’re pretty certain that what the Catholic Church is teaching is heresy and you’re pretty certain the Catholic Church has added and subtracted from Sacred Scripture… but you’re pretty certain that 500 year old theology is more authoritative that 2000 year old theology. You’re pretty certain that the Early Church Father’s erred when it comes to what the original founding Apostles have taught. What authority do you have? You’re own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture?

Because here’s the thing, when people rely on the bible as being all that we need we’re essentially saying that our own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture is authoritative because of the mind-set most who believe SS that “I’m right and you’re wrong… the bible says “this” therefore you’re teaching heresy. I know because “that’s” what the bible says and if you don’t see it than that’s not my problem it’s YOUR PROBLEM because you’re interpretation of Sacred Scripture is wrong but my interpretation of Sacred Scripture is ALWAYS right”

Put it to you this way, if the Bible is really all that we need wouldn’t you think there’d be greater consensus as opposed to confusion over what the Bible REALLY teaches? I mean, if it’s REALLY all we need than we can just forget about the historical teachings of the Church in the last 2000 years and just go by our own understanding of Sacred Scripture right? But if it’s all we need there’s a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE living and believing differently than one another and they all say different things and yet they all say the Bible is all we need. YET people live in sin saying the Bible says it’s OK … this is why I keep going back to the topic of Gay Marriage. Some Christians says God blesses Gay Marriage while other Christians say absolutely not, it’s a mortal sin. Well, the topic of Gay Marriage is a matter of eternal security. So… what do you rely on when you want to truly understand what the Bible says about Gay Marriage? If it’s really all that simple there’s be a WHOLE LOT OF CHRISTIANS REPENTING OF HOMOSEXUALITY but what do we have? WHOLE DENOMINATIONS BLESSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE !!

I harp on this topic because it was a very legitimate question I had to resolve in my own personal life. What do I do? How do I live my life? Is it OK to be in a gay relationship? What about Gay Marriage? I have strong desires, but how do I live my life in spite of these desires? Well … point is, Gay Marriage is either blessed by God or it’s not. Acting upon homosexual desires is either a mortal sin or it’s not. It can’t be both. You know, in the place of confusion as to how I should respond, and how I should live my life. I go by what has been historically taught by the Church because obviously, we don’t always understand what the Bible always says… therefore going by what the Bible Says Alone opens room up for heresy … and over the last 500 years we’ve seen the fruit of it. You’d have to be blind not to see it.

 

[benhur]

You know, I’d be with you if – in the Bible – Jesus said, “write down what I said and share that scroll with everyone.” But, that’s not what He said. Rather, Jesus said to the very apostles to whom he gave authority (in Mt 16:19 and 18:18), “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15).

If you want to assert that this means that Jesus’ command to the Apostles is protected where it’s in writing and unprotected where it’s taught personally… well, that’s an interesting application of the very book you consider your sole guide.

I think you are avoiding the real issue,of tradition being subject to Writ or not.

No one is saying there is no oral gospel, why it is even done today. The question is can that oral gospel go beyond the written gospel today. Just because there was an oral authority during the apostles lives, and just before all the books were written, or before compiled, or before canonized, or before people could read, or before they were widely distributed, does not mean Writ did not have a type of supremacy thu out all those stages.

So Jesus told the apostles go to all the world and preach… So what is the problem with seeing the apostles/disciples Writ as a God ordained extension of that mission ? Why can we not see their Writ as their voices with us today ? It is basic common sense that the early church had also , that their “voices” are final guiding authority by which all succeeding disciples were to adhere to, and that the Holy Spirit was one with His Writ.

We both agree to the guarantee of inerrant Scripture. We both agree to inspired church leadership giving context to that scripture. We differ on the latter’s guaranteed inerrancy and conditionality however.

All writings are not “scripture”, just as all church proclamations, interpretations are not “God-breathed”.

We judged the writings, and why would we not also any oral traditions? If you want to say that an eyewitness or his partner’s God-breathed writings are the same as a disciple’s inspired decree 1800 years later, OK. That may be. It is settled that Writ has met conditions of inerrancy. Just not sure all further decrees have met all conditions of inerrancy ,or even that they should.

 

[benhur]

you’re pretty certain the Catholic Church has added and subtracted from Sacred Scripture…

No, not to scripture, to tradition you have added. Now because you make your tradition to be God-breathed, identical to scripture, you further complicate the matter,and it is the reason some folks say you add to “scripture”.

mind-set most who believe SS that "I’m right and you’re wrong…

Yes the," I am of Peter /Paul" game. We all do it . How many churches say we are right and you are wrong? How many attach infallibility to that claim, upping the ante ?

That Writ is infallible and can make a righteous claim we agree. Just because the Church received and puts forth Writ authoritatively, does not mean she will always, always be "righteous " in an interpretation or decree.

I don’t mind partly the" I am right you are wrong game", for we all have the free will to decide, to have convictions (and not by bible alone), just find most will not add 'infallible" to their “right”, and should not . That is like fortifying the dividing walls, institutionalizing division (but as Paul implied tongue in cheek, it sure makes us feel good-justified, to know we are “right”,and others wrong).

Put it to you this way, if the Bible is really all that we need

I do not argue that the bible is all we need, but it is the final norm for all other things.

 

[clem456]

No, not to scripture, to tradition you have added. Now because you make your tradition to be God-breathed, identical to scripture, you further complicate the matter,and it is the reason some folks say you add to “scripture”.
Yes the," I am of Peter /Paul" game. We all do it . How many churches say we are right and you are wrong? How many attach infallibility to that claim, upping the ante ?

That Writ is infallible and can make a righteous claim we agree. Just because the Church received and puts forth Writ authoritatively, does not mean she will always, always be "righteous " in an interpretation or decree.

I don’t mind partly the" I am right you are wrong game", for we all have the free will to decide, to have convictions (and not by bible alone), just find most will not add 'infallible" to their “right”, and should not . That is like fortifying the dividing walls, institutionalizing division (but as Paul implied tongue in cheek, it sure makes us feel good-justified, to know we are “right”,and others wrong).
I do not argue that the bible is all we need, but it is the final norm for all other things.

Forget who is right and wrong for a second.

How do you know the bible is the final norm for all things?
Who’s interpretation? Yours? Mine? Islam’s? JW’s? Terry Jones’? Says who? Atheists interpret the bible for themselves.

Who’s authority provides the foundation for any of what you believe, including the scriptures? How do you know anything at all about Christianity?

The inspiration we receive is only as inspired as it’s foundation. Remember, we agree the scriptures did not fall from the sky? If the bible was not conceived of it’s own power and cannot stand all by itself, what is the full context of it’s inspiration?

The answer is the durable personhood of Christ. “I am the way the truth the life.” Christ has divine personhood with full human nature. In his human nature he formed a community and entrusted the community with his gifts. He is not “spirit dude”, calling us to individualistic gnostic knowledge of him. Christ is communion, just as the nature of God is Trinitarian. God is a community in himself, and we are made in the image of this Trinitarian community.
If we cannot give our trust to Christ’s community, how can we know Christ and the scriptures???

 

[SjMelnychuk]

No, not to scripture, to tradition you have added. Now because you make your tradition to be God-breathed, identical to scripture, you further complicate the matter,and it is the reason some folks say you add to “scripture”.
Yes the," I am of Peter /Paul" game. We all do it . How many churches say we are right and you are wrong? How many attach infallibility to that claim, upping the ante ?

That Writ is infallible and can make a righteous claim we agree. Just because the Church received and puts forth Writ authoritatively, does not mean she will always, always be "righteous " in an interpretation or decree.

I don’t mind partly the" I am right you are wrong game", for we all have the free will to decide, to have convictions (and not by bible alone), just find most will not add 'infallible" to their “right”, and should not . That is like fortifying the dividing walls, institutionalizing division (but as Paul implied tongue in cheek, it sure makes us feel good-justified, to know we are “right”,and others wrong).
I do not argue that the bible is all we need, but it is the final norm for all other things.

I don’t think you get it!

As mentioned above the Apostles commended the Early Church for holding firm to the TRADITIONS taught to them. These traditions both LETTER and Oral. So in other words Oral traditions were something the Early Church was commended by the Apostles for holding firm to JUST AS MUCH AS WRITTEN TRADITIONS … So tradition is Scriptural.

So here’s a question…

Who had the Authority to declare which Scripture was to be canonized and which not to?

If you really have absolutely zero knowledge about Sacred Tradition how then can youeven suggest that Sacred Tradition adds to Sacred Scripture and how can you suggest that Sacred Tradition is not scriptural and furthermore what Oral traditions do you think the early church was commended for by the Apostles in holding firm to? What were these Oral Traditions the Apostles exhorted the early church to hold firm to? And if they were Oral Traditions how do we know which Oral traditions these were? Who gives you the authority to decide what these Oral Traditions were? It makes sense that these Oral Traditions were passed on from the Apostles to the Early Church. . these same Oral Traditions the Apostles said to HOLD FIRM TO. So… Answer the above questions,

Who gives you the authority to say Oral Traditions are less inspired than written Traditions and how can you say Oral Traditions add to Sacred Scripture when the Apostles said to HOLD FIRM to these Oral Traditions?

Note to moderator: sometimes I repeat myself but it’s because I’m driving home a point. Please don’t change the way I’ve communicated on this as it’s done on purpose thank you very much.

 

[benhur]

How do you know the bible is the final norm for all things?

History, and for me even the CC despite what she says about tradition, because in the end, everything has a scriptural tie for her.

Who’s interpretation? Yours? Mine? Islam’s? JW’s? Terry Jones’? Says who? Atheists interpret the bible for themselves.

The point is interpretation of what? Scripture, tradition, history//councils ? I still say interpretation of scripture is most important, despite variation of interpretations, and needing the context of the church.

Who’s authority provides the foundation for any of what you believe, including the scriptures? How do you know anything at all about Christianity?

Is the foundation, even the pillars, more authoritative than the Truth she holds up ? I think not . I also think the early church did not have this debate, and scripture was as if the apostle/writer were right there, preserved for the generations to come.

The inspiration we receive is only as inspired as it’s foundation

. Disagree. Fallible we (church) hold up an infallible gospel, even infallible Writ.

Remember, we agree the scriptures did not fall from the sky? If the bible was not conceived of it’s own power and cannot stand all by itself, what is the full context of it’s inspiration?

Right, there was no skyfall. Israel/Church was the recipient, and carrier of oral and Writ. That we are chosen participants by grace of God’s Word does not make us infallible 100 % of the the time (as His Word is). The church is our context, the backdrop, but I would be careful not to say the tree falling in the woods made no sound because no one was there to hear it. That would be like saying if no one believes in Calvary the work would not stand.

The answer is the durable personhood of Christ. “I am the way the truth the life.” Christ has divine personhood with full human nature. In his human nature he formed a community and entrusted the community with his gifts. He is not “spirit dude”, calling us to individualistic gnostic knowledge of him. Christ is communion, just as the nature of God is Trinitarian. God is a community in himself, and we are made in the image of this Trinitarian community.

Well, He is a person. He is God and man. Both formed a community (not just His flesh).There was a community way before His human nature (are we not all sons of Abraham ?). He is a spirit dude, but yes, we are His finger on the earth (think Michelangelo and Sistine Chapel).

He is calling us to Himself, individually, and quite personally, as a Lover and yet corporately as the Bride. Hopefully you see that I stress the individual because some are marching with us whom the Lord does not know personally.

If we cannot give our trust to Christ’s community, how can we know Christ and the scriptures???

To much all or nothing either/or Clem. Reminds me of strict Calvinists, who might think why bother, if indeed others are predestined, I can even be slack in preaching/community. Those that are to be saved, will be saved.

Same with Church. If it is infallible always,100% of the time, relax, God has it under control.

I don’t think so. He warns of false teachers and wolves in the church, and many will fall away, and warns to persevere, and asks if He will find faith in the end. Imperfect Israel was no different, yet she was perfect in her mission, producing the Messiah, just as the Bride will be spotless in the end, but not yet.

You can trust the church community when she speaks the gospel truth and though we differ on some things there is much universalism to get one started. Now if one demands perfection before they commit, one is not broken in spirit enough yet. All I know is the church tells me Jesus is a perfect Savior and I am a perfect sinner. For me to demand a perfect preacher/church is ungracious at the very least, and won’t cut the mustard with the Lord and His calling.

 

[benhur]

I don’t think you get it!

As mentioned above the Apostles commended the Early Church for holding firm to the TRADITIONS taught to them. These traditions both LETTER and Oral. So in other words Oral traditions were something the Early Church was commended by the Apostles for holding firm to JUST AS MUCH AS WRITTEN TRADITIONS … So tradition is Scriptural.

So here’s a question…

Who had the Authority to declare which Scripture was to be canonized and which not to?

If you really have absolutely zero knowledge about Sacred Tradition how then can youeven suggest that Sacred Tradition adds to Sacred Scripture and how can you suggest that Sacred Tradition is not scriptural and furthermore what Oral traditions do you think the early church was commended for by the Apostles in holding firm to? What were these Oral Traditions the Apostles exhorted the early church to hold firm to? And if they were Oral Traditions how do we know which Oral traditions these were? Who gives you the authority to decide what these Oral Traditions were? It makes sense that these Oral Traditions were passed on from the Apostles to the Early Church. . these same Oral Traditions the Apostles said to HOLD FIRM TO. So… Answer the above questions,

Who gives you the authority to say Oral Traditions are less inspired than written Traditions and how can you say Oral Traditions add to Sacred Scripture when the Apostles said to HOLD FIRM to these Oral Traditions?

Note to moderator: sometimes I repeat myself but it’s because I’m driving home a point. Please don’t change the way I’ve communicated on this as it’s done on purpose thank you very much.

Hi Sj

I do get it. If the apostles were here today they would say the same thing, “Hold on to what we taught you-tradition, written and oral”. Trouble is they are not here today, and have not been for quite some time now. As such there has been some debate as to what they taught orally that is not in Writ, if anything. Hence, I asked if you think they taught Mary’s Immaculateness, even Assumption.

It is one thing for an apostle to say hold on to his oral teaching as tradition, than say someone a thousand years later. Is it any wonder that tradition has given us many practices that were not done by the apostles ?

The context of the scripture of holding on to “tradition” must also be considered in context of apostles. It is their “word” we are to hold on to. Writ was still in its infancy also. Ten years later, when much more Writ had been penned, tradition is not mentioned to Timothy, but Scripture.

Writ came into play because it is more definitive than oral. As the church progressed not only the oral was counterfeited but Writ also.Yes, the church was needed to be the context of its proper reception, to form scriptural tradition, or tradition of scripture. But just as Israel properly gave us OT Writ, we would be right in not believing her every tradition or teaching. So to today the early Church gave us Writ properly and does not give her carte blanche, even infallibility thereafter.

" it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists." as put forth by Brown commentary.

The CC has filtered out many "traditions’’ and is very careful in accepting any. So the protestants just filter a little more stringently than you.

Again, I do believe in “tradition”, even church, community. I do believe in oral transmission of Truth. I do not say you add to Scripture but to"tradition" as if it were from the mouth of Peter or Paul, and claim its 100% infallibility ,100% of the time.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So you’re only going to trust what some people have been teaching for approx. 500 years as opposed to what has been taught historically within the Church since the time Jesus established his Church? yup, that’s makes total sense to me!

My friend I, actually all of us, believe stuff that is 3 to 4 thousand years old. We are sons of Abraham, even believers in the Garden promise to Adam and Eve. Our "traditions’’ go way back.

The Jewish leaders also justified their "traditions’’ as being Mosaic or Abrahamic, and indeed many were. But 100% ?? Not.

As Elihu states in Job 32, " “I am young and you are old,… greater age would speak, and that a multitude of years would teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.”

Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished Eccl 4:13.

What authority do you have?

Yes, the Jewish “church” also negatively questioned the blind man who was healed about the “authority” of Jesus, his healer. Like the blind man, many P’s say, “All I know is I was once blind and now I see” by what you might call “unauthorized” churches/preachers. Incidentally,Vat 2 recognizes salvation and grace in these “other” churches.

Because here’s the thing, when people rely on the bible as being all that we need

Again I do not say that, and many P’s do not either.

therefore going by what the Bible Says Alone opens room up for heresy …

As noted earlier, tradition and scripture can be counterfeited, even councils etc . Nothing is “heresy” proof, not until His return…

Blessings

 

[juliamajor]

Those who say that the bible is all they need never can justify the problem that scripture never says that. Certainly that is true of the Jewish people whose Canon was not written until hundreds of years after the events and Oral Law is what they used to keep them in line. Those in charge of oral law and scripture did a bang up job .
Tradition and Scripture, among Jewish people, are used in tandem.never alone .precedents are discussed along with what other Rabbis have said as well as the grand sages of thousands of years ago. Why wouldn’t you look to the past to find out how these words will effect this generation and generations after them. You go to Yeshiva to fight it out among fellow students how they should interpret scripture for their generation. Every generation of Tanak students has the job of defining, what those laws , wisdom, prophecies mean to them in their lifetime. That’s how they can talk about Torah for about about 4000 yrs. The Torah refreshes itself by seen with fresh eyes every generation. Without seeing layers of meaning in scripture is very boring indeed and limits God’s ability to teach us more than one thing at a time.
If the Triune God is infinite how can his words and meaning just be finite. There is gold in the words .we just have to be not completely satisfied with one meaning but open to the fact that
God’s word will not dry up or turn stale but be forever fresh.

 

[Abu]

benhur #766
Incidentally,Vat 2 recognizes salvation and grace in these “other” churches.

The “recognition” is in fact that they have some truths mixed with errors. Yet another misrepresentation, for how does salvation take place? How come that the Vatican II teaching is misrepresented?

Precisely because the redeemed person, as all are redeemed by Christ’s suffering and crucifixion, and who may become saved, **is saved only through Christ’s Catholic Church as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains.

It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846, quoting Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 14).

 

[clem456]

The “recognition” is in fact that they have some truths mixed with errors. Yet another misrepresentation, for how does salvation take place? How come that the Vatican II teaching is misrepresented?

Precisely because the redeemed person, as all are redeemed by Christ’s suffering and crucifixion, and who may become saved, **is saved only through Christ’s Catholic Church as the *Catechism of the Catholic Church ***(CCC) explains.

It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846, quoting Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 14).

Right.
The reality of heaven is that all are one in Christ. The Church does not create this idea. Christ himself prays for unity.
Christ’s community is not limited to paradise. We are called to that unity here and now.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Hi Sj

I do get it. If the apostles were here today they would say the same thing, “Hold on to what we taught you-tradition, written and oral”. Trouble is they are not here today, and have not been for quite some time now. As such there has been some debate as to what they taught orally that is not in Writ, if anything. Hence, I asked if you think they taught Mary’s Immaculateness, even Assumption.

What the Catholic Church has in consistency in teaching. You know this because what the Apostles taught the Early Church taught. Now when it comes to Mary most of all the Apostles had died before Mary died and was assumed into heaven. Even with regards to noted OT Prophets being assumed into heaven it’s not difficult to believe that Mary too was assumed into Heaven. The exception is that you’d have to believe the eye witness accounts of those discipled by the Apostles. And here’s the point, what the Apostles taught so did the Early Church Fathers. Some of the writings came during the 2nd century of the Church, first century being the time of the Apostles. When you factor in when Jesus died on the Cross approx 33 AD and when the Apostles were being martyred… And factor in when the earliest writings of the Early Church Fathers, not much time passed between the Apostles writings and when the letters to various Churches were sent by the Early Church Fathers. Combine these letters to the time Sacred Scripture was Canonized… You would see that the traditions the Apostles taught the Early Church continued throughout the era of the Early Church Fathers were sending letters to the Early Church. Furthermore the traditions of the Church was well established at the Canonization of Sacred Scripture. And who exactly enforced the full Canonized Sacred Scripture? The Early Church Fathers present at the Counsel that decided which letters to keep as part of Sacred Scripture and which not, dating back to approx. 300s AD It wasn’t until after the time of Martin Luther at approx 1500s AD that books in Sacred Scripture was taken out. A lot of the Catholic Churches Sacred Traditions were written in the books that Protestants convently took out of Sacred Scripture, forming their own version of “Canonized” Sacred Scripture.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

It is one thing for an apostle to say hold on to his oral teaching as tradition, than say someone a thousand years later.

That’s just it! It is YOU that follows a tradition that developed over a thousand years later while the traditions the Early Church Fathers taught were all consistent spanning from who the Apostles directly discipled and throughout the history of the Catholic Church. So are you going to follow a tradition developed over a thousand years later or a tradition passed on directly from the Apostles?

I have to go to work but I’ll respond to more of what you said during my next break.

 

[juliamajor]

I hate to have to tell you this but all churches use traditions.from the clothes you wear to the prayers said to tithing ,baptizing,decor, decorum etc.these practices just didn’t magically appear.and they didn’t spring forth from God’s head. They were put together by people for people. So what .the little things we do around holidays are also family traditions. So what. Does that make it evil. Such hypocrisy. Such a lack of understanding of human nature.
Nonsense and rubbish to anyone who says they disdain tradition. Traditions keep us human by reminding us who we are and where we came from. Negative traditions can be changed into positive ones.Traditions have the ability to trAnsform and maintain groups,families, clans under the most trying times. Should we condemn the traditions that Christians that have maintained community and life under the most trying of conditions.