How do you figure that? You are the one who is forwarding a modern innovation that has not been believed or practiced in the Church founded by Christ for 2000 years.
Why do we have to “prove” what was delivered to us by the Apostles? Our job is to preserve what was handed down to us. You don’t have to accept the ancient faith of the Apostles. If you wish to remain with those who have departed from it, you are free to do so.
There is evidence that many in the early church advocated as SS approach. I’m buying “its not historical” argument for one second. When I make a statement, its up to me to prove it. Neither of us accept the ancient faith, or we would be Orthodox
We can’t "assume’ them, either. We can only receive them. The authority placed in the Church comes from Christ. If we deny His creation, we deny Him.
I’m not sure what to make of your answer. I agree that you receive them, and your receive them with docility as your church commands. The more I think about the “issues” here, the real issue is whether one accepts the claims of the Roman Church. Either you accept them or you don’t. Everything else flows from that. If you believe the church was founded on Peter, and that he was the first Pope, and the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible, then you will accept their teachings, even if they don’t sit right with you.
Code:
But your problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best evidence, that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say, Moses, you now have to explain how it is that the Jewish ‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that tradition, but fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark 7:1-13?//quote]
You are jumping tracks, Johnny Reb. You asked for an example of Jesus teaching from Sacred Tradition, and one was provided for you. Now, you are changing what you are asking for!
That may be, but the point remains, Christ teaching from tradition does not prove that those traditions are true or that he valued and authorized tradition. I was provided with actually one-this one about Moses’ seat, where Christ directly taught from tradition. The others where either Apostles or New Testament writers. One reference. He taught from scripture over 100 times. That hardly shows equality between the two in his eyes. When we look at the big picture, he definately follows a Prima Scriptura mindset, if not SS.
Who are you do decide this? Since the concept of Moses’ seat is not in the Scriptures, where to you go for your standards about what it is, and how it functions?
Once it was written down, it was in the scriptures, so many scholars have studied to try to figure out what is going on in this passage. SS does not mean we read the scriptures in isolation. It does not forbid us from referencing tradition, reason, or experience. It does not forbid us to try to learn about something like Moses seat in its historical and (since referenced in the scripture) biblical context.
Oh, yes, I agree. If this were the case, then your assertion would be correct. Fortunately, the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church is not “magic”, and it is not “self assumed”. All authority comes from God, and He sent the Apostles with His Own Authority. They passed this on to faithful men who could teach others also.
Until it is proven, it is self assumed. This clearly shows that one standard of proof is held for Roman claims, and another for SS. I do see the Catholic line of reasoning however and will admit its not unsound.
do you think the Word of God that was oral “disappeared” just because some of it was written down? How is it that Jesus failed to keep His promises?
No, just that what was taught orally was written down in order to preserve it for us. If it was written down it certainlty wouldn’t disappear!
This is a spurious request. There is no reason for Sacred Tradition to “not be in the Scriptures”. Sacred Tradition informs how we understand the Scriptures.
Ok, I have no problem with you defining it that way. So it is not a body of teachings given orally apart from scripture? That seems to be what most Catholics told me Tradition is.
No. there has never been a need for this. The Sacred Traditions have been preserved infallibly by the HS.
So traditions are oral teachings then? I thought Tradition was just how we understand the scriptures? Which is it?
Now, Johnny, if you have already made up your mind to the contrary, why bother to ask?
Its a rhetorical question.
If you can’t show it though, fine with me.
Oh well, lets move on shall we?
I felt just the opposite, that maybe with an exception or two, I addressed them pretty straight on.
