L
Lampo
Guest
So you believe in Sacred Oral Tradition?
- Status
R
reteeks21
Guest
I see where you are heading, and to an extent, yes. But more than that I believe, and agree with the written words of Paul, Matthew, John etc more than I do oral tradition. But don’t get me wrong: oral tradition does have a place at the table. It is not the red-headed stepchild that many folks make it out to be.
L
Lampo
Guest
Very well. We Catholics believe in the written word of God too. We don’t stop there, however. We believe in the entire word of God, both spoken and written. It is what we call the Deposit of Faith.
R
reteeks21
Guest
I’m with you there. And I never thought that cath. don’t believe in the Word of God. That comment made me chuckle because I know that many cath. think that most prot. think they don’t believe in the Word of God. Not me, though.
G
GatorMommy
Guest
The Bible is NOT the “Word of God” alone. Nor are all the teachings of Christ contained within. The Christian canon was gather in response to Arianism and Gnosticism, so the books canonized are going to disprove their movements. It was never meant to be the sole deposit of faith for a Christian.
N
NDfan
Guest
Untrue. That comment alone confirms your lack of knowledge of scipture. Maybe the Bible didn’t exist but the sacred writings sure did. You imply that someone wrote the Bible cover to cover around 400AD and then passed it out. The earliest evidence we have for the NT is a parchment of the Gospel of Mark which is dated 42AD. Given this is a copy then the originals were written before that which most experts place in the late 30sAD. Just 6-8 years after Jesus died at the cross and was in wide circulation in Rome by 50AD. Many of Paul’s letters precede all the Gospels and were in wide spread circulation to all churches by 60AD.
Irenaeus himself confirmed the Gospels to be true in the early part of the second century and personally testified to the validity of John’s which had been in question. Sacred scripture was used very early to refute the teachings of the montanists, the marcionites, the gnostics etc. Marcion himself re-wrote Luke and portions of Paul’s letters which prompted the church fathers to start formalizing the canon so everyone would know what the Apostles themselves taught. Scripture was used over and over and over to teach. To imply everything was strictly oral for 400 years is just ludicrous at best.
The Bible is a daughter to no one. The Bible guides the church not the other way around. The problem with oral teachings surfaced right away with churches in galatia and corinth prompting a written response. If Jesus never told them to write anything down then why did they? Paul and Peter both directly commissioned by Jesus had writings. This argument makes no sense.
Since these reasons are not valid I would suggest it was something else.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
Lampo can you tell me something that is in the deposit of Faith as you say that is not in the Bible??
G
GatorMommy
Guest
Wrong. I “imply” that there was not a Christian Bible for 400 years. The 27 books of the Old Testament were certainly around, along with a plethora of other writings. Until then, it depended on where you were as to which writings you had and to which ones you believed to be the inspired written Word of God.
I agree with you here and never said that the church relied 100% on oral teachings. But, but no means was there a set canon of the Christian Bible until the very end of the 4th century. My point is this: most Protestants have this idea that somehow Christ handed a fully-formed Christian Bible to His Church. This is wrong. It was a work in process … a process that took hundreds of years, literally.
Please cite one reference to Christ telling His apostles to record a single thing. The Bible came about after the Church. Her early fathers wrote the 27 books chosen, her clergy decided the canon, made expensive hand-copies (no printing press yet!), and kept it safe for the faithful. The writings of the Bible are letters written to certain churches responding to issues within. Nay, St. Paul holds both written and oral teachings as equal.
L
Lampo
Guest
Untrue. The Church existed before the Bible. The Church is not based on the Bible. The Bible is based on the Church.
This might be helpful for you: Where we Got the Bible
N
NDfan
Guest
Actually this is not entirely true. The canon was formalized to battle the Marcionites, the Montanists, and the Gnostics. As I stated in another post, Marcion began re-writing Luke and Paul’s letters to fit his beliefs of Christ being a phantom and referring to the GOD of the OT as the demiurge i.e. the GOD of evil. Irenaeus himself admitted that the canon was needed to inform people what the Apostles teachings were. So while oral things may be nice, as Irenaeus stated it’s scripture that the oral is validated against.
PEACE
G
GatorMommy
Guest
Wow. How judgemental of you! And what would you suggest it was?
L
Lampo
Guest
Here are *some *things that are not *explicitly *in the Bible that are part of the deposit of faith:
- The list of books that should be in the Bible
- The word Trinity
- The word Purgatory
- The Immaculate Conception
- The Assumption
G
GatorMommy
Guest
Please cite, as a believer in Sola Scriptura, a reference to Christ telling the faithful to record the teachings and form a Bible. And that it would be the sole rule of faith.
I find it interesting, too, that you claim St. Irenaeus as a believer in Sola Scriptura.
He stated in his Adversus Haereses that:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
N
NDfan
Guest
Your wording implied nothing existed for 400 years.
Incorrect while the final list of official canonical books may not have been established until close to the end of the 4th century, the Gospels themselves and many of Pauls letters were established much earlier in the 2nd century. The Gospels were in such widespread circulation that when it came to choosing the canonical ones they chose the versions that everyone seemed to identify with. Initially John’s met with resistance because of it’s qustioned authenticity but was affirmed by Irenaeus. So even though the official canon wasn’t completely established the works that made up the canon were around and very widespread in the 1st century. That’s why we have so many copies of manuscripts in our possession.
I don’t have to show you a reference. You need to show one reference that Christ told the Apostles not to write anything. The fact that they wrote proves you wrong. Christ couldn’t have told them not to write or they wouldn’t have plain and simple. Your logic makes no sense.
N
NDfan
Guest
You tell me.
N
NDfan
Guest
Again you’re thinking backwards. The Bible contains Jesus teachings. Jesus teachings are the foundation and basis of the teachings of the church. Therefore the Bible guides the church.
I appreciate the link but really don’t need it.
PEACE
S
SyCarl
Guest
With respect to Irenaeus it should be noted what he meant by apostolic tradition. It is anachronistic to read back the Church’s present understanding. What Irenaeus tells us that the Apostles had at first passed on their teachings orally but later recorded it in Scripture. So to him, Scritpure and apostolic tradition are the same thing.
N
NDfan
Guest
I’ll go through using your numberings.
- Doesn’t make sense. Faith doesn’t have anything to do with choosing books and letters.
- Based on elements of scripture - some cite Matthew for this
- Based on elements of scripture - derived from the purification of works by fire in the Gospel.
- Based on Luke specifically the word kecharitomene. Actually this wasn’t even doctrine until 1854.
- No scriptural reference at all and no proof exists. No one even testified to it and it certainly has nothing do to with our Faith.
N
NDfan
Guest
Who said I was a believer in sola scripture??
As I stated in another post you have to show me that Christ told the Apostles not to write. The fact they did proves you wrong making this is a silly request. If Jesus told them not to write then why did they disobey HIM:tsktsk:
I never claimed that Irenaeus believed in sola scriptura. I said he used scripture to refute the teachings of the Montanists, the Marcionites, and Gnostics. Without scripture it would have been his word against Marcion’s. And Marcion was converting Christians over from the Catholic church at an alarming rate with his teachings. This created the urgency to establish at least the canonized Gospels that contained the teachings of the Apostles. If I teach you something orally that the Apostles taught then I need to be able to cross-reference that with the Apostles if they are alive, or with something they wrote. Otherwise it’s your word against mine.
I love when people use small quotes from the church fathers to try to make a point. Like you’re hitting me with new information. Yes I’ve read this over and over again and you need to understand why Iraneus was saying this and look at the entire situation.
He was making the case for Apostolic succession or at least Apostolic teachings. Why? Because the Christian churches back then were getting infested with leaders who held to Marcionite, Gnostic, or Montanist teachings. They were distorting Jesus saying he was only a man and not a deity. And again teaching that the GOD of the OT was the demiurge. Seeing this Iraneus did 2 things. He started to establish the formal canon to refute the teachings. And wanted to establish that no Bishop or church leader should be placed unless they either had Apostolic succession or held to apostolic teachings. Preferably the first. Irenaeus used the church in Rome as the supreme example to copy for our beliefs because Paul and Peter preached there. What better example to use than the 2 who were commissioned directly by Jesus. He wanted everyone to be in agreement with what was taught and he was absolutely right. But now since the Apostles are no longer with us the thing that remains is their writings.
Consider this. If we relied solely on oral teaching then nothing would ever survive or stay consistent. Ever play the phone game as I think it is called. Whisper something into a person’s ear and tell them to pass it along. Does the message ever make it when you have over like 10-15 people? Try orally communicating the teachings of Jesus over a 2000 year period with nothing written to refer to and see what happens. Any insane person could easily distort the truth.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
Exactly
- Status