SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[n2thelight]

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor her Protestant daughters represent the true church established by our Messiah. There was a church established at Rome, and Linus {2nd Tim 4:21} (the son of Caractacus) was appointed by the Apostle Paul to be the first Bishop, and it was not related in any way to the Roman Catholic Church, ever! It was called, Basilica Di Pudenziana (also the Palace of the British)."

 

[Mannyfit75]

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor her Protestant daughters represent the true church established by our Messiah. There was a church established at Rome, and Linus {2nd Tim 4:21} (the son of Caractacus) was appointed by the Apostle Paul to be the first Bishop, and it was not related in any way to the Roman Catholic Church, ever! It was called, Basilica Di Pudenziana (also the Palace of the British)."

The Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. The Bible is not. The Bible is part of our oral tradition that was written. Jesus established only One Church and it is the Catholic Church.

No historical proof text pointed out that Paul to be the first bishops. He was the Apostles of the Gentiles. Bishops are successors of the Apostles.

The Apostles include Peter were not bishops. They did appointed bishops to succeed them when they passed away.

Paul and Peter are the founders of the Church in Rome. Peter is the first Pope. PERIOD.

. Peter Built the Church in Rome
“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross." Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

“Peter…coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

“This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome…Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right…For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

“And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, ‘Ye must bear witness at Rome,’ deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing…” Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391).

“Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world’s advantages to attract men to him?” Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).

“But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city, [Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon [Magus].” John Cassian, Institutes, X (ante A.D. 435).

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries [of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men’s salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day’s festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ’s gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth.” Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), Sermon LXXXII (ante A.D. 461).

 

[Mannyfit75]

II. Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

“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.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

“Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.” Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

“Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).

“For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all.” Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

 

[JLongoria]

Oh Manny, I wish all that wisdom you just put forth would help this very silly person see the error of His ways.

Yet he barely follows the Bible; how can we expect him then to honor the rest of the Sacred Traditions of the Apostles?

It’d also do him absolutely no good to point out that St. Linus was the Bishop of Rome and Pope immediately after St. Peter.

That’s according to St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome, St. John Crysostom, anywho. Heck, St. Irenaeus himself, who was only two generations away from St. John the Apostle, was able to connect St. Linus the Bishop of Rome as the very same Linus Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.

Nevermind that, though. If he can’t respect the Holy Bible as a living Tradition of the Apostles, then there’s no way he’ll actually take in to account the real history of Christianity.

 

[n2thelight]

The title of pope, or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas in the year 610 A.D. Jesus did not appoint Peter …"

 

[n2thelight]

The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: “What part of the body is the Pope?”

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you guys realize that, rather than making N2 answer the numerous questions he’s been given, you’ve let him off the hook by chasing him down this rabbit hole.

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor her Protestant daughters represent the true church established by our Messiah. There was a church established at Rome, and Linus {2nd Tim 4:21} (the son of Caractacus) was appointed by the Apostle Paul to be the first Bishop, and it was not related in any way to the Roman Catholic Church, ever! It was called, Basilica Di Pudenziana (also the Palace of the British)."

The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: “What part of the body is the Pope?”

N2, start a new thread with this and please return to the questions at hand.

 

[n2thelight]

NotWorthy

N2, start a new thread with this and please return to the questions at hand.

Back to the topic,you all claim that what Christ taught that was’nt written was passed down orally,you base this on the asumption of aposlic sucession,beginning with Peter.However outside of one verse to which you all take out of context,this has yet to be proven.

Most if not all of Catholic teachings hinges on Peter being the fitst Pope,meaning if its not in the scriptures, you can play it off by saying it was given orally,one of the reasons you have for not accepting sola scriptura.

So you make the claim of it being tradition,and again I say,if it goes against scripture,one cannot believe in it.Period!

 

[Mannyfit75]

The title of pope, or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas in the year 610 A.D. Jesus did not appoint Peter …"

The Gospel of Matthew disagrees with you.

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” (Matthew 16:18)

Those words are from Jesus’ own lips. Your statements contradict the words which Jesus spoke.

As for Emperor Phocas, I did some research on it and it states nothing that he gave the title Pope to the Bishop of Rome.

Phocas’s rule was welcomed at first by many because he lowered taxes, which had been high during the reign of Maurice. Fulsome letters of courtly praise from Pope Gregory I are attested.The pope, Saint Gregory, appreciated his acceptation of the reforms he had begun. Particularly the agrar reform of the Church in Italy and particularly in Sicily had been followed in Egypt by the Orhodox Patriarchs.The reform consisted in naming " rectores " as administrators of the latifunds and eliminating all sort of contractors and parassites who exploited the tenant farmers,reducing them to misery, while reducing the income of the owner . The Church needed money to pay for hospitals, maternities, orphanotrophies - all social infrastuctures the state had leaved to the clergy. Phocas faced great opposition and was regarded by many as a " populist "; his coup d’etat was the first violent regime change in Constantinople since its foundation by Constantine. He is reported to have responded to this opposition with cruelty, allegedly killing thousands in an effort to keep control of the government. This was probably an exaggeration: no histories actually written under Phocas survive, and thus we are dependent for information on historians writing under his successors, who had an interest in blackening Phocas’ reputation.Also his last words have been probably distorted. Pope Saint Gregory I or Gregory the Great (ca. … Head of Constantines colossal statue at Musei Capitolini Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus (Latin: IMP CAESAR FLAVIVS CONSTANTINVS PIVS FELIX INVICTVS AVGVSTVS[1] (February 27, 272–May 22, 337), commonly known as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or (among Orthodox Christians) Saint Constantine, was proclaimed Augustus by his troops…

The title of the Pope was first use in the 3rd Century not fifth Century:

Here is a quote:

The title of Pope was from the early third century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West.[5] In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria.[6] From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved it for the Bishop of Rome.[7] From the early sixth century it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the eleventh century

Get your fact straight

 

[NotWorthy]

Back to the topic,you all claim that what Christ taught that was’nt written was passed down orally,you base this on the asumption of aposlic sucession,beginning with Peter.However outside of one verse to which you all take out of context,this has yet to be proven.

Most if not all of Catholic teachings hinges on Peter being the fitst Pope,meaning if its not in the scriptures, you can play it off by saying it was given orally,one of the reasons you have for not accepting sola scriptura.

So you make the claim of it being tradition,and again I say,if it goes against scripture,one cannot believe in it.Period!

And N2, you take the authority that Jesus passed on to His Apostles and simply throw it in the trash.

If you, N2, can explain John 20:20-22 by denying that Jesus passed His authority to forgive sins to fallible people, then I’d listen to your reasoning.

You’ve been asked this numerous times before and come back with nothing.

 

[Usagi]

Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor her Protestant daughters represent the true church established by our Messiah.

Um, who does, then? And what were they doing for most of the past 2000 years?

There was a church established at Rome, and Linus {2nd Tim 4:21} (the son of Caractacus) was appointed by the Apostle Paul to be the first Bishop,

Agreed. Linus comes right after Peter on the list of bishops of Rome (popes). It’s entirely possible that there was a local church at Rome before Peter moved there (and history testifies that he certainly did), and that Linus was already its bishop. He would not, of course, have been “successor of Peter” at that time when Peter still lived. Indeed, the situation of the first four bishops of Rome is a bit historically muddled, since they were at some point all alive at the same time. Also, in the very early Church there does not appear to have been a clear distinction between “bishop” and “presbyter,” so all ordained men above the rank of deacon would have been considered bishops, even if there were multiple ones in a city.

Naturally, when Peter came to Rome he would have had seniority as an Apostle, with Linus, Cletus, and Clement as fellow bishops. Peter was martyred first, and so Linus as the likely senior of the remaining bishops would have succeeded him, now taking on the Petrine office as well. Likewise Cletus and Clement in their turn, as each died.

Your statement does not necessarily contradict the Catholic understanding of the line of popes.

and it was not related in any way to the Roman Catholic Church, ever!

That seems … highly unlikely. You are claiming that there was an independent Christian church in Rome throughout all of Christian history, and that we have evidence of this today?

It was called, Basilica Di Pudenziana (also the Palace of the British)."

This is a specific church building, then? I suspect it was not called the Palace of the British in the first century, though a building on that site could certainly be that old.

What is your source for this information? I am intrigued.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

The title of pope, or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas in the year 610 A.D. Jesus did not appoint Peter …"

“Pope” does not mean “universal bishop.” It is a diminutive of “father,” like “papa.”

In the West, it has long been the title for the bishop of Rome in his role as successor of Peter, but the title is not an intrinsic part of the office.

That the word “pope” did not come along until later (though earlier than your sources seem to think) does not mean that the Petrine office came into existence with it.

It’s like saying that people didn’t worship Jesus until whenever that form of the name was first used, instead of “Jesu” or “Iesous” or “Yeshua.” The use of different terminology in different languages does not change the nature of the person or office those terms are referring to.

Usagi

 

[Gamera]

…and again I say,if it goes against scripture,one cannot believe in it.Period!

Catholics agree. Nothing in Apostolic Tradition contradicts Scripture, and since nothing new can ever be added to either Apostolic Tradition or to Scripture, we have assurance that nothing in Apostolic Tradition ever will contradict Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Catholics agree. Nothing in Apostolic Tradition contradicts Scripture, and since nothing new can ever be added to either Apostolic Tradition or to Scripture, we have assurance that nothing in Apostolic Tradition ever will contradict Scripture.

What is Apostolic Tradition? What are examples of it?

 

[Gamera]

What is Apostolic Tradition? What are examples of it?

Apostolic Tradition is the preaching of the Apostles. It is God’s word, not men’s. “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13.

Most of Apostolic Tradition overlaps Scripture (for instance, the accounts of the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus appear both in Scripture and in Tradition). If you mean something which is only in Apostolic Tradition and isn’t in Scripture, the easiest example is the canon of Scripture itself (Scripture doesn’t say which books belong to the Bible – we know which books belong to the Bible from the Apostles’ preaching).

 

[mercygate]

Apostolic Tradition is the preaching of the Apostles. It is God’s word, not men’s. “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13.

Most of Apostolic Tradition overlaps Scripture (for instance, the accounts of the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus appear both in Scripture and in Tradition). If you mean something which is only in Apostolic Tradition and isn’t in Scripture, the easiest example is the canon of Scripture itself (Scripture doesn’t say which books belong to the Bible – we know which books belong to the Bible from the Apostles’ preaching).

Not to quibble, but my guess is that when someone like ja4 says “apostolic tradition” he likely believes that to mean teachings received from the Eleven. Our definition of “Apostolic” is a lot broader, and includes the maturation of our understanding of the deposit of faith over time.

In answering ja4’s question, we should define “teachings of the Apostles themselves” then “teachings of the Church in the Apostolic age,” moving along to "teachings received and practiced in the sub-apostolic age. In Orthodox and Catholic understanding, the word “Apostolic” refers also to teaching as understood and articulated by today’s “Apostolic” Churches. For us Latins, the term “Apostolic” also refers to the magisterial teaching of “the Apostolic See” – Rome.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;4170372]
Originally Posted by Gamera
Apostolic Tradition is the preaching of the Apostles. It is God’s word, not men’s. “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13.

Most of Apostolic Tradition overlaps Scripture (for instance, the accounts of the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus appear both in Scripture and in Tradition). If you mean something which is only in Apostolic Tradition and isn’t in Scripture, the easiest example is the canon of Scripture itself (Scripture doesn’t say which books belong to the Bible – we know which books belong to the Bible from the Apostles’ preaching).

mercygate
Not to quibble, but my guess is that when someone like ja4 says “apostolic tradition” he likely believes that to mean teachings received from the Eleven. Our definition of “Apostolic” is a lot broader, and includes the maturation of our understanding of the deposit of faith over time.

In answering ja4’s question, we should define “teachings of the Apostles themselves” then “teachings of the Church in the Apostolic age,” moving along to "teachings received and practiced in the sub-apostolic age. In Orthodox and Catholic understanding, the word “Apostolic” refers also to teaching as understood and articulated by today’s “Apostolic” Churches. For us Latins, the term “Apostolic” also refers to the magisterial teaching of “the Apostolic See” – Rome.
Thanks for clarifying this. However, since the only thing we know that is inspired-inerrant are the Scriptures. What others taught after the apostles (NT itself) does differ in content at times. Things are being added as time goes on and cannot be truly said to be of Christ or His apostles. This is where problems arise.

 

[LittleDeb]

What is Apostolic Tradition? What are examples of it?

A common teaching for your understanding would be for Jewish converts to only need to worship on Sunday (The Lord’s Day) rather than on the Saturday Sabbath also. In the early Church most Jewish converts celebrated both days. Scripture shows this. What it doesn’t show is at what point in time the Jewish converts stopped observing the Saturday Sabbath in favor of only The Lord’s Day.

At some point in time they stopped, but it is not discussed in Scripture. By those who go Sola Scriptura only the Seventh Day Adventist sect still observes the Saturday Sabbath. By your definitions everyone who has any Judaism in their history, should be celebrating both days since Scripture does not address it.

By Apostolic Tradition we know that the Lord’s Day replaces the Saturday Sabbath, even for Jewish converts. We do not however, have a clear date in which this important distinction happened.

 

[cfrancis]

Thanks for clarifying this. ***However, since the only thing we know that is inspired-inerrant are the Scriptures. ***What others taught after the apostles (NT itself) does differ in content at times. Things are being added as time goes on and cannot be truly said to be of Christ or His apostles. This is where problems arise.

But HOW do you know the NT, for example, is inspired? Only John in Revelation states he was commanded by Jesus to write. What evidence do you have that, say, the Gospel of Mark is inspired?

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;4170372]
Originally Posted by Gamera
Apostolic Tradition is the preaching of the Apostles. It is God’s word, not men’s. “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13.

Most of Apostolic Tradition overlaps Scripture (for instance, the accounts of the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus appear both in Scripture and in Tradition). If you mean something which is only in Apostolic Tradition and isn’t in Scripture, the easiest example is the canon of Scripture itself (Scripture doesn’t say which books belong to the Bible – we know which books belong to the Bible from the Apostles’ preaching).

mercygate
Not to quibble, but my guess is that when someone like ja4 says “apostolic tradition” he likely believes that to mean teachings received from the Eleven. Our definition of “Apostolic” is a lot broader, and includes the maturation of our understanding of the deposit of faith over time.

In answering ja4’s question, we should define “teachings of the Apostles themselves” then “teachings of the Church in the Apostolic age,” moving along to "teachings received and practiced in the sub-apostolic age. In Orthodox and Catholic understanding, the word “Apostolic” refers also to teaching as understood and articulated by today’s “Apostolic” Churches. For us Latins, the term “Apostolic” also refers to the magisterial teaching of “the Apostolic See” – Rome.

Thanks for clarifying this. However, since the only thing we know that is inspired-inerrant are the Scriptures. What others taught after the apostles (NT itself) does differ in content at times. Things are being added as time goes on and cannot be truly said to be of Christ or His apostles. This is where problems arise.Forgive me for not being able to make head or tail of this post; I’m just too distracted today to try to follow the failure of the quote system.

Just a comment to the last bit:

The Apostolic Churches do not consider later clarifications of doctrine to be “additions.” They are not ‘additions’ but rather they represent the guidance of the Holy Spirit fulfilling Our Lord’s promise to guide His Apostles “into all the truth.”

I see this in light of Abraham’s faith. Did Abraham believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Specifically, of course, he did not. But implicitly, he did. He did not NEED to know the details at the time. Similarly, the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Church did not NEED to know how the hypostatic union describes the Person and natures of Jesus Christ. But the Nicene Church did NEED to know that, and was guided in that part of “all the truth.”

It is not a question specifically of what Christ DID teach when he was with us in the flesh but of what Christ DOES teach through the Holy spirit. We believe Him when He says He will be with us “all days” in the Commission to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, and to TEACH.