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

[Gamera]

Church teachings not there from the beginning are:

1. Marian dogmas
2. one supreme ruler over the entire church i.e. a pope recoginized by all churches
3. papal infalliblity
4. celibate leadership

#4 isn’t a teaching. Celibacy among Latin rite priests is just a rule, not a teaching or doctrine. Nobody claims it was there from the beginning, nor is it unchangeable – it can be repealed at any time.

 

[guanophore]

How do you know the tradition came from the Apostles? B/c the church said it did?

Because the HS bore witness to it with signs and miracles.

But b/c the CC has some truth does not mean it doesn’t also have some error.

This is absolutely true, because our separated brethren all adhere to some modicum of the Truth of the Apostles, even though there are gaps and errors present. No, it is the HS preserving the CC from error that makes the Church infallible, not her own claim.

Scripture came from God, through men of the church. The CC at that time recognized it to be from God not b/c it meshed finely with its doctrines of transubstantiation, purgatory, Mary… I’m not trying to insinuate anything by saying this, but even Satan recognizes Scripture.

In truth, it was recognized as scripture because it was in harmony with the Teachings. The standard set up by the Apostles was to reject any “different doctrine” than what they handed down. This standard was used to recognize Scripture.

Many of the doctrines had not yet been developed. When Scriputre was penned, some of the worst heresies had not even emerged yet, so doctrine had yet to be defined. This includes all the Marian doctrines.

And we can argue all day long with how compatible or incompatible Catholic doctrine is. It’s one opinion against another. I do not see it. I do see many clever arguments and philoshophy but it doesn’t justify the contradiction I see with the original records of the Apostles.

I wonder why this is? I used to be the same way…

I was living in mortal sin at the time.

 

[guanophore]

How does one measure the correctness of the successors? Based upon the fact that they were successors?

Yes, that is one way. It is assumed that one who was not authorized to maintain the deposit of faith, and had made no vow to do so, would not necessarily. Each is capable of going his own way.

Their corrrectness is measured against the Deposit of Faith which was entrusted to them. Human beings, even when chosen and annointed by God, are not perfect.

" O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." 1 Tim 6:20

There were beliefs held by the ECF that even the CC does not deny were unorthodox. The successors were imperfect. They were not without error. The best way I know of the measure their correctness is to measure them against the most ancient records of the Apostles as recorded in Scripture. I don’t trust it b/c it can’t doesn’t stand against that doctrine given to us by the authoritative Apostles, as recorded in Scripture.

There are two problems with this method. Although it has merit, our understanding of reading anything that was written depends upon our own perceptions and education (or lack of it) and therefore, it is not so much what we read that is the standard, but ourselves by which we interpret what is read.

The second is that the Sacred Writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced them. Once this is done, all manner of error and division results, even to the point of declaring that there is no trinity, and that Jesus is not God. All these positions are equally well defended from scripture, separated from the Apostles’ teaching.

Again,hat measure will you use to determine it’s correctness? You seem to be basing your faith in the doctrine on the fact that it came soon after the Apostles by those who succeeded them. Succession does not equal correctness. One has only to look to some of the many examples throughout the Bible to see how quickly man falls away from the truth.

A single man, yes. But, God prepared a people of Sacred Tradition for centuries, and taught them to accurately transmit His word to the next generation. He then manifested HImself to the world through this people, so that the skills would be used in the preservation of His word. The truth of the gospel was transmitted not to one person, but to a whole generation, so that nothing would be lost. If you don’t believe that God can preserve his word orally then you have to throw out most of the OT too!

It is an assumption to hold to successorship as being the God-ordained method of preserving the truth.

No,. I don’t think obedience to God’s commandments is assumptive or presumptive,but humility. This is how Jesus set it up, and it is disobedient to fail to follow it.

No doubt there have always been some that have maintained the truth throughout history, but the only way to test who those people were is to measure their beliefs against the original, and the writings of the ECF, although valuable and ancient, are not the most original. Moses submitted to God too, as did Jonah and others, and although we h
old them in high esteem and look to them as examples of obedience and faith, we do not give them the same place Catholics do Mary.

Well, Mary has already been glorified in heaven, and she was chosen by God to be exalted. Is it the place of Mary that makes you think that the Catholic Church does not teach what Jesus taught?

Are you one of those who believes He disrespected His mother?

 

[JLongoria]

How does one measure the correctness of the successors? Based upon the fact that they were successors? There were beliefs held by the ECF that even the CC does not deny were unorthodox. The successors were imperfect. They were not without error. The best way I know of the measure their correctness is to measure them against the most ancient records of the Apostles as recorded in Scripture. I don’t trust it b/c it can’t doesn’t stand against that doctrine given to us by the authoritative Apostles, as recorded in Scripture.

Recorded in Scripture? You seem to forget that there are extra-Biblical sources that claim to have been written by the very Apostles themselves.

And these books completely and utterly oppose the texts we have in the Bible. The Gospel texts we have were written by two Apostles (St. Matthew and St. John) and two hearers (St. Luke and St. Mark); there is also a gospel of St. Peter, but this book very much opposes what is written.

So my question to you is how do you know which books belong, and don’t belong, in Scripture?

Oh, that’s right, you couldn’t know. Instead, you rely on the very same early Church fathers, and the ecumenical councils that they participated in, that you so desperately don’t want to trust.

Again, what measure will you use to determine it’s correctness? You seem to be basing your faith in the doctrine on the fact that it came soon after the Apostles by those who succeeded them. Succession does not equal correctness. One has only to look to some of the many examples throughout the Bible to see how quickly man falls away from the truth. It is an assumption to hold to successorship as being the God-ordained method of preserving the truth. No doubt there have always been some that have maintained the truth throughout history, but the only way to test who those people were is to measure their beliefs against the original, and the writings of the ECF, although valuable and ancient, are not the most original.

No, Apostolic successorship is the method of preserving truth as handed down by the Apostles. Since you probably have yet to read Timothy:

Command and teach these things.

1 Timothy 4:11

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you

1 Timothy 6:20

So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.

2 Timothy 4:1-2
Even now, many Protestant brothers and sisters understand that there is something authentic to Apostolic succession.

They now only dispute who has it. The Catholic Church contends, by the length of her teaching and the complete soundness of doctrine with the teachings of the Apostles, that this is the true Church established by Christ, entrusted to men whom the Holy Spirit would lead until Christ’s glorious return.

The fact that you don’t trust it bears nothing on it as truth, which it rightly is.

Yes, some early Church fathers did err in some teaching and doctrine. St. Augustine had the same idea of “double predestination” as Calvin; Tertullian joined a breakaway sect later in life because he admired their work ethic, and indeed, the list goes on.

Yet the teachings we do accept from them was paradosis that the Church was already handed to the Apostles by Christ. For instance, St. Augustine taught very well on the Trinity, insisting - as the universal, Catholic Church always has - that the Father eternally begets the Son from love since He is love, and that this love is made manifest in the other Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

Just as in the Nicene creed from before St. Augustine’s time: “eternally begotten of the Father”, and on the Holy Spirit, “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. St. Augustine’s teachings don’t go against anything there, do they? No, in fact, they seem to deepen our very meager human appreciation of the Mystery that is God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

When it comes right down to it, we cannot trust individuals. Yet when these individuals are in doctrinal unity with the rest of the Church - and were very rarely refuted - then you really have to go out on a very long, very thin limb to neglect everything, without prejudice, that they taught.

Faith is not opposed to reason. Don’t be silly and just ignore the history of the matter; God has revealed Himself in the history of the Jews, and so too does He reveal Himself in the history of the Church He has instituted for the salvation of mankind.

Moses submitted to God too, as did Jonah and others, and although we hold them in high esteem and look to them as examples of obedience and faith, we do not give them the same place Catholics do Mary.

Indeed we do not. We honor the faith of the Patriarchs and Jewish leaders because theirs was a foreshadowing of things to come. They worked in anticipation of something that they couldn’t quite understand, just as the Blessed Mother did.

Yet the fruit of their womb was not Our Lord and Savior, in full divinity and full humanity; they did not birth the Redeemer who would be counted among sinners in order to fulfill God’s covenant with mankind, the covenant of love.

The obedience of Mary as the Mother of God has tied her intimately with the human race, just as Eve did. Both their actions determined the fate of humanity: Eve’s choice bound us to death, Mary’s loosed us.

 

[po18guy]

Finally done… I can’t believe how easy that was. Unfortunately I had to re-register per the advice of Michael Francis.

Hope this doesn’t confuse anyone.

HEAR YE! JoyToBeCatholic IS NOW WatchfulPilgrim!

I’m all for truth in advertising! Well, you are still here asking questions. That is very good. I might sugest that, in your quest for truth, that you one day consider spending time in Christ’s presence. This occurs in all Catholic parishes, and is known as Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Many conversions have occurred in His presence, as well as other miracles, some of which I have witnessed.

Between Christ and the Holy Spirit, the truth will be revealed to you.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I’m all for truth in advertising! Well, you are still here asking questions. That is very good. I might sugest that, in your quest for truth, that you one day consider spending time in Christ’s presence. This occurs in all Catholic parishes, and is known as Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Many conversions have occurred in His presence, as well as other miracles, some of which I have witnessed.

Between Christ and the Holy Spirit, the truth will be revealed to you.

I used to spend a lot of time in adoration. This is no longer possible for me to do b/c devotion around here has lessened so much. There aren’t many parishes offering it any more and the few that do don’t offer it at a time I can go.

I had many answered prayers in that time of devotion; many “lights”. I can’t say it was a result of adoration or a result of simply taking the time from busy life to spend in quiet before the Lord (present in the eucharist or not - God meets us where we are). Our parish is soon opening an adoration chapel though and I’m not sure what I will do. I don’t know if I can ever go in faith again, and with this level of uncertainty I’m not really comfortable with trying it again. Answered prayer and "light"does not always come from God.

Not ignoring you Guanophore. Your post is going to take me a while to respond to.

 

[guanophore]

I used to spend a lot of time in adoration. This is no longer possible for me to do b/c devotion around here has lessened so much. There aren’t many parishes offering it any more and the few that do don’t offer it at a time I can go.

I had many answered prayers in that time of devotion; many “lights”. I can’t say it was a result of adoration or a result of simply taking the time from busy life to spend in quiet before the Lord (present in the eucharist or not - God meets us where we are). Our parish is soon opening an adoration chapel though and I’m not sure what I will do. I don’t know if I can ever go in faith again, and with this level of uncertainty I’m not really comfortable with trying it again. Answered prayer and "light"does not always come from God.

Not ignoring you Guanophore. Your post is going to take me a while to respond to.

Actually, I think you promised at one point that you were going to ignore me.

I agree with you about how difficult it is to take time from the bizzie for prayer. For that reason, having scheduled times for adoration is helpful for making an appointment for time with the Lord.

Do you imagine that your answered prayer and “light” are not from God? The fact that you are having a faith crisis does not mean it is not a gift from God. Most of the saints went through the same. For some, it is a required part of the journey. Every read Hind’s Feet on High Places?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Because the HS bore witness to it with signs and miracles.

What signs and miracles bore witness to “transubstantiation”? Or purgatory? Or the assumption? The Papacy? However, Mark 16:20 “And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs…”

This is absolutely true, because our separated brethren all adhere to some modicum of the Truth of the Apostles, even though there are gaps and errors present. No, it is the HS preserving the CC from error that makes the Church infallible, not her own claim.

But it is her own claim that the CC is the church the HS is preserving.

In truth, it was recognized as scripture because it was in harmony with the Teachings. The standard set up by the Apostles was to reject any “different doctrine” than what they handed down. This standard was used to recognize Scripture.

And the early church recognized which of those writings were in harmony with the Apostolic doctrines. But again it does not guarantee that there were not erroneous beliefs being held by some in that church at that time. Again, Catholics don’t deny that there was error mixed in, yet they don’t question God’s ability to preserve Scripture through them. The difference is that Catholics believe that there are extra-biblical traditions which exsist and are also preserved by God through them. Since OT times we have God’s promise to preserve His Word. I trust He was able to do that with the NT writings. We differ primarily as to HOW the church was (and is) preserved. The Catholic assumption is that the church is preserved through successorship and its teachings infallible by the work of the HS. Much of non-C belief is that God has and is preserving His church through those in whom God’s Word abides - iow, through those who obey and love and meditate on Scripture. Luke 11:27 “Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it”, John 5:37 “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent…”, And from Jesus’ own words, how we may know who are His disciples (not through successorship) John 8:31 “…**If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples **indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. How do we know someone has continued in God’s Word if they claim God’s Word is continuously being revealed and “evolving”? How is one to determine if their claims are true or not? What measure shall they use? If, as Catholics claim, doctrines of transubstantiation, purgatory, etc. were already universally considered orthodox, Apostolic teachings prior to the church’s declaration of them being so, then that is one thing, but how are we today, 2000 years removed, able to determine the truth of that claim? It isn’t enough to look to the ECF b/c we know they were not without error. Catholics assumes that they were infallible when they spoke ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, but again, this is an assumption. Perhaps the infallibility comes in the form of the Apostolic writings God preserved for us, and through those who adhere closely to those and those alone. (did I just repeat myself?)

Many of the doctrines had not yet been developed. When Scriputre was penned, some of the worst heresies had not even emerged yet, so doctrine had yet to be defined. This includes all the Marian doctrines.

And the church should be the pillar of truth, speaking out against heresies, but how it determines heresy is the question. Just b/c many heresies had not yet emerged before Scripture was penned does not mean the answers to those heresies are not contained within Scripture. I think God had the foresight to give us what was necessary to refute it through His Word. We don’t need anything new or evolving to know how to answer error.

I was living in mortal sin at the time.

Yes, I believe that is why there are many differing interpretations of Scripture. Man tends to read into it what he wants to, to justify his sin. I particularly love Jesus’ parable of the sower in helping to understand this sad fact.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Actually, I think you promised at one point that you were going to ignore me.

True. That was b/c you were name-calling at the time and I saw no point in defending myself.

Btw, I WILL get to answering your post. I didn’t realize there was one before yours and it also took a while to respond to

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Btw, I WILL get to answering your post. I didn’t realize there was one before yours and it also took a while to respond to

Heh, nevermind. I just realized that the post I just answered actually WAS YOURS (one of them anyway…)

Now moving to part 2 of it …

 

[savedsinner]

And the church should be the pillar of truth, speaking out against heresies, but how it determines heresy is the question. Just b/c many heresies had not yet emerged before Scripture was penned does not mean the answers to those heresies are not contained within Scripture. I think God had the foresight to give us what was necessary to refute it through His Word. We don’t need anything new or evolving to know how to answer error.

When the Arian heresy was refuted, do you think that the church used scripture alone to refute it?

 

[guanophore]

What signs and miracles bore witness to “transubstantiation”? Or purgatory? Or the assumption? The Papacy?

Don’t you think that belongs in another thread? It sounds like you don’t believe in Eucharistic miracles…

But it is her own claim that the CC is the church the HS is preserving. And the early church recognized which of those writings were in harmony with the Apostolic doctrines. But again it does not guarantee that there were not erroneous beliefs being held by some in that church at that time.

It is guaranteed. Erroneous beliefs were held, but they were considered heresies and therefore, outside the Church. They were usually held by those who were of the Apostolic faith, then left (fell into error). We read about these in the post Apostolic fathers, as well as in the NT.

Again, Catholics don’t deny that there was error mixed in, yet they don’t question God’s ability to preserve Scripture through them.

This is not true. Error is not “mixed in” with God’s Holy Church.

The difference is that Catholics believe that there are extra-biblical traditions which exsist and are also preserved by God through them. Since OT times we have God’s promise to preserve His Word. I trust He was able to do that with the NT writings.

As do I. I also trust he was able to do this with the Sacred Tradition, in whom He trained His people for millenia. Did you know that the Latin for “tradition” comes from the same root word for “trade”? It is a specialized body of knowledge passed on from person to person. In my part of the country, we have Native Americans who have learned pottery from their ancestors that has been made the same way for 2000+ years since the time of the ancient Anasazi. How do we know? We found the pots in the digs!

Is it any less possible to preserve sacred practices?
On the other hand, the Natives here consider these practices (along with sand painting and weaving) to be sacred, and that is why they are preserved this way. Why is this so hard to believe? Even without the HS, it is done. In China, there are certain persons who are considered “National Treasures” that preserve ancient trades passed on to them through the centuries.

We differ primarily as to HOW the church was (and is) preserved. The Catholic assumption is that the church is preserved through successorship and its teachings infallible by the work of the HS. Luke 11:27 “Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it”, John 5:37 “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent…”, And from Jesus’ own words, how we may know who are His disciples (not through successorship) John 8:31 “…**If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples **indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.

This is not “different” What you have postulated is Catholic. Catholics, however, do not limit the Word to the Scripture. In fact, when Jesus tells them to “continue in my word” not one letter of the NT was yet written, which is how we know He meant His spoken word. The Apostles did not stop continuing in His Word just because some of it was written down.

How do we know someone has continued in God’s Word if they claim God’s Word is continuously being revealed and “evolving”?

Such a statement is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. No wonder you are having trouble being Catholic, if you believe such things! The deposit of faith was made “once for all”. It is not “continually revealed and evolving”. Only our understanding does that.

 

[guanophore]

How is one to determine if their claims are true or not? What measure shall they use? If, as Catholics claim, doctrines of transubstantiation, purgatory, etc. were already universally considered orthodox, Apostolic teachings prior to the church’s declaration of them being so, then that is one thing, but how are we today, 2000 years removed, able to determine the truth of that claim?

I should think that you have no way of knowing. The Apostles taught that one can know through receiving the Teachings. If you can’t do that, then you are in a fix, I should think.

It isn’t enough to look to the ECF b/c we know they were not without error. Catholics assumes that they were infallible when they spoke ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, but again, this is an assumption.

We believe this because of the promises of Christ. If you do not accept His word for it, again, you are in a fix.

Perhaps the infallibility comes in the form of the Apostolic writings God preserved for us, and through those who adhere closely to those and those alone.

No. Infallibility requires elements that Holy Scripture does not. Scripture does not have intellect and will, which are required for infallibility. Scripture, of itself, does not “act” as is required for falliblity.

(did I just repeat myself?) And the church should be the pillar of truth, speaking out against heresies, but how it determines heresy is the question. Just b/c many heresies had not yet emerged before Scripture was penned does not mean the answers to those heresies are not contained within Scripture.

I agree, and that the answers were also contained in the Sacred Tradition. However, the heretics used the scriptures to support their views, just as many do today. That is why refuting them has as much to do with how the scripture is understood as the scripture itself.

I think God had the foresight to give us what was necessary to refute it through His Word. We don’t need anything new or evolving to know how to answer error.

I agree that He left everything that is needed. He gave us the Sacred Scripture, The Church, and the authority to refute heresy. the only thing that evolves is our understanding of those things.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Yes, that is one way. It is assumed that one who was not authorized to maintain the deposit of faith, and had made no vow to do so, would not necessarily. Each is capable of going his own way.

Their corrrectness is measured against the Deposit of Faith which was entrusted to them.

But what Catholics consider the “Deposit of Faith” and what non-Cs consider it are 2 different things! If you believe the deposit of faith is the bible plus their teachings you are using circular reasoning to determine the correctness of their teachings.

Human beings, even when chosen and annointed by God, are not perfect.

Ain’t that the truth…

There are two problems with this method. Although it has merit, our understanding of reading anything that was written depends upon our own perceptions and education (or lack of it) and therefore, it is not so much what we read that is the standard, but ourselves by which we interpret what is read.

Maybe we are getting somewhere here… I think that is the point to the parable of the sower (not pertaining to lack of education). WE are the reason we have differing interpretations. Mark 4:33 “And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it”. I often wonder if it is God’s will that there are different churches with varying levels of understanding and practice when I consider the “as they were able to hear it” part of that verse. Now, is the remedy to trust that (sinful) man has continued to preserve succeeding mens’ ongoing and ever-evolving teachings? Or is the remedy to continually allow God to refine us and enable us to be “able to hear it”? John 8:43 “Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.”

The second is that the Sacred Writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced them.

But again you assume there is some extra-biblical sacred tradition. Why is this?

A single man, yes. But, God prepared a people of Sacred Tradition for centuries, and taught them to accurately transmit His word to the next generation. He then manifested HImself to the world through this people, so that the skills would be used in the preservation of His word. The truth of the gospel was transmitted not to one person, but to a whole generation, so that nothing would be lost. If you don’t believe that God can preserve his word orally then you have to throw out most of the OT too!

Not saying that at all. I think I already addressed that in the first post response to you…

Well, Mary has already been glorified in heaven, and she was chosen by God to be exalted. Is it the place of Mary that makes you think that the Catholic Church does not teach what Jesus taught?

I hardly know how to respond to that b/c I would have to concede to the belief that Mary has already been glorified in heaven and been exalted by God.

Are you one of those who believes He disrespected His mother?

Absolutely not. But I do see that Jesus redirected people’s attention away from Mary, stating that *we are also *blessed when we do the will of the Father. There is not some special measure of blessedness that Mary attains b/c of HER obedience, as unique a situtation as hers was.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

When the Arian heresy was refuted, do you think that the church used scripture alone to refute it?

I don’t know how the church refuted the heresy. It doesn’t really matter today how it did so then. The fact that the church at that time was able to refute it does not mean that it can only be done in the manner which it did. The Arian heresy, IMO, can be refuted with Scripture alone.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Ttyl. I gotta finish up my Saturday duty around here, then I’ll see if I can’t respond to the rest

Peace~

 

[JLongoria]

But what Catholics consider the “Deposit of Faith” and what non-Cs consider it are 2 different things! If you believe the deposit of faith is the bible plus their teachings you are using circular reasoning to determine the correctness of their teachings.

Circular reasoning is thinking that books can be used to interpret other books successfully, and then build a church off of them.

It’s particularly strange when the Apostles had nothing to do with putting the Bible together. It was done by men that their successors appointed hundreds of years after their deaths in Christ; now then, according to your reasoning, why would you trust these men with putting the Bible together, when it so clearly “contradicts” the very things they believed, like transubstantiation, Marian devotion, the Mass, and purgatory?

Don’t pick and choose things you like from their successors, because chances are, if the Holy Spirit preserved the written word of God, He can also do it with the spoken word (of which the Apostles speak very highly of in Timothy and Thessalonians).

When you include Sacred Tradition in the mix, as ex-Evangelical Christian Mark Shea put it, you’ve got “lines”. Lines all the way back to the Apostles in fact.

Whether or not you want to accept those who the Apostles put in place or not, that sounds like a problem you’ve having all on your own. All we know is that, from the biblical text, St. Paul was charging people to teach with his authority, and then charging them to pass that on to “worthy men”; it doesn’t need to be said by the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will be with them, when Jesus already said He would.

 

[justasking4]

JLongoria;4200275]Circular reasoning is thinking that books can be used to interpret other books successfully, and then build a church off of them.

It’s particularly strange when the Apostles had nothing to do with putting the Bible together. It was done by men that their successors appointed hundreds of years after their deaths in Christ; now then, according to your reasoning, why would you trust these men with putting the Bible together, when it so clearly “contradicts” the very things they believed, like transubstantiation, Marian devotion, the Mass, and purgatory?

Are you saying the Apostles were devoted to Mary? If so, where in Scripture this devotion to her?

Don’t pick and choose things you like from their successors, because chances are, if the Holy Spirit preserved the written word of God, He can also do it with the spoken word (of which the Apostles speak very highly of in Timothy and Thessalonians).

Problem here is that there is no record of what this “spoken word” of Jesus or His apostles was. The only thing we have of the teachings of Christ and His apostles can only be found in the Scriptures. There is no other place for them to be found.

When you include Sacred Tradition in the mix, as ex-Evangelical Christian Mark Shea put it, you’ve got “lines”. Lines all the way back to the Apostles in fact.

Whether or not you want to accept those who the Apostles put in place or not, that sounds like a problem you’ve having all on your own. All we know is that, from the biblical text, St. Paul was charging people to teach with his authority, and then charging them to pass that on to “worthy men”; it doesn’t need to be said by the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will be with them, when Jesus already said He would.

Does Mark Shea give any concrete examples of Sacred Tradition that is not recorded in the Scriptures?

 

[savedsinner]

I don’t know how the church refuted the heresy. It doesn’t really matter today how it did so then. The fact that the church at that time was able to refute it does not mean that it can only be done in the manner which it did. The Arian heresy, IMO, can be refuted with Scripture alone.

This seems like an odd response, since you say that you have been questioning the Catholic church over the last three years.
Have you only been questioning, or have you been looking for the answers beyond these forums?

You assume Arianism can be refuted by scritpure alone because you are using the traditions of orthodox Christianity as the lens which through you interpret scripture.

It does matter today how they refuted Arianism back then, because Arianism was using scripture alone as their source of teaching, and rejecting the Apostolic Traditions which had been passed down.

Read St. Vincent of Lerins to understand how the church refuted heresy:

Chapter 27.

What Rule is to be observed in the Interpretation of Scripture.

[70.] But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Are you saying the Apostles were devoted to Mary? If so, where in Scripture this devotion to her?

We know that at least one Apostle, believed (Traditionally) to be John, took her into his own home after Jesus died on the cross. We also see her present in the Upper Room in Acts 1, where she is the only woman mentioned by name.

Problem here is that there is no record of what this “spoken word” of Jesus or His apostles was. The only thing we have of the teachings of Christ and His apostles can only be found in the Scriptures. There is no other place for them to be found.

The only thing you have is Scriptures. We have Sacred Tradition.

Does Mark Shea give any concrete examples of Sacred Tradition that is not recorded in the Scriptures?

The link will take you to an excerpt from Mark Shea’s book, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition Which I highly recommend you read in its entirety. In this chapter he mentions:

• The Sanctity of Human Life
• Condemnation of Polygamy
• The “Trinity”
• The Table of Contents of Sacred Scripture
• Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle