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

[ryanoneil]

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

One reason: Because the Bible says so.

The prior letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians is equally authoritative and it is not part of the New Testament canon.

1 Cor. 5:9
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,
10
not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.
11
But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.

Paul is appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 1 Cor. 11:2

 

[JLongoria]

Such great apologists here.

Yes, to paraphrase Pixie Dust and Ryan, we’re not missing something here. You are in your rejection of the Apostles’ tradition not recorded in Scripture.

I suggest reading Mark Shea’s book as Pixie pointed out. It’s a great resource for non-Catholics to understand what is actually claimed by Apostolic tradition and succession.

The Arian heresy can’t be refuted by Scripture alone, because if you use a different lens with which to interpret Scripture, you can very safely arrive at the Arian standpoint. The only way the Church could have, and indeed did, shut down the heretical teachings was to stand up in one voice, led by the Holy Spirit, and say, “this is not what the Apostles handed to us!”

Believe me: the early Church fathers were much better interpreters of Scripture than you or I. They knew the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit guided them.

The only reason I can say I believe in something with certainty is not because the Holy Spirit guides me, but rather because He guided the Church first. My beliefs rely not on myself, though with fullness of conscience do I accept them; no, instead it relies on the authority of the Apostles and their successors, who Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead.

“For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands”

2 Timothy 1:6

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree, however, it is not “circular”. The Deposit of Faith was revealed by Jesus, through the Apostles. He is the Cornerstone, and it is His Spirit that gives witness to both the Scripture, and the Tradition.

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.

I agree. And Jesus knew this would happen, and that is why He created a Church, and gave them authority.

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.”

I think both, but we do not place our trust in the fallible man through which the Spirit works. Instead we place our trust in the HS, who is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure. He is able to produce inspired-inerrant scripture through fallible men, and is able to produce and infallible rule of faith through them as well. This is possible because of Who He is, not who we are.

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

Because I have received the paradosis.

I would have to concede to the belief that Mary has already been glorified in heaven and been exalted by God.

You don’t believe that she was exalted when He chose her, and overshadowed her?

. 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.

On the contrary, this is exactly what Jesus said. She was blessed to bear the savior, but EVEN MORE blessed because she heard the word of God and obeyed it.

 

[guanophore]

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 will require more study then. The Arians, just like the JW’s derived their heresy from scripture as well. Heresy can be equally well defended from scripture. Even the devil can use Scripture to his own ends. Of course it matters how!

 

[guanophore]

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

Most of the Scripture was written after the fact. Why do you suppose she was with them in the upper room, and at Pentecost?

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.

It is true that those who reject the paradosis have no access to the remainder of the Apostles teaching. I can understand why you can’t “find” them, since they reside in the Apostlolic Churches that you believe have fallen into error.

 

[po18guy]

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.

OK. So please trust me on this one: The evil one is attacking your faith, as he does with all of us. Many of us have passed through spiritual dryness. But, “those who persevere to the end will be saved”. You’ve lost much of your trust in the Church that Christ founded, and the Church of your youth. This is a spiritual attack. The father of lies has sown the seeds of doubt. If the one Church that traces directly back to Christ is not true, then satan wins. If he convinces you of the same, even if not true, he wins. And, everything you have expressed here is doubt.

Doubt even in Christ in the Eucharist! Martyrs died for it, so strongly they believed. “Consubstantiation” was the evil one’s foot in the door of doubt. I can hear him: “'See? It’s not really changed from bread, but Christ is in there somewhere” This is the diminution of Christ’s presence. It has lead to many Protestants abandoning the Eucharist altogether. Who would cause this doubt? Who causes you to doubt?

Confidence comes from illumination by the Holy Spirit. And, what you see here is that same confidence. Doubt and skepticism come from the evil one. Make no mistake that you are under attack. Judas was motivated by greed, yes, but also by doubt in Christ. Others and I will pray for you, that your faith is restored.

Remember that if you reject Church authority, you begin to reject the bible that the same authority produced. The two cannot be separated, as much as the evil one would like to. Once you reject the authority behind the bible, God’s word becomes twisted, polluted and leads to division. Satan delights in division. He has caused 30,000+ divisions so far.

Luther was not moved by the Holy Spirit to divide the church. The Lord does not work that way. The Lord restores what is corrupt, as He has done in the OT and brought to completion in the NT. Only the Holy Spirit unites. The demon divides.

You’re in my prayers, brother.

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4200365]
justasking4
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.

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

What Sacred Tradition records any words of Christ not written in the NT? Do you have a couple of examples?

 

[Gamera]

What Sacred Tradition records any words of Christ not written in the NT? Do you have a couple of examples?

Again, Sacred Tradition is not just “words of Christ not written in the NT.” Tradition also includes the preaching of the Apostles.

 

[justasking4]

Again, Sacred Tradition is not just “words of Christ not written in the NT.” Tradition also includes the preaching of the Apostles.

Are there any teachings of the Apostles that are not recorded in the Scriptures? If there are what specifically are they and how do you know if they are of the apostles specifically?

 

[Gamera]

Are there any teachings of the Apostles that are not recorded in the Scriptures? If there are what specifically are they and how do you know if they are of the apostles specifically?

The authorship of Mark’s Gospel. Nowhere does the document itself state who authored it, so iits authorship is “not recorded in the Scriptures.” We know Jesus didn’t teach it either, because Mark hadn’t yet written it when Jesus ascended (it records His ascension, Mk 16:19). Yet we know it was taught by the Apostles because the Apostles because the Apostle’s own followers taught it.

 

[guanophore]

Are there any teachings of the Apostles that are not recorded in the Scriptures?

Yes.

If there are what specifically are they and how do you know if they are of the apostles specifically?

They are specifically what has been handed down to us in the Sacred Tradition, and we know they are from the Apostles because they obeyed the commandment to preserve the Traditions, just as they were handed down.

One of these is which collection of books are inspired.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Well, I’m caught up on my reading here, but I’m not going to be able to respond for a while - maybe sometime Monday. But I’ll think on what I’ve read and try to at least read through again tomorrow.

Bless you~

 

[guanophore]

Well, I’m caught up on my reading here, but I’m not going to be able to respond for a while - maybe sometime Monday. But I’ll think on what I’ve read and try to at least read through again tomorrow.

Bless you~

May God richly bless your percolation.

 

[ryanoneil]

Here is another example of Paul appealing to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

**And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. Col. 4:16 **

This verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. The fact is, Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word, because it mandates the use of tradition.

We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. 2 Thess 3:6

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I have a brief minute here but I can’t respond to posts individually as I’d like (not yet anyway).

What I see repeatedly stated here is that we can know there is extra-biblical tradition because tradition says that is how God did it. I see extra-biblical tradition here supporting e.b. tradition. I know there are many referrences to tradition and oral preservation in the Scriptures, but it is still an assumption to believe that those oral teachings and traditions were not preserved in Scripture. You might say I am assuming also when I insist that it was all preserved in Scripture, but what I ALSO see in Scripture are God’s repeated promises to preserve His Word (not referring to Jesus) and the importance of having it dwell in us. Another assumption is that God’s Word is something more than just Scripture, when Scripture itself also says it is sufficient (please don’t enter the material vs formal sufficiency argument - I don’t think it well-supports the CC). Jesus promised His Apostles that He would lead them into all truth, and indeed their teachings were accompanied by great signs. In a sense He also leads His church (through His Word and through our faithfulness to obey it). I see many examples throughout Scripture of how God’s people repeatedly fell into error. I believe it is up to us as individuals to be faithful. I do believe in a visible church (as well as an invisible one, for the faithful don’t come in large numbers - they never have! and it may be hard to find a faithful, visible organization/church).

A quick comment on a few other points.

Eucharistic miracles was mentioned. Firstly, I don’t see any accounts of this miracle in the church portrayed in the Bible. Perhaps there were miracles many years later, but I have seen and heard of many miracles from other beliefs and faiths throughout the world. I don’t believe all miracles are from God.

I simply disagree that Arianism cannot be refuted with Scripture alone. I’m not sure I understand the confusion with this. Jesus’ deity is clear throughout Scripture. I studied with JWs years ago and was actually flabergasted to discover that they reject the deity of Christ as being unbiblical.

As for all of this being a demonic attack: I admit it is possible. I would say the doubting started back about 6 years ago and got progressively worse as I read Scripture. I actually avoided Scripture throught many of those first few years b/c I felt it pulling me away from my much-loved Catholic faith. It’s kind of a long story, but about 3 years later I believed it was God’s will for me to renew Eucharistic devotion in our area and began work on a renewal apostolate with the help of the Franciscan fathers of the Immaculata here. It was then that for the first time in my life I saw John 6 completely differently (not literally). I was shaken and tried getting answers - I even contacted EWTN appologist/priest (can’t remember his name anymore) and got no answers, only accusations of having talked to “heretics”. I held onto my faith despite this, and just weeks later I fell very ill only to discover that I had Celiac Sprue disease. I don’t want to get into the Sprue issue b/c I know there are supposed remedies for gluten intolerance but I will tell you that to date none of the remedies has worked for me. (The wine is contaminated or not offered to me. The low-gluten hosts also make me sick either through contact with the priest or purification of the pyx. Among other problems…). Now, one can look at all this and say “this is obviously a demonic attack”, but I look at it as God’s leading. Since I was unable to receive communion the Bible became my food and now I feast upon that (until/if the day I formally join another church and have gluten-free communion with them…) What I found as I devoured Scripture was a totally different picture of the church - one I had been discovering for those 3 years prior but was afraid to REALLY discover.

Anyway, my time is running out here and it’s Sunday. Have a Blessed Lord’s Day!

 

[guanophore]

I have a brief minute here but I can’t respond to posts individually as I’d like (not yet anyway).

What I see repeatedly stated here is that we can know there is extra-biblical tradition because tradition says that is how God did it. I see extra-biblical tradition here supporting e.b. tradition. I know there are many referrences to tradition and oral preservation in the Scriptures, but it is still an assumption to believe that those oral teachings and traditions were not preserved in Scripture.

It seems that you are ignoring that evidence. Even the post just prior to this one gives several examples of oral tradition not found in scripture. I think it boils down to a trust issue. First, the inability to trust others, but ultimately, the inability to trust God. One has to convict Jesus of being a liar, or a weakling, so that he cannot do what He promised. Or, perhaps the HS a rebellious adolescent? Perhaps the HS was sent by Jesus to lead the Apostles into all truth, but decided not to do the job?

You might say I am assuming also when I insist that it was all preserved in Scripture, but what I ALSO see in Scripture are God’s repeated promises to preserve His Word (not referring to Jesus) and the importance of having it dwell in us.

Yes, assuming in an anti-Catholic mode, one is not sure why…

That indwelling word is part and parcel of the Sacred Tradition. It was from that indwelling word in the believers that the NT was formed. Why would it, for some reason “stop” dwelling in the Church after some of it was written down?

Another assumption is that God’s Word is something more than just Scripture, when Scripture itself also says it is sufficient (please don’t enter the material vs formal sufficiency argument - I don’t think it well-supports the CC). Jesus promised His Apostles that He would lead them into all truth, and indeed their teachings were accompanied by great signs.

If you do not believe that the Word of God is more than scripture, why are you even here?

In a sense He also leads His church (through His Word and through our faithfulness to obey it). I see many examples throughout Scripture of how God’s people repeatedly fell into error. I believe it is up to us as individuals to be faithful. I do believe in a visible church (as well as an invisible one, for the faithful don’t come in large numbers - they never have! and it may be hard to find a faithful, visible organization/church).

I think you are confusing the fallible persons attached to the Body of Christ with the Church herself.

A quick comment on a few other points.

Eucharistic miracles was mentioned. Firstly, I don’t see any accounts of this miracle in the church portrayed in the Bible. Perhaps there were miracles many years later, but I have seen and heard of many miracles from other beliefs and faiths throughout the world. I don’t believe all miracles are from God.

Yes, it does seem like a trust issue.

I simply disagree that Arianism cannot be refuted with Scripture alone. I’m not sure I understand the confusion with this. Jesus’ deity is clear throughout Scripture. I studied with JWs years ago and was actually flabergasted to discover that they reject the deity of Christ as being unbiblical.

I invite you over to the “Is Jesus God” thread. I want to see you try it there. The Arians make a great case for the non-deity of Christ from the Scriptures. You are reading the scriptures with preconceived notions, that is why it is hard for you to accept it.

As for all of this being a demonic attack: I admit it is possible. I would say the doubting started back about 6 years ago and got progressively worse as I read Scripture. Now, one can look at all this and say “this is obviously a demonic attack”, but I look at it as God’s leading. Since I was unable to receive communion the Bible became my food and now I feast upon that (until/if the day I formally join another church and have gluten-free communion with them…)

I don’t doubt that God does allow us to come under attack for the purificaton of our faith. however, it also seems as though you have been asked to sacrifice your Isaac, and it has been difficult to accept. It seems you are willing to give up your Issac, but want to go adopt another one from elsewhere so that you will not suffer the loss.

What I found as I devoured Scripture was a totally different picture of the church - one I had been discovering for those 3 years prior but was afraid to REALLY discover.

I agree that it is difficult to discern the mature tree that we see now from the seed that is in the NT. It took me much study of history to discern that.

 

[Gamera]

…What I see repeatedly stated here is that we can know there is extra-biblical tradition because tradition says that is how God did it. I see extra-biblical tradition here supporting e.b. tradition…

Is that any different than Scripture supporting Scripture? If one believes the Bible because the Bible says to, how is that different than believing Tradition because Tradition says to?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What Sacred Tradition records any words of Christ not written in the NT? Do you have a couple of examples?

Well you seem to have snipped the part of my post that gave examples of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teachings of Christ that were given to the Apostles. Why did you do that?

 

[Gamera]

Well you seem to have snipped the part of my post that gave examples of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teachings of Christ that were given to the Apostles. Why did you do that?

Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching, not just teachings of Christ given to the Apostles. Some truths of faith (notably Mary’s assumption) are part of Tradition yet didn’t happen until after Jesus died, rose and returned to heaven, meaning they were not part of His teaching here on earth.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching, not just teachings of Christ given to the Apostles. Some truths of faith (notably Mary’s assumption) are part of Tradition yet didn’t happen until after Jesus died, rose and returned to heaven, meaning they were not part of His teaching here on earth.

That’s true, but the examples I gave in my post are extra-Biblical Traditions that non-Catholics hold to as well. My point being that extra-Biblical does not = un-Biblical or anti-Biblical.