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

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Succession is a very real thing; we see it when Paul sends out Timothy in his stead to the Thessalonians.

But where is the guantee that preservation will come by means of successorship? And what would have been the point of Jesus’ command to guard against error if we would not be able to determine that error (through our supposed inability to understand Scripture - at least what is necessary to understand) or if we were supposed to keep following those who err simply b/c of the office they hold? And then what is the point of showing us in Revelations that even a church established by Christ will fall from His favor? Doesn’t all this point to a different view of “church” for you? It does for me. Doesn’t this point to something other than succession as the means for preservation?

 

[JLongoria]

It would do us well to define some things now.

The Church believes that there are three sources of divine revelation:

1. 
   *]Sacred Scripture
   *]Sacred Tradition
   *]Sacred Magesterium
   
   Sacred Scripture is considered to be the word of God insofar as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We believe that there is no contradictory moral or spiritual teachings within these Sacred Scriptures, and that they faithfully represent truth.
   
   Sacred Tradition is considered to be the word of God in the same way as Sacred Scripture: it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It has been handed to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, and from the Apostles to us.
   
   These two, together - never to be separated - are considered the fidei depositum; they are the spiritual and moral teachings of Christ and the Apostles. In light of one another, they are never contradictory (you all still have yet to give any evidence of contradiction… you all simply keep claiming it), and they represent the fullness of teaching of the Apostles.
   
   Furthermore, they cannot be added to or retracted from.
   
   Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
   
   2 Thess. 2:15
   Now then, the Sacred Magesterium is the teaching office of the Church.
   
   We believe that the Apostles appointed successors with the authority to teach (cf. ALL OF TIMOTHY, TITUS, ACTS… pretty much the whole New Testament), and that these people - always by the power of the Holy Spirit - maintain the deposit of faith and transmit it to the faithful.
   
   Christ Himself promised this much, saying that He would send the spirit to lead the Church.
   
   The Sacred Magesterium, then, interprets and defines for us the deposit of faith. It holds up all things against the light of Scripture and Tradition, and casts out that which is not congruous with it.

 

[JLongoria]

Doesn’t this point to something other than succession as the means for preservation?

Not really. Not one bit, in fact.

Christ does tell us that He will pour out His spirit and that it will lead the Church in to all truth. Yet you are correct: He does not say how it will be done.

Christ handed the Church over to the Apostles, and promised that no matter what, the Spirit would remain with that Church. That is why the Holy Spirit inspired, authoritative Apostles set up successorship.

A reading of the New Testament will give us that much information. St. Paul passed on the faith to Titus and Timothy, and told them to teach what they had heard whether “by oral statement or by letter of ours”.

As Apostolic successors, the bishops absolutely do not make up things; they are only given the authority to teach and interpret Scripture and Tradition (“all scripture is profitable”… “what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses”).

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I just want to point out that you chopped out part of my post here. I said:
“.Peter’s later repented though and was restored when he 3times confessed his love to Jesus.”
in response to: “Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly”
and then : " They erred as humans do, but they didn’t promote error afterwards. They also had not yet received the Holy Spirit."
in response to: " …Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India. "
and THEN I said: “But they would not be handing down the truth as taught to them.”
in response to: “but they are still the children. They don’t cease to be successors because they have not responded to well to the parenting. It is not the parenting that is the error.”

Just wanted to clarify this b/c they way you have all my responses lumped together sounds like I’m saying that Peter and the apostles were not handing down the truth . Surely not your intent, but that’s how it reads (for me anyway)…

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God.

2 Timothy 1:6-8

Welcome to the laying on of hands; a full dose of the Holy Spirit imparted to a believer to give them charge. Christ “breathed” His spirit out upon the Apostles, and now they lay hands upon others and instruct them to teach.

What would you say to that?

He tells him to “stir into flame the gift of God”. I don’t think all who have receive gifts from God know how to stir up this flame and others simply choose not to for some reason. The point being that he is telling him to do something with the gift. The gift doesn’t automatically work in him without his participation.

I’m not following the rest of your post for some reason. I’m not sure it addresses my point in that partilar passage of revelations.

 

[mercygate]

You must assume that Christ is building the church in this way. Secondly, what do you mean by “resiliency of the Holy Spirit”?

The fulfillment of the promise that the Holy Spirit will “guide you into ALL the truth.” People constantly carp that “The Catholic Church thinks it has all the answers.” Heck. So far from having “all the answers,” we don’t even have all the questions.

Discipline and doctrine do go hand in hand. Clerical celibacy models on the example of our Lord and asks that men in Holy Orders give their lives totally to the God.

I really have a problem when people quibble about this one. We have the example of Our Lord himself as THE leader, who is celibate.

 

[justasking4]

The fulfillment of the promise that the Holy Spirit will “guide you into ALL the truth.” People constantly carp that “The Catholic Church thinks it has all the answers.” Heck. So far from having “all the answers,” we don’t even have all the questions.

Discipline and doctrine do go hand in hand. Clerical celibacy models on the example of our Lord and asks that men in Holy Orders give their lives totally to the God.

I really have a problem when people quibble about this one. We have the example of Our Lord himself as THE leader, who is celibate.

I don’t take this as a mere quibble but a fundamental difference between Catholics, Protestants and the Scriptures. This especially has a major impact in the Catholic church itself. Seondly, it shows clearly the church does not follow the Scriptures on this. Even though Jesus was single and Paul may have been they never use this as the criteria for church leadership.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

It would do us well to define some things now.

The Church believes that there are three sources of divine revelation:

1. 
   *]Sacred Scripture
   *]Sacred Tradition
   *]Sacred Magesterium

1. 
   I am familiar with the Catholic teaching on this. I’ve watched Fr. Corapi many times.
   

   Sacred Scripture is considered to be the word of God insofar as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We believe that there is no contradictory moral or spiritual teachings within these Sacred Scriptures, and that they faithfully represent truth.

   Sacred Tradition is considered to be the word of God in the same way as Sacred Scripture: it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It has been handed to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, and from the Apostles to us.

   And likewise, as with Scripture, you believe that there is no contradictory moral or spiritual teaching within that Tradition and that they also faithfully represent truth. Now, I have my reasons for putting my faith in the Scriptures. I can’t seem to follow your reasoning for putting your faith in the Traditions of the CC (but I won’t criticize you for it). But in either case it is a matter of faith. I really believe that is the crux of the whole issue here. And being flawed people, we will never know this side of life if we had put our faith in the right things b/c our reasoning is flawed. I can only trust that I have followed God’s guidance in seeking truth and in essence that is all you can do too.
   

   These two, together - never to be separated - are considered the fidei depositum; they are the spiritual and moral teachings of Christ and the Apostles. In light of one another, they are never contradictory (you all still have yet to give any evidence of contradiction… you all simply keep claiming it)

   That’s b/c it would be exhausting and off topic right here. I’ve addressed individual issues in separate threads over the years. I am very familiar with the Catholic answers to those issues. I’ve even watched several series on EWTN, some on Mary, some on Eucharist, etc… Some are almost convincing, but then I wonder if it isn’t clever philosophy and not necessarily God’s teaching.
   
   As long as I see the contradiction between Scripture and what the CC calls Sacred Tradition I cannot accept them both as being divine.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I don’t take this as a mere quibble but a fundamental difference between Catholics, Protestants and the Scriptures. This especially has a major impact in the Catholic church itself. Seondly, it shows clearly the church does not follow the Scriptures on this. Even though Jesus was single and Paul may have been they never use this as the criteria for church leadership.

May I interject here? Firstly, I think celibacy is a fabulous thing. I think it should be encouraged as Paul obviously favoured it and encouraged it, however, it did not seem (in biblical times) to be encouraged in the clergy of the church or at least certainly not required.

Most importantly though, I am curious why the Catholic church classifies this issue as a “discipline” or “practice” that is changeable. Furthermore, whether or not it is a discipline or practice, should it be changeable if it is clearly in practice and being taught in Scripture? IOW, that was how it was done in the early church. It was an original teaching/discipline/practice. Why does this need to change? What about the future caused the church to decide it needed to be changed? What about “holding fast”? This presents a big problem for me in accepting these claims of extra-biblical traditions and the church having always remained faithful to the original teachings. And this is only one of the many issues I face regarding it.

 

[Gamera]

These passages refer to the replacement of Judas and the qualifications for it is found in Acts 1:21-22 which shows us who would qualify:
21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—
22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

As you can see from this no one today would qualify.

… as an Apostle. Correct. Nobody today would qualify as an apostle because none alive to day saw Jesus before the Ascension.

Bishops are not Apostles. Bishops don’t claim to be Apostles. Bishops are successors to the office of the Apostles. If George W. Bush takes the office of the Presidency which once was held by George Washington, that doesn’t mean Bush is claiming to be George Washington. It just means Bush is filling the office once held by Washington. In the same way, bishops fill the role once held by the Apostles — that doesn’t mean they claim to be Apostles.

 

[Church_Militant]

May I interject here? Firstly, I think celibacy is a fabulous thing. I think it should be encouraged as Paul obviously favoured it and encouraged it, however, it did not seem (in biblical times) to be encouraged in the clergy of the church

or at least certainly not required.Hey WP!

You’re talking through your Biblical hat here friend. You left out the most important advocate of celibacy of all.

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

 

[Michael_Francis]

Over the 1,000 post limit and closed.
MF