The useless Bible?

[tobinatorstark]

Show me where Jesus did not or could not support all that He said with written scripture.
Show me His traditions, and I’ll show you the OT.

I have already provided scripture passages for tradition of Christ (not man)to prove you wrong. You haven’t shown me once that sola scriptura exists in the Bible

 

[wmscott]

Most of what is mentiond is the result IMO of Peter becoming the “rock, Rock” in the complete fullness of Jesus.

I have posted my own comments on the native language that tradition is translated from above, Jesus was not to fond of it, I find it hard to believe that the Apostles used the word in context of some unwritten necessity like Marys office or the sacraments, or Peters power to forgive sins “loosening and binding” The Jews knew. The Bible says this in Mark 2:7 Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
This can be applied to every priest today that has men confess their sins to them to be absolved by their priestly powers. For we are to go to God alone for this.

I have the same problem with Mat 16:18
If you do a word search in your bible for rock, Rock you will not find one reference to this Rock of our salvation as being Peter, only the CC makes that claim and after you have accepted it the only thing that has power is the church. Jesus could just as easily been referring to Himself as the rock that was spoken about in the OT. He certainly wasn’t leaving Peter in charge and stating that by the laying of hands he would transmit this exclusive power to another. But believe what you like or are told. IMO Peter is not the living Rock of the NT.

Yet it was Peter who you claim was the first Pope who said the opposite about baptism.
1 Pet 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
The filth of the flesh is the sin nature. Baptism according to Peter does not remove this, he also calls it an antitype, which is a type of another type. This proves it is a symbol of the real event. It is described as the answer of a good conscience toward God. Not the means of obtaining it.

I would encourage you to compare the original language with the english translation. This is very easy and available at an elementary level with out the need for a 4 year degree. Its unfortunate that the CC forbids this kind of discovery and will simply tell you, its impossible to understand the true meaning in the letter written by Peter. As you know from listening to the catholic church you can’t get to heaven unless Rome oks it.

One last thing Jesus taught that we should forgive our neighbor, when I read threw the official church position I am amazed at the frequent use of the word anathema, does it indicates an unwillingness to forgive. The only act of acceptable forgiveness is bowing to the church.

“As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. ‘Stand up,’ he said, ‘I am only a man myself.’” Acts 10:25-26

Even the Angels dont allow reverence to paid to them.
"I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!” Revelation 19:9

Why not just place the reverence where it belongs in Jesus “alone” He is the author and finisher of our faith.

In essence you are, (Unless you happen to be a linguistics specialist versed in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin), applying you own personal fallible interpretation here and asking me to do the same. What I have provided to you is evidence culminated by the Doctors of the Church, the Early Church Fathers, the Apostles, as commanded by Christ in His own words, from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. What you offer is opinion, and anti-Catholic talking points. With this in mind, who do you say has a better grip on the issues; Me? You? Or the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

 

[wmscott]

Huh!?

Jesus was dead for over three hundred years before the Bible was put together as The Bible.
Jesus was dead for perhaps thirty years before anything at all began to be written by the Apostles.

What did people do for that 30 to 60 year period after Jesus died when there were no new Testament Sacred Scriptures.

How did people ‘get saved’ without reading the Bible. Were they saved by reading the Jewish Scriptures, our Old Testament.

Do we need the New Testament if people were saved by reading the Old Testament.
Well yes! Of course, but we did not always have the New Testament Scriptures.

Jesus did not write one syllable to us Himself. He could have written a world full of perfect texts to us. But instead, what Jesus authored, as superior to a world full of perfect texts, was His Church.

Just what did Jesus leave behind Him when He died if He did not leave any new Scriptures to us?

He left His Church to us.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Not to mention the fact that until the invention of the printing press in the 16th century, only the Catholic Church and a few very rich individuals had a Bible. The rest of civilization had to rely on the Catholic Churches oral teachings. You did not see the masses running around with Bibles tucked under their arms, and if so how many of them could even read?

 

[tobinatorstark]

When you get done reteaching the world how to read give me a call.

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Teaching the doctrines of men as commandments.
Just where does that leave the 7 sacraments?
Out in the cold with Mariology IMO

Not accepting scripture is adding to or taking away the Pharisees were adding.
Im certain they believed that it was inline with scripture though. Just dressing it up a bit so to speak.

Christ instituted the Sacraments. The Eucharist for example was instituted during the Last Supper John 6:53-57. No symbolism there. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church goes well in depth on how Christ instituted the Sacraments in Paragraphs 1108-1130

here is a link and oh yes Scripture passages are included to tell you so.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

The Catholic church doesn’t observe man made traditions such as alter calls and such. We observe traditions of Christ that he handed down to the apostles, hence apostolic tradition. In John 21:25 it boldly states that not every word was written. It calls for sacred tradtions as does 2 Thess 2:14.

 

[ahollars]

The catholic church is no friend of the written word unless its the catechism. I find it unbelievable that the CC today takes credit for the recorded word of God and then professes that only a few in Rome are capable of understanding its meaning .

I still believe that salvation is from hearing the word of God. Before you catholic brothers reference the litteral meaning here and claim that it is speaking of speech alone lest look at the CC statements literally.

There are hundreds of references to this catholic belief. Now add to that your presumed power to hand out grace and forgive sins and you have clearly made yourself God. Who is it in the bible that attempts to place them self in place of the most high? At ever turn the CC claims this position proudly I might add.

Popooing the bible and following tradition is your folly IMO.
The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament, in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references of traditions are from Jesus himself, all of which are unfavorable. Not once does He imply they are spiritually useful. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.” This is what happens when another body of teachings are made equal with what God has spoken. Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all religious traditions. He rebuked the Pharisees not because they didn’t understand tradition, but for not accepting sola Scriptura. They negated the final authority the Word of God by their religious traditions. Their tradition made the word of God to have no effect. (Mk.7) They stopped the people from reading the word and had them obey their traditions instead.

Jesus began His ministry by quoting Scripture And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”(Luke 4:21). Jesus always quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29 32; Mark 7:9,13) Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible and the apostles followed this tradition. They often stated the phrase, “It is written,” (repeated 92 times New Testament), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; Mk. 12:10), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “is it not written in your law?” (Jn.10:34; Lk. 10:25). This clearly shows that the people were able and recommended to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.

The conclusion is you cant be catholic and follow the written word both, the only way that is possible is to let the Vatican interpret scripture for you, and of course thats just what they teach.

Understanding and interpreting are two different things. Anyone who thinks that scripture is open to interpretation does not understand it. There is only one Truth, and everything we do is found in Scripture. You conveniently believe we are the ones misinterpreting. Unless you are an ordained minister, you have no authority to make that decision.

You didn’t answer any of my questions either, because you can’t. Saying we are no friend of Scripture means nothing, because that’s not what I asked you. You are nothing more than an Anti-Catholic with a hatred for the very hand that fed you the very thing which you claim to love so much. The Protestant reformers were wise enough to admit that they must acknowledge that there would be no Scripture without the Catholic Church. The Church brought forth the Bible. The Bible did not bring forth the Church. You are the one who came here with an accusation. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[wmscott]

Understanding and interpreting are two different things. Anyone who thinks that scripture is open to interpretation does not understand it. There is only one Truth, and everything we do is found in Scripture. You conveniently believe we are the ones misinterpreting. Unless you are an ordained minister, you have no authority to make that decision.

You didn’t answer any of my questions either, because you can’t. Saying we are no friend of Scripture means nothing, because that’s not what I asked you. You are nothing more than an Anti-Catholic with a hatred for the very hand that fed you the very thing which you claim to love so much. The Protestant reformers were wise enough to admit that they must acknowledge that there would be no Scripture without the Catholic Church. The Church brought forth the Bible. The Bible did not bring forth the Church. You are the one who came here with an accusation. The burden of proof is on you.

Let us keep in mind that there are legitimate ordained ministers, and then there are those who have been ordained as ministers from the internet for a fee. We do not want to lump the legitimate ministers in with the latter.

 

[Rolltide]

Read Rev CH 12 its pretty clear that the church went under ground, hiding in the wilderness. If you apply 1260 days to the same standard of time measuring outlined in Danial 9, as to the coming of the Messiah we can confirm that a day equals a year. Thats 1260 years the church was hidden from the dragon. You figure the rest out or ask your preacher, he’ll tell you its Mary.

I’m beginning to suspect that JohnOneOne may be one of these fellows that buys into the whole “Trail of Blood” theory…

 

[ahollars]

Let us keep in mind that there are legitimate ordained ministers, and then there are those who have been ordained as ministers from the internet for a fee. We do not want to lump the legitimate ministers in with the latter.

Kudos

Sad as it sounds, that’s actually true in some cases. Kinda like fake diplomas, only faith is more important than education.

 

[John_one_one]

Understanding and interpreting are two different things. Anyone who thinks that scripture is open to interpretation does not understand it. There is only one Truth, and everything we do is found in Scripture. You conveniently believe we are the ones misinterpreting. Unless you are an ordained minister, you have no authority to make that decision.

You didn’t answer any of my questions either, because you can’t. Saying we are no friend of Scripture means nothing, because that’s not what I asked you. You are nothing more than an Anti-Catholic with a hatred for the very hand that fed you the very thing which you claim to love so much. The Protestant reformers were wise enough to admit that they must acknowledge that there would be no Scripture without the Catholic Church. The Church brought forth the Bible. The Bible did not bring forth the Church. You are the one who came here with an accusation. The burden of proof is on you.

Mat 24:32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Taking credit again for what God has already predetermined are we?

 

[John_one_one]

So now Tobinatorstark shouldn’t be interpreting the Bible…

Tobinatorstark is taking simple language and redefining it meaning.
Jesus clearly rebuked them for traditions.

Because clearly baptism and communion are un-Biblical…

The CC teaches thats how you receive the HS, read acts 10:34 - 44 the HS fell on these people and non of them had been baptized

 

[Rolltide]

Mat 24:32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Taking credit again for what God has already predetermined are we?

Not at all. God also predetermined the Church, which was His instrument used to bring forth the canon of the Bible. The Bible is most certainly the inspired Word of God.

 

[Rolltide]

Tobinatorstark is taking simple language and redefining it meaning.
Jesus clearly rebuked them for traditions.

Apparently it’s not that clear, since more than 2/3 of ALL Christians would disagree with your interpretation of that passage. How do I know your interpretation is correct, and why would I agree with a minority opinion? I certainly don’t see it when I read the passage in context.

 

[John_one_one]

Originally Posted by John 1
Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible

I dont know where you got that quote from but I dont remember it, nor can I find it.
If you followed his remarks and my post you would have known I was referring to the OT.
I suspect you rephrased it to make your point. Do you think im so stopid to referance Jesus quoting the NT?

 

[John_one_one]

I have already provided scripture passages for tradition of Christ (not man)to prove you wrong. You haven’t shown me once that sola scriptura exists in the Bible

I suspect I missed them will you repost them or provide a link to the traditions of Christ.
I will be more than happy to provide a comment.

 

[John_one_one]

Not at all. God also predetermined the Church, which was His instrument used to bring forth the canon of the Bible. The Bible is most certainly the inspired Word of God.

The OT also describes God using both the Jews and the Gentile nations “saved and unsaved” to bring about His work for salvation.

 

[ahollars]

Mat 24:32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Taking credit again for what God has already predetermined are we?

Oh yeah, then get passed this…

In fact, Jesus clearly upholds Tradition in the New Testament as we will see, but before we do that, let’s look carefully at the scene that people use as evidence that Jesus is hostile to Tradition.

The entirety of it is that Jesus castigates the Pharisees for their corrupt traditions in a teaching recorded in Mark 7:1-23, and Matthew 15:1-20. The differences between the two accounts of this scene are negligible, and so I will go through the account in Mark:

Mark 7

1
"Now when the Pharisees gathered together to [Jesus], with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
2
they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
3
(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
4
and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)

[Already we see the type of tradition Jesus will be castigating. As Fr. William Most writes in “Commentary on the Gospels: The Thought of St. Matthew,” “Here the Pharisees object that the disciples do not follow the oral law about washing hands. This law was later codified in the Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.), where a whole tractate, yadaim, dealt with washing the hands, and how much water must be used. If a man poured water over one hand with a single rinsing, his hand would be clean, but if he poured it over both hands with a single rinsing, it would be unclean unless he poured much more water (Yadaim 2:1).” There is nothing wrong with “rituals,” of course (a wedding ceremony is a ritual), but the pharisaic laws regarding daily activities had become a kind of neurosis. Fr. William Most also writes, for example, “Thus the schools of Hillel and Shammai [two prominent rabbis] debated: if a hen lays an egg on a feast day, is one permitted to eat it - thus getting the fruit of illicit work. Hillel said no, Shammai said one may eat it.”
Most gives another example: “Again, a group of Essenes in Jerusalem at that time noted the command of Dt. 23:12-14 to build the latrine outside the camp. They said now the camp is Jerusalem. So they built the latrine outside the city, a distance of 3000 cubits, more than one was permitted to walk on the Sabbath! (Cf. BAR Sept-Oct., 1984, p. 45).” To resume the scene:]

5
And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?'
6
And he said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
8
You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men .' [Jesus is not condemning tradition as such, but "tradition of men."]
9
And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! [It is called "your tradition," which had become nonsensical and neurotic.]
10
For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
11
but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) --
12
then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
13
thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.'
14
And he called the people to him again, and said to them, 'Hear me, all of you, and understand:

[Note what Jesus will now emphasize – what is wrong with this corrupt teaching, and He will say nothing about the idea of Tradition itself.]

15
there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.'
16
17
And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
18
And he said to them, 'Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,
19
since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
20
And he said, 'What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.
21
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
22
coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23
All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.'"

[That is how the scene ends, because that was the point of it: not, “Scripture versus Tradition” but “People, listen to reason: it’s not the dirt on the outside that matters but the dirt in the soul.”]

To be continued…

 

[ahollars]

How Jesus Upholds Sacred Tradition

As we saw in a previous answer, the New Testament repeatedly teaches the value of Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; cf. John 20:30; 21:25; Mark 4:33-35; 6:34-35; Luke 24:27-28; Acts 1:3; extra-biblical Tradition alongside Old Testament accounts is used in Jude 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:8; James 5:17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; cf. Matthew 2:23; 23:2-4).

More important in this context, however, many of Jesus’ teachings, too, are based in rabbinic tradition that does not appear in the Bible. Take the golden rule, for example. In Leviticus 19:18 it had the form of “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” but in the Gospels, Jesus teaches it in a different form:

"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."
(Matthew 7:12)

Jesus seems to have taken the form of this teaching from the work of Rabbi Hillel (40 B.C. – 10 A.D.), who taught, “What you do not like should be done to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat 31a, Nahum Norbert Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1966). To teach us, Jesus was free to use whatever sources He wanted, and if He could quote frequently from the Bible - which is the Word of God in the words of men - He could quote a rabbinic tradition like this just as easily. After all, Jesus is God who became man and lived in a place and time with certain true traditions that, as God, He could pick out and use infallibly. Though the golden rule had also appeared in Confucius, Buddhism, Lao-Tze, Hinduism, etc., it did not have so close a form: not only (a) do unto others as they would do unto you, but (b) this sums up the whole Bible. Hillel’s writings were, of course, very respected in the Jewish community, and yet were a tradition apart from the Bible.

There are many other examples of this as well. Dorothy A. Lee is Professor of New Testament at the United Faculty of Theology and Dean of Chapel at Queens College, and the following is from her article published in the Journal of the Australian Council of Christians and Jews, Gesher (Bridge) Nov. 1996:

"Texts such as Hosea 6:6 — 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'— are also found in Rabbinic writings (Matt 9:13). [That is, in Matthew 9:13, the words of Hosea 6:6 are quoted by Jesus, which was a text emphasized in rabbinic writings, and which suggests that tradition can help determine things in the Bible that are to be emphasized -- one of the functions of Tradition in the Catholic faith.] Also important for Matthew is the community's power of 'binding and loosing', a perplexing phrase that is also found in Rabbinic texts (Matt 16:19, 18:18)."

To take another example, according to Father William Most (“Commentary”), the Last Supper, too, probably has a close relationship with rabbinic theology at the time. Most writes,

"Jesus says His blood is poured out for the remission of sins. The wording is reminiscent of the blood of the Sinai covenant sacrifice in Exodus 24:5-8. That blood in Exodus splashed on the people signified that they were becoming as it were blood kinsmen of God. So He would be their goel the next of kin who, within the covenant bond hesed, had both the right and the duty to rescue a kinsman of his who was in dire difficulty. To drink His blood then was to be His kinsman, His brother, by a sort of blood transfusion. The Mishnah, Pesahim 10. 6 (from about 200 AD and so probably reflecting a tradition on hand at the time of Jesus) uses Exodus 24:8 to interpret the Passover wine as a metaphor for blood that seals a covenant between God and His people."

We also should not forget that Jesus wrote nothing down Himself (at least nothing that has come down to us). All his instructions were oral, and would presumably have followed the rabbinic custom of teaching disciples several statements that are committed to memory. Some such body of teachings must have been inculcated when Jesus sent out His disciples to teach during His ministry (e.g., Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-12), as well as when He gave His great commission after the resurrection (Matthew 28:19-20).

Finally, there is Jesus’ famous upholding of the “Chair of Moses” as a teaching authority (at least for the time being), an element of the faith that does not appear in the Bible, but comes from tradition (Matthew 23:2-3).

To summarize, then,

1. The New Testament is filled to overflowing with outright references to the value of Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; cf. John 20:30; 21:25; Mark 4:33-35; 6:34-35; Luke 24:27-28; Acts 1:3; Tradition used in Jude 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:8; James 5:17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; Matthew 2:23)

2. Jesus Himself upholds Tradition, whether in simply calling it authoritative (Matthew 23:2-3; cf. 7:12), using what tradition has emphasized (Matthew 9:13), using the terminology of tradition (Matthew 16:19; 18:18), or in calling a particular tradition worthy of being followed (Matthew 23:23).

3. In castigating the Pharisees' corrupt tradition, Jesus was dealing with regulations that had clearly passed over into neurotic detail (such as not eating a particular egg because the hen had exerted itself on a feast day).

4. Jesus' own promulgation of His teaching would have been oral tradition: in all likelihood based on rabbinic models of memorization.

(Written by Christopher M. Butler)

 

[ahollars]

The Apostles left us the Bible, and also unwritten teachings to help us understand better the sense of the Bible, and we get this sense when we read the writings of the early Christians. We do not just pick one of these writers, but we take them all together, and when they all give the same view of the Bible, then it is like learning about the photo album.

The New Testament speaks often of the value of this Tradition:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

1 Corinthians 11:2
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

Unwritten material was important for understanding the Scriptures, and Tradition gave the early Christians an anchor or a grid in which to interpret the Bible properly, and to keep their footing when heresies emerged. The writers of the New Testament were acutely aware that Jesus taught many things not explicitly contained in the Bible:

John 21:25
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

John 20:30
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book. . .”

Mark 4:33
“With many such parables [Jesus] spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;
34
he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
35
On that day, when evening had come. . .”

Notice how the scene continues on without saying what Jesus’ teachings were. This occurs elsewhere, too (Mark 6:34-35; Luke 24:27-28; Acts 1:3).

In the epistles, Paul often commands his readers to remember what Paul has taught orally, and not just what he wrote down:

2 Timothy 2:2
“. . .and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” [This is exactly the way Tradition works.]

2 Timothy 1:13
“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13
“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.”

Our Protestant friends have different attitudes toward the issue of this unwritten material taught by Jesus and the Apostles. Most often, their concern is that oral tradition is so hazy and changeable that it cannot be trusted. Before I proceed to further arguments, then, for Sacred Traditon alongside the Scriptures, I would like to answer this objection by defining Sacred Tradition clearly, and by showing how Tradition is unchanging.

A chronology:

1. We have two sources of revelation: (a) the written Scriptures that make up the New Testament; (b) The Tradition of Jesus and the Apostles. Together, as one mass of teaching, these comprise what we call "the deposit of faith."

2. When the last Apostle dies, public revelation ends: God has delivered all Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and He will never add to the total again.

3. In the period after the Apostles, we immediately find Christians who demonstrate orthodoxy, holiness, and leadership in the Church, and we call them Church Fathers. In their writings, they adhere to the Bible, and they refer to Tradition, which allows them to read the Scriptures in the sense the authors intended.

A charge is sometimes made that when kids play a game where they whisper a sentence through the whole class, from person to person, the sentence is very different at the end of the process, and it is imagined that this could happen to Sacred Tradition. But this analogy fails for many reasons: (a) it was not whispered secrets, but constant outright teaching to large groups of Christians; (b) the hearers had a concrete testament, the Bible, as the organizing principle for these teachings (that is, they did not just have an oral teaching on, for example, the Eucharist, but an oral teaching on concrete Bible texts on the Eucharist, and so there was a solid "trigger" for remembering what was taught); (c) it was not a kid's game, but the most important aspect of these people's lives, since many of them were martyred based on their belief in the truth of their faith; and (d) the Church Fathers were immediately putting this orthodox sense of the Bible into unchanging form: that is, they were writing it down, and so we have records of what they taught and believed.

Faithful Protestant scholars, such as Dr. Glenn Miller, make a strong case for the veracity of the New Testament by going carefully through the process of Jesus’ oral teaching, to the teachings being written down. Miller points out that if you were taught by a rabbi (which is what Jesus was) back in the first century, you had to memorize the teachings by heart, and there were even severe punishments for changing the content. He also points out the many places in the New Testament where the writers show how concerned they are with being faithful to what Christ taught, and overall, Miller builds a sound case. It would then be extremely awkward, however, for scholars like Miller to maintain that the transmission of oral teachings suddenly collapsed as soon as the New Testament was completed, and that the majority of Christians fell into error about the absolute, central aspects of the faith. This is, however, essentially what you have to do if you deny the unanimous teachings of the early Church Fathers, who start writing the moment the apostolic age ends.

Moreover, we are dependent on the Fathers for many important things. The New Testament manuscripts do not themselves say, for example, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them. Only the Fathers tell us so. Just as God gave us evidence of a faithful transmission of the basic text of the New Testament (in that there is such a huge number of early and matching manuscripts of it dispersed all around the Mediterranean), so God took care in authenticating the authorship. This leads to a related way in which the Fathers are helpful: without them, people could try to claim that the New Testament was written long after Jesus’ lifetime, but the Fathers offer perfectly sound evidence otherwise.

 

[ahollars]

Further Arguments for Sacred Tradition

There’s another way of showing that the Catholic view is correct. The writers of the New Testament themselves also drew upon Sacred Tradition, alongside Scripture. Note that all the following examples come from David Palm’s essay “Oral Tradition in the New Testament” (which first appeared in This Rock magazine, May, 1995).

Tradition in the New Testament

Example One

In Jude 1:9 of the New Testament, we read,

“But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’”

This scene with Moses never appears in the Old Testament. The writer is drawing upon a Tradition (which appears in a work entitled “The Assumption of Moses”). “The Assumption of Moses” was not inspired by God, as all agree, but it contained this true Sacred Tradition.

This process makes perfect sense if you think about how the New Testament was written. Luke says, for example, that he is aware of other reports than his, and that he did extensive research into the Christ-event before he wrote his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). Not every single thing floating around among the people Luke interviewed would have been correct – somewhere, somebody had doubtless gotten something wrong – but Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit only to record what was true. In the same way, when Jude wrote his epistle for the New Testament, he was guided by God to separate the accurate from the inaccurate. (As a matter-of-fact, divine inspiration works even at the level of word-choice: while Luke is writing something, he thinks about writing the word X or Y, and the Holy Spirit guides him into writing Y.)

It might be objected, as we go through more examples of Tradition, that its use in the New Testament was a temporary thing, and once the apostolic age ended, we were meant to use the Bible alone. The writings of the early Christians, however, say exactly the opposite: they repeatedly refer to the role of Tradition (for an off-site collection of the Fathers’ unanimity on this subject, click here). This makes the position of “Bible alone” less and less tenable, since the writers of the New Testament did not hold it, and the Christians after them did not hold it, and the New Testament nowhere teaches it.

At any rate, to return to the use of Tradition by the writers of the New Testament:

Example Two

In 2 Timothy 3:8, Paul gives names for the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharaoh’s court — Jannes and Jambres — but no names are given for these men when the scene appears in the Old Testament (Exodus 7:8ff).

Though Paul is referring to an Old Testament scene, he is not just using the Old Testament. He is using a tradition.

Example Three

In James 5:17 we read,

“Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.”

When we look this scene up in the Old Testament, it says nothing about Elijah praying (1 Kings 17).

James is using a tradition.

Example Four

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, we read about a rock following Moses and the Israelites in the desert. The scene in question, though, in the Old Testament, says nothing about the rock following them around (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13).

It is a tradition.

Example Five

In Matthew 2:23, we read,

“And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

All of the other “fulfillment sayings” in Matthew like this (that is, when something happens, and then Matthew says “and so it was fulfilled”) refer to prophecies in the Old Testament (1:22, 2:15, 4:14-16, etc.), but this particular prophecy does not appear in the Old Testament at all. This extra-biblical tradition, then, clearly has the same authority as Old Testament Scripture.

Example Six

In Matthew 23:2-4, we find Jesus saying an odd thing. His disciples, at least for the time being, have to observe whatever the Pharisees ask of them, even though the Pharisees are very corrupt, as Jesus goes on to describe at length (Matthew 23:5-39). Nevertheless, whatever their private character, the Pharisees have authority because they “sit in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2-3). You will not find any reference to the important teaching office of “Moses’ seat” in the Old Testament. This is because it was a tradition.

To summarize, then, the New Testament repeatedly teaches outright the value of Tradition; the early Christians often referred to such Tradition; Tradition was crucial for ensuring the correct sense of the Scriptures in refuting heresies; Tradition makes sense on the human level, of people who care about a faith and its holy book, passing on what they know about the authors and the book’s meaning; and the writers of the New Testament themselves often drew upon extra-biblical Tradition.

(Written by Christopher M. Butler)

 

[ahollars]

As for the Sacraments…

Baptism
-Matt.3:16 “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.”
-Matt. 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
-Mk 1:8 “I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
-John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”
Confirmation
-John 14:16 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—”
-Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”
-Heb.6:2 “instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”
Eucharist
-Matt.26-29 "26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
-Luke 24:35 “Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.”
-John 6: 51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
-John 6 "53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”
Penance
-Matt. 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
-John 20:21-23 “Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Anointing the Sick (Extreme Unction)
-John 5:14:15 “Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” 15The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.”
-James 5:14 “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
Matrimony
-Matt.19:10-11 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.”
-Eph. 5:31-32 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.”
Holy Orders
-Acts 13:2-3 “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”
-1 Tim. 4:14 “Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.”
-1 Tim. 4:16 “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
There is my answer to the Baptist about the Seven Biblical Sacraments of the Catholic Church. All found in Holy Sacred Scripture, all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.