Where is the spoken word?

[MariaG]

Curious,

But it is an honest answer. I too continue to search, seek and test. Which is one of the reasons for this thread!

You would be right that Paul’s letters were about things he already taught them. But it still would not explain Jn 21:25 that tells us there is not enough books in the world to hold everything that Christ did. Or that Paul record a saying of Jesus not found in the gospels in Acts 20:35. Until someone can show me a source from the Bible telling me It is all written down now, I have to believe the Catholic teachings on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is the only one to not contradict the Bible. Holding the written word to be the sole authority, above the oral word is not a Biblical teaching I have found anywhere.
God Bless
Maria

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

Did Clement witness Peter passing on the keys to his successor?

He may have. He is listed as fourth Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, St. Linus, and St. Anencletus. Some believe that he was a convert of St. Peter’s.

Can Clement testify firsthand that he saw Peter name his successor and ordain him as such?

No. But as far as direct testimony that the successors of the apostles were endowed with teaching authority and that they were to pass on what they had orally received, with the provision that that transmission of the oral Word be perpetuated, we have 2 Timothy 2:1-2.

This thread is about the orally transmitted Word. The passages cited deal with Apostolic Tradition. The Petrine primacy does not directly bear on this discussion and proper treatment of that subject is not within its scope. Please do not derail this thread. If you want to start another on this subject, please do so.

Justin

 

[rod_of_iron]

1962Missal:

This thread is about the orally transmitted Word. The passages cited deal with Apostolic Tradition. The Petrine primacy does not directly bear on this discussion and proper treatment of that subject is not within its scope. Please do not derail this thread. If you want to start another on this subject, please do so.

How am I trying to derail this thread? It was you who claimed that the spoken word was passed down the line of apostles in post #65. I was trying to ascertain what this line of apostles was and how is such a line proven. If the line cannot be proven, then your statement about the spoken word being passed down the line of apostles must be false. If the spoken word was not passed down this line of apostles, then the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic church cannot be a continuation of the spoken word that Maria originally asked about. I did not ask for a proper or complete treatment of the primacy of Peter, but when you make a statement like you did in post #65, I expect you to be willing to prove your statement is correct.

 

[rod_of_iron]

1962Missal:

He may have. He is listed as fourth Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, St. Linus, and St. Anencletus. Some believe that he was a convert of St. Peter’s.

By saying, “may have”, you are just speculating. Speculation does not prove fact.

1962Missal:

No. But as far as direct testimony that the successors of the apostles were endowed with teaching authority and that they were to pass on what they had orally received, with the provision that that transmission of the oral Word be perpetuated, we have 2 Timothy 2:1-2.

Are you claiming that Timothy was as apostle? Is he part of the line of apostles that you referred to earlier? The verses you quoted do not say anything about apostles or bishops. How can you be so sure that these verses prove that this oral word would be passed down this line of apostles, when no mention of such a line is evident in those verses?

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

How am I trying to derail this thread? It was you who claimed that the spoken word was passed down the line of apostles in post #65.

You are the one who brought up the Keys. That is a symbol of the Petrine office. Not relevant to this topic.

I was trying to ascertain what this line of apostles was and how is such a line proven. If the line cannot be proven, then your statement about the spoken word being passed down the line of apostles must be false.

I am trying to understand why you think there must be documentation for an orally transmitted teaching. Please explain to me why your modern rule that everything be put in writing (and survive for two thousand years) dictates whether something is true or false. If the young Church did not leave us with every decision and action written down, does that make what they did false? I have shown you that the second generation of Christians taught that these truths were received from the Apostles. If you find their testimony unacceptable, then that is your problem. Also, the office of Apostle, per se, was not communicated to the Apostles’ successors. The Bishop’s received the teaching office, not the full apostolic office.

If the spoken word was not passed down this line of apostles, then the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic church cannot be a continuation of the spoken word that Maria originally asked about.

The successors of the Apostles were not themselves Apostles; they were Bishops. The Apostolic Tradition, the spoken Word, was preserved by the successors of the Apostles in unbroken line, but not by a succession of Apostles.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

By saying, “may have”, you are just speculating. Speculation does not prove fact.

I am establishing that Pope St. Clement I was close both in time and location to St. Peter and that his testimony is trustworthy based on his (possibly personal) relationship to St. Peter.

Are you claiming that Timothy was as apostle?

No.

Is he part of the line of apostles that you referred to earlier?

He is part of the line of the successors of the Apostles.

The verses you quoted do not say anything about apostles or bishops. How can you be so sure that these verses prove that this oral word would be passed down this line of apostles, when no mention of such a line is evident in those verses?

We know from Scripture that St. Paul left Timothy to be overseer (Bishop) of the church in Ephesus. Put two and two together. Combine what we know about the commission given by St. Paul to Timothy, as Bishop, to find trustworthy men to learn and to teach after him with the testimony of St. Clement that an organized succession was arranged by the Apostles. Then look to see what other early Christians had to say on the subject.

To be continued:

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

St. Irenaeus, ca. 189 A.D.

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about”

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time”

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?”

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth”

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere”*

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

Cyprian of Carthage, 253 A.D.

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way”

Origen, 225 A.D.

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”

Basil the Great, 375 A.D.

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term”

Epiphanius of Salamis, A.D. 375

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition”

Justin

 

[rod_of_iron]

1962Missal:

I am establishing that Pope St. Clement I was close both in time and location to St. Peter and that his testimony is trustworthy based on his (possibly personal) relationship to St. Peter.

But does Clement ever testify that he witnessed Peter passing on his apostleship to someone else? If so, who did he witness it was passed on to, and where is this testimony written? If this was never written, there’s no real proof that this happened. Surely an event like Peter passing on authority to a successor would have been written down by someone who witnessed the event.

1962Missal:

He is part of the line of the successors of the Apostles.

We know from Scripture that St. Paul left Timothy to be overseer (Bishop) of the church in Ephesus. Put two and two together. Combine what we know about the commission given by St. Paul to Timothy, as Bishop, to find trustworthy men to learn and to teach after him with the testimony of St. Clement that an organized succession was arranged by the Apostles. Then look to see what other early Christians had to say on the subject.

You claim that Timothy was not an apostle. But yet you want me to believe that Paul passed on his apostleship to Timothy, and that Timothy became a bishop, not an apostle. A bishop succeeding an apostle is the same as an orange tree growing from the seed of an apple. The offices of apostle and bishop are as different as apples and oranges, yet both offices are part of the priesthood just like apples and oranges are types of fruit. Jesus never instituted the office of bishop, as far as I can see in the Bible.

If Paul passed authority on to Timothy, yet Timothy did not become an apostle, no apostolic succession exists through Paul.

I still say that if this “spoken word” was important enough to be remembered, it was important enough to be written down somewhere so that it would never be forgotten.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Justin,

I see that in posts #87 and 88, you quote from men who were born too late to have witnessed what happened as the apostles were dying out. Yet you did not quote Clement, who you claim might have been around when Peter passed the authority to his successor. If Clement witnessed this event and wrote it down, where is it written? Can you provide me with a reference to Clement’s testimony of that event?

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

Justin,

I see that in posts #87 and 88, you quote from men who were born too late to have witnessed what happened as the apostles were dying out. Yet you did not quote Clement, who you claim might have been around when Peter passed the authority to his successor. If Clement witnessed this event and wrote it down, where is it written? Can you provide me with a reference to Clement’s testimony of that event?

No. I cannot. But I will not admit it as given that only eyewitness testimony is acceptable evidence. In fact, I ask you why you seem to take it as axiomatic that such evidence is absolutely necessary. To me, the writers quoted above, while not eyewitnesses, are trustworthy witnesses, nonetheless.

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Maria, The Oral Word of God is from any mouth that reads from the bible. Ive spent days trying to find it,like you have and could not find it in the bible. The answer is so simple. The Bible has no voice box.

 

[MariaG]

But the Bible does tell us to hold fast to the oral words and written. This indicates that there were different subjects in the preaching and in the letters. I am not comfortable not following what IS written down for us, by having my own explanation on why I don’t have to follow it. I’ll stick with Scripture.

I’m glad you took time to look for an explanation from Scripture. But maybe now you can understand the frustration of Catholics who are told we have “man-made” doctrines, (referring to our Sacred Tradition which we believe contains those oral words refered to in the Bible so is a Biblical view), yet the people who follow “Bible alone” can not in fact show in Scripture where it tells them to do this, so in fact is a Man-made tradition, nowhere in the Bible at all.

I don’t have a problem with you choosing to follow Bible alone. But the point of this is to make people who do, that they are NOT following Bible alone by this choice. I know many Protestants who acknowledge this fact but say they are not comfortable “opening the door”. You may have to “open the door” but the door had been open for 1500 years and was only closed 1500 years after the fact.

Thank you for taking the time to look:clapping: .
God Bless

p.s. You are correct. The Bible has no voice box. So who did God entrust to be His voice and speak those oral words?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

But the Bible does tell us to hold fast to the oral words and written. This indicates that there were different subjects in the preaching and in the letters. I am not comfortable not following what IS written down for us, by having my own explanation on why I don’t have to follow it. I’ll stick with Scripture.

I’m glad you took time to look for an explanation from Scripture. But maybe now you can understand the frustration of Catholics who are told we have “man-made” doctrines, (referring to our Sacred Tradition which we believe contains those oral words refered to in the Bible so is a Biblical view), yet the people who follow “Bible alone” can not in fact show in Scripture where it tells them to do this, so in fact is a Man-made tradition, nowhere in the Bible at all.

I don’t have a problem with you choosing to follow Bible alone. But the point of this is to make people who do, that they are NOT following Bible alone by this choice. I know many Protestants who acknowledge this fact but say they are not comfortable “opening the door”. You may have to “open the door” but the door had been open for 1500 years and was only closed 1500 years after the fact.

Thank you for taking the time to look:clapping: .
God Bless

p.s. You are correct. The Bible has no voice box. So who did God entrust to be His voice and speak those oral words?

God entusts any Christian with the help of the Holy Spirit to be His voice to speak oral words to His people.

 

[MariaG]

yes, but you are refering to speaking “that which is written”, preaching the written word. Who was entrusted to the Oral words we are to hold fast to? Who was God’s voice for the words that were not written down? (Which brings us back to where are the spoken words!)

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

SPOKENWORD:

God entusts any Christian with the help of the Holy Spirit to be His voice to speak oral words to His people.

In light of the conflicting and contradictory teachings that exist among Christians how can we know which ones are truly speaking with the voice of the holy Spirit?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

MariaG:

yes, but you are refering to speaking “that which is written”, preaching the written word. Who was entrusted to the Oral words we are to hold fast to? Who was God’s voice for the words that were not written down?

According the scripture it’s the Church that’s been given that job (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[SPOKENWORD]

In light of the conflicting and contradictory teachings that exist among Christians how can we know which ones are truly speaking with the voice of the holy Spirit?

THE ONES THAT DO NOT CONTADICT THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. P/S Not yelling just lazy to retype.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
In light of the conflicting and contradictory teachings that exist among Christians how can we know which ones are truly speaking with the voice of the holy Spirit?

SPOKENWORD:

THE ONES THAT DO NOT CONTADICT THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. P/S Not yelling just lazy to retype.

That criterion doesn’t work since all of the people who hold these conflicting and contradictory teachings all believe that theirs is right and the others contradict the “clear” meaning of scripture. Clearly, simply believing that one’s beliefs don’t contradict scripture doesn’t render it so. What else ya got?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Catholic4aReasn:

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
In light of the conflicting and contradictory teachings that exist among Christians how can we know which ones are truly speaking with the voice of the holy Spirit?

That criterion doesn’t work since all of the people who hold these conflicting and contradictory teachings all believe that theirs is right and the others contradict the “clear” meaning of scripture. Clearly, simply believing that one’s beliefs don’t contradict scripture doesn’t render it so. What else ya got?

Its very possible that those who think they are hearing from the Holy Spirit are in error…Satan shows up as an angel of light and sometimes its his spirit.Thats why we need to test it to see if its from God.