Where is the spoken word?

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

What were the traditions that were taught? A tradition is something that was passed down. Did these traditions the apostles learned in thier time continue to be trickled down to this day?. Or were there new traditions added on as the rcc became institutionalized?

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). *

 

[1962Missal]

The Didache

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

Hippolytus

“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).

“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

And as for things added as the Catholic Church became “institutionalized” we can see that, considering the last quote, above, the Church had a hierarchical, institutional structure since, at the latest, the time that those who were taught by the Apostles, themselves, were still alive.

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

And as for things added as the Catholic Church became “institutionalized” we can see that, considering the last quote, above, the Church had a hierarchical, institutional structure since, at the latest, the time that those who were taught by the Apostles, themselves, were still alive.

Justin

How about the traditions the apostles taught as they went into the small homes called church? What happened to them. Are they in existence today? Has the church grown so big that they are not feisable today. Im talking about the coming together in worship and praise and song and teachings and prophcies,ect.Im talking about the Holy Spirit being the head.Im talking about the beaking of bread and eating together [meals] Im talking about fellowship. What happened to many of the traditions the apostles held?

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

How about the traditions the apostles taught as they went into the small homes called church? What happened to them. Are they in existence today? Has the church grown so big that they are not feisable today. Im talking about the coming together in worship and praise and song and teachings and prophcies,ect.Im talking about the Holy Spirit being the head.Im talking about the beaking of bread and eating together [meals] Im talking about fellowship. What happened to many of the traditions the apostles held?

And other traditions like:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead

Do these counsels ring a bell? Spokenword, dust off the memory of your childhood. What are these teachings called? Who has maintained these as constant teaching for two thousand years?

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

And other traditions like:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead

Do these counsels ring a bell? Spokenword, dust off the memory of your childhood. What are these teachings called? Who has maintained these as constant teaching for two thousand years?

Justin

Ok ,more teachings than traditions

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

The only way that the pope could be speaking infallible truth is if that truth is revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. Since you admit that the pope is neither a prophet, seer, or revelator, I must question anything he says. The Holy Spirit does not protect the truth, He reveals the truth. If the pope is not receiving revelation by way of the Holy Spirit, there is no guarantee that all the pope says is the infallible truth.

The term “papal infallibility” means exactly what it is as written. He isn’t infallible all the time, implying that he’s infallible just because he’s the pope, he’s infallible some of the time because he’s infallible when he’s acting as the pope. There have to be three things present when the pope makes a statement for it to be infallible.

ONE-It has to be on faith and morals, because in saying what the church teaches, the church teaches faith and morals, nothing else. So if you saw the pope giving a math lesson in St. Peter’s square, and he does something wrong, his papal infalliblity isn’t illigitimate, he wasn’t speaking on faith and morals.
TWO-The pope must be speaking “ex cathedra” meaning “from the chair”, and no, he doesn’t have to be literally speaking from the Chair of St. Peter in St. Peter’s basilica, he doesn’t even have to be sitting in a chair to make an infallible statement. The “chair” that is spoken of means authority, so he speaks from the authority of St. Peter that was given to him by God.
THREE-The statement MUST be a conclusive statement.

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

Ok ,more teachings than traditions

Okay, to break the tension just a little, consider this Catholic trivia from your childhood. What are these teachings called:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead

Note: This is for SPOKENWORD. NOT to put him on the spot; just for old times sake and for fun. :bounce:

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

Okay, to break the tension just a little, consider this Catholic trivia from your childhood. What are these teachings called:

Note: This is for SPOKENWORD. NOT to put him on the spot; just for old times sake and for fun. :bounce:

Justin

Doing these things makes me Christ like.

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by SpokenWord: Maria, Again I dont want to be repeticious but Jesus did say as He spoke to satan .IT IS WRITTEN. Jesus knew the Word of God was written.So why do you have a problem finding it? Where was it WRITTEN? Thats the question.

Justin already answered this and quite well.

That is an excellent proof that God’s Word has a written component. No one can deny that.

It says nothing, whatsoever, however, about the multiplicity of references in the Bible that refer to the spoken Word. Why is the non-written Word discounted by “Bible-believers” when the Bible, itself, speaks so highly, and so frequently, of it?

Justin

QUOTEoriginally posted by Rod of Iron:I prefer to be referred to as a Restoration Saint. You may not be comfortable calling me a saint, even though the Bible refers to the disciples of Jesus and early Christians as saints.

Restoration Saint it will be!

Oringinally posted by Rod of Iron:If the further revelations do not contradict what is in the Bible, your point here is irrelevant. Again, do not assume I believe something, just because Mormons believe it.

Here I have been making an assumption. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired word of God? Do you? Catholics believe all NEW, public Revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle. That is like putting the parts of Buddist or Islamic religion equal to the things I believe were revealed by God. There may be things that are nice and do not contradict Scripture, but that does not make it equal to God’s inspired word. (and did you see, Mormon, I can be taught!)

originally posted by Rod of Iron:But this verse amply implies that the exact same traditions were transmitted to the believers by both word and by epistle, depending upon how the believer was able to be taught.

You cannot examine a document written in another language, and infer this meaning from a document written in English. Even if you could do that, you are taking your beliefs and superimposing them on this verse to make your view fit. I am just taking “what is written”. I do not have to stretch languge to show that there were things written and things taught orally. In Act 20:35 Paul records a statement of Jesus never previously recorded. The last verse of John tells us much of what Jesus did was not written down. And then other verses tell us to hold fast to what was told and written. And then the early writings of church fathers are consistent with Catholic interpretation. There are oral words of God that are different, but consistent with, that which is written.

originally posted by Rod of Iron:Still, it has not been proven that the church spoken about as being the “pillar and foundation of the truth” is indeed the Catholic church. No one here yet has shown me firsthand evidence that Peter passed on authority to a successor. History only assumes that the church mentioned in the Bible is the Catholic church. But it is just an assumption, until proven absolutely true.

Actually a couple times people have posted links to good papers written on Apostolic succession. You have never commented on those papers to show your objections. Our host www.catholic.com has great papers on this very subject. type in Apostolic succession in the search engine of our host and it will take you to the papers others have referred you to.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

The term “papal infallibility” means exactly what it is as written. He isn’t infallible all the time, implying that he’s infallible just because he’s the pope, he’s infallible some of the time because he’s infallible when he’s acting as the pope. There have to be three things present when the pope makes a statement for it to be infallible.

ONE-It has to be on faith and morals, because in saying what the church teaches, the church teaches faith and morals, nothing else. So if you saw the pope giving a math lesson in St. Peter’s square, and he does something wrong, his papal infalliblity isn’t illigitimate, he wasn’t speaking on faith and morals.
TWO-The pope must be speaking “ex cathedra” meaning “from the chair”, and no, he doesn’t have to be literally speaking from the Chair of St. Peter in St. Peter’s basilica, he doesn’t even have to be sitting in a chair to make an infallible statement. The “chair” that is spoken of means authority, so he speaks from the authority of St. Peter that was given to him by God.
THREE-The statement MUST be a conclusive statement.

Where are these three conditions found in the Bible? Where is the idea of speaking “from the chair” found in the Bible?

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

Here I have been making an assumption. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired word of God? Do you?

Yes, I do believe the Book of Mormon is inspired and a sacred book of scripture from God.

MariaG:

Catholics believe all NEW, public Revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle.

Based on what? The Bible? If so, where in the Bible does it tell you that “all new, public revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle”? Catholics can believe whatever they want, but if a concept is not supported by scripture, then the Catholic church must have just created that concept on its own.

MariaG:

That is like putting the parts of Buddist or Islamic religion equal to the things I believe were revealed by God. There may be things that are nice and do not contradict Scripture, but that does not make it equal to God’s inspired word.

That is not a fair comparison. Neither the Buddhist scriptures nor the Islamic scriptures testify of Jesus being God in the flesh or that Jesus is the only way that we can be saved. The Book of Mormon does testify of both these things. If you look at the Book of Mormon, you will find that it very much is a Christian book.

MariaG:

You cannot examine a document written in another language, and infer this meaning from a document written in English. Even if you could do that, you are taking your beliefs and superimposing them on this verse to make your view fit.

How do you figure? I am just reading the verse exactly as it is written. What language should I read this in? A language that I do not understand? Did you not quote the verse from 2 Thessalonians in English? You, on the other hand, are superimposing your beliefs on that verse to make it look as if there were two different sets of traditions. But this is not what that verse says.

MariaG:

I am just taking “what is written”. I do not have to stretch languge to show that there were things written and things taught orally.

But you are indeed doing what you claim that you are not doing. I do not believe you are lying about it. I believe that you do not realize you are doing it.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

In Act 20:35 Paul records a statement of Jesus never previously recorded.

But yet it is recorded in the Bible. Are you now arguing that the written word is only that which is found in the gospels alone, and everything else is part of the oral word, even though more was written down in the New Testament?

MariaG:

The last verse of John tells us much of what Jesus did was not written down.

Yes, there is a good reason that not everything was written down. The reason that is given in that chapter is that Jesus did so much that the world could not contain all the books it everything He did had been written down. This does not mean that everything else He did is written in Sacred Tradition. We know this because Sacred Tradition when written down can very easily be contained in this world. In fact, it probably can be easily contained in a single building, or even a room. Using that same verse, I can easily claim that Jesus came to the Americas as well as other lands and people in this world, and you could not dispute it.

MariaG:

And then other verses tell us to hold fast to what was told and written.

No. It said spoken or written. Are you suggesting that everyone who was taught was taught by speaking and writing?

MariaG:

And then the early writings of church fathers are consistent with Catholic interpretation.

I’m not so sure about that. Perhaps the writings that were perserved by the Catholic church are consistent. But there is no guarantee that all the documents written were preserved by the Catholic church.

MariaG:

There are oral words of God that are different, but consistent with, that which is written.

Not according to what you have shown me from the Bible.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Isnt it amazing that all Jesus had to say to satan was that IT IS WRITTEN and he fled. We have that same authority as christians to fight off satan. We need to have Gods written Word in us .In the name of Jesus every knee will bow and satan has to flee.

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

Where are these three conditions found in the Bible? Where is the idea of speaking “from the chair” found in the Bible?

They are not. It is not. Now, why should they be?

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

Based on what? The Bible? If so, where in the Bible does it tell you that “all new, public revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle”? Catholics can believe whatever they want, but if a concept is not supported by scripture, then the Catholic church must have just created that concept on its own.

Let me get this straight. You don’t believe that public revelation stopped with the death of the last Apostle, but you will accept no evidence for that from a post Apostolic source. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

They are not. It is not. Now, why should they be?

Justin

Jesus will be speaking from the chair when we come to him for final judgement.

 

[1962Missal]

rod of iron:

No. It said spoken or written. Are you suggesting that everyone who was taught was taught by speaking and writing?

I’m sorry but your interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:15 is a novelty of your own invention. It bears no testimony from the early Church. There is nothing to support your interpretation but your own bias.

I’m not so sure about that. Perhaps the writings that were preserved by the Catholic church are consistent. But there is no guarantee that all the documents written were preserved by the Catholic church.

One of the really neat things about the ECF’s is what magnificent polemicists they were. Anything they disagreed with was thoroughly discredited in their writings.

Not according to what you have shown me from the Bible.

But according to what was written by the ECF’s, it is. We don’t go by the Bible alone, here. And we really aren’t called to convince every cynic that accosts us, either. We are called to give a reason for the hope that is in us, and we have charitably done so.

Now, if you can admit that you are in no way giving the Church an impartial hearing, that you are in fact quite antagonistic toward Her, then perhaps you will have said something honest. We have shown the Church’s teachings to be reasonable, internally consistent, and historically established in the early Church, and you have attacked our statements using premises that you assume axiomatically but with which we don’t agree, at all. When we mention the problems we have with your premises, you dance off after another argument.

The plain fact is that you claim to have put yourself in the judges seat, but you act in the role of prosecutor. Ultimately,you have no claim to either position. You are just an inquirer here. But you have no interest in debate in order to reach the truth, you just want to win. Period.

Justin

p.s. You may consider that ad hominem if you wish. I take no interest is further debate with you. Consider this me shaking the dust off my feet.

 

[rod_of_iron]

1962Missal:

Let me get this straight. You don’t believe that public revelation stopped with the death of the last Apostle, but you will accept no evidence for that from a post Apostolic source. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

How can I believe in any post-apostolic sources, when you and the other Catholics have said that public revelation stopped when all the apostles were dead? If there has been no more public revelation since the death of the apostles, then none of the writings of the ECF’s could possibly be revelatory. If any of their writings were based on revelation that they had received from God, I would be more inclined to consider them. But since Catholics have all but said that the writings of the ECF’s are not revelatory, why would I hold them to be at the same spiritual level as the Bible? Doing so is what makes no sense whatsoever.

Jesus established His church while He dwelt upon the Earth. If He does not mention something, we must question whether that something is really part of His church.

 

[rod_of_iron]

1962Missal:

p.s. You may consider that ad hominem if you wish. I take no interest is further debate with you. Consider this me shaking the dust off my feet.

So, you are conceding the argument? Okay. I accept your concession.