Early Christians regarded Tradition as coming from God no less than did Scripture itself. And yet, in the long march of time from those early centuries, many have come to regard Tradition as a foe, as something opposed to Scripture. There is a reasoned case to be made for both views. My question is, which view is correct, and why? The question has two parts, and I am interested to hear answers to either or both.
1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

Please: Kindly support any response you care to share with reasoned support. In other words, please do not simply post dizzying lists of Scriptural passages. For any Scripture you do offer, please provide some explanation of what you take it to be saying and why you take it to say that.

Thank you in advance.

Some traditions are good and some are not
You have to look at the context and the history
Where did it come from
Does it line up with scripture
Is it man's tradition because they believe it will please God

Early Christians regarded Tradition as coming from God no less than did Scripture itself. And yet, in the long march of time from those early centuries, many have come to regard Tradition as a foe, as something opposed to Scripture. There is a reasoned case to be made for both views. My question is, which view is correct, and why? The question has two parts, and I am interested to hear answers to either or both.
1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

Please: Kindly support any response you care to share with reasoned support. In other words, please do not simply post dizzying lists of Scriptural passages. For any Scripture you do offer, please provide some explanation of what you take it to be saying and why you take it to say that.

Thank you in advance.

Can you define what you mean by "Tradition" for me. Is this my tradition of Christmas turkey? Or, is it something different?

JoeT

Perhaps I could have been clearer. We use the word "tradition" in lots of different ways, of course. We have family traditions, cultural traditions, I have my own personal "traditions". We I ask about tradition--hereafter Tradition--I mean to ask about a source of revelation. (Presumably my family's traditions aren't a source of revelation for anybody, not even for me.)

I mean Tradition as a body of teaching handed down from one generation to the next. Early Christians called it the "deposit of faith": A body of teaching--to repeat what I just said--that contains truths in matter of faith.

Does this help at all?

(I'm trying to give a sort of neutral presentation of the idea of Tradition.)

Like NO said, first look at a tradition's context and history --

In a Zen temple, every evening during meditation the temple's cat would screech at the top of its voice, preventing the monks from concentrating. Eventually the Master had to order the cat to be tied and gagged during meditation sessions, and in this way the problem was solved.

Years passed and both the master and the cat died, and a new master was appointed. Then a new cat was found and every evening before the meditation, it was tied and gagged.

Several years later, scholars at the temple wrote treatises about the significance in Buddhist practice of tying up cats.

I heard a story about tradition. The woman always cut her meat in half and baked each half in the oven on different racks.
Her husband one time asked why she did it that way. She said I don't know I will have to ask my mother why she did it that way.
She asked her mom. Her mom replied because the oven was too narrow to put a big roasting pan in it so she had to use two smaller ones.

I heard a story about tradition. The woman always cut her meat in half and baked each half in the oven on different racks.
Her husband one time asked why she did it that way. She said I dunno I will have to ask my mother why she did it that way.
She asked her mom. Her mom replied because the oven was too narrow to put a big roasting pan in it so she had to use two smaller ones.
I've aways folded towels and washcloths exactly as my mother taught me many years ago. I once asked her why those kinds of folds. She replied, "Because then they will fit in the drawer."

Too often that's what happens with church tradition--"we've always done it that way," but no one knows why and there's no mom to ask why.

Wondergirl, N0help4u,

Thanks. Okay, so I think this helps. So what I want to get at is a notion of Tradition as something the goes beyond the examples you've offered. (Though I would like to here more about the Zen one sometime.--No offense, N0help4u, too soon after Thanksgiving for me to even think about turkey yet).

So, back to my original question: What are your views about Tradition in *that* sense?

I think what you are asking about is what the early Church Fathers wrote and taught that was not included in the bible and is referred to as Christian early tradition.
We get that tradition information from still existing documentation.
That does not include later activities such as the CHRISTmas Tree or turkey for CHRISTmas dinner.
Am I right?
Fred

Please name some specific early church traditions that are still kept and help Christians in some way (and how).

Too often that's what happens with church tradition--"we've always done it that way," but no one knows why and there's no mom to ask why.

But, what if the Tradition deals with Scripture? It’s been determined that this particular scripture is intended to be understood a certain way. Do we abandon that meaning just because you don’t know how to fold towels?

JoeT

But, what if the Tradition deals with Scripture? It’s been determined that this particular scripture is intended to be understood a certain way. Do we abandon that meaning just because you don’t know how to fold towels?

JoeT
You missed my point. Please read my subsequent posts.

Fred,

Thanks for helping us get back on track. Yes, I'm asking about something much older than turkey dinners.

Now, on one way of looking at it, the Bible is part of Tradition because it too is something that has been handed down as part of a deposit of faith. On this view, Scripture and Tradition aren't in tension with one another because Scripture is part of Tradition.

Another view holds that although the Bible has been handed down from generation to generation--in the sense that someone had to hand you and me the physical book--there is nothing beyond Scripture that can't be regarded as revelation.

(There are more than just these two views, of course, and I am eager to hear from those who hold a view other than those I have just described.)

Please name some specific early church traditions that are still kept and help Christians in some way (and how).

Wow, that's hard. There are so many. I'll get back in a few minutes with a couple of them.

But, what if the Tradition deals with Scripture? It’s been determined that this particular scripture is intended to be understood a certain way. Do we abandon that meaning just because you don’t know how to fold towels?

JoeT

No the point is the scripture tells you how to and about 'folding the towels' so that is her point if it is a tradition that deals with scripture it IS for a purpose.

To help clear this up here is some early Christian tradition that was posted earlier on a different thread.
<+><+><+>

Originally Posted by De Maria

Believe in Sola Scriptura? No.

Papias

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord's disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).

Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).

Origen

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).

Believe in the Pope? Yes.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret.. . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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 which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19].. . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church".. . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Believe in Faith alone? No.

Clement of Rome

Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words.. . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4 [A.D. 110]).

Theophilus of Antioch

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings, and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither has eye seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries and fornications and homosexuality and avarice and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, and in the end such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycas 1:14 [ca. A.D. 181]).

Clement of Alexandria

When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

Origen

Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

Cyprian

You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).

Believe in prayer to Saints? Yes.

Origen

But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels... as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (On Prayer II [A.D. 233]).

Pectorius

Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ] (Epitaph [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian

Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 252]).

Anonymous

Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins (funerary inscription near St. Sabina's in Rome [A.D. 300]).

Anonymous

Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,

Tradition isn't in the first instance composed of practices. At least, not in the sense of Tradition I'm asking about. (This is good, you're helping me to be more precise.) It's rather a body of teachings. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the words "God is a Trinity", for example, and yet many Christians believe that God is a Trinity. Here we have a doctrine, a teaching which is regarded by many to be part of revelation, and yet is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This isn't to say that it is *opposed* in any way to Scripture; just that it's not to be found there in as many words.

I think this also speaks to Joe's point. For many Christians, Tradition is something which guides their understanding of Scripture. So, for instance, those Christians who believe that God is a Trinity certainly don't take themselves to believe something which is in tension with Scripture; the Tradition, the teaching shows them how to interpret various Scriptural passages in order to see that God is in fact a Trinity.

I hope this helps. Tell me if it doesn't and I'll try again.

Like the tied-up and gagged cat in my story earlier, too often the meaning behind any Tradition (note the capital T, i.e. based on Scripture) has gotten lost in history and is merely a tradition (note the lower-case t). That is, the tradition was established but was never deserving of the capital T (high regard) it was gained over the years.

Wondergirl,

Tradition isn't in the first instance composed of practices. At least, not in the sense of Tradition I'm asking about. (This is good, you're helping me to be more precise.) It's rather a body of teachings. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the words "God is a Trinity", for example, and yet many Christians believe that God is a Trinity. Here we have a doctrine, a teaching which is regarded by many to be part of revelation, and yet is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This isn't to say that it is *opposed* in any way to Scripture; just that it's not to be found there in as many words.

I think this also speaks to Joe's point. For many Christians, Tradition is something which guides their understanding of Scripture. So, for instance, those Christians who believe that God is a Trinity certainly don't take themselves to believe something which is in tension with Scripture; the Tradition, the teaching shows them how to interpret various Scriptural passages in order to see that God is in fact a Trinity.

I hope this helps. Tell me if it doesn't and I'll try again.
So you are calling Tradition the teachings the Church fathers have come up with after studying the Scriptures.

So you are calling Tradition the teachings the Church fathers have come up with after studying the Scriptures.

Not exactly. For those who take this view--and, as I say, I hope we'll hear from and discuss many others--Tradition isn't something necessarily *derived from* Scripture. (Though, they would say, it must not conflict with Scripture.) Tradition, they hold, has been around since before Scripture. The books of the New Testament were written beginning in the middle of the first century. This is when Paul wrote the first of his epistles. The Gospels were written a little bit later. Tradition, on the other hand, has been around since Jesus himself walked and talked and taught his Apostles. They later wrote down what he taught them. But they also taught students of their own, and those students in turn had students, and so on. The NT is relatively short, and not all that Jesus taught is included in its pages. This, at least, is the view.

Early Christians regarded Tradition as coming from God no less than did Scripture itself. And yet, in the long march of time from those early centuries, many have come to regard Tradition as a foe, as something opposed to Scripture. There is a reasoned case to be made for both views. My question is, which view is correct, and why? The question has two parts, and I am interested to hear answers to either or both.
1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?

Not according to Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.


2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

Scripture is the record of the Word of God.
Tradition is the living response to the Word of God.

Tradition is the Church's obedient response to God's Word. It is in Tradition that we do what God commanded and was recorded in Scripture.

Jesus said, "Teach them everything I have commanded" therefore we have the Tradition of the Teaching Church, the Magisterium.

Jesus said, "Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", therefore we have the Tradition of Baptism.

Jesus said, "Do this in memory of Me." Therefore we have the Mass.

Therefore, since Tradition is the Church's response to God's word, we can go back in history and see how the early Church actually responded to the teachings of the Apostles which are recorded in Scripture.

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in the Papacy?

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret.. . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Did the Early Church Father believe in Purgatory?

Clement of Alexandria

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Tradition?

Papias

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).

[B]Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).


Please: Kindly support any response you care to share with reasoned support. In other words, please do not simply post dizzying lists of Scriptural passages. For any Scripture you do offer, please provide some explanation of what you take it to be saying and why you take it to say that.

If I might add, a frequently used metaphor against Tradition is the one of whispering a message around the campfire. Of course, the message eventually becomes distorted.

However, the Catholic doctrine is not Whispering Alone. Therefore, the metaphor doesn't fit. To make the metaphor fit, you would pass a note around along with the whispered message. If the person could not understand the whispered message, he could check the note. For instance, lets say the message was "jump up and down."

The person receiving the message could hear and see the note and then respond to it. When he passed the message, the next person would hardly have to read or hear the message as he could see it in the living response of the messenger.

That is the power of the Catholic doctrine of Scripture and Tradition.

I hope that helps.


Thank you in advance.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Please name some specific early church traditions that are still kept and help Christians in some way (and how).

The Mass - We worship God with one mind and one voice.
The Eucharist - We unite ourselves to God in the most intimate communion possible.
The Magisterium - We evangelize the Word of God throughout the world.
Baptism - New Birth in the Body of Christ.
Confession - Repentance from sin.
Confirmation - Empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
Holy Matrimony - Devotion to one spouse, the image of Christ's love for the Church.
Holy Orders - Devotion to the Church, living out Christ's love for the Church.
Extreme Unction - Healing of Body and healing of soul. Preparation for the next life.
Bible study - Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I've aways folded towels and washcloths exactly as my mother taught me many years ago. I once asked her why those kinds of folds. She replied, "Because then they will fit in the drawer."

Too often that's what happens with church tradition--"we've always done it that way," but no one knows why and there's no mom to ask why.

We consider the Church our Mother. And so far, every time I've asked why of the Church, I've had an answer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Therefore, since Tradition is the Church's response to God's word, we can go back in history and see how the early Church actually responded to the teachings of the Apostles which are recorded in Scripture.


I think it's fair to say that, yes, that helps. I'm confidant that we'll have ample opportunity to take your examples into consideration in detail, but first I have a question (a question I'm sure many who read your post will also have): There were all sorts of traditions in the early Church. We find early Christians teaching and doing all sorts of different things. In virtue of what does any one of these count as a part of Tradition?

Wondergirl,

I think you bring up a good question for anyone who appeals to Tradition: Why do we do that? Why do we believe that?

And, sadly, too often the answer we get in return is the one you describe: We've always done it that way. To an honest question, honestly proffered, this is an unsatisfying response.

And this gets to the issue of the transmission of Tradition: It can't be just a laundry list that gets passed down. Part of what gets passed down has to be a deep understanding of all that is contained within Tradition. Otherwise it isn't really worth much. (I've met too many priests and ministers who've appealed lazily to "it's a mystery" or "it's how we've always done it".)

Wondergirl,
That is not quite the case.
The fact is that the early Church Fathers were not just taught by what Scripture was available but also what they learned from the original apostles and disciples of Jesus.
Scripture itself tells us that much of what Jesus taught and did is not in the bible.
It is from the early Church Fathers' documents what we learn some of that.
Unfortunately much of that which was documented has been long lost.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Unfortunately much of that which was documented has been long lost.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hi Fred,

What you say is important. We have in this century discovered an awful lot of early material that had been lost to history. The Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even our earliest manuscripts of the Bible don't agree with one another: The earliest, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, date from centuries after the books of the NT were actually written. For us, today, there is no NT text that predates the third century.

De Maria,
Very good list.
Our seven sacraments (sacred = something set aside for a special purpose) are a big part of Holy Tradition.
All have a Holy Scriptural base as well as from the Holy Traditional writings of the early Church Fathers.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

My church body has only two sacraments (so named). Some Christian churches have none named, but do the work implicit in the sacrament (confession, confirmation, marriage). Does that matter, their not being called sacraments per se? Does that change their definition and efficacy?

Wondergirl,
In the Catholic Church and others the sacraments are holy from a special point of view and action. They produce or bring grace from God.
In some cases they bring with them forgiveness of sins such as with baptism. Confession, last rights, and the Eucharist.
They are each in their own way miraculous.
Imagine what it is like to have Jesus Christ taken personally within you.
It affects me with Joy, Wonder, a Cleansing, a special Peace, and a great thankfulness.
The body and blood of Jesus does that for a great many people.
It is sad that there are so many Christians who can not experience that.
Communion in many churches is just a symbol of the real thing for only a priest can consecrate the host to have the Holy Spirit make the change from bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,

To address your question in light of the OP (I hope this will be useful to you):

My guess is that the two sacraments are baptism and marriage. As Fred and De Maria have pointed out, Catholics believe in five others. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox mostly agree on this, though they have slightly different views regarding confirmation.

Now you raise the question of efficacy. I mention Catholic and Orthodox views only as a way to relate this to the OP (I don't mean to suggest that they are the only contenders, since, of course, they are not). Part of what it means to say that the sacraments are part of Tradition is to indicate that they are passed down. But from whom to whom? And how? Well, on this view, the authority to perform sacraments was given by Christ to the Apostles. This authority was in turn transmitted, or passed down (you see the connection) from the Apostles to their disciples and so on down to our own time by the laying on of hands. This is what Catholics and Orthodox mean when they talk about apostolic succession: The authority to perfom efficacious sacraments, as well as the authority to legislate in matters of doctrine, has been passed down in an unbroken line from one generation to the next. This transmission, they hold, is a matter not just of practice (doing what others have done before us) but one of spiritual authority. The authority to do these things is also transmitted--along with the practices.

Of course, one can take an entirely different line on Tradition (see the OP). And one can also take a different line on the sacraments and their efficacy by holding, for instance, that to perform sacraments requires no special authority received from Christ and the Apostles for the reason that sacraments are symbolic reenactments of historical events. Baptism, then, would be seen as a symbolic reenactment of an event in the life of Christ, though not necessarily something that conveys grace or a supernatural reality. One might, for instance, hold that baptism is nothing more nor less than a public affirmation of one's faith, a reflection of one's inner transformation rather than itself a transformative event.

This is, obviously, a rather crude overview. But I hope it helps at least a little.

I think it's fair to say that, yes, that helps. I'm confidant that we'll have ample opportunity to take your examples into consideration in detail, but first I have a question (a question I'm sure many who read your post will also have): There were all sorts of traditions in the early Church. We find early Christians teaching and doing all sorts of different things. In virtue of what does any one of these count as a part of Tradition?

Let me dissect your question.


We find early Christians teaching and doing all sorts of different things.

I presume you mean that they do many things which appear to be religious and in response to the Gospel.

That is true. Tradition has always been divided into two categories. Sacred Tradition which is the Word of God passed down by Apostolic Authority through the Church. These are are comprised of doctrines, rituals, rites, and other customs. This is also called Tradition with a capital "T".

And disciplines, and pious devotions which were either commanded, approved or recommended by the Church to encourage and promote the faith amongst the People of God. These are called traditions with a small "t" and are subject to change according to what the Magisterium perceives the Laity needs to encourage faith in God.


In virtue of what does any one of these count as a part of Tradition?

Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

Tradition with a little "t" is based upon the faith of the people and/or Church authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
I agree.
Well said
Well done
Fred

All:

The Church holds that Holy Scriptures are not the sole revelation of God's truth. Christ commissioned His Apostles to teach the Body of Christ (the Church) those things heard directly from Christ as well as those Devine Truths revealed by the Holy Spirit and yet not in Scripture. It's my understanding that others hold that the Bible is the sole theological truth and is open to private interpretation.

This difference became sorely apparent during the Protestant schism. Luther immediately moved to reconstitute the books of the Bible. At the Council of Trent, the Church fell back on its traditions and canonized the scriptures in the form of the Vulgate. These books had been held by the Church to be sacred shortly after being penned, however have never needed to be authenticated . Relying on its tradition of teaching authority, the Council determined which books where cannon, reiterating its authority to interpret certain passages as revealed truth.

Of course other faiths hold that the sole source of faith is found in the bible, which of course can't be scripturally validated. Furthermore, without the Magisterium of the Church there is no assurance of inerrancy of the Bible. As you know many controversies can arise when in Biblical texts that could lead to doctrinal anarchy in effect distorting God's revelation. Consequently the church holds itself as the authority over Biblical controversies. In doing so, it relies on Apostolic Tradition as well as the Scriptures.

Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.


"Scripture, when illuminated by the "Catholic Religion," or the Catholic Religion when fortified by Scripture, may either of them be called the Gospel committed to the Church, dispensed to the individual." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Lecture 11. On Scripture as the Record of Faith

JoeT

JoeT777,
Well said.
Well done.
Fred

All:

Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.

JoeT

Truth of faith rest in Christ. Morals and ethics should be the lamp known as the law. Neither of these can I see leaving us unclear with Christ included. We are all subject to free will because it was given unto us by God. Please explain why you feel differently?

We are told to do the traditions which as DeMaria spoke of as T. Quoted DeMaria: Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And don't forget when Peter and John were told by man of the church not to speak of Christ. So we need to judge whether man has authority or if it is God's authority we follow.
Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Truth of faith rest in Christ. Morals and ethics should be the lamp known as the law. Neither of these can I see leaving us unclear. We are all subject to free will because it was given unto us by God. Please explain why you feel differently?

We are told to do the traditions which as DeMaria spoke of as T. Quoted DeMaria: Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And don't forget when Peter and John were told by man not to speak of Christ. So we need to judge whether man has authority or if it is God's authority we followActs 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

The difference between yours and our understanding of the Word of God is we believe God's authority is passed down through the Church.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation... 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Luke 10 16He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That is true. Tradition has always been divided into two categories. Sacred Tradition which is the Word of God passed down by Apostolic Authority through the Church. These are are comprised of doctrines, rituals, rites, and other customs. This is also called Tradition with a capital "T".

And disciplines, and pious devotions which were either commanded, approved or recommended by the Church to encourage and promote the faith amongst the People of God. These are called traditions with a small "t" and are subject to change according to what the Magisterium perceives the Laity needs to encourage faith in God.



Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

tradition with a little "t" is based upon the faith of the people and/or Church authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It looks, from what you say, like both big- and little-t tradition are understood to be "based on" Church authority. So two questions occur to me off the bat:
1. How are the two discriminated from one another, and what relative authority is to be accorded to each? Are they equally authoritative?
2. What certifies the beliefs and practices contained in tradition in either of these senses? Are we to say that it is the Church? If so, then, since the authority of the Church is contained in Tradition, it looks like we're using Tradition to certify Tradition.

The second question is, of course, one that some have raised as an objection against the Church's view. I'd like to make sure that response is included in the conversation.

All:

The Church holds that Holy Scriptures are not the sole revelation of God’s truth. Christ commissioned His Apostles to teach the Body of Christ (the Church) those things heard directly from Christ as well as those Devine Truths revealed by the Holy Spirit and yet not in Scripture. It’s my understanding that others hold that the Bible is the sole theological truth and is open to private interpretation.

This difference became sorely apparent during the Protestant schism. Luther immediately moved to reconstitute the books of the Bible. At the Council of Trent, the Church fell back on its traditions and canonized the scriptures in the form of the Vulgate. These books had been held by the Church to be sacred shortly after being penned, however have never need to deal directly with their authenticity. Relying on its teaching authority, the Council determined which books where cannon reiterating its authority to interpret certain passages as revealed truth.

Of course other faiths hold that the sole source of faith is found in the bible, which of course can’t be scripturally validated. Furthermore, without the Magisterium of the Church there is no assurance of inerrancy of the Bible. As you know many controversies can arise when in Biblical texts that could lead to doctrinal anarchy in effect distorting God’s revelation. Consequently the church holds itself as the authority over Biblical controversies. In doing so, it relies on Apostolic Tradition as well as the Scriptures.

Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.


"Scripture, when illuminated by the "Catholic Religion," or the Catholic Religion when fortified by Scripture, may either of them be called the Gospel committed to the Church, dispensed to the individual." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Lecture 11. On Scripture as the Record of Faith

JoeT

Joe,

You mention the Reformation, and of course this is where the two views I mention in the OP really come apart. My follow-up, on behalf of those who don't regard Tradition as a source of Revelation, is this: Why suppose that we need Tradition to mediate our understanding of Scripture? The Holy Spirit guides each of us, and so long as we read Scripture faithfully, we do not require Tradition. Since you speak of guidance and subjectivity, I thought perhaps you could expand on your response a bit, in the light of the view I just described. I think this might help to bring into better relief what the alternatives are over which people disagree.

Fred,

Thanks for helping us get back on track. Yes, I'm asking about something much older than turkey dinners.

Now, on one way of looking at it, the Bible is part of Tradition because it too is something that has been handed down as part of a deposit of faith. On this view, Scripture and Tradition aren't in tension with one another because Scripture is part of Tradition.

Excellent point. Strictly speaking, the Bible, the book which contains the OT and NT Scriptures, is a Christian Tradition. Before Christians put the Scriptures together in one book, the Scriptures were passed down as various books.

More than that however, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were derived from Old Testament traditions. Except in the few instances where God literally gave a command to write down a few verses, mainly in the Pentateuch (the first 10 books revealed to Moses), the other OT Scriptures were written by Prophets, Priests or their scribes after they had revealed the spoken word to the people.

And for the most part, the Pentateuch followed the same order. So, Scripture followed preaching.

This is confirmed by St. Peter:

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost inspired men to speak first. Their spoken words were later inscribed in Scripture.

We see the same pattern in the Gospels. Jesus spoke, commanded the establishment of Traditions of worship and commanded the Apostles to teach what He commanded. But Jesus wrote not one letter of Scripture.

And the Church began first to worship and to teach. Then the last Apostle, St. Paul began to write, and then the disciples Mark and Luke wrote the Gospels, then Matthew the Apostle wrote his, and the last books written were by the youngest of the Apostles, St. John. So, the New Testament Scripture can be said to be a product of Tradition.


Another view holds that although the Bible has been handed down from generation to generation--in the sense that someone had to hand you and me the physical book--there is nothing beyond Scripture that can't be regarded as revelation.

That doesn't seem logical to me.

The Word of God says that God is revealed in nature. And this is so. If we look at the grandeur of nature, we see a shadow of God's greatness. We can record this grandeur in a photograph for instance. We can show this record, this memory, to many people who haven't actually seen a natural wonder like Mt. Everest. But the photograph is not Mt. Everest.

In the same way, the Bible is the record of our Faith in God. But it is not Our Faith itself. The Faith is expressed in the living response of the Community of God to His Word. That response is the Sacred Tradition of worshipping God with our heart, mind, body and soul the way God revealed that He wanted to be worshipped.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The difference between yours and our understanding of the Word of God is we believe God's authority is passed down through the Church.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation..... 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Luke 10 16He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well I can see where the authority might be issued to the church to teach everything concerning Chirst, and to enforce the importance of observing Chirst power and authority over us. I understand the words of Christ saying
Matthew 23:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

I do understand the church to be judge first for their work. The churches are listed in Revelation as you know, and it tells of 2 that are doing according to God's plan. I think that notes a warning of importance for us all to consider what it is our church may teach.

But that does not explain why Joe feels we are unclean without the traditions of the church included?

It looks, from what you say, like both big- and little-t tradition are understood to be "based on" Church authority.

Not exactly. They are both based on Christ's authority. Church authority itself is a Tradition established by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ commanded the Church to make disciples of the world.

Matthew 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It is understood that a Teacher has authority over her disciples. The Church uses this authority to establish traditions for discipline and to promote the faith. Sometimes these traditions come from the Church listening to the faithful and their devotional practices. The Rosary is a tradition which came from the faithful and was later approved by the Church.

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In the same statement, Jesus commanded the Church to establish His Traditions. These Traditions are those spoken of with a capital "T".


So two questions occur to me off the bat:
1. How are the two discriminated from one another,

Mainly by catechetical instruction. Many people who are not knowledgeable of the Catholic faith assume for instance that abstinence from meat on Fridays is a Tradition which can't be changed. These people were terribly offended when the Church permitted us to substitute another pious act on Fridays rather than the well known abstinence from red meat.

But that is not the case. Abstinence from meat on Fridays has always simply been a discipline of the Church. It is a tradition with a small t.


and what relative authority is to be accorded to each? Are they equally authoritative?

They come from the same authority. Jesus vested His authority in the Church. Therefore, when traditions are in place, they are to be obeyed.

However, Traditions are much more important and for that reason we can say that they are more authoritative.


2. What certifies the beliefs and practices contained in tradition in either of these senses? Are we to say that it is the Church?

Yes. Jesus vested His authority in the Church.

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


If so, then, since the authority of the Church is contained in Tradition, it looks like we're using Tradition to certify Tradition.

Tradition is just a word. The Church is a living entity comprised of living, breathing servants of God who use their spiritual knowledge of the Word to determine whether something is good or detrimental to the people of God.

The Church is the judge of whether her disciples are observing the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


The second question is, of course, one that some have raised as an objection against the Church's view. I'd like to make sure that response is included in the conversation.

I hope I've addressed that satisfactorily. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Truth of faith rest in Christ. Morals and ethics should be the lamp known as the law. Neither of these can I see leaving us unclear with Christ included. We are all subject to free will because it was given unto us by God. Please explain why you feel differently?

Just to be painfully clear, I'd suggest that Christ is Truth. Our faith in God relate to those truths revealed by God. Faith is both objective and subjective faith and are elements of reasoning. Objective are those truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition, and subjective faith are those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason; “What is faith but belief without seeing?” Faith works through our free will. Morals can have two natures, one of natural law and one of Divine law. While it's within his power to do so, God rarely interferes with free will.

Understood this way you could say that morals and ethics are the lamp of Divine law, as well as natural law. But I've got a funny feeling we're not talking about the same thing.


We are told to do the traditions which as DeMaria spoke of as T. Quoted DeMaria: Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.
Yes T's include the oral instruction of the Apostles not found in Scripture as taught by successors; along with those thing revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium.


We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.



Ok, and? If you are inferring that because these “instructions” are handed down though the ages they are not God's reveal word, you've erred in your judgement.



And don't forget when Peter and John were told by man of the church not to speak of Christ. So we need to judge whether man has authority or if it is God's authority we followActs 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
This gets to the teaching authority of the Church. Yes the Church has authority to teach God's revealed truth, infallibly.

JoeT

1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?
.

I believe reveal truth is through The Holy Spirit whom Our Father of spiritual truth says that Christ also was one with. And tradition such as baptism is commanded by Christ that we observe and do.

However man's traditions should be watched careful. I do offer the following 2 scripture to note my belief.

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

I believe it is important to hear Chirst.. And in doing so knowingly the Holy Spirit is present.


(James 3:2) says that if any man does not offend by what he teaches, it comes from the perfect man that To bridles ones teaching is to walk in the light of Christ, which would be the law. And walk with Christ as One unitied with Him. This is the perfecting of saints that is refer: in [B]Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is above all], and through all, and in you all.

It is important to realize that the Spirit of Truth from Our Father is given unto everyone in grace. Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the [perfecting of the saints], for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

We as fellow Christain must be aware of the importance of warnimg within the scripture. Lack of knowledge can destroy us.

Titus 3:8-11 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We as Christian should watch careful..

~child of God

....
But that does not explain why Joe feels we are unclean without the traditions of the church included?

Unclean? Or unclear?

I think he said unclear. The reason being that the Word of God can be interpreted several ways. But we believe that if we look at the actual response of the Church to the Word of God through the centuries, we will see the way that Jesus intended His Word to be understood.

We as Christian should watch careful..

~child of God


Your call for vigilance is, I think, well taken. Too often people allow themselves to be infantilized. I cannot think of any Christian community that doesn't encourage its members to be educated in the faith. And vigilance is a part of this.

A criticism one often hears of those communities which emphasize Tradition is that it inevitably infantilizes its members. They are, in effect, encouraged to accept whatever they are told without any real critical engagement. The appeal to Tradition appears, to many, to be doctrinaire rather than doctrine: Believe what you are told, because you are told it, otherwise you are a sinner or a heretic. This is a concern I've often heard raised with the first view mentioned in the OP.

I believe reveal truth is through The Holy Spirit whom Our Father of spiritual truth says that Christ also was one with. And tradition such as baptism is commanded by Christ that we observe and do.

However man's traditions should be watched careful. I do offer the following 2 scripture to note my belief.

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

I believe it is important to hear Chirst.. And in doing so knowingly the Holy Spirit is present.


(James 3:2) says that if any man does not offend by what he teaches, it comes from the perfect man that To bridles ones teaching is to walk in the light of Christ, which would be the law. And walk with Christ as One unitied with Him. This is the perfecting of saints that is refer: in [B]Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is above all], and through all, and in you all.

It is important to realize that the Spirit of Truth from Our Father is given unto everyone in grace. Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the [perfecting of the saints], for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.


Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

We as fellow Christain must be aware of the importance of warnimg within the scripture. Lack of knowledge can destroy us.

Titus 3:8-11 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We as Christian should watch careful..

~child of God

As always, your understanding is very close to ours. You are right to be careful, test everything, keep the good.

It seems you are applying the same logic we do. But you start with a different premise.

We believe Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God. Whereas, if I understand you correctly, it seems you believe only Scripture is the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.





Ok, and? If you are inferring that because these “instructions” are handed down though the ages they are not God’s reveal word, you’ve erred in your judgement.


JoeT

I have no idea why you would even suggest this...

But we believe that if we look at the actual response of the Church to the Word of God through the centuries, we will see the way that Jesus intended His Word to be understood.


But why think that? It strikes many as neithr obviously right nor obviously wrong, so perhaps we can try to get the picture into view a little more clearly. Why suppose that understanding Christ's Word is to be had by looking to the Church? After all, there are smart people who aren't Catholic, and they don't obviously have a deficient understanding of Scripture. Some of them have studied it closely. Why, in other words, suppose that we need that authoritative mediation? Why suppose it to be desirable?

All:



Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.

JoeT

OOPS!! RIGHT DEMARIA JOE DID SAY UNCLEAR...
Top line of you quoted statement says without Tradition?

I believe we do need the traditions which Christ commanded we follow.. such as baptism.
So that is what I felt Joe was getting to...

This is the question: ? why Joe would we be unclean without the traditions of the church included?

Top line of you quoted statement says without Tradition?

I believe we do need the traditions which Christ commanded we follow.. such as baptism. Is that what you mean?

If I may speak to this, I think that Joe means to present the Catholic-Orthodox view that without the guidance of Tradition we couldn't have a *clear* understanding of Scripture, since in its absence we would be left with each individual interpreting Scripture and, inevitably, interpreting it differently. On the view to which Joe is sympathetic, there must be an authority which can say which interpretations are correct and which are mistaken, an authority which guides each of us in our understanding of God's word.

Of course, this isn't all Joe is saying in his post. I just want to speak to what looks to me like a miscommunication.

It seems you are applying the same logic we do. But you start with a different premise.

We believe Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God. Whereas, if I understand you correctly, it seems you believe only Scripture is the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

no.. The traditions which Christ told us to follow are clearly baptism, communion, but I do fear the additional man made traditions which you have suggested as the small " t "
These are those I feel will raise as leaven just as Christ spoke of and Paul cautions us.
And I fear these, because man changes the traditions that Christ has commanded. Such as the way some baptize.

Causion.. it's sad to see the need but it does exist.

But why think that? It strikes many as neithr obviously right nor obviously wrong, so perhaps we can try to get the picture into view a little more clearly. Why suppose that understanding Christ's Word is to be had by looking to the Church?

For two reasons:

1. Divine authority, charism. When the Lord gives a mandate, He provides the wherewithal to accomplish it. We see that Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). We believe that means that the Apostles recognize that Jesus has given the Church the charism of infallibility. Therefore, we will always have His guidance through the Church.

2. Because the Church keeps a record of the Traditions. And through an investigation of this record, they can determine how those closest to Christ and the Apostles actually interpreted the Word of God. This gives us assurance that we are either interpreting the Word correctly or reveals that we have taken a new direction which those closest to Christ did not follow.


After all, there are smart people who aren't Catholic, and they don't obviously have a deficient understanding of Scripture. Some of them have studied it closely. Why, in other words, suppose that we need that authoritative mediation? Why suppose it to be desirable?

Because even the most brilliant men are not infallible.

We believe that the gift of infallibility (inerrancy) would have been wasted on the Scriptures, if God had not also anointed an infallible interpreter who could mediate disputes between these Scholars of the Word and determine who is right and who is wrong.

Sincerely,

De Maria

For two reasons:

1. Divine authority, charism. When the Lord gives a mandate, He provides the wherewithal to accomplish it. We see that Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). We believe that means that the Apostles recognize that Jesus has given the Church the charism of infallibility. Therefore, we will always have His guidance through the Church.

2. Because the Church keeps a record of the Traditions. And through an investigation of this record, they can determine how those closest to Christ and the Apostles actually interpreted the Word of God. This gives us assurance that we are either interpreting the Word correctly or reveals that we have taken a new direction which those closest to Christ did not follow.



Because even the most brilliant men are not infallible.

We believe that the gift of infallibility (inerrancy) would have been wasted on the Scriptures, if God had not also anointed an infallible interpreter who could mediate disputes between these Scholars of the Word and determine who is right and who is wrong.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So the authority is, at least in large measure, juridical. It is an authority to *decide*.

Okay, here I think most people agree, to wit, that if this authority exists in the way you describe it is juridical in nature. Where there is considerable controversy, of course, is with regard to the infallibility claim. The Church may be the Body of Christ, but the institutional Church is composed of eminently fallible personages. We even have instances where bishops of Rome taught things that later fell into disfavor (e.g. Novatian). If we grant that an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter, why suppose that infallibility to rest anywhere other than with the Holy Spirit itself guiding individuals? Sure, the individuals may err, but success is never guaranteed anyway. And why, in particular, suppose that infallibility to reside with the bishop of Rome (as opposed to say the bishop of Constantinople, or the bishop of Canterbury, or with Deepak Chopra, while we're at it). It looks to a lot of people who advocate for the second position described in the OP like we just have to take Rome's word for it.

(I'm trying to keep both sides of the OP alive here!)

Causion.. it's sad to see the need but it does exist.

No doubt. And you do well. You are indeed a Berean in Spirit.


no.. The traditions which Christ told us to follow are clearly baptism, communion, but I do fear the additional man made traditions which you have suggested as the small " t "
These are those I feel will raise as leaven just as Christ spoke of and Paul cautions us.
And I fear these, because man changes the traditions that Christ has commanded. Such as the way some baptize.

No doubt. It is proven historically.

For example. Fat Tuesday is a Catholic "tradition". It is not one instituted by the Church but it does not violate any Commandments so the Church permits the laity to celebrate before the forty day fast.

The secular world has turned that into Mardi Gras. No need to go into detail about the excesses which occur in that celebration throughout the world.

Another example is Halloween. That is Catholic "Tradition". It is our celebration of the Saints. Halloween comes from the Old English word for All Hallows Eve. On that night, faithful Catholics celebrate the departure of Satan and his Demons because "The Saints come marching in". We do this by thanking God in the Mass and with separate fesitivities at home and with our neighbors.

In non-Catholic countries, like the United States, where the people don't understand the significance of the masks and the costumes and the parties, secular people have turned that celebration into a celebration of evil.

So, you are right to be concerned.

But, Jesus teaches us that "fear is useless".

Mark 5:36As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.

And also:

Matthew 11:18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Therefore, the Church is not afraid to celebrate our love for God. We know full well that anything we say or do will be turned against God by His enemies. But that shouldn't keep us from being a light to the world. We can't put our light under a bushel basket. We can't let the world keep us from showing our faith and our joy in God.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't intend to change your attitude. I'm just explaining ours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

those Christians who believe that God is a Trinity certainly don't take themselves to believe something which is in tension with Scripture; the Tradition, the teaching shows them how to interpret various Scriptural passages in order to see that God is in fact a Trinity.

Ok, so what about those Christians do not come to that same conclusion. They too provide "tradition" as proof that a Trinity is not a concept found in the bible and that God is in fact one God, not a Trinity. So who is right? Those who stick to the bible or those who add to it?
2 John vs 9 "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God."
God does not take kindly to those who add or take away from his words. Prov 30:6 "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."
I personally see this concept (Trinity) simply as a man made tradition, not divine. Why? Because it doesn't match with the what the bible teaches and history shows that triune Gods began in Babel as did most other false religions. Just my own thoughts on the subject.

Aloue,
You mentioned that the Holy Spirit guides each of us as long as we read Scripture faithfully.
That caused a question to pop into my head.
What about those who claim to read scripture faithfull but come up with various wrong beliefs such as there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others??
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.
Is that proof the they are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it that their personal interpretation of Scripture over rides what the Holy Spirit is tying to guide them or something else?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So, you are right to be concerned.

But, Jesus teaches us that "fear is useless".

True , The LORD, will be with thee, He will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.






Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't intend to change your attitude. I'm just explaining ours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Accepted as evident from and to both of us.

there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others??
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.

Exactly, and Christmas and birthdays and Easter and modern-day speaking in tongues etc etc.

So the authority is, at least in large measure, juridical. Okay, here I think most people agree, to wit, that if this authority exists in the way you describe it is juridical in nature.

I would say, "the authority is in part, juridical.

Judgement is just one facet of the authority imparted to the Church by Jesus Christ. There is also worship, blessing, preaching, teaching, healing, ministering, and everything which Jesus attended to when He was walking the earth. We, the Church, are after all, the body of Christ. And we go about our Lord's business.


It is an authority to *decide*.

Yes. Where there is dispute or uncertainty.


Where there is considerable controversy, of course, is with regard to the infallibility claim. The Church may be the Body of Christ, but the institutional Church is composed of eminently fallible personages. We even have instances where bishops of Rome taught things that later fell into disfavor (e.g. Novatian). If we grant that an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter, why suppose that infallibility to rest anywhere other than with the Holy Spirit itself guiding individuals?

I can only answer for myself.

1. I believe 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is infallible.
2. I do not believe Jesus would give the Church the power to excommunicate unless the Church were infallible (Matt 18:17). Otherwise, innocent people could be condemned to life without the Sacraments and thus without access to God's grace.
3. I believe Jesus appointed Simon His representative. Therefore, Simon, renamed Peter, has been granted infallibility by Christ because of the dignity of His office. Because of Christ's glory. For the sake of brevity, please see this reference:
Simon you are god? - Catholic Wiki (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/wiki/index.php?title=Simon_you_are_god%3F)

4. Jesus said He would always be with His Church (Matt 28:20).
5. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remain with the Church forever (John 14:16).
6. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would remind the Church of all He taught (John 14:26).
7. And it seems logical and necessary to me that an infallible document needs an infallible interpreter. The transmission of the message is only have the issue. The reception is the completion of the task. If the one receiving can misunderstand the message, then the message is lost. I don't think Jesus would permit that.


Sure, the individuals may err, but success is never guaranteed anyway. And why, in particular, suppose that infallibility to reside with the bishop of Rome (as opposed to say the bishop of Constantinople, or the bishop of Canterbury, or with Deepak Chopra, while we're at it). It looks to a lot of people who advocate for the second position described in the OP like we just have to take Rome's word for it.

Oops. I answered that above. #3.


(I'm trying to keep both sides of the OP alive here!)

You're doing a good job. These are thought provoking questions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ok, so what about those Christians do not come to that same conclusion.

First we must be faithful to our own conscience. If in fact one can't comprehend or believe the Trinity then there is little anyone can do but present the evidence for the Trinity. In the end, all we do is plant and water, God provides the growth.


They too provide "tradition" as proof that a Trinity is not a concept found in the bible and that God is in fact one God, not a Trinity. So who is right? Those who stick to the bible or those who add to it?
2 John vs 9 "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God."
God does not take kindly to those who add or take away from his words. Prov 30:6 "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."
I personally see this concept (Trinity) simply as a man made tradition, not divine. Why? Because it doesn't match with the what the bible teaches and history shows that triune Gods began in Babel as did most other false religions. Just my own thoughts on the subject.

In order not to derail this thread, why not open another thread on the question of the Trinity and we can all give our reasons we do or why we don't believe in that doctrine?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thanks De Maria but I was merely pointing out that the example of this type of "tradition" as mentioned by Akoue, can and is taken and understood in different ways. (and the OP did ask to give our reasons for our comments). I was basically saying I do not believe in "truths" if they are not revealed in the bible.
It wasn't my intention to start a debate. Darn it, did I misunderstand the OP yet AGAIN? Hate it when I do that. :rolleyes:

Why suppose that we need Tradition to mediate our understanding of Scripture?
Professor:

Why would you ask the hardest question of the dimmest bulb?

God revealed his plan of salvation to all of us in the person of Christ. He ministered to poor and sick, taught the meaning of the prophets, gave of Himself in a new covenant. Commissioning the apostles to inspire in the name of the Holy Spirit with His message of salvation, He appointed one to lead. In the living memory of those who walked in the shadow of Christ listening to his oral wisdom, they committed part of this Gospel to writing. This inspiring written word will be preserved through the sea of time. The Apostles were enjoined to teach and defend His Traditions through all generations of man; this is a faith that ascends to holiness by the written word and by word of mouth, Scripture and Tradition. As a result, the Church sees a symbiotic relationship between Word and Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” The written word, scripture, news of eternal life animated in Christ through Tradition. “For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. " Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum. Without Tradition, an essential element of illumination is lost.

I like to conceptualize "Scripture and Tradition" as a bridge over which the living Word can travel across a vast sea of time. On the far side the bridge abutment is anchored in the Living Christ at the dawn of Christendom . The girders of tradition span though the misty past to the near abutment rooted in today, connecting a Scriptural Gospel of time past with today's living. In this way, the living Word of God can live in us.

Thus, when viewed from the far bank, terminating the Church's Traditions in the 1500's would be a bridge ending in death. When viewed from the near bank and terminating the Church's Traditions in the 1500's would be a bridge to nowhere. So you see why it seems a foreign concept, there is no Catholic faith without a Living Tradition.

JoeT

De Maria.
I tend to believe as you do and I believe what The Church officially says.
That means that I do not FULLY believe what some individuals in the Church say.
Over the years we have had officials in The Church make statement that were very wrong.
A recent one was made by The Church's head astronomer.
He was admonished and replaced.
At the moment I can not remember what the issue was.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks De Maria but I was merely pointing out that the example of this type of "tradition" as mentioned by Akoue, can and is taken and understood in different ways. (and the OP did ask to give our reasons for our comments). I was basically saying I do not believe in "truths" if they are not revealed in the bible.
It wasn't my intention to start a debate. Darn it, did I misunderstand the OP yet AGAIN?! Hate it when I do that. :rolleyes:

No, you misunderstood nothing, and your posts have, I think, been quite useful. If I understand correctly, I believe De Maria meant only to extend an invitation to explore the question of the Trinity more fully--and another thread would afford us this opportunity. And on this thread, I'm happy to see exploration of a question (or set of closely related questions) from all angles. Please, continue to challenge or query whatever strikes you as in need of further consideration. I really do find it helpful to hear from a number of different voices on this.

Professor:

Why would you ask the hardest question of the dimmest bulb?

God revealed his plan of salvation to all of us in the person of Christ. He ministered to poor and sick, taught the meaning of the prophets, gave of Himself in a new covenant. Commissioning the apostles to inspire in the name of the Holy Spirit with His message of salvation, He appointed one to lead. In the living memory of those who walked in the shadow of Christ listening to his oral wisdom, they committed part of this Gospel to writing. This inspiring written word will be preserved through the sea of time. The Apostles were enjoined to teach and defend His Traditions through all generations of man; this is a faith that ascends to holiness by the written word and by word of mouth, Scripture and Tradition. As a result, the Church sees a symbiotic relationship between Word and Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” The written word, scripture, news of eternal life animated in Christ through Tradition. “For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. " Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum. Without Tradition, an essential element of illumination is lost.

I like to conceptualize "Scripture and Tradition" as a bridge over which the living Word can travel across a vast sea of time. On the far side the bridge abutment is anchored in the Living Christ at the dawn of Christendom . The girders of tradition span though the misty past to the near abutment rooted in today, connecting a Scriptural Gospel of time past with today’s living. In this way, the living Word of God can live in us.

Thus, when viewed from the far bank, terminating the Church’s Traditions in the 1500’s would be a bridge ending in death. When viewed from the near bank and terminating the Church’s Traditions in the 1500’s would be a bridge to nowhere. So you see why it seems a foreign concept, there is no Catholic faith without a Living Tradition.

JoeT

It would appear the dimmest bulb has managed to express his view quite eloquently!

Aloue,
What about those who claim to read scripture faithfull but come up with various wrong beliefs such as there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others????
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.
Is that proof the they are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it that their personal interpretation of Scripture over rides what the Holy Spirit is tying to guide them or something else?


These are questions I share. If I am guided by the Holy Spirit in my reading of Scripture, does this mean that I cannot misunderstand it? There have been so many conflicting interpretations of Scripture through the years, and it is difficult for me to believe that the disagreements result from a lack of faith by one or more of the parties. So how DO we explain error? And how do we detect it? Let's say you and I read that same verses and arrive at a different understanding of them. How do we determine which of us is right (or, what's worse, if both of us are wrong)?

One answer, offered by Joe and De Maria, is that we look to the Church (i.e. the bishops and the Tradition they preserve). But, of course, there are plenty of people who don't take this view--i.e. who don't adhere to Catholic views about the teaching authority of the Church--who certainly believe that there is something that counts as getting Scripture wrong. Let's now suppose that you and I are in that camp. Suppose, for the purposes of discussion, that neither of us is Catholic. And yet we have this disagreement, we don't see eye to eye on the meaning of some passage of Scripture.

What then? I mean, how could the two of us sort this out? (Assuming that we are both faith-filled, intellectually honest, and diligent.) I'd be interested to get anybody's take on this.

Akoue
Yes it would be VERY interesting to get their take on this.
Particularly considering that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations who in some way (some many ways) do not agree with each other yet (those who believe in the Holy Spirit) claim they are guided or inspired by them.
I personally pray for His guidance and believe that I have received some of it.
I know this because later I found that The Church did teach as I was inspired to believe.
I was raised a protestant and a Catholic basher for 30 years.
After much study I took the road to Rome and am extremely happy that I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Particularly considering that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations who in some way (some many ways) do not agree with each other yet (those who believe in the Holy Spirit) claim they are guided or inspired by them.


Yes, Fred, there are a lot of denominations. But I didn't intend with my question to throw down the gauntlet. While it's true that fault lines have emerged, and hardened, over the years with regard to the two positions outlined in the OP, I take it for granted that neither view is just obviously wrong--or wrong-headed. Reasonable people can disagree. So when I say that I'd like to hear people's answer to the question, as much as anything I'm interested to learn how people *approach* that question. There are genuine disagreements with respect to how people read Scripture. We can either all agree to disagree, and potentially risk still more fragmentation (which doesn't seem like an entirely good thing), or we can try to figure out a way to adjudicate between competing interpretations. One approach to this is to appeal to Tradition. But, as I say, not everyone recognizes the authority of that appeal. So, in its absence, what do we turn to to resolve disagreements over the meaning of Scripture?

what do we turn to to resolve disagreements over the meaning of Scripture?
We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

This is good, it speaks to the second view of the OP. So, if I may, I'd like to ask you to say a little bit about how you might apprach the question I asked Fred:

You and I are intellectually honest, faith-filled, diligent people who sit down together and talk about a passage of Scripture. And we find ourselves in disagreement over what it says. Each of us understands it differently. We talk it through, each of us explains why we understand it the way we do, and still we find ourselves understanding it differently. What, if anything, do we do then to sort out the disagreement? Since it is the word of God we know that it can't be saying two conflicting things. And yet here we are with two conflicting understandings of what it says. What resource do you and I have--assuming that neither of us is inclined to appeal to Tradition in the sense of the first view--for figuring out whether one of us is right and the other wrong, or whether we're both mistaken?

I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer on this.

Wondergirl,
BUT that have been proven to not unite but to fragment Christianity.
How can Scripture support and interpret itself with 30,000 denominations doing it differently FROM AND WITH THE BIBLE but each claiming they are right?
No, that is why Jesus set up an authority as to how and what should be taught. It is The Church Jesus said is "MY CHURCH" and he appointed Peter to be the head of it.
As far as I'm (and the Bible is) concerned it is the only church that has God's authority to teach.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
BUT that have been proven to not unite but to fragment Christianity.
How can Scripture support and interpret itself with 30,000 denominations doing it differently FROM AND WITH THE BIBLE but each claiming they are right?

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

it is the only church that has God's authority to teach.
Then why do I so often hear people say, "I was raised Catholic, but later became a Christian"?

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

Who's decides what willy and whose nilly. What authority do we go by? And shouldn't there be objectivity in Truth? If there is no authority there is no Rule of Faith.

JoeT

Then why do I so often hear people say, "I was raised Catholic, but later became a Christian"?

For the same reason people sin.

JoeT

Wondergirl,

I wonder if you have any thoughts about my question. Not an answer, necessarily, just some thoughts. No hurry, I would just find it helpful to hear more about how you think through the issues regarding disagreement that I raised in my question of, first, Fred, and then you. I ask because it seems to me that a lot turns on how different people approach this.

This I firmly believe.
Anyone who was raised or becomes a member of the Catholic Church, if they truly understand it well will never leave it.
Why are so many Protestant ministers becoming Catholic?
Because they have come to understand Catholic teaching.
What is interesting is that some have done so so well that they have become outstanding theologians.
Like me many did not go to the Ford dealer to learn the truth about Dodge cars.
That is go to the Protestants to learn about Catholicism.
Only the Catholic Church can accurately teach what Catholicism is all about.
Protestants do not understand Catholicism otherwise they would become Catholic.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

How? Scripture, the Bible, is a book. How does a book interpret itself?

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

Who would enforce the order?

Arcura, you claim to be a follower of Jesus teachings as set out in the bible yes? So what is your stance on war then?
(I'm not trying to change the subject, I do have a point to this Akoue)

Arcura, you claim to be a follower of Jesus teachings as set out in the bible yes? So what is your stance on war then?
(I'm not trying to change the subject, I do have a point to this Akoue)

And it's a good point. We are discussing truth here, so I won't steal your thunder. Speak freely.

Moparbyfar,

Point away!

1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
NO!
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?


.Tradition-Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally.

Unless you know what your ancestor was living through at the time, it hard to know why he had a particular mindset, or why he wrote what he wrote.

Moparbyfar,
That IS a tough question.
I'm a Korean War vet. Been there. Done that.
I think that many wars should not have been fought.
Wars started to take away land from other counties or to absorb a neighbor are a no no in my book.
Wars fought to protect a country's territory against an aggressor is often a necessity.
Unfortunately war has been a reality for thousands of years. Jesus sometime spoke of war and or trying to make peace before and advancing army gets to an area.
God the Father, in the Old Testament ordered war against certain people who had displeased Him in some way.
I know of no wars which were ordered by God in the last 2000 years or so.
A country or army going to war to protect a neighbor or frendly country under attack is another matter that has been a necessity.
During all wars many times great harm is done unnessesarily.
I guess I'm like the politician who said that many of his constituents were against war and many were for it. "I stand squarely for the wishes of my constituents."
LOL...
Seriously...
The Catholic church has a teaching about '"just war" which I agree with because it makes sense.
You can read all about it at this site.
Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp)
I hope that answers your question satisfactorily,
Peace and kindness
Fred (arcura)

Thanks Arcura.
Ok so from what I can now understand, you believe what Augustine put into place centuries ago through his own interpretations (revealed truth perhaps?) This to me is a "tradition" accepted outside of the bible but not accepted by God. Why?
For one thing we know that it is going against God to commit murder, that Jesus true followers are recognized by their love in John 13:35, that Isaiah prophesied in Isa 2:4 about a group of people who would refuse to fight with weapons of war, instead choosing to live at peace with others, we read of Jesus reprimanding Peter when he tried defending him with a lethal weapon in Matt 26:52. He went on to say that all who live by the sword will die by it, showing that theocratic warfare with lethal weapons was no longer acceptable. This was also a good lesson to show his disciples that despite having weapons handy (common for Galileans), it was not God's will that they be used.
For these reasons among others I do not accept these "just wars" or any war as being truth any more than Jesus would. The only war that will have certain success is God's war at Armageddon.

Moparbyfar,
All wars are bad in many ways.
But is a person or nation justified in defending itself?
Or are we to let any aggressor kill us for any reason?
Personally I think not.
When the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor should we have just said, "Gee, I wish that you had not done that and done nothing to stop them from attacking other USA territories?I think not.
But in almost all cases I wish all people peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks Arcura.
Ok so from what I can now understand, you believe what Augustine put into place centuries ago through his own interpretations (revealed truth perhaps?) This to me is a "tradition" accepted outside of the bible but not accepted by God. Why?
For one thing we know that it is going against God to commit murder, that Jesus true followers are recognized by their love in John 13:35, that Isaiah prophesied in Isa 2:4 about a group of people who would refuse to fight with weapons of war, instead choosing to live at peace with others, we read of Jesus reprimanding Peter when he tried defending him with a lethal weapon in Matt 26:52. He went on to say that all who live by the sword will die by it, showing that theocratic warfare with lethal weapons was no longer acceptable. This was also a good lesson to show his disciples that despite having weapons handy (common for Galileans), it was not God's will that they be used.
For these reasons among others I do not accept these "just wars" or any war as being truth any more than Jesus would. The only war that will have certain success is God's war at Armageddon.

We all agree that war is evil. But should we permit innocent people to be killed when we have the wherewithal to defend them?

Jesus was innocent, was he not? Did he tell his men to fight the evil ones off? That was one of the points Jesus made to the disciples: you have the means to defend me but choose the way of peace. Does he tell us anywhere in the Greek scriptures to fight wars for God and innocent man?

Arcura, Paul states in 1 Cor 11:1 to become imitators of him as he is of Christ. So this is what we should want to do. Preach to the nations, whether they be Japanese or German or English or Masai. Tell them of the purpose of God's kingdom and how participation in wars shows hatred to fellow man. That God hates violence in any form. That being peacable toward all displays a Godlike quality. That the only means to bringing lasting peace is not by way of the earthly governments but by way of God's. Jesus tells us in John 17:16 to be no part of the world. Does not showing patriotism reflect being part of the world?

Moparbyfar,
You did not answer my or De Maria's questions.
I think I know what it will be, but I just want to be sure.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Okay, gang, we're getting off-topic here.

Jesus was innocent, was he not? Did he tell his men to fight the evil ones off? That was one of the points Jesus made to the disciples: you have the means to defend me but choose the way of peace. Does he tell us anywhere in the Greek scriptures to fight wars for God and innocent man?

In order to understand what Jesus did, we need to understand the reason He is called the Lamb of God.

Jesus obeyed man and God. The Jews, whom Jesus recognized as the authorities, wanted Him to die for the nation:

John 11:49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

But note that this was God's plan:
51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Therefore, this has nothing to do with defending innocent life. Martyrdom is voluntary. If I choose to follow in Jesus' footsteps, that is my business and God's.

Innocent bystanders are not martyrs by their own decision. They are attacked by evil men and evil men are subject to the law:

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Therefore, valid Government may defend its people from attack by violent intruders. Whether individual criminals or entire countries.

The answers are there if you use your reason of thinking. ;)

Moparbyfar.
Yes, De Maria just gave them to us all.
People and nations SHOULD defend themselves.
BUT my question is would you?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
Yes we are getting off topic.
Lets go back to it.
It is a VERY interesting topic.
I'm learning and thinking much as we go along with it.
Fred

In numerous posts Joe has called out for objectivity and I'd like to call attention to this very important point. The truth of Scripture is objective, it is public; it isn't subjective and private. So while we may come to understand the truths revealed in Scripture differently, the truths themselves remain objective. We just have to get to them. So, how in the face of different subjective understandings of Scripture do we arrive at the objective truth of Scripture?

(This is just to put a slightly different face on the question I asked Fred and Wondergirl. Hope it gets us back on track!)

Akoue,
I think a good path to that is as I did.
For 30 years I was a Protestant who was very much anti-Catholic.
But I became inquisitive of other faiths so I started going to different Churches and asking questions.
Yes I even went to the Mormon Church at the request of a girl I was dating.
Then I was invited to attend the local Catholic Church and some classes on Catholicism.
By then from experience with other faiths I was overloaded with questions.
Two different priests were exceptionally good at answering my questions.
But I was afraid that others in the class might be turned off with all of my questions and rebuttals.
I was encouraged to continue with them for I was told that all could learn from them.
Each faith explained to me why they believed as they did.
In some cases I was told why others were so bad AND of course the Catholic was the one attacked the most followed by the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormon.
That seeming hate (which I HAD BEEN guilty of) now caused me to sincerely wonder why. Some people even seemed to tremble and get red faces with the word Catholic.
But by then I was not interested what one faith said about others. I wanted to hear it from the horse's or dragon's mouth as it were.
In other words I was NOT going to a Ford dealer to find the truth about Dodge cars.
There were a number of things that impressed me about all of those different faiths.
One of the most important was that they all agree with each other on most biblical and theological issues.
But in some cases the difference were immense such as with the belief on the trinity, if Jesus was God the son, that Mary was the mother of God the Son, and Tradition.
As it turned out Tradition and Mary were two that was vastly misunderstood of flatly ruled out to beyond ignored.
To shorten this long story after many months of this I decided to attend Mass more than any other service because I came to like the Catholic liturgical service and the high regard and respect given to God.
After several years I finally became (confirmed) a member of the Catholic Church because I was convinced that it was true FULL Christianity with all of its five sacraments which provide much of God's grace.
So I suggest that others do the same as I did.
Investigate well, have an opened mind, and be sincere in your questioning. In other words really want to know why and respect the answers you get.
Peace and kindness.
Fred (arcura)

Professor, et al

While reflecting on the topic of "Scripture and Tradition" I ran into the term used by John Newman, “Rule of Faith”. Newman defines this rule as follows:

“This being the state of the case, the phrase 'Rule of Faith,' which is now commonly taken to mean the Bible by itself, [privately interpreted by the individual] …Scripture, when illuminated by the "Catholic Religion," or the Catholic Religion when fortified by Scripture, may either of them be called the Gospel committed to the Church, dispensed to the individual.” Cardinal John Henry Newman, Lecture 11

Within the Catholic Church, Scripture and Tradition are co-equal good news for the Body of Christ, the Church militant. Newman continues, “the great and essential difference between Catholics and non-Catholics was that Catholics interpreted Scripture by Tradition, and non-Catholics by their own private judgment”. Obviously there is a distinct difference of creed between Catholics and non-Catholics. One must first tear down Holy Tradition in order to be “free” to interpret Scripture privately. Which we know is not the case with non-Catholics.

Newman point’s to heresy after heresy of undisciplined interpretation arising in the early Church, e.g. “That not only Arians, but heretics generally, professed to be guided by Scripture, we know from many witnesses.”

It seems to me that freedom to interpret Scripture must be exercised maintaining the constraint of the Church when dealing with God’s revelations. After all, why teardown the foundations of our faith only to build it up again?

JoeT

JoeT777,
Excellent point.
Heresies abound yet today by those who tear down the actual history of The Church which took place immediately after what is recorded ins the book of Acts.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

In other words I was NOT going to a Ford dealer to find the truth about Dodge cars.


Fred,

I love that line!
Thank you for sharing your story with us. I think that whether people end up in the same place or not they can appreciate your sincerity.

Joe,

I think you are right to bring up the "rule of faith". This is very helpful.

In the early Church, there were, of course, a number of groups who had broken off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (churches founded by the Apostles and their disciples). Some of these, principally gnostics, claimed that there was no need for Apostolic authority, that we didn't need an institutional Church, but could have unmediated access to Christ apart from his Church. Of course, we know from the NT that the Apostles themselves rejected this ("so called gnosis", as Timothy puts it). Some of the gnostics established themselves in urban centers and worshiped in Churches (e.g. Marcion), while others became itinerant preachers.

A number of the faithful were being mislead by these individuals, and in response the bishops of the Church (principally Irenaeus) said that there is a rule of faith in matters of doctrine, there is a way of settling disputes, and this mechanism lies with bishops who can trace their authority back to the Apostles themselves. Since these bishops were overwhelmingly in agreement, and since they were ordained by men who had been ordained by the Apostles or their disciples, they were in the most advantageous position to preserve the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The rule of faith, then, says that in matters of doctrine the faithful should adhere to the teaching of bishops whose authority as bishops can be traced historically, from one generation to another, to the Apostles themselves, since those bishops received the charism given by the Apostles directly.

Since, as you rightly point out, even heretical views appeal liberally to Sacred Scripture, the rule of faith is intended to provide a means by which to adjudicate among competing interpretations (or readings, or understandings) of Scripture.

Akoue,
Yes, that is why The Church is Kingdom of God on Earth as ruled by The Church princes; the Bishops with the original authority from Jesus Christ; God the Son.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe,

I think you are right to bring up the "rule of faith". This is very helpful.

In the early Church, there were, of course, a number of groups who had broken off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (churches founded by the Apostles and their disciples). Some of these, principally gnostics, claimed that there was no need for Apostolic authority, that we didn't need an institutional Church, but could have unmediated access to Christ apart from his Church. Of course, we know from the NT that the Apostles themselves rejected this ("so called gnosis", as Timothy puts it). Some of the gnostics established themselves in urban centers and worshiped in Churches (e.g., Marcion), while others became itinerant preachers.

A number of the faithful were being mislead by these individuals, and in response the bishops of the Church (principally Irenaeus) said that there is a rule of faith in matters of doctrine, there is a way of settling disputes, and this mechanism lies with bishops who can trace their authority back to the Apostles themselves. Since these bishops were overwhelmingly in agreement, and since they were ordained by men who had been ordained by the Apostles or their disciples, they were in the most advantageous position to preserve the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The rule of faith, then, says that in matters of doctrine the faithful should adhere to the teaching of bishops whose authority as bishops can be traced historically, from one generation to another, to the Apostles themselves, since those bishops received the charism given by the Apostles directly.

Since, as you rightly point out, even heretical views appeal liberally to Sacred Scripture, the rule of faith is intended to provide a means by which to adjudicate among competing interpretations (or readings, or understandings) of Scripture.


Akoue, et al:

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.

The first two principles can be considered formal principles, combined; we say they give us knowledge in “Christian faith grounded on the Word of God.” It is warranted as eternal and infallible God’s Truth. We can be assured that those things taught by the Apostles and their successors are proof of the living Word those first twelve witnessed. Scriptures are but a special case of our living Tradition, preserving the very actions and deeds of witnesses who received their tutorage directly from Christ. Thus, our objective faith can be validated by the witness of Scripture when rightly understood. But, what of those things that are of subjective in our faith or what of those things not clear or understood in Scripture. Who validates Scripture? Since this validation is of an infallible Word of God, who has infallible accreditations.

Consequently, the formal and sacred rule must have an infallible judge to determine right-reasoning. Accordingly, to certify the revealed Word as genuine, we need guidance in the practical application of the formal rule; without which we would be in constant doubt; do we believe rightly or not?

Some might say that Scripture itself is infallible, which in principle is true. However, our understanding of scripture is subjective to human nature and as such fallible. Further, we don’t find any verse that might suggest that Scripture validates itself as being an infallible rule of faith; Christ didn’t set out written instruction in his own hand. We find that Christ’s mission, in part, establishes a “Church;” not a Scripture. And, should we find Scripture infallible, it would rightly be an object of worship – that is having the infallible spirit of word. We decidedly don’t worship a book.

There is a practical way to discern our application of the fountain of truth. Right-believing or Right-reasoning demands a charitable yielding of authority to the Church of Jesus Christ in matters of faith to determine that infallibly the Word. She, as the bride of Christ, becomes the spokeswoman and interpreter for her spouse. The Church discharges her rule by consent of the body of Christians, by her pastors, priests, and doctors in general council, by the union of her bishops in union, or in correspondence or in assembly, and by declaration of the living successor of Peter. Cf. St. Francis de Sales, "the Catholic Contoversy"


JoeT

JoeT777
Thanks much for posting that.
There is much to ponder and absorb there.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.
Why is Father de Sales' thinking any loftier or more acceptable than anyone else's who has studied the Scriptures for years? Many, many non-Catholics, for instance, do not recognize him or even know his name. Only in the Catholic Church are his name and his ideas of any importance.

I guess my real question is, can Tradition belong only to the Catholic Church?

Wondergirl.
Saint De Sales thinking is very good.
There are people in other denominations whose spiritual.scripture thinking is very good.
We can and do learn from each other IF we do not let bias get in the way.
Tradition (with a capital "T") belongs to all Christians.
After all it was provided from and by Christians for others.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why is Father de Sales' thinking any loftier or more acceptable than anyone else's who has studied the Scriptures for years?
De Sales' reasoning is true; it reflects God's revealed Truth “disciplined” by Tradition reflecting the deposit of faith in the orthodox Catholic. To reason this way prevents error. After all, as Francis de Sales argues, we are dealing with an infallible truth, thus an infallible judge is necessary.


Many, many non-Catholics, for instance, do not recognize him or even know his name. Only in the Catholic Church are his name and his ideas of any importance.

I would expect they wouldn't recognize him. The reason is that we see a trend whereby Protestantism forces interpretation onto Scripture to fit the will of man. In the Catholic world man subjects his will to God, as opposed to finding some scriptural support whereby the will of God is subjugated. Therefore, I find God's objective Truth as taught by the RC Church always remains true.


I guess my real question is, can Tradition belong only to the Catholic Church?
Catholic Tradition belongs to all of us; whether it is accepted is another matter.

JoeT

I didn't read Joe's presentation of Francis de Sales as an appeal to de Sales's authority. I read it--and maybe I am wrong to do so--as a nice encapsulation by de Sales of what many others have long held to be true. In other words, if someone isn't moved by de Sales's authority I think the general point still stands, to wit, that there is a serious and thoughtful alternative to the view that takes a deflationary attitude toward Tradition.

As mentioned in the OP, there is a tendency among some to see the appeal to Tradition as a threat to Scripture. (Though it isn't at all obvious to me that Scripture was ever supposed to be regarded as the sole source of revelation; there is good reason to hold that Scripture and Tradition were always meant to work hand-in-glove, so to speak.) But those who advocate for the importance of Tradition don't take the two to be in competition; Tradition isn't taken to supplant Scripture but to deepen and enliven our understanding of it. This view is sometimes described by its foes as threatening Scripture, as a man-made imposter taking Scripture's place. And while, as I have said above, I think reasonable people can have a healthy disagreement about these issues, what I've just described is an understanding of Tradition that no one holds. That is to say that no advocate of Tradition thinks it is licit to dispense with Scripture. The question really turns on how we are to understand Scripture, given the empirical fact that people who are perfectly well-intentioned understand it differently.

I have talked to people over the years who sometimes seem to think that a guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand is perfectly well positioned to understand the full depth and meaning of the Bible, without studying the languages in which it was written, or the history of its transmission, or the way the earliest Christians themselves understood it. While I don't mean to ascribe this view to anyone here, I think it is reasonable to regard that attitude with some suspicion.

The question really turns on how we are to understand Scripture, given the empirical fact that people who are perfectly well-intentioned understand it differently.
So is there only one right way to understand Scripture? Do we all have to study classical languages, the lives and writings of ancient churchmen, and the culture/history at the time of the writing not only of Scripture but of those church fathers (Tradition) in order to understand Scripture? Or is the understanding of that "guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand" good enough for his situation and for his needs? How I understood the Scripture when I was 16 was different from how I understood it as a young mother and that was different from how I understand it now as someone coming to the end of my life. Are all of those understandings wrong, or are the Scripture and God "big enough" to allow such a thing?

So is there only one right way to understand Scripture? Do we all have to study classical languages, the lives and writings of ancient churchmen, and the culture/history at the time of the writing not only of Scripture but of those church fathers (Tradition) in order to understand Scripture? Or is the understanding of that "guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand" good enough for his situation and for his needs? How I understood the Scripture when I was 16 was different from how I understood it as a young mother and that was different from how I understand it now as someone coming to the end of my life. Are all of those understandings wrong, or are the Scripture and God "big enough" to allow such a thing?

Fair question. I suspect we all see an evolution in our understanding of Scripture over time. But since the meaning of Scripture doesn't change with us--a particular verse doesn't say one thing and time T1 and something very different at time T12--then some of my interpretations must have been mistaken. If God isn't being equivocal, then any given passage of Scripture can have only one true meaning, and it's our job to get to that meaning. I believe (hope!) I understand Scripture better today than I did twenty years ago. But I may very well still be wrong about lots of things. And this is something I have to have humility about: It would be wrong of me to assume that *my* best understanding is the *right* understanding. It is for this reason, in part anyway, that I avail myself of the ways in which others understand it. The fact that my current understanding suits my current needs doesn't make my current understanding true. So I think God is plenty "big enough", and I think the Scriptures are plenty "big" too: They are immensely deep, and I'm not confidant saying that I have an exhaustive understanding of them. And when my understanding of a particular verse, lets say, differs from the way it was understood by all the early Church Fathers... well, this gives me pause about the way I understand it.

That's interesting, what if ancient man was wrong in his translation, or interpretations, and teaches the wrong thing through time? How does that effect modern man, who supposedly is more aware, if not smarter??

Thats interesting, what if ancient man was wrong in his translation, or interpretations, and teaches the wrong thing thru time?? How does that effect modern man, who supposedly is more aware, if not smarter???
We know life and society have changed since the Bible was written and since various translations were made. The Bible writers and later Church Fathers didn't have a clue about cars and airplanes and AIDS and in-vitro fertilization and stem cells and women's lib and civil rights and 40-hour work weeks. I wonder if that knowledge would have affected their writings, i.e. how would they have written nowadays.

And when my understanding of a particular verse, lets say, differs from the way it was understood by all the early Church Fathers... well, this gives me pause about the way I understand it.
So how I understood the Bible as a 16 y/o was wrong? And as a young mother was wrong? Even thought I was helped spiritually at the time?

How do we ever know our understanding is "right"? And what is "right"?

So how I understood the Bible as a 16 y/o was wrong? and as a young mother was wrong? even thought I was helped spiritually at the time?

How do we ever know our understanding is "right"? And what is "right"?

For those of us who are Catholic, the answer is simple, we accept the Teaching of the Church.

Akoue,
I very much like your explanation.
I was raised a Protestant: Was never exposed to what the culture in Jesus time was lile, or how the early Christians understood Scripture.
But beginning about 35 years ago I began to be exposed to that.
The more I learned the more surprised I was at how little I understood several parts of the bible and what it was saying.
I began to understand why Jesus founded an earthly authority to carry on His teaching.
Now 40 years later I'm happy that I tread that path. I'm still on it and still growing.
I'm sure that the longer I live the more I will grow as I tread along.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I didn't read Joe's presentation of Francis de Sales as an appeal to de Sales's authority. I read it--and maybe I am wrong to do so--as a nice encapsulation by de Sales of what many others have long held to be true. In other words, if someone isn't moved by de Sales's authority I think the general point still stands, to wit, that there is a serious and thoughtful alternative to the view that takes a deflationary attitude toward Tradition. As mentioned in the OP, there is a tendency among some to see the appeal to Tradition as a threat to Scripture. (Though it isn't at all obvious to me that Scripture was ever supposed to be regarded as the sole source of revelation; there is good reason to hold that Scripture and Tradition were always meant to work hand-in-glove, so to speak.) But those who advocate for the importance of Tradition don't take the two to be in competition; Tradition isn't taken to supplant Scripture but to deepen and enliven our understanding of it. This view is sometimes described by its foes as threatening Scripture, as a man-made imposter taking Scripture's place. And while, as I have said above, I think reasonable people can have a healthy disagreement about these issues, what I've just described is an understanding of Tradition that no one holds. That is to say that no advocate of Tradition thinks it is licit to dispense with Scripture. The question really turns on how we are to understand Scripture, given the empirical fact that people who are perfectly well-intentioned understand it differently.

I have talked to people over the years who sometimes seem to think that a guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand is perfectly well positioned to understand the full depth and meaning of the Bible, without studying the languages in which it was written, or the history of its transmission, or the way the earliest Christians themselves understood it. While I don't mean to ascribe this view to anyone here, I think it is reasonable to regard that attitude with some suspicion.

Yes, it was intended as an encapsulation of de Sales and thanks for the compliment.

I find it important that Scriptures are witnesses to God's revelations as well as a working Theology; both exposing God's revelation and providing the means by which we can understand that revelation. God wisely created us with varying abilities to understand theology. Can you imagine the pandemonium of a world full of scholars arguing over whether the sandals worn by Christ were tied or whether they were buttoned? However, we are not all doctors of the faith. In fact, some of us can hardly read and the other part may not have the intelligence whereby we can understand God's revelations in the written form. Therefore, to these, without an infallible guide to scripture, the meaning of salvation becomes lost- and poor reclined Joe is lost. Are they to be denied salvation? It seems to me that only a pernicious God would offer salvation only to those whom were granted the understanding. However, God is gracious; Christ not only removed the barrier of death, but instituted a Church to minister His presence, he provided for an infallible teaching Magisterium necessary to receive Him. Thus, we see that God is truly just, providing salvation to all mankind, both king and pauper equally. And He even provides for your poor reclined beer-in-hand everyday JoeT. The provisions made for an infallible guide adds meaning to the practicality of the verse, “the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?” (Matt 6:26)


Fair question. I suspect we all see an evolution in our understanding of Scripture over time. But since the meaning of Scripture doesn't change with us--a particular verse doesn't say one thing and time T1 and something very different at time T12--then some of my interpretations must have been mistaken. If God isn't being equivocal, then any given passage of Scripture can have only one true meaning, and it's our job to get to that meaning. I believe (hope!) I understand Scripture better today than I did twenty years ago. But I may very well still be wrong about lots of things. And this is something I have to have humility about: It would be wrong of me to assume that *my* best understanding is the *right* understanding. It is for this reason, in part anyway, that I avail myself of the ways in which others understand it. The fact that my current understanding suits my current needs doesn't make my current understanding true. So I think God is plenty "big enough", and I think the Scriptures are plenty "big" too: They are immensely deep, and I'm not confidant saying that I have an exhaustive understanding of them. And when my understanding of a particular verse, lets say, differs from the way it was understood by all the early Church Fathers... well, this gives me pause about the way I understand it.

St. de Sales suggests that “in order that we may not be subject to hesitation and uncertainty it is necessary not only that the first rule, namely the Word of God, but also the second, which proposes and applies that rule, be absolutely infallible; otherwise we shall always remain in suspense and in doubt as to whether we are not being badly directed and supported in our faith and belief, not now by any defect in the first rule, but by error and defect in the proposition and application thereof. Certainly the danger is equal, - either of getting out of rule for want of right rule, or getting out of rule for want of a regular and right application of the rule itself.“ Again, God provides all that is needed for salvation.

JoeT

In ancient Israel, traditional laws were passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, from one generation of Sages to the next. The Oral Law was the traditional learning of the Pharisees, a religious sect and political party. The Sadducees were the religious and political rivals of the Pharisees. The Pharisees eventually committed Oral Law to writing sometime between two thousand and fifteen hundred years ago.

The Oral Law can now be found in the Talmud, which contemporary rabbis tell us is the primary book of law for Jews. Contemporary rabbis are directly attuned with the Pharisees of Jesus' time through long and intensive study of the Pharisaic teachings in the Talmud.

"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
And
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

From one of my very, very favorite study sites:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html

JoeT777,
I very much agree with you on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thats interesting, what if ancient man was wrong in his translation, or interpretations, and teaches the wrong thing thru time?? How does that affect modern man, who supposedly is more aware, if not smarter???
Tradition doesn't quite work the way it's being thought of here. I understand that the term “Tradition” was first used by St Irenaeus, Against Heresies written around 190 A.D. It is derived from the Latin Trāditiō, to hand down or to hand over.


“ …we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.” Against Heresies, bk 3, 3

Writing in about 190 A.D. St. Irenaeus clearly, at least conceptually, the existence of a Doctrine of Tradition. Here we see an admonishment of private interpretation of doctrine and relies on “Tradition.” The argument of Against Heresies is best described by the book's subtitle, Refutation of Gnosticism and the surrounding unorthodox approach to doctrine.

The Church was organized at Rome by Peter which even then Apostolic succession and teaching was relied on as authoritative; “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.”

... Eubulus and Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren, salute thee. ( 2 Tim 4:21)

As much care was taken with “Tradition” as clerics took reproducing faithful copies of the Bible. As we've seen with these small samples, Tradition and Scripture harmonize.

Paraphrasing S. J. Charles Coppens' “A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion”, bearing the Nihil Lobstat of S. Ludovici, August 13, 1903, Censor Theol.
Ecclesiastical Tradition has come to encompass the following:
1.) Sacred Liturgy common to the Church, “so that the law guiding our supplication affords a rule of our beliefs. “ (Pope St. Celestine, 431)

2.) Historical record of the Acts of Martyrs in antiquity; St. Clement divided Rome into seven districts and had the martyr's stories recorded.


3.) Archaeology and studies of relics in antiquity

4.) Definitions of Church doctrines, pronouncing anathemas on errors and define doctrine as in the case of Pius IX proclamation defining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Equally important confirming decrees of councils and synods. Speaking from the Vicar's Chair, a Pope governs infallibly through proclamations and pronouncements in harmony with Scripture and Tradition.

5.) Maintain and authenticate the writings of the Early Church Fathers and rule over their theological interpretation.

(link) A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sscr.htm)

So, believers find an infallible and authoritative guide to an informed way of "Right-Reasoning". Joined by the Holy Spirit harmonious Tradition and Scripture keep Christ's promise to “prevail against the gates of hell.”

What the Doctrine of Tradition is not is the collection of local or Church wide customs. Also too, many requirements of the Church, like celibate priests and Bishops, are wrongly mistaken as Tradition; such actions of the Church are viewed as “discipline.”


In ancient Israel, traditional laws were passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, from one generation of Sages to the next. The Oral Law was the traditional learning of the Pharisees, a religious sect and political party. The Sadducees were the religious and political rivals of the Pharisees. The Pharisees eventually committed Oral Law to writing sometime between two thousand and fifteen hundred years ago.

The Oral Law can now be found in the Talmud, which contemporary rabbis tell us is the primary book of law for Jews. Contemporary rabbis are directly attuned with the Pharisees of Jesus' time through long and intensive study of the Pharisaic teachings in the Talmud. Navigate "Come and Hear" (http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html)

It's been my understanding that It has always been a Tradition of the Church that oral teaching was within the teaching Magisterium of the Church. In fact, some hold that the Sacred Scriptures are a special form of this.

JoeT

Joe7,
Thanks much for that link.
Now I've got even more Church to study.
A blessing indeed!
Merry, Holy Christ'smass,
Fred

In ancient Israel, traditional laws were passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, from one generation of Sages to the next. The Oral Law was the traditional learning of the Pharisees, a religious sect and political party. The Sadducees were the religious and political rivals of the Pharisees. The Pharisees eventually committed Oral Law to writing sometime between two thousand and fifteen hundred years ago.

The Oral Law can now be found in the Talmud, which contemporary rabbis tell us is the primary book of law for Jews. Contemporary rabbis are directly attuned with the Pharisees of Jesus' time through long and intensive study of the Pharisaic teachings in the Talmud.

"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
and
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

From one of my very, very favorite study sites:

Navigate "Come and Hear" (http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html)

Quite true. The Oral was kept oral until such time as it was written down. The same is true of oral tradition in the early church:

2 Thess 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
NKJV

The Apostles are no longer here to speak the word, but it was also in writing. In the NT, the oral was put in writing ver rapidly, in one book it is believed to be as short as 3 years.

Okay, so that's useful. That seems to show that Scripture is sub-set of Tradition: It is part of that part of Tradition that was written down (of course, most of Tradition has been in writing a long, long time).

It's a bit tricky, though. Scholarly consensus has long held that the first of the NT texts is 1Thess. written about twenty years after Christ's death (probably a little less than twenty years after). The Gospels were written later, beginning with Mark. Now we don't have any independent verification of who the authors of the Gospels were: The names, the titles, were added later. In any case, we have Paul's epistles which begin in the early 50's (maybe 51, in the case of 1Thess.). But many of the NT texts took quite a few years to circulate at all widely (no internet, alas). So from the time of the first NT text's composition, to the time all of the canonized NT texts had disseminated widely, several decades elapsed. All the while other texts were being written and, in turn, disseminated. So somewhere along the line, people had to make some decisions about which of these texts were the real deal and which were spurious, or at least not of divine inspiration. The texts themselves couldn't answer this question, so there had to be some other decision-procedure in place. Just as people can reasonably disagree about the meaning of Scripture, so too people reasonably disagreed about what counted as Scripture.

Now I know how the appeal to Tradition is supposed to sort this all out: Just as Tradition guides our understanding of Scripture, so too Tradition guides the decisions regarding which NT books are to be included in the canon and which are to be excluded. (This is, of coure, a very crude overview.) My question is, how do those who take a deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out? How, appealing to Scripture alone, do we determine what counts as Scripture?

Okay, so that's useful. That seems to show that Scripture is sub-set of Tradition: It is part of that part of Tradition that was written down (of course, most of Tradition has been in writing a long, long time).

You claim that it is only "part", yet this scripture says that the teachings were both written down and spoken, and the Apostles are no longer here to speak so we must abide by 1 Cor 4:6 and we are not to go beyond what is written

But 1Cor.4.6 doesn't say not to go beyond what is written. There's nothing in Scripture telling us not to adhere to teachings which were passed down orally from the Apostles to their disciples which yet were not written down in one of the books that came to be included in the canon of the NT. I take it that a proponent of Tradition would not be unreasonable to say that in the Apostolic Fathers and others we have those teachings in writing, just not in canonized texts. The NT doesn't tell us never to go beyond what is written in the NT. It couldn't, there wasn't a NT yet.

Leaving that to one side, though, there is the question: How do we know, how was the decision ever made in the first place, which texts are Scripture and which texts aren't? In other words, even if we make the decision not to go beyond what is written in Scripture, how do we know which writings to abide by since Scripture does not itself tell us, and the canon came well after the deaths of the Apostles?

The Apostles ARE here to speak and they do at Mass every day.
I know that there is a minority that does not believe in apostolic succession as recorded in the bible but that's the way it is yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But 1Cor.4.6 doesn't say not to go beyond what is written.

1 Cor 4:6-7
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV

Sorry, a correction: On 1Cor.4.6...

I understand this differently than you seem to. I take the reference to "what is written" to be to the epistle itself, and not to other texts which had not yet been written. And, as you rightly point out above, 2 Thess. Makes explicit mention of teachings that are handed on orally.


ADDED:

I was writing this post while you were posting yours, so I hadn't seen it yet. But I knew what was coming. Hope I cleared up any confusion so that we can get back to the real question.

My question is, how do those who take a deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out? How, appealing to Scripture alone, do we determine what counts as Scripture?

Akoue:

I guess I don’t know what you are driving at – “deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out.” It’s the second time you’ve asked this question, and apparently I do not understand.

JoeT

The Apostles ARE here to speak and they do at Mass every day.
I know that there is a minority that does not believe in apostolic succession as recorded in the bible but that's the way it is yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Scripture says that there have been ONLY 12 Apostles. If you see one at mass, then he must about around 2000 years old. Do give me his name.

Akoue,
Very good,
Thanks,
Fred

Sorry, a correction: On 1Cor.4.6...

I understand this differently than you seem to. I take the reference to "what is written" to be to the epistle itself, and not to other texts which had not yet been written.

The context does not contain that limitation.


And, as you rightly point out above, 2 Thess. Makes explicit mention of teachings that are handed on orally.

Only insofar as they were also written down.

Scripture says that there have been ONLY 12 Apostles. If you see one at mass, then he must about around 2000 years old. Do give me his name.

This thread has been quite amiable and I would like to keep it that way if possible. I ask that all participants stay on topic and save snide or sarcastic asides for PM.

Thanks.

Akoue:

I guess I don’t know what you are driving at – “deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out.” It’s the second time you’ve asked this question, and apparently I do not understand.

JoeT

My apologies. I mean with this locution only to refer in a neutral way to any view that rejects Tradition in the sense clarified earlier in the thread and alluded to (alas, not as clearly as it should have been) in the OP.

Does this clear it up? Better: Tell me if it doesn't.

This thread has been quite amiable and I would like to keep it that way if possible. I ask that all participants stay on topic and save snide or sarcastic asides for PM.

Thanks.

No snide or sarcastic remarks. I am quite serious. If he has an apostle at mass, that would be extremely remarkable and I truly would like to check it out and verify that he is indeed one of the 12 and that he is indeed 2000 years old.

Posts are coming more quickly now, so I'll just reiterate the question that I mean to pose: How is a determination to be made regarding which texts belong to the NT and which do not, if we are not to appeal to Tradition?

I'm not necessarily expecting a well-wrought theology in response (although that's fine too).

Posts are coming more quickly now, so I'll just reiterate the question that I mean to pose: How is a determination to be made regarding which texts belong to the NT and which do not, if we are not to appeal to Tradition?

I guess that this goes back to whether you believe in the omniscience of God and thus His predetermination and foreknowledge of what was to be included in His word.

No snide or sarcastic remarks. I am quite serious. If he has an apostle at mass, that would be extremely remarkable and I truly would like to check it out and verify that he is indeed one of the 12 and that he is indeed 2000 years old.

I don't want us to get off-track. Since nobody is claiming to have an Apostle at Mass I think we can eschew consideration of this possibility for the purposes of our discussion.

The OP delineates--in admittedly very broad strokes--two different views. I'd like to stick with them. As I've said all along, thoughful people have found them both to be reasonable, so I'm working on the assumption that each of them is reasonable (even if they can't both be right).

Please do offer your take on the question at hand.

I guess that this goes back to whether you believe in the omniscience of God and thus His predetermination and foreknowledge of what was to be included in His word.

Okay, good. Can I ask you to expand on this a bit so that we can get another view on the table?

Okay, good. Can I ask you to expand on this a bit so that we can get another view on the table?

Simply - It was determined by God, not by man.

It's a bit tricky, though. Scholarly consensus has long held that the first of the NT texts is 1Thess., written about twenty years after Christ's death (probably a little less than twenty years after). The Gospels were written later, beginning with Mark. Now we don't have any independent verification of who the authors of the Gospels were: The names, the titles, were added later. In any case, we have Paul's epistles which begin in the early 50's (maybe 51, in the case of 1Thess.).

Warren H. Carroll in his series A History of Christendom suggests that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as advertised, so to speak. He suggests that there is a (small ‘t’) tradition for this. I’ll look into it tomorrow, but he brings some other compelling evidence forward.

JoeT

This discution is going along great.
I find it very interesting.
Of course there are apostles at Mass. I've seen them there in the flesh and the spirit OF the original 12.
Thanks.
Keep up the good works.
Fred

Just a brief historic correction: Matthias would have been a thirteenth Apostle (though he was chosen to keep the number at twelve, which I'm guessing is what was meant be an earlier post). This would seem to show that the Apostles could choose successors and give them the very authority they themselves received directly from Christ.

Just a brief historic correction: Matthias would have been a thirteenth Apostle (though he was chosen to keep the number at twelve, which I'm guessing is what was meant be an earlier post). This would seem to show that the Apostles could choose successors and give them the very authority they themselves received directly from Christ. Also, Paul was an Apostle.

Just a brief historic correction: Matthias would have been a thirteenth Apostle (though he was chosen to keep the number at twelve, which I'm guessing is what was meant be an earlier post). This would seem to show that the Apostles could choose successors and give them the very authority they themselves received directly from Christ.

Note that Matthias was chosen by men - not by God. Although he was no doubt a good man and a good Christian leader, there is no evidence that He was God's choice.

Indeed scripture specifically states that there are only 12 Apostles.

Akoue,
That's the way I and a great many others in several denominations understand it.
It also makes good sense.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Simply - It was determined by God, not by man.

But men have disagreed, and so not all have gotten it right. If it was determined by God, how do we know which men are understanding God's determination correctly and which are misunderstanding it? I'll have to ask you to explain what you have in mind.

But men have disagreed, and so not all have gotten it right.

Thus why we should not go by tradition. Men get it wrong.

This can be resolved simply - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.

Note that Matthias was chosen by men - not by God. Although he was no doubt a good man and a good Christian leader, there is no evidence that He was God's choice.

Indeed scripture specifically states that there are only 12 Apostles.

Just so we're all clear: You mean to say that neither Matthias nor Paul should be regarded as an Apostle?

Akoue,
We need to keep in mind that the 12 apostles mentioned were at the time of Jesus selection. More were added after and over the years many more. They were and are the Bishops of The Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just so we're all clear: You mean to say that neither Matthias nor Paul should be regarded as an Apostle?

You asked for an amiable discussion - I agree - lets not mis-represent or put things in the mouths of others. Where did I mention Paul not being an Apostle?

Akoue,
We need to keep in mind that the 12 apostles mentioned were at the time of Jesus selection. More were added after and over the years many more. They were and are the Bishops of The Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Where does scripture alter what it said about there being ONLY 12?

The topic of this thread has been, all along, how do we sort out the disagreements that people clearly do have. If we have people disagreeing about the NT canon, how do we resolve this disagreement? How does anyone know who is right and who is mistaken?

The topic of this thread has been, all along, how do we sort out the disagreements that people clearly do have. If we have people disagreeing about the NT canon, how do we resolve this disagreement? How does anyone know who is right and who is mistaken?

God is right.

You did not answer my question - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.

I don't mean to misrepresent anything (this is why I asked the follow-up question for clarification). At #144 I mentioned Matthias and Paul as Apostles. At #145 you affirmed your earlier claim that there were only 12 Apostles. Since Judas was one of the Twelve (replaced by Matthias, whom you don't regard as an Apostle) I took you to be saying that Paul is not an Apostle either. Please correct me if I was mistaken.

Akoue,
Paul was chosen after Jesus ascended into heaven.
So he was an additional apostle over the original 12.
Now back to your question, "If we have people disagreeing about the NT canon, how do we resolve this disagreement? How does anyone know who is right and who is mistaken?
I'm interested in the discussion on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

My apologies. I mean with this locution only to refer in a neutral way to any view that rejects Tradition in the sense clarified ealier in the thread and alluded to (alas, not as clearly as it should have been) in the OP.

Does this clear it up? Better: Tell me if it doesn't.
I don't think there is any orthodox (little 'o') Doctors or Fathers who reject Tradition. (at least I don't recall any). I don't know much about the Eastern Rites, but I understand they have a similar patristic Tradition of Faith that seems to cross the East-West Divide. St. Thomas takes Tradition (big and little) as a matter of fact. The first time we see Tradition being challenged is with Martin Luther (c. 1518) and the Protestant schism -- I wonder why?

JoeT

I don't mean to misrepresent anything (this is why I asked the follow-up question for clarification). At #144 I mentioned Matthias and Paul as Apostles. At #145 you affirmed your earlier claim that there were only 12 Apostles. Since Judas was one of the Twelve (replaced by Matthias, whom you don't regard as an Apostle) I took you to be saying that Paul is not an Apostle either. Please correct me if I was mistaken.

I never said anything about Paul not being an Apostle, so please ask first and don't assume. Paul was God's replacement for Judas.

The qualifications, BTW, which the Apostles stated for an Apostle can no longer be met in any case.

God is right.

You did not answer my question - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.

Indeed, God is right. The question throughout the whole of the present thread, to which I'll ask you to speak as others have done, is: How do we know which human beings are right? How do we determine which is the right canon?

Akoue,
Paul was chosen after Jesus ascended into heaven.
So he was an additional apostle over the original 12.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

There were only 11 after Judas was gone.

Indeed, God is right. The question throughout the whole of the present thread, to which I'll ask you to speak as others have done, is: How do we know which human beings are right? How do we determine which is the right canon?

I note that you are avoiding or ignoring my question which directly relates to the topic - - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.

I don’t think there is any orthodox (little ‘o’) Doctors or Fathers who reject Tradition. (at least I don’t recall any). I don’t know much about the Eastern Rites, but I understand they have a similar patristic Tradition of Faith that seems to cross the East-West Divide. St. Thomas takes Tradition (big and little) as a matter of fact. The first time we see Tradition being challenged is with Martin Luther (c. 1518) and the Protestant schism.

JoeT

There were people who challenged Tradition very early on. The doctrine itself came to be more clearly defined in response to Gnosticism (as you pointed out in your very nice post on Irenaeus). But you're right: Neither Catholics nor Orthodox regard Gnostics as Fathers or Doctors of the Church. And the Orthodox doctrine regarding Tradition is not meaningfully different, for our purposes here, from that of the Catholic Church.

God is right.

You did not answer my question - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.

If I understand what you're asking--and I may not--those parts of Tradition that are not contained in Scripture are to be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

When the bible mentions the 12 Jesus Chose they were the original 12 including Judas.
ANY apostles chosen thereafter were additionals.
That was clearly understood by the east and west of The Church for centuries and is still is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

There were people who challenged Tradition very early on. The doctrine itself came to be more clearly defined in response to Gnosticism (as you pointed out in your very nice post on Irenaeus). But you're right: Neither Catholics nor Orthodox regard Gnostics as Fathers or Doctors of the Church. And the Orthodox doctrine regarding Tradition is not meaningfully different, for our purposes here, from that of the Catholic Church.

Yes, but these were the 'early' heritics - very non-orthodox, e.g. Gnostic, Arians etc. I discounted them but I guess they would qualify in the sense that they rejected Tradition.

JoeT

If I understand what you're asking--and I may not--those parts of Tradition that are not contained in Scripture are to be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

Interesting. So are you then rejecting oral tradition? What do you do when these "fathers" disagree and contradict each other, as they do. Some contradict themselves, depending upon which writings you look at. Many contradict scripture.

I never said anything about Paul not being an Apostle, so please ask first and don't assume. Paul was God's replacement for Judas.


Is this in Scripture? I recall Matthias being chosen to be Judas's replacement.

When the bible mentions the 12 Jesus Chose they were the original 12 including Judas.
ANY apostles chosen thereafter were additionals.

The twelve limitation is in the book of Revelation - speaking about future events.

Is this in Scripture? I recall Matthias being chosen to be Judas's replacement.

Endorsed by God as the replacement? Really? I don't remember reading that in scripture.

I was headed to bed some time ago. I'll continue in the morning work permitting

JoeT

Interesting. So are you then rejecting oral tradition? What do you do when these "fathers" disagree and contradict each other, as they do. Some contradict themselves, depending upon which writings you look at. Many contradict scripture.

I took you to be referring to my earlier post, when I referred to Scripture as part of that part of Tradition that was written down. I never claimed that the whole of Tradition was written down (though I did say that a lot of it has been over the years).

In any event, though, as the OP I will once again ask you to address the topic of this thread. There is a further question pending, namely, how does the decision regarding which texts are Scriptural get made. I am particularly interested in hearing from views other than the Tradition-based view. If you care to share yours with us that would be great.

I also am headed for bed.
This is very interesting so I'll be back on the morrow, God willing.
Have a peace night with kind dreams.
Fred

Interesting. So are you then rejecting oral tradition?

That is strange. Akoue is speaking of written tradition and you suggest that means "rejecting" oral tradition?

By no means. We accept the Word of God in any form presented by the Church. Oral Tradition is part of Sacred Tradition.


What do you do when these "fathers" disagree and contradict each other, as they do. Some contradict themselves, depending upon which writings you look at. Many contradict scripture.

We follow what Jesus taught (Matt 18:17). As we can see by studying history, some early Church Fathers fell into error. We don't accept the error they taught. We accept their orthodox teachings. The Church, which Jesus established to act in His name, judged what was orthodox and what was error:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I took you to be referring to my earlier post, when I refered to Scripture as part of that part of Tradition that was written down. I never claimed that the whole of Tradition was written down (though I did say that a lot of it has been over the years).

Then if it is not written down, we do not know what is contained within that tradition, and if the written portion contradicts scripture and itself, then why should we trust the oral when we don't even know what it contains and when this is supposedly the source from which the contradictory written tradition was written?

Endorsed by God as the replacement? Really? I don't remember reading that in scripture.

The Scriptures are God breathed and they tell us Matthias was chosen by lot.

Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Unless you believe in chance, that means that God chose Matthias to be Judas replacement.

The Scriptures are God breathed and they tell us Matthias was chosen by lot.

Right. So we know the process used and we can accept that what scripture records is inerrant, but where does scripture say that this was God's choice?

Think about it.

- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles, therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.

Seems to me, when man establishes his beliefs, and traditions, and want all to follow that path, the name of God is always invoked, thereby making it Divine, and above reproach. Most of the worlds bibles are put together this way, and a devoted bunch of followers always hand picks what goes into them.

Man as high minded as he tries to be, or whatever his motives were back then, has always made his own traditions, to reflect his policies of the day. His goal was survival of his way of life, and continue as they that came before him, so truth is subjective, and the search for what is, lies in actively seeking that truth, not being told what the truth is. In accepting any truth from any bible, there is the danger of being closed to the facts, or even oblivious to the truth, when we see it, and can only really judge by the actions of those who are giving us the truth.

Not knocking any religion per say, just pointing out the personal responsibility we all have of the actions we partake of, and the path we choose to follow.

The twelve limitation is in the book of Revelation - speaking about future events.

Prophesy rightly understood is God's revealed mystical foreknowledge of events yet to occur in the future, as well as, an understanding of the mystical meaning of events in the past and present when that mystical meaning has not been previously revealed; “…what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation or in knowledge or in prophecy or in doctrine?” (1 Cor 14:6) The noise of the event doesn't always revel God's mystical meaning behind the event, whether that event has occurred in the past, is occurring now, or will occur.

With this understanding of prophesy, we can come to know that the Book of Revelations,
Is a mystical revelation of events across a broad spectrum of time. So, when it speaks of 12 Apostles in the book of revelations, it may be referring to a fugitive image of the original 12 Apostles in the past, it may be speaking of the 12 Apostles living at the time John wrote the Revelations, or it may be referring to a mystical 12 Apostles of the future.

But, what does this have to do with the topic?

JoeT

Right. So we know the process used and we can accept that what scripture records is inerrant, but where does scripture say that this was God's choice?

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

The Apostles, being Jews, cast lots to know God's will.


Think about it.

- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles, therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.

Scripture says that God chose Matthias to replace Judas:

Acts 1 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Where does Scripture say that St. Paul replaced Judas?

Then if it is not written down, we do not know what is contained within that tradition,

Why? Do you not have ears to hear?


and if the written portion contradicts scripture and itself,

It doesn't.


then why should we trust the oral when we don't even know what it contains

You don't know what it contains. We do.


and when this is supposedly the source from which the contradictory written tradition was written?

It isn't contradictory.

Correction. It might contradict your opinions but it does not contradict itself or Scripture.

It might contradict your opinions but it does not contradict itself or Scripture.
Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?

Seems to me, when man establishes his beliefs, and traditions, and want all to follow that path, the name of God is always invoked, thereby making it Divine, and above reproach. Most of the worlds bibles are put together this way, and a devoted bunch of followers always hand picks what goes into them.

I think you've missed the light when you turned the corner. Divine Traditions aren't established to constrain, rather to liberate. It marks God's reveled trail of Truth though a worldly wilderness terminating in the Divine; whereby each new journey needn't be preceded with cutting a new trail. Catholic Tradition requires a freely given ascension to Tradition becoming unfettered in truth. Where it follows that “not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth”. (St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Prima Q, 15 a5). God's Truth is absolute. Thus, we find Divine Traditions to be objective Truth as opposed to subjective.

Devotion imposed on a “bunch of followers” is oppression. I don't know about you, but this god I'll avoid.


Man as high minded as he tries to be, or whatever his motives were back then, has always made his own traditions, to reflect his policies of the day. His goal was survival of his way of life, and continue as they that came before him, so truth is subjective, and the search for what is, lies in actively seeking that truth, not being told what the truth is. In accepting any truth from any bible, there is the danger of being closed to the facts, or even oblivious to the truth, when we see it, and can only really judge by the actions of those who are giving us the truth.

High-mindedness isn't a newly found characteristic of men, and motives should always be subject to scrutiny. But, looking at Christ's motives as described in Scripture certainly don't seem survivalist. Not unless you think men of His time just hung around on crosses to protect their way of life. Accepting the Truth of Scripture as guided by Church Tradition opens a world of Truth; a witness of which is in the lives of the Saints that followed.


Not knocking any religion per say, just pointing out the personal responsibility we all have of the actions we partake of, and the path we choose to follow.

Let's get real; yeah you are – I was born at night, but not last night. But, that's ok; maybe you just got to cut your own path for awhile. So, keep looking for a better way and someday you'll re-cross the Church's trail and decide to let it guide you.

Merry Christmas

JoeT

doesn't catholic church tradition include additions to scripture?

No

Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?

Joe already answered. And he is correct. No.

With this understanding of prophesy, we can come to know that the Book of Revelations,
is a mystical revelation of events across a broad spectrum of time. So, when it speaks of 12 Apostles in the book of revelations, it may be referring to a fugitive image of the original 12 Apostles in the past, it may be speaking of the 12 Apostles living at the time John wrote the Revelations, or it may be referring to a mystical 12 Apostles of the future.


So are you saying that you don't believe the book of Reveleation when it says that there are ONLY 12?

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

The Apostles, being Jews, cast lots to know God's will.

Again, where does it say that the choice of Matthias was endorsed by God?

Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.
And some of those doctrines are...
And some of those contradictions are...
And some of those books are...

Hi Wondergirl.

It is sometimes said that the Catholic Church added the so-called deuterocanonical books to the canon of the OT at Trent. Since the deuterocanonicals were included in the Septuagint, the OT Scripture that was used by many first century Jews and which is quoted in the NT, Catholics don't regard this as an addition to Scripture. In addition to direct quotes from the Septuagint in the NT, there are also numerous allusions and references to the deuterocanonical books themselves, including Maccabees and Wisdom.

But this just gets us back to the question: How do we know which texts are genuinely Scriptural? Tj says that the deuterocanonical books contradict Scripture. Now, I'm interested to see what he takes those contrdictions to be, but in order for that claim to go anywhere he must already assume that these books aren't themselves Scripture. He must already have chosen a different canon. But what certifies that choice as the right one, and that canon as the right canon in preference to another? In other words, for somebody to say that the deuterocanonicals contradict Scripture he must already have made up his mind that they are not themselves part of Scripture. And my question is: On what grounds, by means of what procedure, is it determined which texts belong to Scripture and which do not. If, as Tj has said above, the canon was determined by God, then this just pushes the question back a step: How do we know we are using the right canon, the one God intended for us? If we aren't to appeal to Tradition, the Church Fathers, the history of the early Church, etc. then I'm unlcear how anybody can be in a position to say of any book that it does or does not belong to the NT canon. We could end up with as many canons as there are people, and that leaves us with nothing that could count as any kind of standard at all.

So this is closely related to the OP: How do we know who is reading Scripture correctly and who is misunderstanding it? These are the two questions which I, at least, find to be quite difficult and also terribly important for anyone who believes in divine revelation through the written word. Earlier in this thread we were given an answer by those who look to Tradition to help resolve these matters. I'm interested to learn how people who do not appeal to Tradition approaach them.

I'm interested to learn how people who do not appeal to Tradition approaach them.
I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."

Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.

Tradition requires a freely given ascension to Tradition becoming unfettered in truth.

You mean to your version, or perspective of the truth, and that's okay as long as free will is exercised to follow that tradition.

God's Truth is absolute. Thus, we find Divine Traditions to be objective Truth as opposed to subjective.

Again you make inference that you know the only truth and presume it is divine, as do so many others of other bibles, truths and traditions. Wars are fought on the premise that man knows God's truth, for all the good that has done man!

Devotion imposed on a “bunch of followers” is oppression. I don't know about you, but this god I'll avoid.

I wholeheartedly agree.


Accepting the Truth of Scripture as guided by Church Tradition opens a world of Truth; a witness of which is in the lives of the Saints that followed.


No doubt you have your heroes, as good people tend to be, no matter their perspective on truth, or their motives behind their actions, doing good deeds as an example to others.


Let's get real; yeah you are – I was born at night, but not last night. But, that's ok; maybe you just got to cut your own path for awhile. So, keep looking for a better way and someday you'll re-cross the Church's trail and decide to let it guide you.


That's my point, my search is over, and the path is clear, thanks to a personal relationship with a God that I understand, and will not put anything between me, and My God, not tradition, books, or anyone. That's my truth that I accept with free will. Its okay if you cannot grasp, or agree. But as long as your truth makes you happy, I truly am glad, and hope it shows you the path your seeking. We all have to start somewhere, in the way of life.

Good holiday, and peace to you, and yours.

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

Comments withdrawn – refer to post 196 “I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on Tradition vs. not-Tradition, rather than on Catholic vs. not-Catholic.” My comments were related to this latter group.

JoeT

So are you saying that you don't believe the book of Reveleation when it says that there are ONLY 12?

Show me where the book of Revelation says there are "ONLY 12".

Again, where does it say that the choice of Matthias was endorsed by God?

Why'd you ignore the rest of post #179?

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture

No. Anytime you want to debate anything you think is an addition to Scripture, start a thread. I'll be glad to educate you.


and contradicting things which are found in scripture.

It is actually you who does that all the time. Like for instance, in this thread saying that Jesus appointed St. Paul in place of Judas. That is an addition to Scripture.


The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

Nope. Those books were in the Catholic Scriptures from the time of Jesus who used the Septuagint Old Testament which included them. It was Luther who took them out.

However, that's not even the subject of the thread. Do you take every opportunity to attack the Catholic Church?

I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."

Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.

That's fine. I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on Tradition vs. not-Tradition, rather than on Catholic vs. not-Catholic. Since Catholics aren't the only Christians who look to Tradition (there are more than half a billion Eastern Orthodox, for example), I've tried where possible to give a kind of bland conception of it so that it isn't too narrowly focused on the Catholic Church. And my questions regarding the NT canon were framed in terms of the first and second centuries in part to try to keep this thread from turning into a re-hash of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation: Trent good vs. Trent bad. That argument has been had in this forum a number of times and, frankly, I find that many of the exchanges quickly become distasteful. If we look to the early years of Christianity, when the NT canon was coming into being, I think we are better situated to set to one side the standard move-and-counter-move that plays itself out over and over when Trent comes up. (I'm not trying to duck anything here; I think it's an interesting conversation well worth having, I just wanted to stay focused on something from a different historical period in the hope that it would focus attention on what I, at least, regard as the over-arching question.) But I am just the humble OP, not the master of this thread, so I'll let the conversation evolve as it will... as it always does.

I've been trying to put some pressure on different views, in order to get a better sense how those views actually play out once the slogans are set to one side. I hope I haven't been heavy-handed about this.

De Maria,

I thank you for your efforts to keep us on-topic.

Really, much appreciated.

Talaniman,

I get the impression from your posts--and it's just an impression, I don't mean to put words in your mouth--that you are sensitive to the historical conditions surrounding the production and canonization of both the Bible and Tradition. I wonder if you would be willing say a few words about how you see the relationship between the Bible and Tradition, on the one hand, and those historical conditions that you find to be salient, on the other.

Feel free to beg-off if you don't feel like giving a history lesson, though!

Good holiday, and peace to you, and yours.

Thanks,

Merry Christmas

JoeT

I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."

Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.

That's OK. I once had many disagreements with the Catholic Church myself. I'll give my understanding just as fyi, there is of course no obligation to believe it:

First, we remember that Jesus named Simon, Cephas, meaning Rock in Aramaic. Not little rock or any other such thing. So, when we get to Matt 16, we know that the reason Matt says, "Petros" is because it is the masculine form of the word for Rock. Not to demean Simon in anyway.

So, Matthew 16 18 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.

Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Christ is the Rock!

And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock will build my Church"

So God gave Simon the name that represents God.

2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.

Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Has, God ever done this before? Yes. He did it with Moses:

Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

As for the Apocrypha, Jesus used the Septuagint form of the Bible, which was confirmed by the Early Church in many councils.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
The Canon of the Bible (http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm)

Thanks for the question.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hey Joe,

I didn't mean for you to withdraw anything, though I appreciate the graciousness that led you to do so. Very decent of you.

Hey Joe,

I didn't mean for you to withdraw anything, though I appreciate the graciousness that led you to do so. Very decent of you.

I get carried away sometimes. I'm beginning to see where you're headed with this and I didn't want to start the Catholic vs. not-Catholic thing. It does get old.

Great job keeping this hot-head in line!

JoeT

I get carried away sometimes. I’m beginning to see where you’re headed with this and I didn’t want to start the Catholic vs. not-Catholic thing. It does get old.

Great job keeping this hot-head in line!

JoeT

Happy to be of service--though I think you did it all on your own. Nevertheless, I am just shallow enough to accept the credit!

Thanks, De Maria. I've read many of your other posts in other threads, so I can predict your answer, but thanks for spelling out so cogently the Catholic side of those two questions.

Now how about tackling "justification by faith alone," another break from Catholic Tradition. (I say "Catholic" because that is the church body that most often offers a defense for Tradition.)

Happy to be of service--though I think you did it all on your own. Nevertheless, I am just shallow enough to accept the credit!

Now you're learning Doc! Take the credit and run! At least throw money!!

Now you're learning Doc! Take the credit and run! At least throw money!!!

I'm throwing! I'm throwing! The coins just keep bouncing off the screen!

Thanks, De Maria. I've read many of your other posts in other threads, so I can predict your answer, but thanks for spelling out so cogently the Catholic side of those two questions.

Now how about tackling "justification by faith alone," another break from Catholic Tradition. (I say "Catholic" because that is the church body that most often offers a defense for Tradition.)

Sure. Thanks for asking.

In this case, we must take into consideration what is said of St. Paul in the Scriptures:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his (St. Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, Scripture says that some of St. Paul's teachings are hard to understand. And this is one of them.

Because St. James is very clear in saying:

James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

And also:

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that clear cut. Because St. Paul seems to contradict St. James directly:

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

See the problem?

The good thing is that they both referred to Father Abraham to support their doctrine. And no one can deny that Father Abraham worked in obedience to God's call:

Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So how could St. Paul say that Father Abraham did not work?
Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Well he didn't. He said that he was not justified because of what he did. But because of the faith with which he responded to God's voice.

Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

And this is the Catholic position. If we have faith, we will obey God's voice, and be saved. As we can see, in another place, St. Paul says that Jesus gives eternal salvation to all who have faith? No, to all who obey.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And this is in complete agreement with St. James, who says:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Let me throw out a question.

Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.

I've always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don't get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn't referring to other New Testament writings?

Any opinions?

JoeT

I've developed a new category of computer problems - money keeps falling out of my monitor? Strange!

Talaniman,

I get the impression from your posts--and it's just an impression, I don't mean to put words in your mouth--that you are sensitive to the historical conditions surrounding the production and canonization of both the Bible and Tradition. I wonder if you would be willing say a few words about how you see the relationship between the Bible and Tradition, on the one hand, and those historical conditions that you find to be salient, on the other.

Feel free to beg-off if you don't feel like giving a history lesson, though!

To keep it very brief, the history of your own religion, is but a fraction of the history of total man, so you can see where my response is a broader view, than the regional one you have. Many upon the earth predate Christianity, and let us not forget that even Christianity is based upon Judaism, as is Islam also, but of course, for some reason the evolutionary truth between the relationship of these religions is often disputed, distorted, and misrepresented, and as all history tells us, when we have interfaith disputes, we just go down the road, and take our followers with us, and start our own church, and the best example is modern day Christianity. Not to single one religion out, but they all follow the same model. So one is no more unique than the other, nor any closer to the truth than another. So far as tradition, that's only the expression of man in what he believes, and so what he passes down, for his children to believe. Just my view.

De Maria,
Your view is ineresting.
I do not fully agree.
I do believe that Catholicism is the true, full Christian faith as The Church IS guided by The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Show me where the book of Revelation says there are "ONLY 12".

For example:

Rev 21:14-15
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
NKJV

No. Anytime you want to debate anything you think is an addition to Scripture, start a thread. I'll be glad to educate you.

We've been through that many times - the only education that I got from that is that as I looked into the claims that I put forward, my faith in the truth of scripture rather than the claims of tradition was increased.


It is actually you who does that all the time. Like for instance, in this thread saying that Jesus appointed St. Paul in place of Judas. That is an addition to Scripture.

Really? Do you deny Paul is an Apostle?


Nope. Those books were in the Catholic Scriptures from the time of Jesus who used the Septuagint Old Testament which included them. It was Luther who took them out.

We've been through this before also, and your claims does not stand up to historical examination. Even Jerome opposed the Apocrypha as being canonical.

De Maria,
The Rev mention about on the wall's foundation were the names of the original 12 apostles which included Judas.
That can not be proven wither way,
It also does not say Only 12.
It is a stretch but people who don not want to believe in apostolic suggestion as the bible demonstrates that there is like to use that passage in an attempt to claim there were 12 ONLY apostles and never any more.
Peace and kindness,
]Fred

De Maria,
The Rev mention about on the wall's foundation were the names of the original 12 apostles which included Judas.

Please show us where scripture says that and where scripture tells us that there were more than those documented in the future foundation of the New Jerusalem.


It is a stretch but people who don not want to believe in apostolic suggestion as the bible demonstrates that there is like to use that passage in an attempt to claim there were 12 ONLY apostles and never any more.
Peace and kindness,
]Fred

Where does scripture dictate Apostolic succession?

Tj3,
You have been told that many time over several years. Please don't bother to ask again.
It will just start another confrontation and the hut down of another thread,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Let me throw out a question.

Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g., But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.

I’ve always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don’t get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn’t referring to other New Testament writings?

Any opinions?


Here, too, I think, a lot turns on what ends up counting as Scripture. When the NT quotes Scripture it of course quotes the OT; I'm inclined to agree with what you wrote. But how do people explain the canon of the NT, which didn't exist--at least, it didn't exist outside God's mind--in the first century. People had to make decisions about what went in and what got left out, and we today, each of us, has a decision to make whether to abide by the canon we've received. Since you, Fred, and De Maria have explained your views on this, it would be really nice if others, who hold a different view from yours, would pony up and address the question. Instead, we are apparently meant to drop the topic we've all been discussing in order to argue about Trent and how many Apostles there were (though, notice, I started another thread on that very topic for anyone interested).

For example:

Rev 21:14-15
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
NKJV

Where does that say ONLY twelve and where does that say that St. Paul replaces Judas?

The bible shows where Judus was replaced, the other Apostles picked and replaced him. Please it is there, and it was not Pual, Paul was chosen by God, but not as a replacement to any of the 12,

This is a very clear part and I can't see why it is even a question on Judas replacement

De Maria,
Your view is ineresting.
I do not fully agree.
I do believe that Catholicism is the true, full Christian faith as The Church IS guided by The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What point is it with which you disagree. I believe I have expounded Catholic Teaching. But if a faithful Catholic disagrees, perhaps I made a mistake.

Let me throw out a question.

Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g., But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.

I’ve always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don’t get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn’t referring to other New Testament writings?

Any opinions?

JoeT

I've developed a new category of computer problems - money keeps falling out of my monitor? Strange!

St. Peter seems to imply that they knew they were writing Scripture:
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Whether he meant "Sacred Scriptures" is a debatable point. But I think he does mean Sacred Scriptures, otherwise, why does he mention that twisting them can lead to destruction?

Please show us where scripture says that and where scripture tells us that there were more than those documented in the future foundation of the New Jerusalem.

Scripture counts St. Matthias
Acts 1:25
That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

And St. Paul as Apostles.
Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

That makes fourteen.


Where does scripture dictate Apostolic succession?

Acts 1 15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
I could not remember what you said that prompted me to respond as I did.
So I went back and carefully reread your post.
I could not find anything I disagreed with.
It appears that I must have misread something in your post.
I apologize.
Thanks for calling that to my attention.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

otherwise, why does he mention that twisting them can lead to destruction?
Twisting anyone's words can lead to destruction in some way, shape, or form. If I twist FrChuck's words (or ANYone's words so that I cause trouble), I could get kicked off AMHD.

Wondergirl,
For several years I have had to deal with a person who often twist what I or others say and even, at times. Also Scripture.
I have confronted him about it many times but to no avail.
I have never reported him, but have been tempted to do so.
I have come to realize that a person who has that bad habit it is so ingrained that he or she can not see that they have done any wrong.
The habit has become ingrained.
They think it is OK for them to do so.
Peace and kindness,'
Fred

We've been through that many times - the only education that I got from that is that as I looked into the claims that I put forward, my faith in the truth of scripture rather than the claims of tradition was increased.

No problem. As long as you recognize that your statements made no dent on me. And I invite anyone to review those debates we had. I'm confident everyone will see that you simply evaded questions and played loose with the facts. Whilst I produced valid arguments and verifiable facts.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/sola-scriptura-vs-church-sacred-tradition-scripture-172099.html

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/scripture-alone-232879.html

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/did-jesus-leave-us-tradition-scripture-252443.html


Really? Do you deny Paul is an Apostle?

No. Do you deny that Judas Iscariot was an original Apostle and that St. Matthias took his place?


We've been through this before also, and your claims does not stand up to historical examination. Even Jerome opposed the Apocrypha as being canonical.

St. Jerome included the Apocrypha in His Latin Vulgate. So obviously, he changed his mind on the matter.

Whenever you want to get back to the thread, we're all ready. Oh and for your convenience, I'll start a deuterocanon thread. We'll let the readers make up their minds who can produce more evidence and more logical answers for that argument as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
Right you are.
I'm pleased and interested in your ne thread.
I'll take a look at it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Twisting anyone's words can lead to destruction in some way, shape, or form. If I twist FrChuck's words (or ANYone's words so that I cause trouble), I could get kicked off AMHD.

And this was a serious problem for early Christian communities: Lots of infighting. Raymond Brown's "The Community of the Beloved Disciple" is excellent on this. This is why I say it isn't obvious to me that the authors of these texts took themselves to be writing what would one day count as SCripture: They had to address the immediate needs of their communities, some of which were tearing themselves apart. (Of course, I don't think it's obvious that they took themselves NOT to be writing Scripture; sorting this out is just part and parcel of sorting out what belongs to the canon.)

Many early Christians referred to Paul as the Apostle of the Heretics since his words were routinely taken up and appropriated by so many Gnostics. (That's just an aside, really.)

This is why I say it isn't obvious to me that the authors of these texts took themselves to be writing what would one day count as SCripture: They had to address the immediate needs of their communities, some of which were tearing themselves apart.
I suspect Moses didn't realize the posting of the Ten Commandments would become the object of such controversy in the 21st century. Abraham Lincoln probably didn't realize the historical value of that speech he wrote on the back of an envelope on the train ride from D. C. to Gettysburg. Like these men, St. Paul, as you say, was addressing the immediate needs of people.

…we are apparently meant to drop the topic

Surrendering? Surrender to fate? My God, fate can’t discharge a weapon. How can we be “meant “ to do something that’s incomprehensible? Do you think warriors are made on the practice field? No, they’re made Marines on the battle field!

Do you know a better way to find the living fountain of Truth?

I have another far more solid and central ground for submitting to it as a faith, instead of merely picking up hints from it as a scheme. And that is this: that the Christian Church in its practical relation to my soul is a living teacher, not a dead one.” G. K. Chesterton.

Good Night Chesty, Wherever You Are

Semper Fi

JoeT

Way to go Joe.
Well said,
Fred

I'm not a Christian but I've been reading what you're all talking about, I find it very interesting.

Sadly I can't contribute to the discussion, just wanted to say that I'm learning a lot, very interesting stuff. :)

Merry Christmas everyone. :)

I'm not a Christian but I've been reading what you're all talking about, I find it very interesting.

Sadly I can't contribute to the discussion, just wanted to say that I'm learning alot, very interesting stuff. :)

Merry Christmas everyone. :)

Sure you can. Just ask questions about what interests you or what may not be clear.

I'm sure somebody will clue you in. Also, most bibles have a forward in front of each book with a short explanation of who wrote and why. The dirty secret is that it makes you an instant expert. Most people don't read them

JoeT

Thanks Joe but right now I prefer to remain a spectator.

Just wanted you all to know that I'm watching. ;)

I'm not a Christian but I've been reading what you're all talking about, I find it very interesting.

Sadly I can't contribute to the discussion, just wanted to say that I'm learning alot, very interesting stuff. :)

Merry Christmas everyone. :)

We don't mind friendly visits. Welcome and Merry Christmas to you as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thanks for the welcome. :)

Just here to read and learn. It's an interesting topic.

It wouldn't be right for me to join in though, I'm not Christian, although I used to be.

I'm just enjoying your explanations and learning something in the process.

Thanks again for the warm welcome, it's very much appreciated. Now I must go wrap some presents from Santa to my kids, got to keep the traditions alive. :)

Thanks for the welcome. :)

Just here to read and learn. It's an interesting topic.

It wouldn't be right for me to join in though, I'm not Christian, although I used to be.

I'm just enjoying your explanations and learning something in the process.

Thanks again for the warm welcome, it's very much appreciated. Now I must go wrap some presents from Santa to my kids, gotta keep the traditions alive. :)

Happy wrapping!

And, for what it's worth (and speaking only for myself), I'm always interested to hear how reasonable people think about this stuff. Some of the best teachers I had weren't Christians (some f my best students too, come to think of it), so that's no impediment as far as I can tell. Which is just to say that I really hope you won't be sheepish about offering your take on things if and when you feel inclined to do so. Rational discussion is always more fun with lots of different views in the mix.

In the meantime: Be well... and beware of paper cuts.

Hi Altenweg.
Nice to see you here even if just visiting and learning.
You are very welcome here.
Merry Christmas with peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Surrendering? Surrender to fate? My God, fate can’t discharge a weapon. How can we be “meant “ to do something that’s incomprehensible? Do you think warriors are made on the practice field? No, they’re made Marines on the battle field!

Semper Fi

JoeT

Hoorah! Gunney, hoorah!

Ps: If a twenty fell out of your monitor please send it back. I thought it was a single when I threw it at the screen. Also, could I get a receipt? You know, for tax purposes?

Akoue,
LOL
Fred

Once again thank you for the warm welcome. Gosh, you all are making me blush a bit. Maybe I should have stayed in the shadows. ;)

Gosh, you all are making me blush a bit.

Tee-hee-hee.

Altenweg,
I'm glad you did not stay in the shadows.
Blushing is attractive and rare in today's culture.
I make you shine.
Merry Christmas
Fred

Warren H. Carroll took a fascinating stand in his book The History of Christendom, 1985 by Christendom Press; it seems the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John are regularly questioned, he suggests a rather simple solution. These Gospels bear the name of eye witnesses; both Matthew and John were among the Twelve. However the Gospels of Mark and Luke are rarely questioned although they do not claim to have been eyewitnesses. Carroll argues that the probative eyewitness ought to be given weight.

For Catholics we could stop here with a reliance on tradition. Our tradition (small 't') holds that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were authored by the Apostles whose name they bare, and in the order listed here.

Even still, it's likely that these four Apostles chose to write because they were the most prolific of the Twelve. Matthew, the tax collector, would have been proficient in several languages and wrote first; his gospel was likely written in Aramaic and reputedly re-wrote it in Greek.

Biblical critics often suggest that Mark's gospel was written first. Such critics say that with strong parallels to Matthew it's likely that Matthew followed and is a fleshed version of Mark. Carroll points out the flawed logic by exposing the fact that Mark was a much simpler man, less educated; logically, he points out, simpler people write simpler gospels.

Luke seems to be somewhat of a mystery. Since there is such interment detail of the Virgin Mary, it's strongly suggested (citing ancient tradition) that he knew her personally.

And lastly the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century A.D. It's suggested that St. John wrote his Gospel with the benefit of the synoptic Gospels. Being in his 90's at the when writing the Gospel, John seems to take a mystical approach with the passion of Christ and the ascension. I've heard traditions were St. John and the Virgin Mary lived in the same town in keeping with Christ's last command, “behold thy mother.” Still critics will argue that the Gospel John wasn't written by the son of Zebedee the fisherman. John 19:32-37 and John 21:20-24 both have passages of testimony similar to those heard of a witness in a court of law.

I'll leave the dates to Akoue

JoeT

Warren H. Carroll took a fascinating stand in his book The History of Christendom, 1985 by Christendom Press; it seems the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John are regularly questioned, he suggest rather simple solution. These Gospels bear the name of eye witnesses; both Matthew and John were among the Twelve. However the Gospels of Mark and Luke are rarely questioned although they do not claim to have been eyewitnesses. Carroll argues that the probative eyewitness ought to be given weight.

For Catholics we could stop here with a reliance on tradition. Our tradition (small ‘t’) holds that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were authored by the Apostles whose name they bare, and in the order listed here.

Even still, it’s likely that these four Apostles chose to write because they were the most prolific of the Twelve. Matthew, the tax collector, would have been proficient in several languages and wrote first; his gospel was likely written in Aramaic and reputedly re-wrote it in Greek.

Biblical critics often suggest that Mark’s gospel was written first. Such critics say that with strong parallels to Matthew it’s likely that Matthew followed and is a fleshed version of Mark. Carroll points out the flawed logic by exposing the fact that Mark was a much simpler man, less educated; logically, he points out, simpler people write simpler gospels.

Luke seems to be somewhat of a mystery. Since there is such interment detail of the Virgin Mary, it’s strongly suggested (citing ancient tradition) that he knew her personally.

And lastly the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century A.D. It’s suggested that St. John wrote his Gospel with the benefit of the synoptic Gospels. Being in his 90’s at the when writing the Gospel, John seems to take a mystical approach with the passion of Christ and the ascension. I’ve heard traditions were St. John and the Virgin Mary lived in the same town in keeping with Christ’s last command, “behold thy mother.” Still critics will argue that the Gospel John wasn’t written by the son of Zebedee the fisherman. John 19:32-37 and John 21:20-24 both have passages of testimony similar to those heard of a witness in a court of law.

I’ll leave the dates to Akoue

JoeT

Thanks, Joe, that's interesting. I do disagree with Mr. Carroll on one point, namely he order of composition of Mark and Matthew. It's true that Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and we know that Mark was written for a community of non-Aramaic speakers since it has to explain in Greek the meanings of Aramaic expressions. Left out is the famous Q, for Quelle, another postulated early Gospel lost to history. For my part, I think it perfectly possible that there may have been such a Gospel, though I think people sometimes appeal to this possibility in a somewhat profligate way. If there were a Q, an early but lost Gospel, it would likely have been lost very early indeed.

There is good reason to believe that the authors of Matt. And Luke had access to Mark when composing their Gospels. There are some discrepancies between John and the synoptics, which have long since been catalogued (Augustine and John Chrysostom mention them) and this suggests that John's Gospel didn't rely upon Mark in the way Matt. And Luke did. (They may have used it as a kind of template, which they in turn filled in and fleshed out. Which is a really good thing.) But I'm not sure what turns on this at the end of the day. Mark was written in Rome, the cosmopolitan heart of the ancient Mediterranean, and so it isn't all that surprising that it would have been quick to circulate. The other Gospels appear to have made the rounds rather more slowly.

JoeT777 and Akoue,
Thanks very much for that information.
It is extremely interesting and informative.
Merry Christ's mass,
Fred

Thanks, Joe, that's interesting. I do disagree with Mr. Carroll on one point, namely he order of composition of Mark and Matthew. It's true that Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and we know that Mark was written for a community of non-Aramaic speakers since it has to explain in Greek the meanings of Aramaic expressions. Left out is the famous Q, for Quelle, another postulated early Gospel lost to history. For my part, I think it perfectly possible that there may have been such a Gospel, though I think people sometimes appeal to this possibility in a somewhat profligate way. If there were a Q, an early but lost Gospel, it would likely have been lost very early indeed.

There is good reason to believe that the authors of Matt. and Luke had access to Mark when composing their Gospels. There are some discrepancies between John and the synoptics, which have long since been catalogued (Augustine and John Chrysostom mention them) and this suggests that John's Gospel didn't rely upon Mark in the way Matt. and Luke did. (They may have used it as a kind of template, which they in turn filled in and fleshed out. Which is a really good thing.) But I'm not sure what turns on this at the end of the day. Mark was written in Rome, the cosmopolitan heart of the ancient Mediterranean, and so it isn't all that surprising that it would have been quick to circulate. The other Gospels appear to have made the rounds rather more slowly.

Although one Catholic visionary, whose name escapes me, said that there was a disciple John, not the Apostle nor the Baptist, who took notes throughout Jesus' ministry, I'm inclined to believe that the Q is mnemonic. Remember, the ancients were much more skilled at memorizing events and speeches than are we. It was part of the Jewish tradition to pass down ORAL tradition. We pass down traditions which we've heard and written down. They didn't have that luxury. Writing was difficult, the materials were hard to come by.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Silly question, but Catholic school was long ago. ;)

What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Sorry, probably a really stupid question, but I really would like to know.

Silly question, but Catholic school was long ago. ;)

What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Sorry, probably a really stupid question, but I really would like to know.

My opinion on the meaning of Apostle & disciple:

Apostle = from Greek apostello "to send forth"

Disciple = from Latin discipulus – implies a follower of an art or science and that there is an authority higher in that art e.g. a disciple is opposed to Christ as Master as a scholar is opposed to a teacher. The word disciple is sometimes used with the original Twelve.

As I understand it, the word Apostle is used, almost exclusively, for one of the original Twelve Disciples of Christ. In addition to this some, such as Paul, are called 'Apostle' because of a miraculously conversion. Rarely, an 'Apostle' can be some of those disciples of lesser status than original Twelve.

The way I make the distinction is that an apostle is a disciple sent out on a mission by the master. In the case of Scriptures, an 'Apostle' is one of the original Twelve, but of a larger group of disciples, sent to spread the Word by their Master, Christ.


JoeT

Thanks Joe, good info. :)

De Maria,

Like you, I'm inclined to think of Q as mnemonic as well. I'm not sure we should be out looking for a lost text, as some people seem to think. You are quite right: People forget how extraordinarily expensive books and the materials required for producing them were in the ancient world. Even after the advent of the printing press, a single copy of the Bible cost more than several castles.

Joe, Altenweg,

Yes, any student is a disciple, but not all disciples are "sent". In the NT, though, I don't see a particularly rigid distinction being made--unless one is talking about the Twelve, who clearly had a special status as both disciples and apostles.