Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition

[RightReason]

I stumbled across a thread at the very bottom of the forum home page that prompted this post. I am essentially replying to a post in the Sacred Scripture section in the thread titled Scripture Vs. Tradition. I guess the thread is closed now, but I was interested in continuing the conversation

viewtopic.php?t=31174

The Bible is not an exhaustive catechism.

This is perhaps where the Roman Catholic approach is a net plus. In Catholicism, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are considered two faces of the same deposit of faith “delivered once to the saints� and they are each illuminated by the teaching authority of the Church, which Catholics believe was granted by Christ to the Apostles and comes down to believers today.

Good observation.

Tradition overcomes the logical conundrum of having scripture interpret itself, which is a circular proposition.

Yes. It also is what Scripture itself reveals to us. No where in Scripture will you find the Bible say the Bible alone is our sole authority. In fact, in the Bible we are told Jesus established His Church and then said to her, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him . . .��I will remain with my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it�

Also, Sacred Tradition came prior to Sacred Scripture. The Church gave us the Bible. So, very odd for any religion to accept the authority of the Bible, but rejects the authority of the Church. This is illogical and contrary to Scripture!

However, if tradition is completely unshacked from scripture, as it is with the various Catholic dogmas associated with the mother of Jesus

Ha, ha, ha . . . merely stating something doesn’t make it so. Absolutely everything the Church teaches about Jesus’ mother is right in line with Sacred Scripture. In fact, due to your own acknowledgment above regarding what you explained about the Bible not being an exhaustive catechism and the logic of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition being two faces of the same deposit of faith, it would be reasonable to accept what Sacred Tradition (the Church) says about Jesus’ mother. Why should it have any less authority then what we read in Sacred Scripture? As you admit, the logical approach is to acknowledge God’s plan for the authority of both – a clever checks and balance if you will. Also, quite clever (should we be surprised from an all wise, all knowing God?) to anticipate the need for a united authoritative Church.

Prisoner #1: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.

Prisoner #2: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s mother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.

Prisoner #3: Vermin’s mother is going to kill Johnny tonight at the Savoy Theater. Pass it on.

Prisoner #4: Johnny and the Mothers are playin’ “Stompin’ At The Savoy� in Vermont tonight. Pass it on.

This perfectly demonstrates what happens when a person picks up the Bible and gives his own personal interpretation on what he has read.

As we can see, we can understand God’s design for a single, united, authoritative Church to provide a single, united interpretation (as guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by God). Nothing else makes sense. Even sincere devout Christians can read the exact same passage differently.

This IS the elephant in the room that it seems countless Christian denominations simply choose to ignore. How/why did Calvin know he was getting it right? How/why would Luther? How/why would Zwingli? Joseph Smith? John Wesley? George Fox? Charles Taze Russell? From where did their authority come? In fact, each and every one of them denies the authority of Christ’s Church. They all insist on the authority of the Bible (without noting the irony that they received the Bible from the Church. The Bible did not fall from the sky. The Church decided what was to be in it and what wasn’t).

It is something that simply makes no sense. And I can never understand why this doesn't bother more people. I have read of numerous converts to the Catholic faith who said they had been active in other Christian denominations, but realized how problematic it was when those within their congregation disagreed. They themselves admitted they just wanted to know what was right, but their churches admitted they held no authority. So, what would happen if disagreements arose would be splitting off, parting of ways, and new churches formed. So which one got it right?

Of course many other converts to the Catholic faith ended up becoming Catholic once they started delving into history to discover Truth. Once someone starts tracing the Church back to her origins, he ends up in the Catholic Church.

And of course a turning point for many is also John 6:51. One would have to completely ignore the blatant meaning of the passage it order to deny all understood Christ to be speaking literally that day regarding the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Adopting a figurative interpretation renders the passage meaningless and contradicts what His actual audience heard that day He spoke those words.

Anyway, this forum is full of Christians who want to discus Calvin’s predestination and salvation to the elect, Charles Russell’s paradise earth theory and no blood transfusions, John Wesley’s full immersion Baptism, George Fox’s rejected Baptism by water and rejection of rituals, Joseph Smith’s emphasis on no drinking or caffeine, etc. – all of which probably stemmed from good intentions. Nonetheless, no amount of sincerity makes 2+2=5. Having left Christ’s Church they were convinced they could find truth on their own – convinced they could do it better. Unfortunately, what we are left with is thousands of non authoritative denominations all teaching different things. What’s a sincere Christian in search of truth to do?

My suggestion is to start at the beginning. Learn history. I also suggest being on the lookout for inconsistencies in teachings regarding faith and morals. If your church once said the world would end in 1916, but then it didn’t, you might want to call into question your church’s ability to get it right. If your church forbids things that Jesus Himself never forbade (ie: wine), you might have a hard time justifying why. If your church use to be opposed to gay marriage, but has recently changed its teaching, you might want to ask how can truth change? And if they were wrong about that, what else did they get wrong? If your church added to or took out words from the Bible, I’d consider that sketch. If your church wasn’t even founded until a thousand years after Christ, then it couldn’t possibly be Christ’s Church.

Anyway, those are just some things to think about. I wish everyone peace.

[brianbbs67]

Even though I disagree with Sacred tradition and Catholic authority, I will respond.

You asked people to go back and research the history of the church and christ. Well , if you honestly do that, you will see it is a Jewish movement. The followers of the Way and all early believers in the Way, all kept the law, worshipped in synagogues on the Sabbath, kept the Holy days, etc. This went on until at least 200 ad. The rift between the east and west was over this and the date of "Easter"/Passover. As Iraneous wrote to the pope about the Quadrodecemarian dispute(14 Nissan), he reminded the pope that Polycarp his teacher was very Orthodox in matters of scripture, but very forgiving in non-theological matters, such as the date of Easter.

Many of the early "saints" disappeared or were outright murdered by Rome. Arius was one. The mantra is the same as Islamist have today. Convert or die.

As to Peter giving the RCC authority, there is no evidence he ever went to Rome, historically. The bones produced later contained chicken , other people and barnyard animals and were declared Peter's by a friend of the Pope.

James, Yeshua's brother, was the first head of the Jerusalem church, Simeon the 2nd, Jude the 3rd until Rome burnt and destroyed them. Then is when the change from Hebrew belief started and was persecuted until the council of Nicea declared these new beliefs, under penalty of death. They didn't say that. They did that.

Thus "christianity" Hebrew followers of Christ were Hellenized. Sabbath was forced to Sunday. required work on Saturday. New holy days which aren't holy, etc.

Jesus never instructed against Moses. Against men and their traditions which cause them to violate Moses, all the time. Man is not sacred. Man can not make any thing holy. Holy comes from God, alone.

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

You asked people to go back and research the history of the church and christ. Well , if you honestly do that, you will see it is a Jewish movement.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew. That is something all Christians acknowledge. The OT prophesied Jesus, the savior. The NT is a fulfillment of the OT. God’s chosen people to whom He revealed Himself. That IS the history I am referring to. I am unclear why you are mentioning it – it doesn’t contradict anything I said, rather supports it.

The rift between the east and west was over this and the date of "Easter"/Passover. As Iraneous wrote to the pope about the Quadrodecemarian dispute(14 Nissan), he reminded the pope that Polycarp his teacher was very Orthodox in matters of scripture, but very forgiving in non-theological matters, such as the date of Easter.

Many of the early "saints" disappeared or were outright murdered by Rome. Arius was one. The mantra is the same as Islamist have today. Convert or die.

As to Peter giving the RCC authority, there is no evidence he ever went to Rome, historically. The bones produced later contained chicken , other people and barnyard animals and were declared Peter's by a friend of the Pope.

James, Yeshua's brother, was the first head of the Jerusalem church, Simeon the 2nd, Jude the 3rd until Rome burnt and destroyed them. Then is when the change from Hebrew belief started and was persecuted until the council of Nicea declared these new beliefs, under penalty of death. They didn't say that. They did that.

Thus "christianity" Hebrew followers of Christ were Hellenized. Sabbath was forced to Sunday. required work on Saturday. New holy days which aren't holy, etc.

When I said look at history, I didn’t mean look at anti-Catholic propaganda. The statements you posted are not factual.



Here is what Scripture has to say. Scripture itself makes reference to Peter being in Rome. And guess what, as per the topic of this thread, we don’t just listen to Scripture, right? We can turn to historical accounts of ancient writings and when we do, we find tons of evidence from early Church writings showing the original Christians, early fathers, and historical evidence show Peter was in Rome.


*******


“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark� (1 Pet. 5:13).


Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.�


The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (see Rev. 11:8).


William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there� and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.� A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the empire.


In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.� A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome.


https://www.catholic.com/tract/was-peter-in-rome

As for your historical account that the bones of St. Peter were chicken bones That is false. The only thing that can be said about the bones from over 2000 years ago is that they could not conclusively determine they were the actual bones of Peter. But please be careful in spreading anti-Catholic Protestant Propaganda.

As for changing the date of pasover – uuummm . . . Jesus IS the sacrificial lamb. With Jesus came a New Covenant – why wouldn’t a new Easter date be pronounced?

Jesus never instructed against Moses.

Who said He did? Of course, I assume you recognize Christians are no longer under Mosaic Law. We do not send our women out of town when they are menstruating. There is no ban on eating shell fish. It is no longer mandatory that a brother marry his brother’s widow.

Man is not sacred. Man can not make any thing holy. Holy comes from God, alone.

Christ established His Church and so makes it holy. The Church, while made up of fallible men, is also by the grace of God, made up of holy men (at least certainly men striving to be holy)

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

You asked people to go back and research the history of the church and christ. Well , if you honestly do that, you will see it is a Jewish movement.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew. That is something all Christians acknowledge. The OT prophesied Jesus, the savior. The NT is a fulfillment of the OT. God’s chosen people to whom He revealed Himself. That IS the history I am referring to. I am unclear why you are mentioning it – it doesn’t contradict anything I said, rather supports it.

Because Jesus never made one single christian. He was calling back the 10 tribes of Israel.

The rift between the east and west was over this and the date of "Easter"/Passover. As Iraneous wrote to the pope about the Quadrodecemarian dispute(14 Nissan), he reminded the pope that Polycarp his teacher was very Orthodox in matters of scripture, but very forgiving in non-theological matters, such as the date of Easter.

Many of the early "saints" disappeared or were outright murdered by Rome. Arius was one. The mantra is the same as Islamist have today. Convert or die.

As to Peter giving the RCC authority, there is no evidence he ever went to Rome, historically. The bones produced later contained chicken , other people and barnyard animals and were declared Peter's by a friend of the Pope.

James, Yeshua's brother, was the first head of the Jerusalem church, Simeon the 2nd, Jude the 3rd until Rome burnt and destroyed them. Then is when the change from Hebrew belief started and was persecuted until the council of Nicea declared these new beliefs, under penalty of death. They didn't say that. They did that.

Thus "christianity" Hebrew followers of Christ were Hellenized. Sabbath was forced to Sunday. required work on Saturday. New holy days which aren't holy, etc.

When I said look at history, I didn’t mean look at anti-Catholic propaganda. The statements you posted are not factual.

Its not your churches position propaganda? Look at real history. Some of which is outlined in Acts. James always has the last word. Like in Acts 15:13 to the end. This was the begining of their conversion to being Hebrew. Not the end. "for Moses in taught every Sabbath"

Here is what Scripture has to say. Scripture itself makes reference to Peter being in Rome. And guess what, as per the topic of this thread, we don’t just listen to Scripture, right? We can turn to historical accounts of ancient writings and when we do, we find tons of evidence from early Church writings showing the original Christians, early fathers, and historical evidence show Peter was in Rome.


*******


“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark� (1 Pet. 5:13).


Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.�


The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (see Rev. 11:8).


William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there� and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.� A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the empire.


In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.� A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome.

None that lived anyway. Rome had total control by this time. Could Peter have died there, sure. Did he? No man alive can say.


https://www.catholic.com/tract/was-peter-in-rome

As for your historical account that the bones of St. Peter were chicken bones That is false. The only thing that can be said about the bones from over 2000 years ago is that they could not conclusively determine they were the actual bones of Peter. But please be careful in spreading anti-Catholic Protestant Propaganda.

As for changing the date of pasover – uuummm . . . Jesus IS the sacrificial lamb. With Jesus came a New Covenant – why wouldn’t a new Easter date be pronounced?

God never changes. He says His feasts never change. Why would the abomination of Ishtir be part of God's holy day? Rabbits eggs and all. Don't even tell me you have "christianized it". As to my claim, its true. Human and non human bones found together.

Jesus never instructed against Moses.

Who said He did? Of course, I assume you recognize Christians are no longer under Mosaic Law. We do not send our women out of town when they are menstruating. There is no ban on eating shell fish. It is no longer mandatory that a brother marry his brother’s widow.

When did Jesus tell us that? I will tell you. Never. Think about that one. Our Savoir instructs the Law, only.

Man is not sacred. Man can not make any thing holy. Holy comes from God, alone.

Christ established His Church and so makes it holy. The Church, while made up of fallible men, is also by the grace of God, made up of holy men (at least certainly men striving to be holy)

We can not change one hair of our head black or white, but we can now make something holy?

I will leave that to God.
[/i][/b]

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

We can not change one hair of our head black or white, but we can now make something holy?

I will leave that to God.

THAT is exactly what I said. All the credit goes to God, but He can do things however He likes and that included establishing a holy authoritative Church, comprised of mere mortals.

[tam]

May you have peace!

[Replying to post 1 by RightReason]

Also, Sacred Tradition came prior to Sacred Scripture. The Church gave us the Bible. So, very odd for any religion to accept the authority of the Bible, but rejects the authority of the Church. This is illogical and contrary to Scripture!

Christ came before both tradition and scripture. And He is the One to whom God told us to listen (as is even written in the bible). Not tradition; not scripture; not men; not religion. Just Christ, His Son.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 6 by tam]

Christ came before both tradition and scripture. And He is the One to whom God told us to listen (as is even written in the bible). Not tradition; not scripture; not men; not religion. Just Christ, His Son.

Sorry, but that is incomplete. This is what Sacred Scripture actually tells us . . .


“16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.� –Luke 10:16


“15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. 16 2 Thessalonians 2:13


“17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.…� –Matthew 18:17


“14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these things 15so that, if I am delayed, you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16� -1 Timnothy 3:15


As you see, Jesus thru Scripture actually tells us to cling to the traditions we have been taught and to listen to the Church because to do so is to listen to Him. Fancy that.

[tam]

Peace again to you!

[Replying to post 7 by RightReason]

and to listen to the Church because to do so is to listen to Him.

Who does the Church listen to?

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

Who does the Church listen to?

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit – just as Christ promised. Christ also promised He would remain with His Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. THAT was a promise from Christ Himself. So, if we are listening to Christ that is what we hear and we need to trust this revelation to us. That is what faith, coupled with reason is.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to tam]

Who does the Church listen to?

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit – just as Christ promised. Christ also promised He would remain with His Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. THAT was a promise from Christ Himself. So, if we are listening to Christ that is what we hear and we need to trust this revelation to us. That is what faith, coupled with reason is.

What about God-given Reason? Is that all entrusted to the Magisterium? Is the RCC believer still required to surrender that Divine faculty to ecclesiastic authority? If so, what safeguards the RC from clerical abuse or error? The whole Galleleo thing comes to mind.