Stand Fast and Hold the Traditions

[Standing Up]

I have no problem with tradition as long as if it does not blatantly contradict Scripture.

EXACTLY. That's what Irenaeus has said. The oral traditions are (see OP). These are all found explicitely in scripture.

No more of the later, man-made Traditions that are not found in scripture. Paul and early Church NEVER said abide those things.

What the apostles spoke and what they wrote were the same thing. Paul said "teach the same".

 

[Standing Up]

as I have stated in the other forum, my GROUP is not represented by one person hundreds of years after the authorship. Also, taking one quote and applying it to the whole is about as intellectually honest as a doctor telling a man that drinking bleach is beneficial because it will kill the AIDS in him.

Fair enough. John of Damascus is rejected also because of his 28 NT booklet.

So, you're part of which group that never changes?

 

[sculleywr]

Absolutely not. It is the ASSUMED authority for bishops to make up their own traditions apart from oral/written scripture. Irenaeus CONFIRMS they are THE SAME.

Let's camp here shall we? Come to an agreement. Then move on.

Look, we can talk until 1054. And then circle back to oral/written tradition. The point of the OP is to answer the question, which oral traditions? Papacy? Ever-virgin? Bread type? We know these things from scripture. Not oral tradition later and apart from and not-tied to written tradition (scripture).

Oral tradition, if you believe Irenaeus, was exactly the same as scripture.

I believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth,
and in His son Jesus Christ, who suffered ...

PS SUFFERED, you want to know why he didn't say DIED? Perhaps a different thread.

ok, several Traditions in the quotes of the Church fathers, starting with your favorite dead horse, ever-virginity:

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Jerome

But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

Pope Siricius I

You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the Flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

In being born of a virgin who chose to remain a virgin even before she knew who was to be born other, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

Leporius

We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

The Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly He was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).




Origen is closer than your random quote. However, the copies we have of the PoJ are close enough to the apostles that people who knew James would be aware of it, and would have quickly denied the authorship if they had been forgeries made later than James. However, none did, and there is never a challenge against its authorship from

 

[sculleywr]

Fair enough. John of Damascus is rejected also because of his 28 NT booklet.

So, you're part of which group that never changes?

Wow, I think I know who you are. Will you nitpick every single quote and snippet from history, or will you figure out nobody has ever claimed the Church Fathers were individually inerrant, but that the entire picture was perfectly formed by God.

 

[weariedsoul]

I agree with the OP. Tradition isn't worth spit if it isnt taught in Scripture. It may or may not be ok but it causes division. Example: the RCC statue of Jesus is unnecessary. Maybe its Ok but many others are not comfortable with it. My question, is a statue worth division? How about the Mary prayer? Will protestants not be praying properly without that prayer? If you say no then you agree that the prayer is unnecessary. Is it worth division? Is tradition worth that? The world says we are divided, we should prove to them Christ is not.

 

[sculleywr]

EXACTLY. That's what Irenaeus has said. The oral traditions are (see OP). These are all found explicitely in scripture.

No more of the later, man-made Traditions that are not found in scripture. Paul and early Church NEVER said abide those things.

What the apostles spoke and what they wrote were the same thing. Paul said "teach the same".

Problem is, even Marcian hadn't written his canon in that day (Marcian the heretic wrote his canon in 170, Against Heresies is written in the 160s). In Irenaeus's day, there was no canon written, or at least not while he was writing AH.

Also, we know that everything Paul wrote is not preserved. We know that from Scripture that it is not everything the Apostles wrote, because two letters, at least, are missing.

As to other Apostolic Tradition, you can also include the Didache, which is a compilation of quotes from the Twelve.

 

[weariedsoul]

Problem is, even Marcian hadn't written his canon in that day (Marcian the heretic wrote his canon in 170, Against Heresies is written in the 160s). In Irenaeus's day, there was no canon written, or at least not while he was writing AH.

Also, we know that everything Paul wrote is not preserved. We know that from Scripture that it is not everything the Apostles wrote, because two letters, at least, are missing.

As to other Apostolic Tradition, you can also include the Didache, which is a compilation of quotes from the Twelve.

Paul wrote the same things over and over so its hard to miss his teaching, it agrees with the other apostles and the Lords written doctrine. We dont need new apostles writing scripture. We have enough already.

Tell me, what tradition do you think is an important part of the Gospel that isn't already taught in scripture? Maybe i'll understand your position better.

 

[Standing Up]

ok, several Traditions in the quotes of the Church fathers, starting with your favorite dead horse, ever-virginity:
-snip-

Paul said, abide the traditions whether oral or written. What are the oral traditions?

Irenaeus gives us an answer; it is akin to the Nicene Creed. It is written. It is apostolic.

I can't believe folks would reject that in order to maintain later beliefs, but hey, color me 'still naive'.

As to specific so-called Traditions, start a new thread. This one is on the "abide the traditions whether oral or written at the time of apostles".

 

[Standing Up]

I agree with the OP. Tradition isn't worth spit if it isnt taught in Scripture. It may or may not be ok but it causes division. Example: the RCC statue of Jesus is unnecessary. Maybe its Ok but many others are not comfortable with it. My question, is a statue worth division? How about the Mary prayer? Will protestants not be praying properly without that prayer? If you say no then you agree that the prayer is unnecessary. Is it worth division? Is tradition worth that? The world says we are divided, we should prove to them Christ is not.

Would that groups who "love" tradition, "love" this information from Irenaeus that ties out to Paul's instruction.

You're right. If it 'hurts' your brother, don't do it. Pretty simple stuff, but folks love their Traditions. Per the OP, however, it's now been shown what those were and they no longer correspond to what schismatically developed centuries later.

 

[Standing Up]

From post #3.


Jerome

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).


Poor Jerome, alas, we knew him well, until he admitted the "even if" and voted for "majority opinion", thus negating his eloquence.

 

[weariedsoul]

Would that groups who "love" tradition, "love" this information from Irenaeus that ties out to Paul's instruction.

You're right. If it 'hurts' your brother, don't do it. Pretty simple stuff, but folks love their Traditions. Per the OP, however, it's now been shown what those were and they no longer correspond to what schismatically developed centuries later.

I must agree again. Paul taught us to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks. Sure we may not always agree on all things but we dont need things that are unnecessary. Are those things i mentioned necessary? If not then they are stumbling blocks that divide us and should be removed so the Gospel can shine brighter.

Even now we debate and blemish it.

 

[sculleywr]

From post #3.


Jerome

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).


Poor Jerome, alas, we knew him well, until he admitted the "even if" and voted for "majority opinion", thus negating his eloquence.

nice non sequitir

He said it had Scriptural basis, then also said that even without that, the consensus of the world was also there.

 

[sculleywr]

Paul said, abide the traditions whether oral or written. What are the oral traditions?

Irenaeus gives us an answer; it is akin to the Nicene Creed. It is written. It is apostolic.

I can't believe folks would reject that in order to maintain later beliefs, but hey, color me 'still naive'.

As to specific so-called Traditions, start a new thread. This one is on the "abide the traditions whether oral or written at the time of apostles".

didn't you already say that? do I need to whack the record player to stop you from skipping or something? I was proving that they were in the oral Traditions, not defending them individually. Since the source of the ever-virginity is apparently your biggest fight, the quotes have relevance.

 

[sculleywr]

Paul wrote the same things over and over so its hard to miss his teaching, it agrees with the other apostles and the Lords written doctrine. We dont need new apostles writing scripture. We have enough already.

Tell me, what tradition do you think is an important part of the Gospel that isn't already taught in scripture? Maybe i'll understand your position better.

If it's so hard to miss his teaching, why is it that 15000-40000 denominations have different interpretings of his teachings?

important parts of the gospel denied by various denominations. Denominations are identified if such knowledge is had:

Salvation in baptism, denied by Baptists, among others:
The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (I Peter 3:21)

The intercession of the Saints and Angels, declined by most non-catholic denominations:

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. (from Revelations)

(Raphael the angel speaking to Tobit) And so when you and your daughter in law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One....I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One. (From Tobit)

Then the Lord with his own mouth called me, saying, Approach hither, Enoch, at my holy word. And He raised me up, making me draw near even to the entrance. My eye was directed to the ground. Then addressing me, He spoke and said, Hear, neither be afraid, O righteous Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness: approach hither, and hear my voice. Go, say to the Watchers of heaven [fallen angels], who have sent thee to pray for them, You ought to pray for men, and not men for you. Wherefore have you forsaken the lofty and holy heaven, which endures forever, and have lain with women; have defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; have taken to yourselves wives; have acted like the sons of the earth, and begotten an impious offspring? (Book of Enoch)

The third voice I heard petitioning and praying for those who dwell upon earth, and supplicate the name of the Lord of Spirits…The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. (Book of Enoch)

There I saw another vision; I saw the habitations and couches of the saints. There my eyes beheld their habitations with the angels, and their couches with the holy ones. They were entreating, supplicating, and praying for the sons of men; while righteousness like water flowed before them, and mercy like dew was scattered over the earth. And thus shall it be with them for ever and for ever. (Book of Enoch)

He (Judas Maccabeus) armed each of them not so much with confidence in shields and spears as with the inspiration of brave words, and he cheered them all by relating a dream, a sort of vision, which was worthy of belief. What he saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews. Then likewise a man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. And Onias spoke saying, "This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the prophet of God." (2 Maccabees)​

There are others, but I don't have that kind of space

 

[weariedsoul]

If it's so hard to miss his teaching, why is it that 15000-40000 denominations have different interpretings of his teachings?

And tradition is better? The tradition that we have seen ever since the dark ages has played a role in creating that mess, tradition is hardy the answer. That just creates more "interpretations"

 

[sculleywr]

And tradition is better? The tradition that we have seen ever since the dark ages has played a role in creating that mess, tradition is hardy the answer. That just creates more "interpretations"

Tradition roots in the first centuries of the Church: Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Ignatius, etc. That's hardly the dark ages. Two of those people sat at the feet of the Apostles

 

[weariedsoul]

Tradition roots in the first centuries of the Church: Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Ignatius, etc. That's hardly the dark ages. Two of those people sat at the feet of the Apostles

Ok, but please help me understand. What tradition is important to the Gospel that is not already found in scripture?

 

[sculleywr]

Ok, but please help me understand. What tradition is important to the Gospel that is not already found in scripture?

The proper practice of the faith. How do the people gather? How do the people fast? How does one take in Communion? What is Communion? Is it a symbol or a reality? What does Baptism do? What are the sacraments of the Church? What things are important to the Church? What does God do through the Church? Is the Church united in doctrine or is it only a nebulous ideal? Are we still in communion with those whose bodies have passed?

All of these are hinted at or spoken about in Scripture, but the exact answers are within the Tradition of the Church.

 

[weariedsoul]

The proper practice of the faith. How do the people gather? How do the people fast? How does one take in Communion? What is Communion? Is it a symbol or a reality? What does Baptism do? What are the sacraments of the Church? What things are important to the Church? What does God do through the Church? Is the Church united in doctrine or is it only a nebulous ideal? Are we still in communion with those whose bodies have passed?

All of these are hinted at or spoken about in Scripture, but the exact answers are within the Tradition of the Church.

Are you so sure those things are not taught to us in scripture? Paul teaches much on those things. I think maybe you just need to justify tradition. And that's Ok, we all learn and eventually our opinions can change, mine sure have, but i didn't easily give them up at first.

Tradition in my church that i went to when i was a kid didn't allow musical instruments, they misinterpreted scripture in that particular area i believe. Yet i think they were not entirely in err. They taught the gospel and that's what matters most, they didn't contradict the Gospel doctrine, they just misunderstood a few things and it was tradition that was to blame, scripture itself showed me the err in that doctrine, tradition only misinterpreted it, but im glad i came here and learned a few things since then.

 

[ghty]

Mit Romney only cares about money. He invests in Plan B you cant trust him. He's a liar who doesnt care about the people whose lives he ruins.