Examples of Sacred Tradition

[PeaceByJesus]

The most straight forward thing that Scripture says about itself is Paul writing to Timothy -- "16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Keep in mind that Paul does not write this passage to a community of believers but rather to the young man he has groomed to be his successor and receive his governing and teaching authority as an apostle -- the only time "man of God" is used in the NT..

And as said, Paul was the manner of man who preached Scriptural Truths, reasoning from the Scriptures, to which he appealed, and did not presume ensured personal veracity, thus he could validly exhort, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1) who also taught Scripture as being the authoritative word of God.

And Paul points to Scripture as the instrumentally enabling the man of God to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"

And I whole-heardtedly agree that Scripture is profitable (newer translations say 'useful') for someone in that role to teach, reproof, correct and train those those they shepherd. That is a no brainer. ]

And thus when Paul also tells Timonthy that For bodily exercise profiteth little: but Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, (1 Timothy 4:8) then you would say Godliness is simply useful?

But what the text does not say is that only Scripture is good for these things, or that Scripture is sufficient for all things. "Useful" in no way equates to "sufficient"

Certainly even non-inspired words can be useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, yet not necessarily so, and such cannot be the standard for what is doctrine and righteousness. But you are ignoring is that the only substantive class of Divine revelation that is said to be wholly inspired of God is Scripture, which thus is the sure standard as the assured word of God.

The inspired oral words such as the Lord and apostles preached also was also the word of God, but the validity of the claim to be so required conformity to the established word of God, the Scriptures, to which oral preaching appealed.

In addition, no other source of Divine revelation is given the manner of affirmation as the written word, even as the Law (broadly speaking) being perfect, converting the soul; sure, making wise the simple; right, rejoicing the heart; pure, enlightening the eyes; clean, enduring for ever; true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:7-10)

And not other source of Divine revelation is instrumentally affirmed as enabling the man of God to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:17)
And writing is God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

But when a question about what a particular verse means relating to a doctrinal question, I defer to the authority of the church.

Which is sound, except under the premise that the church cannot err, that its own basis for veracity rests upon this premise, versus Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. There is judicial authority, such as SCOTUS has, and to which souls are bound to obey or else suffer the consequences, but which authority does not mean they will always be right. When they are wrong, then dissent is valid, even though they suffer consequences.

But perhaps you disagree, under the premise that the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture must be infallible.

Paul tells Timothy things about the church too you know -- specifically that it is the 'pillar and bulwark of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15).

So based upon the few Greek words in the text, tell me how this means that Scripture is subject to the church, rather than the church being grounded upon its Truth and supporting it, which is the only understanding supported by the rest of Scripture.

He tells the Ephesians that it is through the church that the manifold wisdom of God is made known (Eph 3:10).

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, (Ephesians 3:9-10)
Meaning contextually not by progressive church teaching, but by the very existence and nature of the church as being the one new man, the revelation of which - not speaking of comprehensive doctrine but this new man mystery - was "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Ephesians 3:5)

So I defer to the church in how to understand those matters of doctrine that apply to all believers.

Then tell me how many Bible verses your church has infallibly defined? And I will show you examples of variant interpretations of even church teaching by RCs, which abound!

G.K. Chesterson once said that "A Catholic is a person who has plucked up courage to face the incredible and inconceivable idea that something else may be wiser than he is."

Which is why he prostituted his mind to support Rome even with absurd arguments.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Also how do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or your own spirit?

So spiritual discernment, and the gift of "discerning of spirits" (1 Corinthians 12:10) only pertains to the magisterium, or that the laity can never be correct if in conflict with the authoritative magisterium (which, once established, historically flows via formal ordination). Interesting. So much for how the NT church began.

Authority cannot emerge out of that without miraculous signs. That's why Jesus had to do them.

So miraculous signs themselves are determinitive of Truth, or are the validity of the kind of signs and what they support subject to affirmation by a higher express revelatory authority?

God can be heard in the scriptures but it must be received unambiguously if you plan to receive universal truth. The Holy Spirit reveals personal truth's to individual persons. He reveals universal truth to universal realities.

So thus the Holy Spirit does not reveal universal truth to the laity, except via the authoritative magisterium. So much for how the NT church began.

Jesus established a universal institution so that universl truth's could be received. That's why Scripture isn't for an individual interpreter but for the Church to enterpret. That's what councils are all about.

Quite a broad statement. Someone needs to tell that to Catholics, who are told they have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture (to support Rome) within the broad parameters of Catholic interpretation. Which we see right in sanctioned Catholic commentaries, among other sources.

But consistent with this and your prior statements, it must have been the authoritative magisterium that revealed universal truths to the people, not itinerant prophets or preachers whom the authoritative magisterium rejects. So much for how the NT church began.

Where is that authority? Authority that comes from God is like God, He came, He is here, and He will come again. So what Church is teaching the Gospel without error?

Why is must be the one that has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Where is the Church that God promised to be with and guide it to 'all truth' until He returns.

The last I read the only church that He bought with His sinless shed blood (Acts 20:28) and which is His bride (Ephesians 5:25) and which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell, is that of the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) which is the one rue church since it uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers. And which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

And God has been progressively leading His people into all the Truth -and Scripture has yet to be mined of all it contains in its depths - which will not end until the Lord's return, (1 John 3:2) but which has not typically been thru the formal magisterium.

I know that Church would be seen as arrogant today. How dare they say the truth belongs to them? Perhaps only the Bride would have such security with the Groom.

Since the church is the bride, and consists of all who are born again - and only them - then what is erroneous and arrogant is to claim one particular organic body is that one true church. Which is not the church that is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

That's the problem though. Without authority from above, placed into human hands, Scriptures are relative truth.

SS supports the magisterial office and as authoritative as it was in Scripture, thus the issue is the nature of the authoritative magisterial office. Which is not an autocratic entity as per Rome, which is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but as in Scripture, the veracity (not the validity of its power) of its judgments are subject to Scripture.

Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

One sword can't sharpen it's self, it just gets blunt with use. Two swords will sharpen each other. Sacred Tradition confirmed the canon not the other way around.

Caths keep repeating this mantra, despite it being pointed out to them that the establishment of an authoritative body of writings preceded the church, and if the tradition and the judgments that the authoritative historical magisterium held to must be followed, then 1st century souls should have followed those who sat in the seat of Moses rather than some itinerant preachers. Thus once again following your premise is to invalidate the church.

Luke 22 7 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”

Apparently He had a lesson there. Two swords in the context He was speaking would hardly be enough. Also, who He was forewarning is important. He was prophesying suffering the entire Church would experience, it follows that "two swords is enough" had a deeper meaning. He would have said that's too much if one were enough. Or He might say, you'll need many more swords than that to defend all of you. But He said, two swords is enough.

So we were just told that "Scripture isn't for an individual interpreter but for the Church to enterpret," yet once again we have a Catholic interpreting (wresting) Scripture in the interest of supporting his church, while other Catholics and Pope Boniface VIII (in The Bull "Unam Sanctam") asserted, "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: "Behold, here are two swords" [Lk 22:38]...that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

 

[redleghunter]

So spiritual discernment, and the gift of "discerning of spirits" (1 Corinthians 12:10) only pertains to the magisterium, or that the laity can never be correct if in conflict with the authoritative magisterium (which, once established, historically flows via formal ordination). Interesting. So much for how the NT church began.

I think Joan of Arc would have something to say about this too. The magisterium burned her at the stake for being in dissent. Point well made.

But of course they "made it right" by making her a saint.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Eloy Craft:Also how do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or your own spirit?

"PeaceByJesus,[/B] post: 72608358, member: 325380"]So spiritual discernment, and the gift of "discerning of spirits" (1 Corinthians 12:10) only pertains to the magisterium,

The subject wasn't the Catholic church PBJ How do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or from your own? Do you have a technique you can articulate and share?

Eloy Craft:Authority cannot emerge out of that without miraculous signs. That's why Jesus had to do them.

So miraculous signs themselves are determinitive of Truth, or are the validity of the kind of signs and what they support subject to affirmation by a higher express revelatory authority?

Great question! Could be. It would depend on who witnessed the signs. If an ecclesial body witnessed the signs it would be for them and theirs.

Eloy Craft:Jesus established a universal institution so that universl truth's could be received. That's why Scripture isn't for an individual interpreter but for the Church to enterpret. That's what councils are all about.

"PeaceByJesus, [/B]post: 72608358, member: 325380"]Quite a broad statement. Someone needs to tell that to Catholics, who are told they have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture (to support Rome) within the broad parameters of Catholic interpretation. Which we see right in sanctioned Catholic commentaries, among other sources.

It seems to you it's impossible for an individual Catholic to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit with maybe a conviction of heart. We are just like a swarm of locusts to you aren't we PBJ?

Eloy Craft:Where is the Church that God promised to be with and guide it to 'all truth' until He returns.

And God has been progressively leading His people into all the Truth -and Scripture has yet to be mined of all it contains in its depths - which will not end until the Lord's return, (1 John 3:2) but which has not typically been thru the formal magisterium.

How are you going to strain the error out so it doesn't get mixed in with the 'all'? Gotta plan for than? A specialized huermunetic in the development stage perhaps? Is their an interfaith council planned to agree on what is and isn't error? A method to arrive at 'all truth' from a body of faith(s) a bit wrinkled and spotted?

Eloy Craft:I know that Church would be seen as arrogant today. How dare they say the truth belongs to them? Perhaps only the Bride would have such security with the Groom.

then what is erroneous and arrogant is to claim one particular organic body is that one true church.

You proved my point. What audacity! Who do they think they are, acting like the truth belongs to them or something. The Bride, she vanished off the face of the earth a long time ago! Don't they know that! Can't be seen anymore!

Eloy Craft:That's the problem though. Without authority from above, placed into human hands, Scriptures are relative truth.

SS supports the magisterial office and as authoritative as it was in Scripture, thus the issue is the nature of the authoritative magisterial office. Which is not an autocratic entity as per Rome, which is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but as in Scripture, the veracity (not the validity of its power) of its judgments are subject to Scripture.

SS supports a magisterium? what body of teaching does it guard?

Well, the Word is an eternal reality. Eternal in all it's expressions. First expression of the Word were the words that came from the mouth of Jesus. This is the Word of God. But He is in heaven now so the Word being an eternal reality, the Word came out of the mouth of the Apostles. Now the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it. The truth keeps marching on, not all of it of course, but all of it true.

Eloy Craft:One sword can't sharpen it's self, it just gets blunt with use. Two swords will sharpen each other. Sacred Tradition confirmed the canon not the other way around.

Caths keep repeating this mantra, despite it being pointed out to them that the establishment of an authoritative body of writings preceded the church, and if the tradition

I don't know how something can be written before it is dictated. How a story can be written before the story happens. How the Written Word of God can be effective if the people have no way to publish it. Nope that just don't make sense PBJ. Faith is through hearing. It gets written quite a while after it's heard.[/SIZE]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The subject wasn't the Catholic church PBJ

Of course the subject is implicitly the Catholic Church, unless you have another infallible body, if your premise is (as you indicate it is) that such is needed.

How do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or from your own? Do you have a technique you can articulate and share?

How did 1st century souls discern that John the baptist was a prophet indeed? Or prophets before them? Certainly this does not mean uniformity among all the people, and certainly the magisterial office is supposed to settle disputes, but the fact is that despite the valid authority of that office, it nowhere is promises ensured infallibility, and instead (as said) the church began in dissent from the authoritative magisterial office, following itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

That some disagree is life, and evidences what one really wants, (John 3:19-21) but it remains that the supreme standard for a corporate people is Scripture.
Great question! Could be. It would depend on who witnessed the signs. If an ecclesial body witnessed the signs it would be for them and theirs.
No, the devil can do miracles, but the validity of such and their source is determined by the word of God.

It seems to you it's impossible for an individual Catholic to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit with maybe a conviction of heart. We are just like a swarm of locusts to you aren't we PBJ?

Which is not what I said, which was that "Someone needs to tell that to Catholics, who are told they have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture (to support Rome)...," in response to your broad assertion that "Scripture isn't for an individual interpreter but for the Church to enterpret."

Thus you are avoiding your contradiction by recourse to sarcastic non-sequitur. But I can see you are getting desperate with your bold face font (point weak here: pound pulpit). You could have said you were referring to binding doctrine if that is what you meant by the exclusion of personal interpretation, but which presumes councils cannot err, for which their is no basis in Scripture, though perhaps you want to argue there is.

How are you going to strain the error out so it doesn't get mixed in with the 'all'? Gotta plan for than? A specialized huermunetic in the development stage perhaps? Is their an interfaith council planned to agree on what is and isn't error? A method to arrive at 'all truth' from a body of faith(s) a bit wrinkled and spotted?

Why not look at Scripture and even life? In the latter every day we understand what others say in the light of context, grammar, tone, the addressee, so that, for instance, we understand "Orioles pound Cardinals," is not speaking of literal birds. In rare cases of substantial dispute about words, cases are brought before judges, and progressively so, which is the normal means of settling disputes, and which follows Scriptural principles.

Yet the courts are not autocratic, but as in the case of rights and legality, they judge according to an authoritative document. But the reality is that both religious and civil courts can themselves be wrong in their judgments, and a section of the "laity" be correct in their discernment and judgment, as the testimony of history will show. Which can lead to independence from a corrupt magisterial authority and establishment of another, in the sovereignty of God, as with the USA (though the ideal for the body of Christ is actually one central magisterium of Scriptural men of God as the apostles most manifestly were, by that of Rome is not), with the veracity of its judgments themselves being subject to conformity with a ruling document, versus being autocratic.

In short, when the Lord promised, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me," (John 10:27) this Voice never meant as restricted to what the magisterial office speaks, nor that its voice would always be that of Christ, whose church began in dissent from the authoritative magisterial office, and that which replaced it was never promised ensured (if conditional) infallibility.

But this promise of Jn. 10:27 presumes their is and will be a reliable historical source of His words, which He Himself and His preachers affirmed writing to be, then the Lord inspired the recording of chosen words and additional promised public revelation, as was the case before, and which the Lord and His church abundantly invoked as the authoritative word of God, which their oral preaching was in conflation with and complementary to.

However, Catholic popes and prelates do not speak as wholly inspired of God, and thus such cannot be equal with Scripture, and which they often conflict with.

You proved my point. What audacity! Who do they think they are, acting like the truth belongs to them or something. The Bride, she vanished off the face of the earth a long time ago! Don't they know that! Can't be seen anymore!

Since your premise is false, so also is your conclusion, and once again your sarcasm fails to in any way refute what i said. Again, the spiritual body of Christ which He purchased with His own sinless shed blood, into which spiritual body of Christ the Spirit baptizes every believer into, and to which He is married, is the one true church since it uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

For a particular church, which is an admixture of wheat and tares, to claim to uniquely be the one true church, an even infallible, is indeed Scripturally arrogant and invalid.

SS supports a magisterium? what body of teaching does it guard?

Under SS this is affirmed, as said. The Westminster Confession affirms "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," and which supported a body of core Scriptural Truths, including those of the apostles creed, plus things such as ordaining elders (presbuteros) who are the only overseers of the church after the apostles, and who were not Catholic priests, and were normally married.

Since is the issue is conformity of doctrine, the reality is that regardless of official paper professions of a limited degree of teachings, disagreements abound in Catholicism, and liberals are far more likely to feel at home being a Catholic than identifying as a evangelical "Bible Christian," which is what Protestant properly refers to.

Well, the Word is an eternal reality. Eternal in all it's expressions. First expression of the Word were the words that came from the mouth of Jesus. This is the Word of God. But He is in heaven now so the Word being an eternal reality, the Word came out of the mouth of the Apostles. Now the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it. The truth keeps marching on, not all of it of course, but all of it true.

"the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it"? Whatever that means, and relates to what I said.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Caths keep repeating this mantra, despite it being pointed out to them that the establishment of an authoritative body of writings preceded the church, and if the tradition

I don't know how something can be written before it is dictated. How a story can be written before the story happens. How the Written Word of God can be effective if the people have no way to publish it. Nope that just don't make sense PBJ. Faith is through hearing. It gets written quite a while after it's heard.

Rather, what does not make sense is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what sacred tradition consists of, and making that equal with Scripture, and with the magisterium effectively being supreme over both.

My statement was in response to your assertion that "Sacred Tradition confirmed the canon not the other way around," meaning that your infallible magisterium is essential to know what Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture consists of (and means), and thus your magisterium infallibly determined which versions of the canon was valid. Yet is this was magisterium was essential to know what writings were of God, then the body of writings which were established as the authoritative word of God by the time of Christ would have necessitated an infallible magisterium.

And that if the tradition of the authoritative magisterium is that which must be held, then 1st c. souls should have followed the authoritative magisterium of the Jews, rather than following some itinerant preachers who established their Truth clams upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

The problem of which conclusion which follows Catholic premises continues to be avoided.

 

[Eloy Craft]

course the subject is implicitly the Catholic Church, unless you have another infallible body, if your premise is (as you indicate it is) that such is needed.

when you learn to stick to the subject matter maybe there could be a dia-logue.. That's two people.

How did 1st century souls discern that John the baptist was a prophet indeed? Or prophets before them? Certainly this does not mean uniformity among all the people, and certainly

cant answer thr question? No wonder you can't dia-logue.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The subject wasn't the Catholic church PBJ How do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or from your own? Do you have a technique you can articulate and share?

This is disingenuous. Sacred Tradition is the sole property of the Churches which claim Apostolic Succession (itself, mostly Sacred Tradition).

Great question! Could be. It would depend on who witnessed the signs. If an ecclesial body witnessed the signs it would be for them and theirs.



It seems to you it's impossible for an individual Catholic to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit with maybe a conviction of heart. We are just like a swarm of locusts to you aren't we PBJ?

It's not that it's impossible, it's that the entire Church doesn't have to believe it.

How are you going to strain the error out so it doesn't get mixed in with the 'all'? Gotta plan for than? A specialized huermunetic in the development stage perhaps? Is their an interfaith council planned to agree on what is and isn't error? A method to arrive at 'all truth' from a body of faith(s) a bit wrinkled and spotted?

How? By comparing it to Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, along with the Magisterium.

You proved my point. What audacity! Who do they think they are, acting like the truth belongs to them or something. The Bride, she vanished off the face of the earth a long time ago! Don't they know that! Can't be seen anymore!

Yes, the audacity of Jesus to give his apostles, and their successors, the Truth. How dare He!

SS supports a magisterium? what body of teaching does it guard?

Yes, Sacred Scripture does. Acts of the Apostles speaks of Timothy, who was a disciple of Paul. Paul, in his letters to Timothy, admonishes him to hold fast to the traditions I have taught you. Magisterium is the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors.

Well, the Word is an eternal reality. Eternal in all it's expressions. First expression of the Word were the words that came from the mouth of Jesus. This is the Word of God. But He is in heaven now so the Word being an eternal reality, the Word came out of the mouth of the Apostles. Now the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it. The truth keeps marching on, not all of it of course, but all of it true.

We just do not limit God's Word to what was written.

I don't know how something can be written before it is dictated. How a story can be written before the story happens. How the Written Word of God can be effective if the people have no way to publish it. Nope that just don't make sense PBJ. Faith is through hearing. It gets written quite a while after it's heard.[/SIZE]

Sacred Tradition is what was taught that wasn't written down, and provides context to Sacred Scripture.

 

[Eloy Craft]

[

This is disingenuous. Sacred Tradition is the sole property of the Churches which claim Apostolic Succession (itself, mostly Sacred Tradition).

I don't disagree with that. The subject of my question was discernment.

not that it's impossible, it's that the entire Church doesn't have to believe it.

exactly my point

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ course the subject is implicitly the Catholic Church, unless you have another infallible body, if your premise is (as you indicate it is) that such is needed.

when you learn to stick to the subject matter maybe there could be a dia-logue.. That's two people.

The subject is that of Catholic sacred tradition, which means presupposes an authoritative definition of what that consists of, which Catholics assert their magisterium provides, as souls cannot even discover the contents of sacred revelation otherwise. (no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium. People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72) Jesus established a universal institution so that universl truth's could be received. That's why Scripture isn't for an individual interpreter but for the Church to enterpret. That's what councils are all about. - Eloy Craft said: ↑

Which relates to your question, "how do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or your own spirit?" For which the Catholic answer is ultimately by the magisterium. And thus this would have been essential for an authoritative body of Scripture to have been established by the time of Christ, which is what i responded with.

And thus as said, of course the subject is implicitly the Catholic Church," and another Catholic even flagged your protest as disingenuous.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ How did 1st century souls discern that John the baptist was a prophet indeed? Or prophets before them?

cant answer thr question? No wonder you can't dia-logue.

Now your recourse to charge me with what you manifestly have exampled, ignoring questions, while I have already stated that the church began upon the basis of Truth claims being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the basis of ensured personal veracity, though as God, Christ did possess that.

But here my response is akin to that of Christ who answered a question with a question, since it forced the interrogators to provide the answer which refutes their premise.

And since your premise is that God "reveals universal truth to universal realities," not to individual persons, and thus "That's why Scripture isn't for an individual interpreter but for the Church to enterpret. That's what councils are all about," then my question how was it that God revealed universal truths to people outside the authoritative magisterium, and which is how the church began.

Likewise, those who sat in the seat of Moses presumed no one could have authority to preach apart from their sanction, and thus Jesus of Nazareth and his itinerant preachers came "again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)

The implicit answer to their question refuted their premise, and thus the Lord's question was actually an answer. As was mine to yours, by the grace of God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

[
I don't disagree with that. The subject of my question was discernment.

exactly my point

I think you missed the point. Where private revelation by the Holy Spirit is exposed, there is no necessity for the Church to teach it as necessary to believe. Many private revelations are recommended by the Church, but none are necessary for salvation. Sacred Tradition is different. We must believe what Sacred Tradition has taught, and must know when it is, and when it is not, actually Sacred Tradition. For example, priestly celibacy is not Sacred Tradition, it is a discipline. Jesus really and truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist confected by the priest is Sacred Tradition. We get it from Scripture, but Tradition tells us what it means.

 

[Eloy Craft]

think you missed the point. Where private revelation by the Holy Spirit is exposed, there is no necessity for the Church to teach it as necessary to believe. Many private revelations are recommended by the Church, but none are necessary for salvation.

I think you missed my point. I understand the various ways revelation is recieved and it's characteristics. and proper application. Is there a particular reason you gatherrd I needed educated on the subject? Something you can point out specifically? Your post is confusing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think you missed my point. I understand the various ways revelation is recieved and it's characteristics. and proper application. Is there a particular reason you gatherrd I needed educated on the subject? Something you can point out specifically? Your post is confusing.

Most people, even Catholics, don't understand what Sacred Tradition is. I'm trying to explain it. And have. Whether you understand it or not, I don't know, don't see any proof of it one way or another.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Most people, even Catholics, don't understand what Sacred Tradition is. I'm trying to explain it. And have. Whether you understand it or not, I don't know, don't see any proof of it one way or another.

You might want to get some glasses.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You might want to get some glasses.

Is that supposed to be an admonishment? I already wear glasses, and possess a brain. But I still don't know if you understand Sacred Tradition. Why not consider it as educational for some who don't understand it, if in fact you do. Bye!

 

[Eloy Craft]

Is that supposed to be an admonishment? I already wear glasses, and possess a brain. But I still don't know if you understand Sacred Tradition. Why not consider it as educational for some who don't understand it, if in fact you do. Bye!

I'm going to show just a couple of examples of what really happened between you and I. I posted below a couple of examples about when you jumped into the discussion. Apparently you thought I was a defending Sola Scriptura.

I outlined Sacred Tradition in the below posted statement to PeaceByJesus as an approach to prove Sola Scriptura inadequate to express the entire Word of God. Then you come in correcting me 'from above' with a definition of Sacred Tradition 101. Now PBJ is posting that I won't even take correction from another Catholic. People who have love for truth aren't found mocking what seems errant to them. They expose error by contrast. Those who slander, do it because their arguments aren't supported with reason but supported by the lower base needs of the ego. Unfortunately they aren't conscious of that.

2 John 12
These people, however, are like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed. They slander what they do not understand,


Eloy Craft said:
I don't know how something can be written before it is dictated. How a story can be written before the story happens. How the Written Word of God can be effective if the people have no way to publish it. Nope that just don't make sense PBJ. Faith is through hearing. It gets written quite a while after it's heard.

Sacred Tradition is what was taught that wasn't written down, and provides context to Sacred Scripture.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eloy Craft said:
Well, the Word is an eternal reality. Eternal in all it's expressions. First expression of the Word were the words that came from the mouth of Jesus. This is the Word of God. But He is in heaven now so the Word being an eternal reality, the Word came out of the mouth of the Apostles. Now the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it. The truth keeps marching on, not all of it of course, but all of it true.

We just do not limit God's Word to what was written.

I see that here that when I used the word 'Word' you thought I meant Scriptures only. If you read it more carefully, you will notice I am describing it in a way that protestants never do. You can tell by last lines especially that I meant the entire expression of the Word as the Catholic church teaches. "all of it true" Only the catholic church claims to teach without error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eloy Craft said:
SS supports a magisterium? what body of teaching does it guard?

Yes, Sacred Scripture does. Acts of the Apostles speaks of Timothy, who was a disciple of Paul. Paul, in his letters to Timothy, admonishes him to hold fast to the traditions I have taught you. Magisterium is the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors.

And here SS meant Sola Scriptura (Protestant tradition)not Sacred Scriptures. (Catholic Tradition)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm going to show just a couple of examples of what really happened between you and I. I posted below a couple of examples about when you jumped into the discussion. Apparently you thought I was a defending Sola Scriptura.

I outlined Sacred Tradition in the below posted statement to PeaceByJesus as an approach to prove Sola Scriptura inadequate to express the entire Word of God. Then you come in correcting me 'from above' with a definition of Sacred Tradition 101. Now PBJ is posting that I won't even take correction from another Catholic. People who have love for truth aren't found mocking what seems errant to them. They expose error by contrast. Those who slander, do it because their arguments aren't supported with reason but supported by the lower base needs of the ego. Unfortunately they aren't conscious of that.

2 John 12
These people, however, are like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed. They slander what they do not understand,

Which just another example of arrogant duplicity, since it is you who is mocking what seems errant to you, contrary to reason, and resorting to slander by wresting of Bible text, rather than exposing error by contrast.

The issue was implicitly that of the subject being the Catholic church, which you denied, but as explained, Catholic sacred tradition (which the OP asked examples of), "presupposes an authoritative definition of what that consists of, which Catholics assert their magisterium provides, as souls cannot even discover the contents of sacred revelation otherwise..."

And which relates to your statement that "Sacred Tradition confirmed the canon not the other way around," and your prior stated position, "the canon, as decided by the tradition that it documents, should by all rights be the accepted canon."

And thus my response that "that the establishment of an authoritative body of writings preceded the church, and if the tradition and the judgments that the authoritative historical magisterium held to must be followed, then 1st century souls should have followed those who sat in the seat of Moses rather than some itinerant preachers."

Eloy Craft said:
I don't know how something can be written before it is dictated. How a story can be written before the story happens. How the Written Word of God can be effective if the people have no way to publish it. Nope that just don't make sense PBJ. Faith is through hearing. It gets written quite a while after it's heard.

That the word of God existed orally we as being written was recently affirmed before by mean on this thread, , as in, "The inspired oral words such as the Lord and apostles preached also was also the word of God, but the validity of the claim to be so required conformity to the established word of God, the Scriptures, to which oral preaching appealed."

And , "the Lord inspired the recording of chosen words and additional promised public revelation, as was the case before, and which the Lord and His church abundantly invoked as the authoritative word of God, which their oral preaching was in conflation with and complementary to.

However, Catholic popes and prelates do not speak as wholly inspired of God, and thus such cannot be equal with Scripture, and which they often conflict with."

For as repeatedly expressed, the issue is that of what the sacred tradition consists of according to Catholicism and the implications of the basis for this, that of the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and thus as said, if this " magisterium was essential to know what writings were of God, then the body of writings which were established as the authoritative word of God by the time of Christ would have necessitated an infallible magisterium.

Eloy Craft said:
Well, the Word is an eternal reality. Eternal in all it's expressions. First expression of the Word were the words that came from the mouth of Jesus. This is the Word of God. But He is in heaven now so the Word being an eternal reality, the Word came out of the mouth of the Apostles. Now the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it. The truth keeps marching on, not all of it of course, but all of it true.

And as said, Whatever that means, and relates to what I said.

I see that here that when I used the word 'Word' you thought I meant Scriptures only. If you read it more carefully, you will notice I am describing it in a way that protestants never do. You can tell by last lines especially that I meant the entire expression of the Word as the Catholic church teaches. "all of it true" Only the catholic church claims to teach without error.

I will let Root of Jesse speak for himself, but while you present yourself as the enlightened one, while Root of Jesse needs glasses," which was followed by "People who have love for truth aren't found mocking what seems errant to them," yet it is clear to me that Root of Jesse rightly comprehended that you were referring to sacred tradition, and in no place saw you are defending SS. But he took issue with your denial ↑ that "The subject wasn't the Catholic church," though again it implicitly was for the reasons I reasonably stated, and thus Root explained, "Sacred Tradition is the sole property of the Churches which claim Apostolic Succession (itself, mostly Sacred Tradition)."

The above exchange flowed from your statement, "How do you distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from the evil spirit or from your own? Do you have a technique you can articulate and share?" To which, although it sounds like you are referring to private revelation, broadly pertains to the issue of discernment, and coming from a Catholic perspective, this ultimately means that the Catholic magisterium is essential for knowing what is of God, at least if understood in the context of your previous restriction that God "reveals universal truth to universal realities," not to individual persons.

Which question I had already basically answered, regardless of your denial that i did, by citing the basis for how the church began, and yet since the Catholic argument behind your question is that we need the Catholic magisterisum, thus my response addressed this premise.

Which was met by your denial that this was about the Catholic church, and thus Root's response was that, "This is disingenuous. Sacred Tradition is the sole property of the Churches." To which you responded, "I don't disagree with that. The subject of my question was discernment. exactly my point."

Root thus responded, "I think you missed the point. Where private revelation by the Holy Spirit is exposed, there is no necessity for the Church to teach it as necessary to believe. Many private revelations are recommended by the Church, but none are necessary for salvation. Sacred Tradition is different. We must believe what Sacred Tradition has taught, and must know when it is, and when it is not, actually Sacred Tradition...."

(Which brings up back to the premise of the Catholic magisterium as being essential for ascertaining what is of God, which is what I addressed.)

But you said you found his post offensive (Is there a particular reason you gatherrd I needed educated on the subject?" and "confusing," while Root expressed that he was trying to explain what Sacred Tradition is (which means it is what the Catholic church says it is) and "Whether you understand it or not, I don't know, don't see any proof of it one way or another."

Which resulted in your mocking response, "You might want to get some glasses."

Root thus answered, 'I still don't know if you understand Sacred Tradition. Why not consider it as educational for some who don't understand it, if in fact you do. Bye!"

Instead of actually clarifying what you meant (I do not think "Now the characteristics of the Word from the Apostles are slightly different since the Word adapts to the perfections of those who are assigned to Preach it. The truth keeps marching on, not all of it of course, but all of it true" helped), you go off on how "People who have love for truth aren't found mocking what seems errant to them. They expose error by contrast," by defending your mocking of Root by manifesting your erroneous understanding of his responses ("Apparently you thought I was a defending Sola Scriptura). which erroneous understanding is shown by contrast.

You also proceed to both censor and engage in slander by applying a text of Scripture to me - which you erroneously cite as being 2 John 12 (its 2 Peter 2:12) - which applies to damned souls such as "walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; (2 Peter 2:13)

Eloy Craft said:
SS supports a magisterium? what body of teaching does it guard?

And here SS meant Sola Scriptura (Protestant tradition)not Sacred Scriptures. (Catholic Tradition)

Which is more misunderstanding, for I am sure Root understands what SS means in a debate with a Bible Christian, which requires a doctrine to be warranted based upon Scriptural substantiation (versus the premise of ensured magisterial veracity for instance), and this Root's response Yes, Sacred Scripture does [support a magisterium) and he cites, Acts of the Apostles speaks of Timothy, who was a disciple of Paul. Paul, in his letters to Timothy, admonishes him to hold fast to the traditions I have taught you. Magisterium is the teaching authority of the apostles and their successors."

Thus here Root is actually defending sacred tradition. Yet I myself would say on this, as I have before, that no only was Paul one who invoked the written word as the established wholly inspired standard for Truth, but could also speak as wholly inspired of God as the writers of Scripture were, and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which Catholic popes and council even claim to do. And we know passed-down information is true such as Jannes and Jambres being the names of those who withstood Moses because wholly inspired writers of Scripture included them. (2 Timothy 3:8)

But though I disagree with Root of Jesse, I do not think he is the one in need of glasses in reading your replies here.

 

[narnia59]

We surely could use some, but besides Rome's so-called apostolic successors failing of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) I do not see such manifest men of God today as were,

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

But we do see we see pastors - taking the place of the foundational apostles as overseers. See next post by the grace of God.

Acts 1:21-22 are the qualifications to be counted among the 12 whose names will be on the twelves foundations (Rev 21:14), not a limitation to be an apostle. Paul does not meet these qualifications, but Scripture is quite clear that he is an apostle (Acts 14:14, Romans 1:1, 11:13).

1 Cor 9:1 – Paul did not witness the resurrection but he did have an encounter with the risen Lord after His ascension. But he does not meet the criteria outlined in Acts 1:21-22 because to be counted among the twelve not only was it necessary to be a witness to the resurrection, it was also necessary to be “ one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us” and Paul does not meet this criteria.

Gal 1:12 “12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”. This is why Paul tells Timothy in 2 Tim 3:14 -- “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it”. Timothy knew he had been taught by a true apostle which is why he can be assured he is passing on authentic apostolic teaching to others, which he is instructed to do (2 Tim 2:2).

That you do not see the kind of men described in 2 Cor 6 testifies more to the reality that you receive your news of such men from secular news sources than a true knowledge of them. Paul also doesn’t describe Peter with such kind words in Galatians 2:11-14. Yes they may have human failings. That doesn’t prevent God from working through them because it is the Holy Spirit that guarantees their work, not their own personhood, just as the Holy Spirit enabled fallible and sinful men to pen Sacred Scripture. But I can assure you that the great majority of our Catholic bishops and priests go about quietly and faithfully serving the people of God and that isn’t altered by the fact that a few stinkers make the news.

The only verse really worthy of consideration you provide is 2 Cor 12:12 “the signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works”. That passage does indeed pose a question, and if it stood alone could be significant. But it doesn’t stand alone. When we get to Paul’s letters to Timothy where he outlines all the authority that has been entrusted to Paul will now be Timothy’s by virtue of the laying on of hands (governing the church, maintaining purity of the doctrine he has received, preaching, teaching, passing his authority to others), he never once mentions he is to perform signs as proof of his apostleship. Yet he charges him to maintain the truth of the Gospel and to pass that truth on to others who will succeed him (1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:18-19, 4:1, 4:11-16, 5:7, 5:20-22, 6:2-4, 6:11, 6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1:13-14, 2:2-7, 2:14-15, 3:10-17, 4:1-5).

We also know that Christ is not really impressed with those who were constantly seeking after signs (Matt 12:38), and that those who believe without them are even more blessed (John 20:29). Given that Paul indicates these signs in reality were necessary for the Jews, not the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:22) and since they refuse to hear the Gospel is it then delivered to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46, 28:28) it seems the Church receives the opportunity to take leave of that generation which demanded signs to believe to become even more blessed and to actually grow more deeply in faith as it turns its focus to the Gentile world. To truly “walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).

We also know that Eph 4:11-13 states that “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” for the equipment of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ. You easily dismiss this, but Scripture says that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

Pastors cannot take the place of apostles, for who is to appoint the pastors? That is the role of the apostles in Scripture (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), and the congregational model is nowhere to be seen. No pastor who has been hired and can be fired by his congregation holds any true authority over them. The Biblical model for receiving the role of pastor is to be appointed by someone with a larger position of authority than anyone in the community, including the pastor -- an apostle. Have you ever noticed that Paul NEVER sends the instructions for church leadership roles to a community of believers but only to Timothy and Titus?

 

[narnia59]

Rather, although we see pastors - presbuteros/episkopos (one office) - taking the place of the foundational (Eph. 2:20; cf. Rv. 21:14) apostles, looking after "all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," (Acts 20:28) there is not Scripture taking there place, but a continuation of Scripture being the supreme authority over leadership.

Christ is the head of the Church, not Scripture. The foundation of leadership he put into place has his authority, literally Holy-Spirit breathed by him (John 20:22) – the authority to govern, preach, teach, forgive sins, and shepherd the flock ((Matt 10:1, Matt 10:40, Matt 18:18, John 13:20, John 16:14-15, Mark 6:7-13, Luke 9:1-2, Acts 28-30, Romans 1:5-6, 2 Cor 7:14-15, 2 Thess 3:4-6, 10-15, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Cor 13:2, 2 Cor 13:9-10, Titus 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 2 Corinthians 10:5-7, 3 John 1:9, 1 Thess 2:4, John 4:6, 1 Cor 2:10-16, Matt 28:19-20, Mark 3:4, 1 Thess 2:3-4, 2 Cor 1:21-22, 2 Cor 2:14-17, Titus 1:1-3, Romans 16:17-18, Titus 1:7-9, Eph 3:10-11, John 20:20-23, Matt 16:13-19, John 21:15-19, Acts 10, Eph 4:10-14, Acts 1:8, 1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:18-19, 4:1, 4:11-16, 5:7, 5:20-22, 6:2-4, 6:11, 6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1:13-14, 2:2-7, 2:14-15, 3:10-17, 4:1-5).

Pastors who can be hired/fired by the flock are not Biblical and have no real authority over the flock. It’s flipped on top of itself, much like professing that Scripture has authority over Christ. This is truly is what Scripture calls a ‘tradition of man’.

Which is why they so abundantly appealed to Scripture, as their Lord did. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2) Plus with Scriptural supernatural attestation. (Romans 15:19)

Appealing to Scripture is not the same as viewing it as the sole authority. An authority, yes. But it cannot be the sole authority due to the authority Christ gives the apostles to govern, preach, teach, forgive sins, and shepherd the flock. In Acts 17:2 – read what actually happens : “ 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and SAYING, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” He is trying to convince them to recognize a truth that is in Scripture (that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead), and he’s asking them to accept a truth that is not found in Scripture but rather proclaimed as the oral tradition of the Church (SAYING that Jesus was the Christ), hoping they will believe.

Thus Paul tells Timothy to "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them," (2 Timothy 3:14) meaning that Paul was a faithful Scriptural teacher, thus one is to continue in them., But not on the basis of Paul possessing ensured infallibility, but as we see next, the only substantive source of Divine Revelation that he affirms is wholly inspired of God is Scripture, not whatever an apostle says.

Your ”meaning” is not to be found in the text. Timothy has spent years at the side of Paul. He has learned nothing from him beyond Scripture? Paul refers to what Timothy has learned from Paul himself. The instructions that Paul gives Timothy regarding Scripture is that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

“Profitable” means “useful”. Of course Scripture is useful for a pastor for teaching, reproof, correction, training. Of course a pastor cannot be fully equipped without knowing Scripture. But ‘useful” is a far cry from “sufficient”, and the passage doesn’t say that this is all Timothy needs to be fully equipped. To get to your meaning you have to add words like “all”, “sufficient” and “only” that aren’t there.

And yes, Scripture is God-breathed. But so is the Church(John 20:22). Yet you profess that ‘breath of God’ is both insignificant with the apostles and died with them, as though it could.

Yet men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which the words of "infallible" popes or councils claim to do, and which the writings of so-called church fathers are not. Thus their words cannot be equal with Scripture, which is not merely True, but as the word of God it is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

You believe the promise to guide the Church into the fullness of truth (John 16:13) died with the apostles too? Based upon your understanding, Christ could have simply used the 30 years he had on earth to pen the Scriptures. Why the middle-man? Why apostles who could speak the word of God at all but that gift to the Church would then die? In Acts 1:8 that promise of the Holy Spirit is to guide the apostles to the end of the earth. That goes way beyond the time of the 12.

And Hebrews 4:12 is speaking of Christ, not Scripture. Verse 13 makes this clear “12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” The “logos” – the “word of God” is Christ, not Scripture. It is quite astounding when people don’t seem to know the difference.

 

[narnia59]

And like me, you could talk to most Catholics (and many Protestants) and not find salvation.

Unlike you, I would never profess that I could talk to someone and “find” salvation or not. That is Christ’s domain and His alone.

I myself as evangelical Pentecostal believe it is very clear that Scripture warns believers as believers against having an evil heart of unbelief, departing from the living God, drawing back unto perdition rather than living by faith as the just do, (Hebrews 3:12; 10:38,39) and making Christ of no effect, to no profit, such as by faith in a gospel based upon your own righteousness, falling from grace. (Galatians 5:1-4)

However, it is one thing to forfeit what was appropriated by heart-purifying faith, and it is another thing to never have it, and to have cultic reliance upon an office which "infallibly" (but not as speaking under full inspiration of God as Scripture) claims it can and will never err when speaking according to her infallible scope and subject-based criteria. And never salvifically errs in a lower level of magisterial teaching.

But of course, this does not eliminate the problem of variant interpretations any more than having wholly inspired Scripture does, for in both cases the words of the authority are subject to interpretation to varying degrees. And which is abundant in Catholicism, regardless of paper professions, while Bible Christians testify to and show greater unity in core beliefs than those whom Catholicism treats as members in life and in death.

As both the Church(John 20:22) and Scripture are God-breathed, it seems odd to profess that one is infallible on that basis and the other is not. It is equally puzzling to believe that God can use men to write infallibly, but that He would never use men to also ensure that writing is correctly interpreted.


Catholicism is not a religion based upon opinion polls as the link you provide seems to indicate, but it is not surprising in absence of any real belief in the authority given by God to the Church one would think opinion polls are meaningful. Even in the times of the apostles there were those who rejected their authority (3 John 1:9) and I’m sure an ‘opinion poll’ would have reflected that. But it wouldn’t have made any difference, and neither does the fact that many Catholics (US based in particular) profess to be Catholic while rejecting the teaching authority of the Church.


My experience with Evangelical and Protestant groups who contend that they have great unity in ‘core beliefs’ is they’ve undergone an exercise in shooting an arrow at the wall and painting a target around it. The starting premise is “what do I believe” and then where is my circle. I’ve run into many such circles, which each professing to be the “circle” holding to the “essential core beliefs” that are derived from Scripture. Yet the most basic of questions fail to be answered, and when asked why others who also profess to be “Bible believing” disagree, the answer in general professes things like the others aren't really born again, haven't had proper training, do not apply good hermenuetics, ignore the whole of Scripture, possess selfishness or pride, have failed to mature, or place an undue emphasis on tradition. My circle, of course, is different....

 

[narnia59]

These are not examples of oral tradition, such as the Assumption is, but are interpretations of Scripture. The fact that some persons and magisterial offices are wrong does not change that, and requires souls to discern what is of God as they had before a church presumed it was essential for souls to know this.

If a central magisterium provided the kind of Scriptural substantiation that the apostles did as being so, which is the idea, then Bible Christian would need to obey them, and likely most would. But again, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) and as possessing her self-proclaimed ensured veracity.

As Catholics view Sacred Tradition, authentic interpretation of Scripture that formulates doctrine such as baptism truly makes one born again and a new creation is indeed a part of Sacred Tradition.


CCC 78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.“

Asked and answered on the qualification for successors. But answer this – was Timothy a successor of Paul in your view?