A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[ozso]

Everything that is in Holy Tradition that is not in Holy Scripture; the former is the superset and the latter the proper subset of divine revealed truth.

So what's in holy tradition that's not founded on and rooted in scripture?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So what's in holy tradition that's not founded on and rooted in scripture?

Virtually everything that you've complained about for the past 281 posts.

 

[Strong in Him]

Virtually everything that you've complained about for the past 281 posts.

So we only have the Catholic's word on a lot of things.

"Scripture doesn't say that Mary was a perpetual virgin, nor did Jesus teach it."
"He probably did, but it was one of the other things that Jesus said, which never got written down. But we can be sure that he told Peter who passed it on."

Sorry but God has recorded for us those things that reveal himself and which we need to know. I trust in his word - not in suppositions or a game of clerical Chinese whispers.
Because otherwise, anyone could say anything:
"Jesus DID want women to be ordained. It was one of those things that he said which never got recorded, but I believe he told Peter, who passed it to Paul - and that is why Paul had female co workers."
You're not going to accept that from me, because your church, and clergy, have told you otherwise.

 

[ozso]

Virtually everything that you've complained about for the past 281 posts.

Wow an evasive and condescending reply in one. Because you can not name a Catholic tradition that is not dependent upon scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Church verifies it.

Your church verifies it.
That doesn't fill me with much confidence, though - you say the Pope is infallible, so no one's likely to contradict him.

What is written by people other than the Lord, Jesus Christ, and that we say he taught.

What you say; yes.
But if it's not written in Scripture - God's Holy word - how is anyone else to know?

That is about it, except that the tradition is not Catholic alone.

But it's not Scriptural either.

Traditions say those things but that is not Apostolic Tradition.

No, but I only said that to show that I am not against tradition, as such. In the Methodist church we use Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience to learn about and assess doctrines.

But in my view, Tradition is, and should never be, above Scripture.
The church may have always believed/taught something; that doesn't mean it is correct, it's just what has always been done. Tradition is from men and can be wrong.
God's word is from God and is not wrong.

 

[fhansen]

That's is a foundational verse I see used to support things Catholocism came up with and or established hundreds of years after the apostles. But what seems to always get overlooked is taught by us. As in taught by us original Apostles. So ironically 2 Thess 2:15 actually knocks down latter traditions, rather than support them.

And how could you possibly know that if they were unwritten???

 

[ozso]

And how could you possibly know that if they were unwritten???

There's no indication that what the apostles spoke differed from what they wrote.

 

[fhansen]

There's no indication that what the apostles spoke differed from what they wrote.

There's no indication at all that they wrote everything they spoke. Just speculation. They do tell us that not everything Jesus said and did was recorded, however.

 

[ozso]

There's no indication at all that they wrote everything they spoke. Just speculation. They do tell us that not everything Jesus said and did was recorded, however.

In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven. Acts 1:1-2

 

[fhansen]

Because Jesus was God, came to show us what God is like, teach us about him, his will, his Gospel and his kingdom.
If Jesus didn't teach it, it wasn't that important. If the Gospel writers didn't include it because he taught it to them at some point; either it wasn't a doctrine or it was not important.

That's presumption. The church received and continuously taught what Jesus taught. There's no need for it all to be written. Again, the church taught it before any of it was written.

The Bible is the word of God - written about God, by God. We know what God said, what he taught, what he is like, what his will is etc etc through the Bible.
The Bible also teaches us about Jesus - whose coming, ministry, death, resurrection was prophesied in the OT and presented in the Gospels. Jesus is THE Word of God - his living, eternal and final word. There is no salvation or reconciliation with God apart from Jesus.

And so is Tradition considered to be the Word of God.

In matters of doctrine, the Bible is the final authority.

But the bible can't necessarily tell you what it means to say -when controversy comes up as it does in these very forums-over the bible. So the "authority" become whoever thinks that they're interpreting it correctly.

So I'm sorry but I don't believe you can present teaching that is not in the Gospels, was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles and then say; oh but that doesn't matter; the Bible doesn't say everything and it was handed down to us by oral tradition.
At best, that sounds like "we have some sort of secret knowledge which you don't know,", which is Gnosticism. At worst, that is a statement that we don't need to rely on the Bible, we can believe what we like.

Most knowledge was plain and accepted, not esoteric, in the early church as reflected in the writings of the early fathers, although the church had to fight against Gnosticism, and Arianism, which was based on the bible.

Jesus and his disciples had the OT only.
The OT contains the accounts of creation, the giving of God's law and covenant and tells the story of how those who were rescued from Egypt became God's people. It teaches us what God said through his prophets - what he said about their immediate situation/predicament and what he would do in the future. The phrases "thus saith the Lord", "This is what the Lord says", "the Lord says, tells us, wants from you ....." are found all over the OT. Jesus' coming, ministry and death are shown in the OT; the Holy Spirit is in the OT.
Jesus quoted often from the OT and referred to its characters. After his resurrection he explained what Moses, the prophets and Psalms said about him and how they spoke of his coming.

The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by Apostles who had been with Jesus. The main source for Mark's Gospel was St Peter, and one of Luke's sources was Mary, the mother of Jesus. Before he ascended to heaven, Jesus spent 40 days with his Apostles teaching them about the kingdom. He had already said that his Holy Spirit would live in them, reminding them of all he had taught.
The Gospel writers wrote their accounts so that future generations would know about Jesus, who he was, why he came and what he taught.

When the NT was compiled, only the books, epistles and teachings that were from the Apostles, or faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, were included.
Again, you are expecting us to believe a doctrine that was not taught, nor penned, by Jesus or the Apostles. Are you claiming some special knowledge about these things; that Jesus secretly taught them to Peter/John/James but that none of them taught or recorded them?

Yes, the OT could be fully explained only in light of the new revelation brought to us by Christ. Much of the NT was written addressing specific matters often to specific audiences. Again, it was not written as a clear, exhaustive catechism. That was the role of the church. And the eastern churches just "happen" to hold to many of the same practices and beliefs that you object to. The bible is not exactly the book you conceive it to be. The church received what the apostles taught, whether written or not.

 

[fhansen]

In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven. Acts 1:1-2

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25

 

[fhansen]

I understand that. But the bulk of Catholic tradition is based on and rooted in scripture. Scripture isn't based upon or rooted in Catholic tradition, it's the other way around. Without Catholic tradition, there would still be scripture. Whereas without scripture, there would be no Catholic tradition. Quotes from a whole host of theologians and councils and fathers and documents down through the centuries, are all founded upon and rooted in what's written in the Bible.

I even wager that, if the new testament had not been written, the church would still teach the same as she always has, just as the apostles and early disciples were able to teach without the new testament.

 

[ozso]

I even wager that, if the new testament had not been written, the church would still teach the same as she always has, just as the apostles and early disciples were able to teach without the new testament.

The point is what the apostles taught is found in what they wrote. It's not like there's apostolic teaching that's not contained within the NT. If I'm wrong about that, then please cite the apostolic teaching that's not contained within the NT.

 

[ozso]

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25

So the 4th century onwards traditions of the Catholic church are the unrecorded things Jesus did. How is that supposed to make sense when you stop and think about it?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Surely you know that this statement is not exhaustive because saint John writes, "there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written"

 

[ozso]

Surely you know that this statement is not exhaustive because saint John writes, "there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written"

"All that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven" is exhaustive though.

What we have in the opening of Acts and in the closing of the Gospel of John, are two statements that appear to contradict each other.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's presumption. The church received and continuously taught what Jesus taught. There's no need for it all to be written. Again, the church taught it before any of it was written.

It's not presumption.
The Gospel writers recorded Jesus' life, teaching and ministry - as prophesied in the OT. Their purpose in writing was that people should know that Jesus is the Son of God, and Messiah.
Are you saying that there are some things that they thought it important for us to know, but decided not to write them down but rely on Peter, Paul etc to pass them on by word of mouth?
I don't believe that. God doesn't play games - if we needed to know it, Jesus would have taught it and it would be in Scripture.

And so is Tradition considered to be the Word of God.

By you, maybe.

But the bible can't necessarily tell you what it means to say -when controversy comes up as it does in these very forums-over the bible. So the "authority" become whoever thinks that they're interpreting it correctly.

All Christian churches agree with, believe and teach the Gospel - that Jesus was born, was God, lived, taught, healed, died, rose again, ascended, sent his Spirit and will return again one day. THAT is what we have in common. THAT is doctrine. The message of God's love, grace and salvation are recorded in the Bible, and that is our final authority. Hence, Moonies are wrong when they claim that Jesus told "Rev" Moon that he had failed. Other cults are wrong when they claim that Jesus wasn't God or there is no Trinity. If I met someone on the streets today who told me that Jesus was an astronaut, ascended back to heaven in a spaceship, will be returning to earth in that same space ship and their church had believed that for the past 1,000 years; I would ask them where that teaching was in the Bible.
No Christian church believes, or teaches, that - so the fact that their church had done so for years, wouldn't mean anything. Plus, they would not be able to find their teaching in Scripture.

May disagree in how to apply the Bible, so we get arguments over baptism, gender of clergy and almost anything that you can think of.
But those things aren't doctrine.

Yes, the OT could be fully explained only in light of the new revelation brought to us by Christ. Much of the NT was written addressing specific matters often to specific audiences. Again, it was not written as a clear, exhaustive catechism.

You're claiming that the church has authority over, and teaches more than, the word of God. I don't accept that.
You're also claiming that we have to take the church's word for what our Lord taught St Peter , which was vitally important but which Peter decided not to write down. Sorry, but that smacks of having personal, private knowledge that no one else can know.
Gnosticism.

 

[ozso]

But it's not private because it's out in the open but no one has ever written it down so it can't be cited but it's out in the open even though people have to ask what it is but that can't be said it's just there and always has been even though it's unknown but it's out in the open...

 

[fhansen]

"All that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven" is exhaustive though.

What we have in the opening of Acts and in the closing of the Gospel of John, are two statements that appear to contradict each other.

Yes, so much for Sola Scriptura.

 

[fhansen]

But it's not private because it's out in the open but no one has ever written it down so it can't be cited but it's out in the open even though people have to ask what it is but that can't be said it's just there and always has been even though it's unknown but it's out in the open...

Its not hidden. It's in the beliefs and practices of the church. Infant baptism isn't so easily supportable by the bible. Neither is doing away with observing the Sabbath on the 7th day. But that's what the church did, not arbitrarily, or out of arrogance, but based on what she'd received. And yet 7th Day Adventism exists in part because we cannot go back and point to a definitive place in the bible where it says that we can now change sabbath observance to Sunday. Arianism nearly took over the Christian world in large part because there are many verses that support the non-deity of Christ. It took the efforts of the church to ensure that we're not Arian today.