Examples of Sacred Tradition

[Darrel Slugoski]

Catholics and EO deny that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals. By this, they mean that we cannot know, from Scripture alone, all that is necessary for saving faith and to live lives pleasing to God. This furthermore means that there is authoritative teaching outside of Scripture which is necessary in order for people to be saved and to know the will of God and obey Him.

I think that this was a move from the Catholic Church at the time of Trent to seek to guard herself from the assaults of the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers attacked Roman doctrines which had no basis in Scripture. In response, the RCC solidified the idea of "Sacred Tradition" so that her unbiblical doctrines would have a leg to stand on. Catholics will disagree with this reading of history, which is fine. That's not the point of this thread.

I think that the best way to argue for "Sacred Tradition" would be to give some examples of it. I would like for Catholics and/or Orthodox folks to provide some examples of Sacred Tradition. Please provide some examples of teachings which are necessary for faith and life, which have some origin in Jesus and the apostles, but which are not clearly laid out in Scripture.

Thanks in advance.

Read the Early Church Fathers or the Councils of the Church. You will find these early Bishops comment on Confession , the Eucharist , Baptism , role of Bishop .... These same men were ordained by the Apostals themselves , died for their faith and also wrote letters . This is a chance for you to understand how the early Church saw itself and addressed issues . I will add more examples net post .

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Read the Early Church Fathers or the Councils of the Church. You will find these early Bishops comment on Confession , the Eucharist , Baptism , role of Bishop .... These same men were ordained by the Apostals themselves , died for their faith and also wrote letters . This is a chance for you to understand how the early Church saw itself and addressed issues . I will add more examples net post .

No, all these so-called "Early Church Fathers" were not ordained by the Apostles themselves (maybe Polycarp) while the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. And which thus must be determinitive of what the NT believed, and in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest, as they must be.

 

[narnia59]

Your latest response is a series of error after error, as will be shown, by the grace of God. Paul certainly did meet the qualification of an apostles, which that of personal discipleship by the risen Christ, seeing the resurrected Lord in person, which Paul also had and did, if privately, yet whose actual rising from the dead none of them actually saw, but all had encounters with the risen Lord after His ascension, as did Paul.

Witnessing the risen Lord was not the only qualification given in Acts 1:21-23. The person to take the place of Judas also had to be with them since the time of the Lord’s baptism. Paul, who is an apostle, does not meet that criteria. That is why this passage is the qualification to be counted among the twelve, not the qualification to be an apostle as Paul certainly was.

 

[narnia59]

And thus the Lord calls the Truth-seeking Bereans \"noble\" who subjected the \nveracity of the oral preaching of the apostles to Scripture, not vice \nversa, and not on the premise of ensured infallibility of office, as per\n Catholicism.

The Bereans were called noble because they “received the word with all eagerness”. And that ‘word’ is the ‘logos’ -- Christ. They accepted the oral proclamation of Paul that “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”, which the Thessalonians had rejected, and a truth which was not verifiable in their Scriptures at all. If they had truly been sola-scriptura they would have had to reject the ‘word’ – Christ, because they would not have been able to verify Paul’s statement that “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” The OT foretold the death and resurrection of the Messiah; it is not a witness to the historical person of Jesus fulfilling those prophecies. The Church is the witness, and it is her oral witness that Paul’s statement is true that the Bereans accept.

 

[narnia59]

As your premise is specious, so is your definite conclusion. Nowhere does Scripture say Timothy is being ordained as an apostle, which reading into Scripture that which at best you may see as an inference, supposing that [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,\" (1 Timothy 4:14) [/COLOR]which included Paul, (2 Timothy 1:6) somehow means Timothy was ordained an apostle, but which is presumption, and also wrongly presumes that the Holy Spirit would not state this important status.

But whatever gift was conveyed to Timothy was something he needed to \"stir up,\" (2 Timothy 1:6) and \"keep\" (2 Timothy 1:14) and while Paul refers to himself as an apostle, he nowhere refers to Timothy as one, but instructs him as a pastor, one for whom prophecies were made, (1 Timothy 1:18) and told that [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.\" [/COLOR](1 Timothy 3:1) and who as regards a gift besides that office is to [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.\"[/COLOR] (2 Timothy 4:5)

Thus what is clear is that Timothy is ordained as a pastor, albeit a lead pastor who would ordain others, as Titus also was to do, (Titus 1:5-7) though there is no distinction in titles.

In addition, you simply cannot invoke the teaching on the pastoral duties and character given to Timothy, who is never called an apostle, as interpretive of the clear statement on the credentials of apostles, including [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.\" (2 Corinthians 12:12)[/COLOR] The apostles were in a class by themselves as regards an office, and had distinct qualifications that disqualify men who fail of these from claiming they are apostles.

Only the apostles were entrusted by Christ with the Gospel. Paul writes this about himself many times:

1 Cor 9:16-17 16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.

Galatians 2:6-7 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 3 For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts.

1 Timothy 1:11 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

2 Timothy 1:11 11 For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12 and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.

Titus 3 3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior

And then he says to Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:20 20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

And then we have to read 1 Thessalonians – a letter credited to Paul but actually sent to the community from Paul, Silvanus and Timothy. Pay particular attention to the ‘we’ statements”. Beginning with Chapter 1(parts left out for brevity but you can verify if you’d like that no context was removed).

1 Paul, Silva′nus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalo′nians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. 2 We(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) give thanks to God always for you all, constantly mentioning you in our(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) prayers,…. 4 For we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; 5 for our(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) proved to be among you for your sake. 6 And you became imitators of us(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy)…For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedo′nia and Acha′ia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) need not say anything. 9 For they themselves report concerning us(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) what a welcome we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy)… (Chapter 2) For you yourselves know, brethren, that our(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) visit to you was not in vain; 2 but though we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the face of great opposition. 3 For our(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; 4 but just as we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts. 5 For we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) never used either words of flattery, as you know, or a cloak for greed, as God is witness; 6 nor did we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we(Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) might have made demands as apostles of Christ.

So yes, Paul refers to Timothy as working by his side and as an apostle.

 

[narnia59]

And thus while I do not disallow apostles from one day appearing on the earth, yet know not of any now, though some may function as sent ones as insofar founding churches. But certainly all those who claim to be successors to the apostles in Catholicism are not apostles, while presbyters are the only ones we see charged by apostles with being overseers of the church, and charged with caring for it. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1,2)

That you view for one to be authentically an apostle he has to be marked by “signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor 2:12) and you believe that apostles could one day appear again on the earth after being absent in your view for 2000 years, one could be ripe to be misled as great signs and wonders will be performed by the false Christs and false prophets to come (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22, 2 Thess 2:9).

 

[narnia59]

Also true is that souls can ascertain what is of God without an infallible magisterium.

Is that truth that can be ascertained by souls about God fallible? If so, it is not truth.

If it is indeed infallible, then you have simply established a magisterium of your own making, within your own circle, with yourself as a least no small part, and given how often you have referenced my 'ignorance' and that of others, you are claiming for yourself something you profess does not actually exist at all.

 

[narnia59]

This is true, since pastors are accountable to leadership which normally ordains them, as its true with the \"powers that be\" of God in the civil realms, (Romans 13:1-7) yet leadership is not above Scripture, and if you believe that even the authoritative historical magisterium is, as possessing ensured veracity, and thus as necessarily disallowing the validity of any dissent to its formal judgments, then you have a bigger problem then those who make the flock itself the authority over pastors. That is what is flipped on top of itself, and is truly is what Scripture calls a ‘tradition of man’. Yet if you deny that your leadership is effectively above Scripture, and as the authoritative historical magisterium possesses ensured veracity then all your ecclesiology cannot rescue it.

Also true is that souls can ascertain what is of God without an infallible magisterium.

Which only confirms what I said, that \"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)

For again, there is simply no manifest ordination of apostolic successors after that for Judas to restore the original number, and none mentioned for James after his death, while the only manifest ordination was that of pastors and deacons. And who are charged with looking after \"all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God.\"

I believe this was in response to when I said “I said 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.”

You failed to explain where the Bible speaks to an understanding that there will be a change from the model that has been designed and instructed in Scripture – that pastors are appointed by an authority outside of the community. This model is what leads Paul to send the qualifications for leadership to Timothy and Titus and never to any community of believers, with specific instructions to Titus to appoint leadership in all the churches. Your current model is that the community can hire/fire their own leaders so therefore in effect having ultimate authority over the pastor. Don’t you think if the intention was to roll two offices into one, and to cease having pastors appointed by an authority outside of the community, the Bible would speak to the intention of such a change? But it does not. Who made such a change and by what authority did they do so? Scripture clearly teaches that the leaders of a community are to be appointed by an authority outside the community itself.

 

[narnia59]

Who said anything about Scripture being the sole authority? Why use a strawman of SS, under which it is affirmed, \"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.\" (Westminster, XXXI)

There are multiple views of what sola-scriptura means. The Westminster catechism does not speak for the majority of Evangelical or Protestant Christians. But since you introduce it, can you provide a list of where these councils have been utilized in Calvinism? What doctrinal issues they have resolved? Whose role is it to participate? Whose role is it to determine whether or not they are in agreement with Scripture?

 

[narnia59]

Which manifests more ignorance. The church is a a group of believers. From the very text you wrest to support the church being as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers which does not exist in your world in any context, the Lord says (and relates to binding and loosing),

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

It seems that it is in your world that such group of two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord cannot be a church unless presided over by one your distinctive sacerdotal priests. But as I previously affirmed, the visible church that exists in my world does have government, and is to ordain pastors, exercise discipline etc., yet the only one true church is that of the spiritual body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the \"household of faith,\" (Galatians 6:10) since it uniquely only and 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.

Just as Christ has both a divine and human nature, his Bride the Church does as well. There is the reality of a divine spiritual communion of believers who are united to Christ. There is also the physical reality of a Church that can be identified by the world in which it exists. That is the reality of Matthew 18, when it tells those “two or more believers” if they cannot resolve their disagreement to “tell it to the church”. There has to be an “identifiable church” that is more than simply two or three believers gathered together to resolve such disputes. It is also how St. Augustine professed the only way the kingdom of God can have ‘tares’ at all because if the Church is only a divine spiritual communion of believers who are united to Christ, there can be no “tares”. But the visible society of the Church that is identifiable can certainly contain both wheat and tares. I make no judgment about who the tares are however as that will be the role of Christ at the time of the harvest.

 

[narnia59]

Moreover, the power of binding and loosing is also provided to fathers over daughters, and husbands over wives (Num. 30) and even civil powers are ordained to do so (Rm. 13:1-7)

However, the formal judicial binding and loosing belongs to the body corporate under its leadership, as seen in action in 1\n Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by \nthe body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

Yet while the judicial aspect of power of binding or loosing belongs to the corporate court, the spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all believers, which Matthew 18:19-20 supports.

The corporate forgiveness you mention is indeed conducted under the leadership of St. Paul. In the early church, all confession was done publicly in the presence of the leadership, not simply one to another. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches determined at one point that the priest could represent both the community and the leadership, which enables the penitent to confess with certainty of privacy. Other groups abandoned the Biblical practice of public confession all together.

Where do you see support for all believers to have the authority to 'bind and loose'?

 

[narnia59]

Note also that nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

All of the examples of confession are to the community in the presence of the presbyters or with the authority of an apostle. 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 is to occur with the community is assembled, which would be under the leadership of the presbyters. The passage you cite here, in context is a liturgical action whereby people are prayed over by the presbyters, anointed with oil by them, followed by the command, “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” It is not merely individual believers confessing to one another apart from the assembly headed by the presbyters.

 

[narnia59]

But nowhere in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts -Rv.) do we see a \"perfected\" reality of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, under which the veracity of a doctrine was assured under the premise that it could not err, much less with a pope calling a council to decree such

If Jesus cites that whatever they bind and loose on earth is also bound and loosed in heaven, how can it be anything but infallible? If they bind in error on earth, that error is then bound in heaven?

 

[narnia59]

In Acts 15 the Scripturally substantiated judgment of James, confirmatory of the exhortation of Peter and testimony of him and Paul and Barnabas was that \"it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28)\" not \"we declare, pronounce, define\" this to be true since we cannot err.

And they were certainly not declaring that belief in a specific event is required, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so lacking in early testimony the Rome's chief scholars opposed it as being apostolic doctrine .

I always find it interesting when people use Acts 15 to support the authority of Scripture. There was intense debate at that council, they reached a decision, and there is no evidence whatsoever they turned to Scripture for the answer but rather to the testimony of Peter and what he had witnessed among the Gentiles. But once they reached a decision, James does cite a single Scripture that aligns with the decision they reached. Which is pretty much the way it goes in the real world of sola-scriptura – decide what you want to believe and find a Scripture that supports it. Athough the apostles make no pretenses that they turned to Scripture for the answer, but rather relied on the extra-ordinary revelation given by God to Peter.

And it’s not the judgement of James that prevails at council. James simply chooses to bring the church at Jerusalem in line with the will of Peter, thus removing the threat of schism that was looming over the church.

 

[narnia59]

A false dilemma. Peter was not given any power that was not given to the rest, and Christ certainly did not err by so doing, but Rome by presuming 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.

Peter alone was given the revelation of who Christ was by the Father. He was given the power to bind and loose first, and separately from the rest of the apostles. Peter alone was given the keys of the kingdom (I guess that was 'nothing' in your view? Insignifant?). Peter was given the revelation that circumcision was not necessary for the Gentiles by a divine revelation that was given to him alone. He alone has his name changed by Christ. The Bible attests quite clearly that Peter had a unique role in the twelve.

 

[narnia59]

[FONT=\"Arial\"]As for Peter, the Peter of Rome is\none of the many Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest\nin the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed,\nand again, even Catholic researchers, and others, provide\ntestimony against RC propaganda on this. Rather than the Holy\nSpirit revealing Peter to be the rock upon which the church is built,\nin contrast, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”)\nor \"stone\" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large\nrock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most\nabundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33;\n1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42;\nMk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt.\n32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's\ncurrent catechism affirms both, thus stating, “On the rock of\nthis faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,”\n(pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some\nof the ancients concur with.[/FONT]

I am familiar with the reading of Matthew 16:17-19 that basically goes, wow Peter, you’re great because the Father revealed to you who I am, you know you’re just a petty little stone right, and by the way, I’m giving you the keys to the kingdom! The inconsistency of the flow of that should itself point out the flaws in that view.

I am confused why you have contrasted petra (rock) and lithos (stone) here. Matthew 16:18 says “And I tell you, you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” “Lithos” has nothing to do with that passage except to point out that it is indeed the word the Bible uses for ‘stone’ and would be the logical choice to be used if the contrast is truly between rock and stone would it not? Rather the text uses “Petros” which is uniquely used in Scripture in reference to the person of Peter. Those who try to insist “petros” means ‘stone’ and not ‘rock’ have no Biblical context with which to support that claim.

I’m sure you’re familiar with Protestant Biblical scholar James Strong who put together Strong’s concordance of the KJV. In my 2007 version of his concordance, G4073(petra) is defined as “feminine of the same as G4074 (petros), a mass of rock. The only substantial difference between the two is that the Greek word for rock (petra) is feminine and petros is the masculine form, which would be appropriate since Peter was a man to use the masculine.

One also has to consider that Petros is a translation of the name actually given to Peter by Jesus, which is the Aramaic Cephas, that means ‘rock’. Which is another uniqueness of Peter – when God changes a name in the OT it is a very significant event – Abram to Abraham who will be the father of many nations, Jacob to Israel who will be the father of the 12 tribes. In the NT, God changes the name of only one person – Simon to Peter. The significance of that is lost to many for some reason.

As far as the catechism referring to this being related to Peter’s confession of faith, that is true. It also states in paragraph 552 that the rock is Peter. It simply isn’t an either/or. You can’t separate the confession of faith from the person making it, and Christ changes Simon’s name long before the moment of the confession of faith, which highlights the person, not the confession.

 

[narnia59]

It was holy men who penned Scripture, (2 Peter 1:21) if not sinless, and while God can use even wicked men, there is a correlation btwn character and how much God can use a person, (2 Peter 1:20, 21), and the apostles were not merely some Caiaphas-types, but supremely manifest men of God, as Moses was, whom as group we do not see today.

We are not talking about stinkers, but leadership that can say of themselves what 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 says. In addition, in the NT church there was no ordained separate sacerdotal class of believers for whom the distinctive word for this sacerdotal class was used. Nor did presbuteros and episkopos refer to two different offices.

As I recall, one of your "holy" if not sinless men was King David, who committed adultery with another man's wife and then had him killed to get him out of the way. He most certainly did repent, but his grievous errors did not stand in the way of God using him in a mighty way.

I am curious as to how many of the approximately 5000 Catholic bishops or 400,000 Catholic priests you know personally in order to make such blanket statements of their character?

The OT identifies 3 types of priesthood – the high priest, the Levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of the nation. Those are fulfilled in the NT with Christ as the high priest, the ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of the believer. Eliminating the ministerial priesthood in the NT leaves a ‘gap’ in the OT typologies that are fulfilled. Isaiah 66:20-21 clearly prophesizes that some Gentiles would also be taken as “Levites” and “priests”.

And Paul most certainly sees himself in this ‘sacerdotal class’ and uses the distinctive word for himself. In Romans 15:15-16 he says 15 “But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

Some translations try to whitewash the ‘priestly’ but the Greek word used is a form of "hieros" meaning “to perform sacred rites” which I would guess is the word you’re professing was never used. Even more telling is the reason Paul gives for this priestly service – so that “the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit”. Offering sacrifice on behalf of the people is the role of an OT priest, albeit now with a perfect offering.

 

[Eloy Craft]

No, all these so-called "Early Church Fathers" were not ordained by the Apostles themselves (maybe Polycarp) while the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. And which thus must be determinitive of what the NT believed, and in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest, as they must be.

No, all these so-called "Early Church Fathers" were not ordained by the Apostles themselves

I believe the criteria for this topic was established by the OP. Let me remind you of the criteria that the OP required for an acceptable response.

In response, the RCC solidified the idea of "Sacred Tradition" so that her unbiblical doctrines would have a leg to stand on. Catholics will disagree with this reading of history, which is fine. That's not the point of this thread.

I think that the best way to argue for "Sacred Tradition" would be to give some examples of it. I would like for Catholics and/or Orthodox folks to provide some examples of Sacred Tradition. Please provide some examples of teachings which are necessary for faith and life, which have some origin in Jesus and the apostles, but which are not clearly laid out in Scripture.[/QUOTE]

I bolded the specific rule that's allowed by the OP which you are falsely accusing the poster you address of violating. Quote at top.
The bottom quote is the specific rule that the poster you falsely accuse of violating, is conforming to.

Please stop redirecting the discussion to a different topic. Start another thread for that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

And which thus must be determinitive of what the NT believed, and in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest, as they must be.

I reject this premise. Catholics don't believe that a given doctrine needs to be revealed in sacred scripture in order to be valid. If it is revealed in scripture, that's great. But that's not our threshold for believing something. If your threshold for believing in something is if it can be adduced from scripture, that's okay. It's important to have standards, I suppose.

But that's just not the way we look at it.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Almost funny to think you could get a curve past me even if you believe it, and I think you do, no offense please .. I think you're smart guy and seek truth like I do ..
We were talking about traditions and nice try on your explanation .. I listen to fake news every day and it wasn't invented yesterday .. Suddenly Peter is not all that important to Rome ? Of coarse Peter knew better, he had the vision concerning Cornelius .. But still it was his business if he did or didn't eat with gentiles and who did Paul think he was to openly oppose Peter in front of all instead of first going to him privately .. But that's for another thread .. I don't want to bash Catholics is why I didn't answer another post about news coming out about the RCC hierarchy when they seem to want to avoid it .. The post you answered is all scripture from me , but you go into the standard ''drill'' on me ..

Another question, Is Peters bones buried in Rome or is that another tradition ?

Bones attributed to St Peter found by chance in 1,000-year-old church in Rome