Peter Is Not The Rock!

[JacktheCatholic]

Tell me all about the unwritten Tradition? What was it? Was it in the form of a poem to aid memory? If not, was it properly memorised? The likelihood is it was something hazy that got added on and things got subtracted from. Is there a single person who can say what this Tradition is? Where each statement came from? You see, if the full ambit was not already fixed at the time of the Apostles, then that's very risky!!! It could grow with time and any new-fangled unapostolic teaching could easily have a corresponding "tradition" freshly cooked up. Nobody knows the full ambit anyway so who can tell?

The choosing of the books for the New Testament came from Tradition.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/size]
Dear Beamishboy,

It was not thus that Our Lord adjured us to deal with each other.

A word to the wise: Alexandria is the place where our Patriarch has resided; they have been there since AD 58.

peace,

Anglian

Now that is awesome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hi Anglian,

As I understand from what you wrote, the Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils constitute Holy Tradition. I'll just pick an example: The Assumption of Mary came from which one of the four Holy Traditions? When did it happen? A rough date will do eg. 1870 AD

About 50 AD.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy

You ask:

Hi Anglian,

As I understand from what you wrote, the Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils constitute Holy Tradition. I'll just pick an example: The Assumption of Mary came from which one of the four Holy Traditions? When did it happen? A rough date will do eg. 1870 AD

That would be analagous to saying the Church did not believe in the Trinity because the word was not used before the second century; i.e. silly.

Doctrines of the Church are attested to in the manner I have described; pious opinions of the faithful have clusterd alongside the doctrines of the Church as one might expect in any institution older than a few decades. For the Orthodox the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin is a tradition whose earliest written record dates from an apochryphal work usually dated to the fourth centurt. It is what the Orthodox call a theologumenon. These are pious traditions which may be held by the faithful, but upon which the Church erects no doctrine.

The Orthodox have not adopted the scholastic approach of the West on these matters, and we do not try to limit the pious opinions that may be adopted by the faithful - or pretend that something such as scripture justifying itself, an opinion unheard of before the sixteenth century, is even a theologemenon.

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy

You ask:

As I understand from what you wrote, the Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils constitute Holy Tradition. I'll just pick an example: The Assumption of Mary came from which one of the four Holy Traditions? When did it happen? A rough date will do eg. 1870 AD

That would be analagous to saying the Church did not believe in the Trinity because the word was not used before the second century; i.e. silly.

Doctrines of the Church are attested to in the manner I have described; pious opinions of the faithful have clusterd alongside the doctrines of the Church as one might expect in any institution older than a few decades. For the Orthodox the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin is a tradition whose earliest written record dates from an apochryphal work usually dated to the fourth centurt. It is what the Orthodox call a theologumenon. These are pious traditions which may be held by the faithful, but upon which the Church erects no doctrine.

The Orthodox have not adopted the scholastic approach of the West on these matters, and we do not try to limit the pious opinions that may be adopted by the faithful - or pretend that something such as scripture justifying itself, an opinion unheard of before the sixteenth century, is even a theologemenon.

peace,

Anglian

Thanks, Anglian. So now, what you are telling me is that the Assumption of Mary doctrine did not come from one of the 4 pillars of Holy Tradition as you called them but from a 4th century apocryphal work!!!

Are 4th century apocryphal works a 5th pillar of Holy Tradition?

I wish to address everyone who is reading this: I hope you can see what I'm driving at. When someone tries to seek recourse to some nebulous concept like "Holy Tradition", don't be afraid to get down to the bottom of it. What Tradition? When? By whom? What was said in this Tradition? How was it memorised if it's not written? Was it in a poem or verses? Can I look at the entire "tradition"? When you do that, it's not difficult to have someone admitting that the Holy Tradition comes from a 4th century apocryphal work!!! When that answer is given, you may still ask further. What work is that? Who wrote it? Let me have the full text. You then read the text for yourself and frequently, you'll find that that "source" of the Holy Tradition does not even spell out enough for the Holy Tradition to come about.

 

[Ormly]

The creeds were written to sort out the "oral" tradition that by 125 had become corrupted. The sad thing is with the creeds, the Church set itself up as the kingdom of God. Notice that within them, the Kingdom isn't mentioned as Jesus taught it.

 

[beamishboy]

About 50 AD.

Don't just pluck a figure from the air. Look at Anglian's answer. One thing I really appreciate about Anglian is his honesty. It's easier to speak to someone like him.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Whew! I leave for a few days and you guys are just posting away... I've got to catch up...

I'm reading posts around #1185. What have I missed?

Forgive me...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Thanks, Anglian. So now, what you are telling me is that the Assumption of Mary doctrine did not come from one of the 4 pillars of Holy Tradition as you called them but from a 4th century apocryphal work!!!

If you read what I wrote you will some something of wider significance in this discussion. What I am telling you is that tradition supports the opinion exopressed in the idea of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin. Where something is supported by only one of the pillars, no doctrine or dogma can be pronounced upon it. That is why my Church holds it as a theologemenon.

That is why when you cite your own reading of scripture, I always read it with interest, but insist that no doctrine or dogma can be based upon Scripture alone.

Your own novel claim that Scipture interprets itself was unheard of before the sixteenth century, and yet you insist upon it, but deny a tradition which is more than a thousand years older; odd.

When you are better read in the history of the Faith and, in particular, when you abandon the view (taken by no serious scholar) that the 4th century saw some terrible falling away in the Church, you will begin to understand the true nature of tradition. You keep making an elementary error which rather surprises me in one of your erudition. Not everything in Holy Tradition is a doctrine or dogma of the Church; only those matters which rest on all 4 pillars.

Your opinions rest on one of those pillars, which is why those of us used to the fullness of the faith find them a little lacking in balance and depth. Even the wisest words of the wisest human are no substitute for the wisdom passed down by Christ through the Apostles to His Church. Holy Tradition is the guide God gives us. It has served my Church well since AD 58, when St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Whew! I leave for a few days and you guys are just posting away... I've got to catch up...

I'm reading posts around #1185. What have I missed?

Forgive me...

Dear Orthodoxy,

I suspect it is called not having a life

You've missed a couple of parallel discussions, and the unveiling of Beamishboy's plans for his magnum opus which will prove that what the Church has taught from the beginning is not as Apostolic as his own reading of Scripture; that, at least, should be worth waiting for. The optimism of the young never fails to cheer me up

peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by beamishboy Hi Anglian,

As I understand from what you wrote, the Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils constitute Holy Tradition. I'll just pick an example: The Assumption of Mary came from which one of the four Holy Traditions? When did it happen? A rough date will do eg. 1870 AD

About 50 AD.

Where do you find that date at?

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,
[/size][/color]
If you read what I wrote you will some something of wider significance in this discussion. What I am telling you is that tradition supports the opinion exopressed in the idea of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin. Where something is supported by only one of the pillars, no doctrine or dogma can be pronounced upon it. That is why my Church holds it as a theologemenon.

That is why when you cite your own reading of scripture, I always read it with interest, but insist that no doctrine or dogma can be based upon Scripture alone.

Your own novel claim that Scipture interprets itself was unheard of before the sixteenth century, and yet you insist upon it, but deny a tradition which is more than a thousand years older; odd.

When you are better read in the history of the Faith and, in particular, when you abandon the view (taken by no serious scholar) that the 4th century saw some terrible falling away in the Church, you will begin to understand the true nature of tradition. You keep making an elementary error which rather surprises me in one of your erudition. Not everything in Holy Tradition is a doctrine or dogma of the Church; only those matters which rest on all 4 pillars.

Your opinions rest on one of those pillars, which is why those of us used to the fullness of the faith find them a little lacking in balance and depth. Even the wisest words of the wisest human are no substitute for the wisdom passed down by Christ through the Apostles to His Church. Holy Tradition is the guide God gives us. It has served my Church well since AD 58, when St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria.

peace,

Anglian

Dear Anglian,

But even if the Assumption of Mary is not a doctrine in your church, it is a dogma in the RC church. It's been declared ex cathedra by the Pope.

But what I want to show in my definitive book is that even if the Orthodox says this is not doctrine, the fact is it's still very much believed in the church and therein lies the danger. So what if technically, it's not doctrine? People believe in it and practise it and the origin of this doctrine is an apocryphal work in the 4th century!!! Alarm bells should ring.

On a more serious note to all the folksies and blokesies of CF: The beamishboy has suffered a cruel blow of fate. Something terrible has happened. It seems my school discovered that I've been going online at inappropriate times in school and they've contacted my parents. Steps are now afoot to restrict the beamishboy's access to the internet. It's being worked out and the bad news is the beamishboy may have to cut down considerably the time that I spend in CF. I still have to check and write my emails and update my blog from time to time. Updating the blog is ok because I can compose my blog when I'm not online and I just have to upload it and it takes a minute or two. CF is the main problem for me because I have to read what others say, post my reply and as is always the case, I always get a whole platoon of replies, each of which has to be torn apart and neutralised.

The beamishboy is most upset about this turn of events. Do check my blog for regular updates on the pronouncements my parents will shortly come up with. My dad just told me that he was disappointed that I had been irresponsible in the management of my time. He would have to take "drastic steps". J who looks after me and accompanies me most of the time has been asked to make sure that I don't go on wi-fi connection when I'm not at home. I do know all the places with wi-fi connection but J will see to it that I don't avail myself of these.

The beamishboy has been silenced. My parents are drawing up a timetable for me so I'm not always stuck to the internet.

So if I do not reply to a post that defends the RC position or that attacks the sacred Protestant belief that is on all fours with apostolic teachings, please do not think the beamishboy has raised the white flag. The beamishboy will come back to the posts when he is able to do so. Like Paul, I will go through prison walls to fight for the truth. But we still don't know what my parents will decide is best for me. I will post everything on my blog.

The beamishboy wearily mounts his snow white stallion and gallops away in the sunset to his Castle of Truth. A clarinet plays in the distance - the sad strain of Poulenc's Clarinet Sonata 2nd movement in A-minor, reflecting the beamishboy's mirthless mood.

Adieu, my friends!!! To the RCs and Orthodox who are probably pleased to see less of the beamishboy - I hope you will dwell more on the written word of the apostles and less on hazy tradition which might lead one away from the Word. Above all, may our our God be glorified and the Bible lifted up!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Adieu, my friends!!! To the RCs and Orthodox who are probably pleased to see less of the beamishboy - I hope you will dwell more on the written word of the apostles and less on hazy tradition which might lead one away from the Word. Above all, may our our God be glorified and the Bible lifted up!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7270970
Acts 1 and Revelation 11 Ascending in cloud

Acts 1:9 And these things saying, of looking of them, He was taken up, and a Cloud/nefelh <3507> received Him from their eyes.

Reve 11:11 And after the three days and half-equal, a spirit of life out of the God entered on them and they stand on their feet and great fear falls upon the ones observing them.
12 And they hear a great Voice out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye hence"! And they ascended into the heaven in the Cloud and observed them their enemies

 

[archierieus]

And on what is Sola Scriptura based on?

The concept is based upon the Bible. The words, of course, are Luther's, who took a stand against the traditions of the Church and was excommunicated for doing so. This whole episode caused quite a ferment in Germany. Charles V called a meeting of the Imperial Diet at Worms. Luther was invited to attend under the emperor's safe conduct. The papal legate urged Charles to not honor the safe conduct and take Luther prisoner. Charles refused, saying, "I should not like to blush like Sigismund." At the Diet, the papal representative accused Luther of heresy, and demanded that he recant his writings. Luther first gave an explanation of his work, then concluded, (First in German, then in Latin,) "I cannot and will not recant." Unless, he said, he was shown clearly from Scripture that his work was in error. The papal emissaries, of course, could do no such thing. They relied on Church tradition. They could not answer Luther's arguments, but they then and there wanted to take him prisoner, torture him and burn him at the stake. The emperor refused. Later, Luther was taken to safety by Frederick, the Elector of Saxony.

But the concept of the Bible and the Bible only is directly from the Word of God, the Bible. Tradition is NOT the Word of God. Tradition is man's teaching. So long as man's teaching is in harmony with the Bible, no problem. But the Bible is the final test, and is above man's tradition.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

The beamishboy has been silenced. My parents are drawing up a timetable for me so I'm not always stuck to the internet.

So if I do not reply to a post that defends the RC position or that attacks the sacred Protestant belief that is on all fours with apostolic teachings, please do not think the beamishboy has raised the white flag. The beamishboy will come back to the posts when he is able to do so. Like Paul, I will go through prison walls to fight for the truth. But we still don't know what my parents will decide is best for me. I will post everything on my blog.

The beamishboy wearily mounts his snow white stallion and gallops away in the sunset to his Castle of Truth. A clarinet plays in the distance - the sad strain of Poulenc's Clarinet Sonata 2nd movement in A-minor, reflecting the beamishboy's mirthless mood.

Adieu, my friends!!! To the RCs and Orthodox who are probably pleased to see less of the beamishboy - I hope you will dwell more on the written word of the apostles and less on hazy tradition which might lead one away from the Word. Above all, may our our God be glorified and the Bible lifted up!

Oh, come now, BB, don't leave at this juncture! Tell them that you are doing a great work, and that you cannot come down. And I should be glad to offer a testimonial, if that would help.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The concept is based upon the Bible. The words, of course, are Luther's, who took a stand against the traditions of the Church and was excommunicated for doing so. This whole episode caused quite a ferment in Germany. Charles V called a meeting of the Imperial Diet at Worms. Luther was invited to attend under the emperor's safe conduct. The papal legate urged Charles to not honor the safe conduct and take Luther prisoner. Charles refused, saying, "I should not like to blush like Sigismund." At the Diet, the papal representative accused Luther of heresy, and demanded that he recant his writings. Luther first gave an explanation of his work, then concluded, (First in German, then in Latin,) "I cannot and will not recant." Unless, he said, he was shown clearly from Scripture that his work was in error. The papal emissaries, of course, could do no such thing. They relied on Church tradition. They could not answer Luther's arguments, but they then and there wanted to take him prisoner, torture him and burn him at the stake. The emperor refused. Later, Luther was taken to safety by Frederick, the Elector of Saxony.

But the concept of the Bible and the Bible only is directly from the Word of God, the Bible. Tradition is NOT the Word of God. Tradition is man's teaching. So long as man's teaching is in harmony with the Bible, no problem. But the Bible is the final test, and is above man's tradition.

Dave

Don't forget about my bro Tyndale

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1179374&page=13
Sola Scritura and William Tyndale

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by beamishboy Forgive me but I thought "prepuce" was a bad word. We study that in sex education though.

It should not be a bad word. It is simply another word for foreskin.

I remember there was a thread on either the GA or another board concerning what happened to the foreskin of JESUS since He was not to see decay. Wish I could find that thread.

I also have a view on the significance of that "8th" day concerning Revelation but I better not bring that up. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 2:21 And when are filled days eight of the to be circumcising Him [*the boy] and was called the name of Him JESUS, the being called by the messenger before the to be conceived Him in the womb.

Textus Rec.) Luke 2:21 kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein to paidion kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhfqhnai auton en th koilia

W-H ) Luke 2:21 kai ote eplhsqhsan hmerai oktw tou peritemein auton ----- kai eklhqh to onoma autou ihsouV to klhqen upo tou aggelou pro tou sullhmfqhnai auton en th koilia

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

We shall miss you; but, of course, your parents know best.

You write:

Dear Anglian,

But even if the Assumption of Mary is not a doctrine in your church, it is a dogma in the RC church. It's been declared ex cathedra by the Pope.

It is, and whilst that is not the Orthodox view, I am unsure what harm it does.

But what I want to show in my definitive book is that even if the Orthodox says this is not doctrine, the fact is it's still very much believed in the church and therein lies the danger.

What danger do you apprehend? I really do think you are misunderstanding the poetry of the faith that many non-English cultures seem better able to express than the rather buttoned-up English. I know you think veneration is the same as worship and that those saying it isn't are, in some way, trying to deceive you; it is better to assume they, like you, are sincere in what they say.

Do remember that just as we can trace a variety of attitudes in the NT itself, we see them to day too. We should be slow to judge and condemn others, as we hope to escape condemnation ourselves.

It may, and probably will, be better for your education if you are here a little less; but that will not lessen our sorrow at your absence. We rarely agree, but there is nothing but admiration in my feelings for you, and I hope that you may be able still to be with us from time to time.

Take care,

peace,

Anglian

 

[lionroar0]

The concept is based upon the Bible. The words, of course, are Luther's, who took a stand against the traditions of the Church and was excommunicated for doing so. This whole episode caused quite a ferment in Germany. Charles V called a meeting of the Imperial Diet at Worms. Luther was invited to attend under the emperor's safe conduct. The papal legate urged Charles to not honor the safe conduct and take Luther prisoner. Charles refused, saying, "I should not like to blush like Sigismund." At the Diet, the papal representative accused Luther of heresy, and demanded that he recant his writings. Luther first gave an explanation of his work, then concluded, (First in German, then in Latin,) "I cannot and will not recant." Unless, he said, he was shown clearly from Scripture that his work was in error. The papal emissaries, of course, could do no such thing. They relied on Church tradition. They could not answer Luther's arguments, but they then and there wanted to take him prisoner, torture him and burn him at the stake. The emperor refused. Later, Luther was taken to safety by Frederick, the Elector of Saxony.

But the concept of the Bible and the Bible only is directly from the Word of God, the Bible. Tradition is NOT the Word of God. Tradition is man's teaching. So long as man's teaching is in harmony with the Bible, no problem. But the Bible is the final test, and is above man's tradition.

Dave

And where does it say that in the Bible? Also why use the Bible in this fashion?

What is this based on?

From a Catholic perspective we believe the Bible because of Tradition.

This means that the faith the Jesus and the Apostles taught was 1st spoken then some of it was written down(the Bible).

So that there is the Bible and the Oral Tradition all coming from one central deposit of faith. That is the faith that Jesus and the Apostles taught and passed down. The councils are part of the Oral Tradition, along with the Liturgy,other historical documents which show the Chrsitian faith such as the letters of St. Ignatious, Polycarp, ect...being lived.

Oral Tradition is the Christian faith put into practice and experienced.

The concept is based upon the Bible.

Is it based on the Bible alone? If so why? What is the basis for this?

So long as man's teaching is in harmony with the Bible, no problem. But the Bible is the final test, and is above man's tradition.

Oral Tradition is from God not man's tradition.

But anyways where does the basis that Bible is the final test come from?

But the concept of the Bible and the Bible only is directly from the Word of God, the Bible.

And where does it say this in Bible?

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oral Tradition is from God not man's tradition.

That depends on the ones interpreting the Written words in the Bible.

Ezekiel 37:10 And I prophecy as He commanded me and the spirit is coming in them, and they are living and are standing on their feet, an army/host, great, exceedingly-exceedingly.

Reve 11:11 And after the three days and half-equal, a spirit/breath of Life out of the God entered in them, and they stand on their feet and fear, great falls on the ones beholding Them. [Ezekiel 37:10]