I have no problem with tradition as long as if it does not blatantly contradict Scripture.
as I have stated in the other forum, my GROUP is not represented by one person hundreds of years after the authorship. Also, taking one quote and applying it to the whole is about as intellectually honest as a doctor telling a man that drinking bleach is beneficial because it will kill the AIDS in him.
Absolutely not. It is the ASSUMED authority for bishops to make up their own traditions apart from oral/written scripture. Irenaeus CONFIRMS they are THE SAME.
Let's camp here shall we? Come to an agreement. Then move on.
Look, we can talk until 1054. And then circle back to oral/written tradition. The point of the OP is to answer the question, which oral traditions? Papacy? Ever-virgin? Bread type? We know these things from scripture. Not oral tradition later and apart from and not-tied to written tradition (scripture).
Oral tradition, if you believe Irenaeus, was exactly the same as scripture.
I believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth,
and in His son Jesus Christ, who suffered ...
PS SUFFERED, you want to know why he didn't say DIED? Perhaps a different thread.
Fair enough. John of Damascus is rejected also because of his 28 NT booklet.
So, you're part of which group that never changes?
EXACTLY. That's what Irenaeus has said. The oral traditions are (see OP). These are all found explicitely in scripture.
No more of the later, man-made Traditions that are not found in scripture. Paul and early Church NEVER said abide those things.
What the apostles spoke and what they wrote were the same thing. Paul said "teach the same".
Problem is, even Marcian hadn't written his canon in that day (Marcian the heretic wrote his canon in 170, Against Heresies is written in the 160s). In Irenaeus's day, there was no canon written, or at least not while he was writing AH.
Also, we know that everything Paul wrote is not preserved. We know that from Scripture that it is not everything the Apostles wrote, because two letters, at least, are missing.
As to other Apostolic Tradition, you can also include the Didache, which is a compilation of quotes from the Twelve.
ok, several Traditions in the quotes of the Church fathers, starting with your favorite dead horse, ever-virginity:
-snip-
I agree with the OP. Tradition isn't worth spit if it isnt taught in Scripture. It may or may not be ok but it causes division. Example: the RCC statue of Jesus is unnecessary. Maybe its Ok but many others are not comfortable with it. My question, is a statue worth division? How about the Mary prayer? Will protestants not be praying properly without that prayer? If you say no then you agree that the prayer is unnecessary. Is it worth division? Is tradition worth that? The world says we are divided, we should prove to them Christ is not.
Would that groups who "love" tradition, "love" this information from Irenaeus that ties out to Paul's instruction.
You're right. If it 'hurts' your brother, don't do it. Pretty simple stuff, but folks love their Traditions. Per the OP, however, it's now been shown what those were and they no longer correspond to what schismatically developed centuries later.
From post #3.
Jerome
Dont you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).
Poor Jerome, alas, we knew him well, until he admitted the "even if" and voted for "majority opinion", thus negating his eloquence.
Paul said, abide the traditions whether oral or written. What are the oral traditions?
Irenaeus gives us an answer; it is akin to the Nicene Creed. It is written. It is apostolic.
I can't believe folks would reject that in order to maintain later beliefs, but hey, color me 'still naive'.
As to specific so-called Traditions, start a new thread. This one is on the "abide the traditions whether oral or written at the time of apostles".
Paul wrote the same things over and over so its hard to miss his teaching, it agrees with the other apostles and the Lords written doctrine. We dont need new apostles writing scripture. We have enough already.
Tell me, what tradition do you think is an important part of the Gospel that isn't already taught in scripture? Maybe i'll understand your position better.
If it's so hard to miss his teaching, why is it that 15000-40000 denominations have different interpretings of his teachings?
And tradition is better? The tradition that we have seen ever since the dark ages has played a role in creating that mess, tradition is hardy the answer. That just creates more "interpretations"
Tradition roots in the first centuries of the Church: Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Ignatius, etc. That's hardly the dark ages. Two of those people sat at the feet of the Apostles
Ok, but please help me understand. What tradition is important to the Gospel that is not already found in scripture?
The proper practice of the faith. How do the people gather? How do the people fast? How does one take in Communion? What is Communion? Is it a symbol or a reality? What does Baptism do? What are the sacraments of the Church? What things are important to the Church? What does God do through the Church? Is the Church united in doctrine or is it only a nebulous ideal? Are we still in communion with those whose bodies have passed?
All of these are hinted at or spoken about in Scripture, but the exact answers are within the Tradition of the Church.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?