Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sigh. No, that is not an accurate description of it - close enough to sound good, but far enough off to confuse the issue. From the OCA website:
Sigh. No, that is not an accurate description of it - close enough to sound good, but far enough off to confuse the issue. From the OCA website:
Protestants have no problem with the early church fathers, or with the early councils of the Church, for that matter. But what they would NOT do is regard them as an additional source of revelation alongside the Bible.
Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.
here's the text:continue:
fourth sealcontinue
Even if you invoke the term "Holy Tradition," which Catholics made up for the purpose, so that we have Scripture plus custom, legend, and speculation defining doctrine, it still is adding something to God's word that is considered its (Scripture's) equal.
What are they, then?How about 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Here, we are told by Paul that he has delivered things he did not write down.
What are they, then?
I'm not sure why that's needed. Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas, he undoubtedly spoke with eyewitnesses of the events.
How about 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Here, we are told by Paul that he has delivered things he did not write down.
He is referring to the book he has just finished writing (the Gospel of John). Chapter 21 is evidently a postscript, possibly added by John himself.
indeed!We have only four short gospels recording Jesus' sayings and doings, and the final week of his life accounts for 50% of what is to be found in each of those gospels. Therefore, assuming that his ministry lasted three years, 99.99% of what Jesus said and did must be completely unknown to us.
what we do is what the bible tells us to do:So what do we do about that?
Invent a tradition which has him saying, "In the twenty first century there will be somebody called Leslie Dellow living in Britain, and I command the Catholic Church of that time to pay him a million pounds a year?"
You seem to have a good command of the way this works. I'd remind you that it helps to add that the idea of giving Leslie Dellow a million pounds a year is a tradition and comes from the Apostles. Those additions cinch it, and no one can disprove either of them since there is no evidence.We have only four short gospels recording Jesus' sayings and doings, and the final week of his life accounts for 50% of what is to be found in each of those gospels. Therefore, assuming that his ministry lasted three years, 99.99% of what Jesus said and did must be completely unknown to us.
So what do we do about that? Invent a tradition which has him saying, "In the twenty first century there will be somebody called Leslie Dellow living in Britain, and I command the Catholic Church of that time to pay him a million pounds a year?"
If 3rd John is a letter written to Gaius why would he refer to it as a book? Is something being lost in translation?
I'm trying not to get lost in the weeds, but I keep getting distracted by inconsistancies.
What are they, then?
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.
To this formulary, for many and most sufficient reasons, they gave the name of Symbol. ... because, at that time, as the Apostle Paul says, and as is related in the Acts of the Apostles, many of the vagabond Jews, pretending to be apostles of Christ, went about preaching for gain’s sake or their belly’s sake, naming the name of Christ indeed, but not delivering their message according to the exact traditional lines. The Apostles therefore prescribed this formulary as a sign or token by which he who preached Christ truly, according to Apostolic rule, might be recognised. ... And for this reason, the tradition continues, the Creed is not written on paper or parchment, but is retained in the hearts of the faithful, that it may be certain that no one has learnt it by reading, as is sometimes the case with unbelievers, but by tradition from the Apostles.
“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.
You seem to have a good command of the way this works. I'd remind you that it helps to add that the idea of giving Leslie Dellow a million pounds a year is a tradition and comes from the Apostles. Those additions cinch it, and no one can disprove either of them since there is no evidence.
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?