Sacred Tradition

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' post='1443627' date='Jan 9 2008, 03:25 AM']I am just asking because I want to learn from you and if we are ignorant of this Sacred Tradition just like what your early church father is saying; is it not proper to teach us about it?[/quote]

The question is why are protestants not aware of it in the first place?

[quote]Now, in the above condition of the early Christian believer, how can you be very sure that this historical Jesus, which is the center of all teaching in Sacred Tradition, is truly from the Apostles and not from these false teachers? I am just asking because we need to be sure. Otherwise, a believer may end up believing a lie if we will not learn to ask and seek the truth.[/quote]

We can be sure by the argument St Ireneus employed against the gnostics.

The gnostics wrote false gospels containing "secret teachings" of Jesus, and to authenticate them they gave them titles like, "the Gospel of Thomas" or "gospel of Mary." St Ireneus argued that if there had indeed been secret teachings of Jesus the Apostles and their successors would be aware of them. Since Sacred Tradition is absent of the secret teachings, and since gnostics had no direct connection to the Apostles, it's clear they were spreading falsehoods they conjured themselves.

St Ireneus on the other hand learned from St Polycarp who learned from St John the Apostle who learned from Jesus Christ. So between St Ireneus and the Lord Christ were two people, and one was an Apostle. By the succession of people we can be sure that St Ireneus was carrying this Sacred Tradition.

[quote]Who are these succession of presbyters mentioned by St. Ireneus (who guarded the 'tradition' from the Apostles?)[/quote]

He is probably referring to the succession of Bishops, and he uses the Apostolic succession in Rome as a key example.

[quote]As I have already said, I do not reject the Holy Scripture as a true written testimony about Jesus Christ, the power and wisdom of God. But regarding this ‘oral’ tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, I want to see by all of us, if this is really what the Apostles are saying and handled down to us or it is just an interpretation and conclusion to the scripture of these believers who were before us.[/quote]

Why do you accept Holy Scripture to be a true testimony?

The reality is prior to it being written down by the Evangelists the Gospel was taught orally. Not to question your faith, but how can you be sure that these oral traditions were accurately documented in the New Testament? And how do we know who wrote these Documents?

Jesus did not write a book but He did establish a Church, one that He promised would be protected and that it shall forever have the Holy Spirit as guide. Since the New Testament was written, defined, and protected by this Church I am fully confident that it is the true testimony of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I am fully confident that the oral teachings and practices the Holy Spirit inspired were also carried out and protected by this Church. If you really think about it, it doesn't make sense to think the Bible is an exhaustive document on *everything* God revealed. No book can contain everything, even St John said so at the conclusion of his gospel. It makes sense to think that the Apostles were inspired in speech and action and not just in writing, and that the way they worshiped and practiced was passed on through their successors.

Now outside of faith I can't prove to you Sacred Tradition which was not written down -- that would be impossible outside of going back in time and physically conversing with Apostles -- but we can show evidence that supports this tradition. We can use the scripture and non-canonical writings of early Christians who succeeded the Apostles as evidence. For example, is the Eucharist truly the Body and Blood of Jesus or just a symbol? We can offer scripture that supports the former but protestants offer a different interpretation to those same verses, so who is right? If St John quotes our Lord as saying we must chew His Flesh, and St Paul says not to approach the Eucharist in a state of sin because that is an offense against the Body of Christ, we can further solidify the literal interpretation of these statements by seeing what those early successors believed in. If you research this you will discover that Christians have always believed in the literal and physical presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, and this is not simply something Rome taught but was taught everywhere. Take St Ignatius as an example, the third bishop after St Peter in Antioch, who in his letters explicitly refers to the Real Presence of Jesus several times.

This is one example but all of this comes back to the origin of Sacred Tradition, both written and oral. But certainty of any teaching is based on faith in Christ, who promised His Church would never fall to error.

Edited January 9, 2008 by mortify

[reyb]

I asked 'Now, in the above condition of the early Christian believer, how can you be very sure that this historical Jesus, which is the center of all teaching in Sacred Tradition, is truly from the Apostles and not from these false teachers?

...and this is what you said,

[quote name='mortify' post='1443711' date='Jan 9 2008, 02:54 PM']We can be sure by the argument St Ireneus employed against the gnostics.

The gnostics wrote false gospels containing "secret teachings" of Jesus, and to authenticate them they gave them titles like, "the Gospel of Thomas" or "gospel of Mary." St Ireneus argued that if there had indeed been secret teachings of Jesus the Apostles and their successors would be aware of them. Since Sacred Tradition is absent of the secret teachings, and since gnostics had no direct connection to the Apostles, it's clear they were spreading falsehoods they conjured themselves.

St Ireneus on the other hand learned from St Polycarp who learned from St John the Apostle who learned from Jesus Christ. So between St Ireneus and the Lord Christ were two people, and one was an Apostle. By the succession of people we can be sure that St Ireneus was carrying this Sacred Tradition.
He is probably referring to the succession of Bishops, and he uses the Apostolic succession in Rome as a key example.[/quote]

you do not get my point. The Aposltes are not referring to this historical Jesus.

[mortify]

If the people that were closest to Him did not refer to the "historical" Jesus then we are doomed.

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1445067' date='Jan 12 2008, 08:19 PM']If the people that were closest to Him did not refer to the "historical" Jesus then we are doomed.[/quote]

How do you know that you are doomed? Do you mean, if a man believe a lie although he is unaware of it - He is doomed?

[reyb]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1340904' date='Jul 25 2007, 09:07 PM']The following is an excerpt from Conte's website, catholicplanet.com.

QUOTE

[b][color="#FF0000"]A Catholic Timeline for Future Events[/color][/b]

Please note that events listed as occurring in the same year are not listed in any particular order. This timeline is only a brief summary! There are many more predictions and many more details in my free ebook The Bible and the Future of the World.

[b][color="#FF0000"]2008: Hilary Clinton elected U.S. President [/color][/b]
2009: Hilary Clinton changes her mind about abortion and become pro-life. The year 2009 will be a year of great success for the pro-life cause.

2009: Pope Benedict XVI suggests building three places of worship in Jerusalem, a Temple, a Church, and a Mosque, so that these three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, can worship in peace in the City of Peace. “For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid.” (Mk 9:6).

2009/2010: the beginning of the events described in the Book of Revelation, the first part of the tribulation, which includes the Day of Repentence and the Day of Healing.

** The first part of the tribulation is from 2009/2010 to 2039/2040 A.D.

[...]

2009 or 2010: Pope Benedict XVI dies. The next pope is elected, whom St. Malachy calls 'Peter the Roman.' He is not the last Pope.

2010: World War III begins. At the start of the war, the Arabs nuke New York City (in 2010). The war continues for many years; millions upon millions will die. World War III is the first of the Seven Seals and the first of the Four Horsemen (in the Book of Revelation).

2011/2012: the Arabs begin to threaten, attack, invade, and conquer territory in Europe.

[...]

2012: When the city of Rome is half in ruins, then the Pope will be a holy martyr. As the Arab forces approach Rome, the Pope flees Vatican City, at night, carrying his own bag on his shoulder, accompanied by clergy, and guarded by soldiers. They escape Vatican City, but are pursued by Arab soldiers. The Pope (Peter the Roman) is captured by the Arabs. (The Arabs capture Rome and burn the churches there; they also burn Vatican City.) The Pope is taken to Syria, where an unjust sentence is handed down against him. They kill the members of the clergy captured with him, along with clergy from Syria, while the Pope watches. Then they put out his eyes, so that it is the last thing he sees. They take him to Iraq, where he is imprisoned and where he eventually dies, with no one to rescue him.

2012 or 2013: the Allies recapture Rome. It will be hailed as a great victory, but the great victory turns into a terrible defeat. Because the Arabs could not hold the city, they destroy it with a nuclear weapon in July of 2013.

2013: the great Famine of the 21st century begins. It lasts until the early 2020's A.D. It is an unusual famine because it is most severe in wealthy developed nations, and much less severe in poorer less developed nations. Europe will be most severely afflicted; the U.S. will also be affected. The great Famine of the 21st century is the third of the Seven Seals and the third of the Four Horsemen (in the Book of Revelation).

[...]

2020 - 2023: all Christians will be united in one renewed, restructured Catholic Church with 7 parts. The great famine ends. The people rejoice, but the Arab and Muslim leaders are angry at this unification of Christians.

early 2020's: After unification, the Church elects a Pope who is not Roman Catholic; he will be one of the converts from Protestantism and a member of one of the other of the 7 branches of the Catholic Church.

END QUOTE

And it goes on (and on and on). "Theologian" Conte's website is full of this stuff.

I rest my case. Over and out.

Likos[/quote]

[indent]Obviously, Ms Hilary Clinton is out of the race(presidential) but how about this suppose-to-be "prophet's foretelling"? [/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1443711' date='Jan 9 2008, 02:54 PM']Jesus did not write a book but He did establish a Church, one that He promised would be protected and that it shall forever have the Holy Spirit as guide. Since the New Testament was written, defined, and protected by this Church I am fully confident that it is the true testimony of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I am fully confident that the oral teachings and practices the Holy Spirit inspired were also carried out and protected by this Church. If you really think about it, it doesn't make sense to think the Bible is an exhaustive document on *everything* God revealed. [b][color="#0000FF"]No book can contain everything, even St John said so at the conclusion of his gospel[/color][/b]. It makes sense to think that the Apostles were inspired in speech and action and not just in writing, and that the way they worshiped and practiced was passed on through their successors.[/quote]
Let us continue our discussion is Sacred Tradition. But let me clarify something. Are you referring to John 21:25 when you said ‘No book can contain everything, even St John said so at the conclusion of his gospel’

[indent]25 [color="#FF0000"]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[/color].
NIV[/indent]

[Galloglasses]

Yes.

[reyb]

[indent]Okay suppose you will write every second of whatever this Jesus did for example when he was still a baby, at 8:00am he sleeping, at 8:01 he is still sleeping, at 8:02 he is still sleeping….and so on and so forth. Do you think this world does not have enough room for the books that would be written?[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]
Let us go back to our subject discussion regarding Sacred Tradition of Roman Catholic Church. Previously I asked, May I know what is the meaning of [post="1361010"] ‘This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down’.? [/post]

Now, may we know what is this 'growth' referring to as stated in Dei Verbum?[/indent]

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588987' date='Jul 2 2008, 10:29 AM'][indent]
Let us go back to our subject discussion regarding Sacred Tradition of Roman Catholic Church. Previously I asked, May I know what is the meaning of [post="1361010"] ‘This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down’.? [/post]

Now, may we know what is this 'growth' referring to as stated in Dei Verbum?[/indent][/quote]

[quote]And if you truly believe that this Sacred Tradition is from the Apostles themselves, give us a clear reason – in the light of the scripture.[/quote]


Why "in light of scripture?" Unfortunately reyb, this is not the Sola Scriptura phorum, it's the Phatmass Phorum. Would our answers be satisfactory to you if they weren't "in light of scripture?"

It seems like every time I read a posts of yours reyb, I get such a frightful headache. Points go here, arguments go there, grammar loses itself; your arguments end up on a winding road, always curved, never straight. Unlike a handgun, which shoots a straight, single bullet, your argument is like a shotgun that shoots shells; stuff goes all over the place with many holes, but never hitting the target.

You bring up a discussion about Sacred Tradition (never really knowing what your motives are which is a little frightening and unsettling) and you keep throwing stuff into the mix (Dei Verbum, this link, that link, your cousin’s link, my brother’s friend’s link, etc.), but never having a single solid argument and then at the end, you make your point and it starts all over again.

Now please state one single point and your problems (or interests) with that said point and then we can discuss it on simpler terms. Be a little more specific and not as general please.

Also, question please: What came first, Sacred Tradition or Holy Scripture (in terms of Anno Domini)?

Peace

[reyb]

Okay. No Problem.

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' post='1445088' date='Jan 12 2008, 08:19 PM']How do you know that you are doomed? Do you mean, if a man believe a lie although he is unaware of it - He is doomed?[/quote]

We are doomed because we would not know the real Jesus.

It's impossible to conceive the closest people to Jesus knew nothing about Him.

Edited July 6, 2008 by mortify

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1592596' date='Jul 6 2008, 02:05 AM']We are doomed because we would not know the real Jesus.

It's impossible to conceive the [b]closest people [/b]to Jesus knew nothing about Him.[/quote]
[indent]Who are these people? Can you give me an example? [/indent]