Question for Catholics

And also, DHK, doesn't 2 Tim. 2:2 say that apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations? St. Paul says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible only.

 

If I may,

At the very least, the 2Tim verse attests to the supremacy of scripture over anything else. In other words, scripture is to be our primary authoritative source. Any other traditions, canons, statements of faith, etc, must conform to scripture.

I can't imagine there is any argument over that between catholics and protestants, is there?

Not so. Indeed, denominations have formed over issues concerning disagreement of interpretation, but most do so over issues of practical application of scripture, and not over private interpretation. Even when the Roman Catholic Church had an institutional monopoly in Europe, it was by no means the only denomination in the world.

 

'At the very least, the 2Tim verse attests to the supremacy of scripture over anything else. In other words, scripture is to be our primary authoritative source. Any other traditions, canons, statements of faith, etc, must conform to scripture.'

I agree, tradition, etc. must conform to scripture.

 

You would like it to say that but it doesn't. In our trusty KJV the verse is:

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--As noted the word is "ordinances" which means commands, or things to be observed. Look in the last part of the chapter. We observe that which we are commanded to do: Keep the Lord's Supper. Is it an ordinance? Of course it is. Is it a tradition? No. It is a command of Christ.

 

That trusty KJV, translated by men with a bit of a 'bias' wouldn't you say?

 

No, This verse is speaking about what we call spiritual reproduction:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

It is what we do in Bible Colleges, and in the churches what we should be doing by discipleship--teaching faithful men the Bible that they in turn will teach other men the Bible. That has been carried out throughout the centuries and ages since Christ. It is not Tradition, but the Bible that has survived.

 

Not in this verse.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. (ASV)

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions. (Darby)
--Directions, not tradition.

(1Co 11:2) Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. (Dhouay-Rheims--Catholic)

Even the Catholic Bible translates it as "ordinances." Isn't that good enough for you?

 

The canon of Scripture is a revelation from God , and which comes from outside the Bible. Where did that come from? This revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the 'pinnacle and foundation of the truth' (1 Tim. 3:15).

It's been suggested that bringing this fact up will alienate people. The NT didn't just fall from heaven into the hands of 'true believers'. The Catholic Church determined the canon of the New Testament. A church that you say is heretical.

 

I prefer the New American Bible

 

2 Peter 1:20 -Again, this shows that interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. So, it must be a matter of interpretation of the Church. The Holy Bible needs a interpreter. I still contend that 'private interpretations' have lead to the divisions and that is why there are so many different Protestant denominations.

 

Back to 2 Tim. 3:16-17 -Here another thing, if these verses really mean St. Paul was teaching 'Bible Only', to the early Church, then how come in 1 Thess. 2:13 does St. Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Is St. Paul contradicting himself?

 

Just so there's no confusion when you say "Catholic Church", we are not speaking of the "Roman" Catholic Church as in the Patriarchate of Rome that determined the NT Canon by itself.

It was the Third Council of Carthage around 397 AD that provided a full list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments...The five Patriarchates were all still in communion with each other during this Council.

In XC
-

 

Totally in agreement with you.

 

If the bible wasn't clear enough for me to realize that God never meant for it to be the sole authority in the matters of faith, it became even more clear to me when reading the Early Church Fathers who were directly linked to the apostles that they didn't have any 'sola scriptura' illusions:

Papias


"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).



Eusebius of Caesarea


"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).



Irenaeus


"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

 

And a few more:

Clement of Alexandria


"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).



Origen


"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).



Athanasius


"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven" (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" (ibid., 29).



Basil the Great


"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).



Epiphanius of Salamis


"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).



Augustine


"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).



John Chrysostom


"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).



Vincent of Lerins


"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

"Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

Of course now will come, 'Heretics, all of them!'

 

Just a thought, would worshipping on Sundays count? The only reason I ask us because there are a few Seventh Day Baptists who believe Sunday worshippers aren't Sabbath worshippers, sometimes to the point of calling them heretics.

 

This is where you made your mistake. You were taken in by the journey home, Catholic Answers, et. Someone and something beguiled you from a simple devotion to Christ and His word. The ultimate culprit is satan. But the means he used was his antichrist.

As for claiming the ECFs taught the necessity of an oral tradition the way the papacy defines is such a stretch of the imagination only an antichristian spirit could be strong enough to spread such a blatant and foolish lie.

What the papacy did, over time, is move the early church away from "sola Scriptura." As one author wrote, "The Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle which had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age."

 

Uh, if you don't want a response from people, don't post on a public forum. A conversation between just two people doesn't exist on a public forum such as these.

Anyhoo, there are references to believers breaking bread together on a first day of the week, but that doesn't necessarily infer a traditional Sunday corporate worship as is the custom of most of us. You asked for a "tradition" that does not come directly from scripture. Sunday worship, whicl obvious not condemned in scripture, does not appear to come from scripture, but from a longheld custom (if there's scripture wich establishes Sunday as our formal day of corporate worship, I'm all ears).