Oral Tradition

And, yes, Ps,
Our Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the Apostles. That's part of what we're trying to tell people on this board when we refer to the writings of men who personally knew and learned from the Apostles. Pope Clement I, St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp are good examples of apostolic men who passed on what they learned from the Apostles.

Pauline

 

Whew!

Psalm. That link is a lot of reading for sure. I went and actually read most of it.

Perhaps you could take the time to break this down a little bit. What do you think about that article and the topic in general? I'll admit, I speak from the cuff on this board 90% of the time. I have studied a LOT in the past, but I have spent a LOT of time studying on my own, and in deep contemplation on lots of these matters.

That is why you rarely see me post a link to anything. I think people spend more time reading apologetics, and not enough time acutally studying and researching what they apologists are actually saying. I know. They cover about 1/20 of any given topic, because it is too much to present in a format that holds interest. Both sides.

You and I cannot deduce from Mr. Palm's one article or Mr. Whites one rebuttal definitively whether there was oral tradition. Lets be honest. There is so much more to the subject to consider. I never read a single Catholic apologist until I had almost become a Catholic, yet I spent five years researching the fathers and Bible, coming up with the same things from a different angle.

My suggestion to you. Give us some specifics from this article that have made a big impression on you either way. I am not out to smash your views. But I am not scared to look at everything either.

I'll be quite frank. I don't care who is right and never have. I honestly thought Catholics were going to hell, and I mean I really honestly believed that with all my heart. I NEVER would have become a Catholic. I knew they were wrong. Why state this? To tell you of my sincerity. When I thought they were right, I went. I went against the team I was rooting for basically.

I am not spewing Catholic apoligists here, I am spewing my thoughts here. I reference them when I can, but I have not done and read everything they have.

In my studies I actually believed that I had discovered new things about doctrine! Long story short, I was extreemly dissaponted to find this faith in the Catholic church.

Do not let your heart be troubled that Catholics believe in oral tradition. There is ample reason to believe so. Be at peace that you know better or you are convinced that you know better. This gives you a clean concience before God, which we all must have.

-Chuck

 

Chuck,
Was your experience something like ours? We saw certain Protestant doctrines that did not work. Therefore, we changed what we were teaching. So God changed the doctrinal views of my husband and myself to the Catholic view, before we ever knew what the Catholic Church teaches.

One example is on-going conversion. We saw this had to be a necessity of the life with Jesus Christ. We were already, as Protestant evangelists, teaching it though we called it by a different name -- total commitment. There were other doctrines that we changed on too. Then we were led to the Catholic Church and found she taught what we had already come to believe on those doctrines.

God was making us Catholic without us knowing it. And when we found the Church, we both knew we had come home.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
And, yes,
Our Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the Apostles. That's part of what we're trying to tell people on this board when we refer to the writings of men who personally knew and learned from the Apostles. Pope Clement I, St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp are good examples of apostolic men who passed on what they learned from the Apostles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this similar to the claim of the Mormons, who claim that they can personally trace their ancestry or lineage right back to Adam?

 

Ps,
That's a very good question. He wrote during NT times and he knew the apostles.

Oral Tradition was important in deciding the canon of scripture. When Catholic leaders make a public teaching, which is meant for the whole Church, on anything, they first pray and study the word of God, which consists of tradition and scripture. Before the canon of scripture was set, tradition was extremely important in deciding which books were truly inspired by God.

There were books that seemed like they should be included in the canon. Clement's letter to the Corinthians was one of them.
There were also books that appeared to many to not belong in the scriptures and which are today included in our NTs. The Book of Revelation is one of those.

In A.D. 382, Pope Damasus directed the Council of Rome to compile the New Testament. In 393 the Council of Hippo also listed the books, the same list as that of the Council of Rome. And in 397 the Council of Cathage, under St. Augustine, listed the same list of the NT and the books of the OT which included the deuterocanonical books which were later rejected by Luther. That list was sent to Rome for the approval of the then pope, Innocent III. (I wrote the last name from memory and pray I got it right. I'll check it when I can and edit if necessary.)

Therefore it isn't logical for non-Catholic Christians to accept the canon of the NT which was determined by Catholic leaders and to reject the canon of the OT determined by the same Catholic leaders. Neither is it logical for non-Catholic Christians to accept the OT "canon" of Luther but to reject his NT "canon" which dropped four books of the NT. To accept the Catholic decision on one testament and Luther's decision on the other seems to me to be like saying there is no canon. Logically that would be like saying, there is no written word of God for any man can decide his own canon. And that would be like saying there is no truth in the Christian faith.

Pauline

 

DHK,
Are you seriously putting men who were taught by the apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, who were highly respected by the early Christians, and who died for love of and faithfulness to Jesus Christ in the same category as the Mormons?
Pauline.

 

Ps.
The Jews never accepted the deuterocanonical books???!!!

The deuterocanonical books were all in the Jewish Greek OT called the Septuagint, which was the OT quoted by Jesus, used by Paul and the early Christians.

I think when you say those books were never accepted by the Jews, you are referring to the fact that the Rabbis of Israel did not put those books in their canon when they decided it about 100 years after Christ's time on earth. The Christians had been using those books for a hundred years by then and considered them Christian scripture.

Pauline

Pauline

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:

Are you seriously putting men who were taught by the apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, who were highly respected by the early Christians, and who died for love of and faithfulness to Jesus Christ in the same category as the Mormons?
Pauline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. You said, "Our Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the Apostles."
That statement is about as ridiculous a claim as the Mormon's claim to be able to trace their lineage to Adam. For example, the ungodly "tradition" of kissing the pope's feet; can it be traced all the way back to the apostles? When Cornelius fell at the feet of Peter, Peter rebuked him and told him to arise, for he also was a man. So much for accepting worship (the kissing of one's feet is a form of worship).
But that's just one example. Tradition after tradition of the RCC cannot be traced down to the Apostles.
DHK

 

DHK: I never heard of any "Sacred Tradition" of kissing the Popes feet. Could you provide documentation for this? I have heard of the tradition of kissing his ring, but this is hardly considered Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church.

God Bless

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Disciple ]

 

Schaff, speaking of Luther, and also quoting him in his "Address to the German Nobility," in 1520, said:

2. In the second part, Luther chastises the worldly pomp of the Pope and the cardinals, their insatiable greed, and exactions under false pretenses.

3. In the third part, he deals with practical suggestions. He urges sweeping reforms in twenty-seven articles, to be effected either by the civil magistrate, or by a general council of ministers and laymen.

He recommends the abolition of the annates, of the worldly pomp and idolatrous homage paid to the Pope (as kissing his feet), and of his whole temporal power, so that he should be hereafter merely a spiritual ruler, with no power over the emperor except to anoint and crown him, as a bishop crowns a king, as Samuel crowned Saul and David. http://www.bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf114.htm

---In another source I read that the practice
of kissing the pope's feet was introduced in 709 A.D.
DHK

 

KISSING OF THE FEET

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (xlix, 23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08663a.htm

This is a pretty feeble try at tracing a rather unsacred tradition down to the Apostles, but veneration the Catholic Church says it is, and so I will agree. Veneration is worship, particularly as they go on to link it to "ancient king worship." You worship a man.
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
KISSING OF THE FEET

This is Veneration is worship, particularly as they go on to link it to "ancient king worship." You worship a man.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DHK, your shortcomings are showing again.

We have been down the venertion/worship road many times already.

Buy a clue: veneration is not worship.

Dictionaries are available in any library.

BTW, still waiting to hear about your theological training. Any particular reason you are not more sharing in this area?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:

What I would like to know is, has the Roman Catholic church ever defined or produced the doctrinal content of this oral tradition, and established a historical, objective link for these traditions, traceable to the apostles?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Psalm, let's take one oral tradition at a time. I'm going to start researching the oral tradition of "Sola Scriptura".

It ain't in the Bible so it must be an oral tradition.

Wish me luck!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Is this similar to the claim of the Mormons, who claim that they can personally trace their ancestry or lineage right back to Adam?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In _The Baptist Heritage_, by Leon McBeth, Church history professor at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary writes that some Baptist historians trace their history back to Adam. Be careful when throwing stones at the glass houses. They might burst your own bubble first.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Disciple:
DHK: I never heard of any "Sacred Tradition" of kissing the Popes feet. Could you provide documentation for this? I have heard of the tradition of kissing his ring, but this is hardly considered Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are not my shortcomings T2U. I have aptly provided the information that Disciple requested, and that she probably should have known. My original question still stands. The statement was made: "Our Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the Apostles." In the light of what I posted please demonstrate this. How is you so-called "sacred tradition" such as kissing the pope's feet, traceable to the Apostles?
DHK

 

DHK: Thank you for the information on kissing the feet of the Pope and where that tradition came from.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Acts 28:10
They also honored us with many marks of respect; and when we were setting sail, they supplied us with all we needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It seems that the Apostles were honored with many marks of respect in their time by fellow Christians even though they were men. This is because Christians of that time knew these men had the authority of Jesus Christ.

Do Baptists honor your clergy with any marks of respect? Scripture says to honor even the king, and all lawful authority comes from God.

Baptists I know have traditions. I have been to a Baptist wedding and saw quite a bit of tradition. Rings, vows, rice, wedding gowns, tuxedos, etc. Catholics have traditions also that are not Sacred Traditions and can be changed.

Sacred Tradition is the teachings inherited by the Church which were transmitted by Christ and His Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. This includes the whole body of faith of the fathers, the preaching, liturgy, the teachings, etc. The Church fathers themselves in their writings refer to this.

Read the writing of St. Athanasius. He uses Sacred Tradition to fight the heresy of the Arians who were using a literal interpretation of Holy Scripture to prove that Jesus was made by God. "Who was faithful to Him that made Him." Heb 3:3. This is the literal meaning of this passage, but was not the understanding of the Apostles or the Church.

Along with using Scripture, Athanasius says, "Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept." To Serapion 1:28

As St. Athanasius explains, "Let us, retaining the general scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation." Dis. Against Arians 3:35

Sacred Tradition is authoritative and independent and gives an orthodox interpretation of Scripture. Remember, Jesus opened the eyes of the Apostles to the understanding of the Scriptures before He went to heaven. Where is this body of faith? It is in His Church. Jesus also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to all truth. The Apostles and Church knew what the Gospel meant. They had the correct interpretation even before it was written down. This hasn't been lost, this is the whole body of faith as it developed and was passed down from the Apostles.

Sacred Tradition is complementary and harmonious with Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture can't be interpreted without Sacred Tradition. Without this body of faith and understanding that the Apostles and the Church possess, Scripture is twisted into all different sorts of distortions, including the belief that Jesus Christ is not God, there is no such thing as the Trinity, there is no communion of Saints, etc. Scripture can be interpreted to their own destruction and made shipwreck of their faith. There are many examples through history of what happens when Scripture is interpreted without Sacred Tradition that is meant to accompany it. Jesus left a teaching Church and the Holy Spirit to guide it for a reason.

God Bless