Scripture and Tradition

Celibacy is not a part of the Tradition of the RCC. There is nothing in their Tradition or theology that requires celibacy. The requirement comes about in their canon law which, as DHK points out, goes back to the 3rd or 4th Century. It's like in my church where we have a bylaw that the pastor must be a man with a degree from an accredited seminary. Nothing scriptural about the requirement for an accredited seminary, we just think that will serve our purpose better. Although the celibacy requirement is not likely to change anytime soon, the RCC does have a few priests who are married. These are former Episcopal clergymen who have converted to Catholicism. They have been granted the privilege of continuing in the priesthood as Catholics.

 

That is important when we consider the Apostlic Tradition claimed by RCC.

Making the people become disciples of Jesus cannot be limited only to certain group of people, but all the disciples could make another people of next generation become another disciples, then the third generation disciples made next generation become the fourth generation disciples, and this has continued until today.

Therefore, this shows no chance to claim that any certain group of church people only can be the successor of the holy tradition or Apostlic Tradition. That is absolutely groundless, and instead the Bible clearly says all the Believers are the priests because of what Jesus has done at the Cross.

God saved the mankind in the simplest and easiest way that whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ and what He has done at the Cross.

Then Jesus commanded how to make the disciples, and the Holy Spirit commanded the Believers how to organize and manage the churches.

Other than that and the teachings in the Bible, there is no other tradition that the True Believers cannot know or that only the Papacy which was never mentioned in the Bible can retain the tradition.

What if Tradition contradict the Bible? Will you follow Tradition over the Bible?

 

In their canon law they "teach for doctrine the tradition of men" they did not invent the idea when canonized -- rather it existed as tradition prior to being voted into law during Lateran IV or the other councils.

Think about it -- if the source is not divine special revelation through scripture or vision - there IS only one other source!

That is not "doctrine" it is "policy and practice" and in this case it is determined by your voting council -- "The precepts of men" regarding policy but not "defining sin".

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS[/b], BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT [b]IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''[/b]
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.[/b]
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER[/b]'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

That exception to their own made-up-rule does not alter the point. They defined doctrrine -- define sin - by the use of the "commandments of men" that they themselves simply make up.

So that for them it is a "sin" for a priest to go out and get married.

That point remains regardless of the number of Episcopal priests that are added to the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The source I quoted was strictly RCC not Eastern Orthodox. As we see in the case of Celebacy, and Baptism and Sabbath observance the various pre-1054 factions held to differring doctrines EVEN though all of them were steeped in tradition.

Tradition was not "sufficient" to eliminate differences between eastern and western church groups PRE-1054 NO even between the coptics and the Western church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

What you are missing is that the "practice" of the Church in Africa, in the East and in the West were DIFFERENT prior to 1043 when it came to Sabbath keeping, Celibacy of Priests, the use of Icons, the mode of Baptism etc.

The simple fact is that "tradition" was never the panacea that you have imagined it to be for obliterating differences. Each time you argue against Sola-scriptura saying "hey look differences exist" you show that you are not looking objectively at church history when it comes to tradition shackled church groups prior to 1054.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Nope; please re-read what I've posted. I have said that both clerical celibacy (not that I'm terribly worked up about that as it's a Latin-rite Roman discipline only, not doctrine or dogma) and Purgatory-indulgences were post-1054 innovations solely by the Roman Church (despite what Bob would have us believe to the contrary) and therefore are not consistent with Scripture or Tradition.

 

Compulsory clerical celibacy wasn't mandated until the late 11th century (not the 3rd or 4th), and then only in the Western (Roman Catholic) part of the Church. It has never been the doctrine or discipline of the whole Church.

 

May I suggest a reason as to why a pro-Roman Catholic apologist would try to suggest that compulsory celibacy dates back that early? The simple answer would be that such an apologist would wish to demonstrate that clerical celibacy was the norm in the Undivided Church prior to 1054 and that therefore the RCC is being faithful to that Tradition of the whole Church and that the Orthodox are not. Clearly though, tis is not correct, otherwise why was the Hildebrandine reform of the late 11th century, which required all Roman clergy to 'put away their wives', necessary?

 

1. In Ezra and Nehemiah's time we see "reform" where Jews were required to put away their foreign wives and where foreigners were being excluded from the assembly -- that is not "proof" that the law did not exist prior to that - rather it is proof that they had periods of time where they were lax in enforcing those rules.

The same point applies above. Nothing new there.

2. You are equating "doctrine" with "level of civil and church penalties for violation" and that is not the same thing. When we speak of Calvinism vs Arminian views today we are not talking about church or civil penalties for believing one vs the other. We are talking about teaching and practice as is accepted or approved by a certain group - not as in "enforcement".

The point about sola scriptura being argued is "difference exist" not "penalties for violation exist".

in Christ,

Bob

 

No, I agree with you that 'doctrine' is not the same as 'discipline'; indeed, that was the point I made to Ed.

 

Agnus made this wild and false statement:

To say that tradition existed before the NT is absurd. Tradition, according to Catholic encyclopedias, takes centuries to develop. The NT was completed by the end of the first century. The book of Revelation was written in 98 A.D. The Apostles and early believers knew which books were inspired at that time.

Your argument goes something like this. The RCC had to tell us which books were inspired through various councils because there were other books floating around which could have been part of the canon, and they had to decide which were inspired and which were not. That is hogwash. It is like saying that when Joseph Smith came along, and also Charles Taze Russell, that councils of Christians had to be convened to decide whether or not the Book of Mormon and the writings of Russell were inspired and should be added to our Scriptures. Ludicrous isn't it. The early Christians already had the Scriptures and they knew which books they were and didn't need the help of the RCC to tell them which ones they were.

Man-made doctrines such as celibacy and purgatory arose out of Tradition not the Scriptures. We can agree on that. Agnus makes this outlandish statement that Tradition precedes Scripture.

On your other point, doctrine determines practice, so the point is pretty much moot. The RCC can claim all they want that celibacy is a practice, a discipline. But that doesn't change things. So is prayer. My prayer life is a practice, it is a discipline. But it arises out of doctrine--the doctrine of prayer.
The RCC has a doctrine of celibacy, and it is doctrine. The word doctrine simply means teaching. Please don't deceive us into thinking that there is no teaching of the RCC on "celibacy." If there wasn't there would be no discussion about it. The teaching "doctrine" is that it is compulsory for all priests to be celibate. The Bible calls that a doctrine of demons.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry,

 

Show the class DHK historically where the completed NT was in the Book of ACTS. Where was Paul’s “pocket New Testament” that he carried in his back pocket of his Levis brand blue jeans?

Fact is there was NO NT books when the Church began on the day of Pentecost…Christ left no written manual to guide His Apostles, nor did Christ instruct His Apostles to go forth and pen a NT…ONLY the OT alone was used as Scripture.

Historically the first NT book written is dated around 50 or 51 AD, I Thessalonians or Galatians and Johns Revelation as you point out correctly, at the end of the First century, so the Church existed for roughly 20 years before ANY of the NT books were penned.

Furthermore, even after a book was written it was not immediately widely available.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

The fact that it wasn't widely circulated doesn't mean it wasn't in existence. That is still the case today. There are many nations that only have the NT translated into their language and some that only have the gospel of John or John and Romans. That doesn't mean the rest of the NT doesn't exist, and it doesnt' mean that someone couldn't go to that nation and preach using Scripture from the rest of the NT. Does an illiterate person have access to the NT? No. At least not unless he learns to read.

Nevertheless the NT was in existence at the time of the end of the first century, though few people may have access to all of the books at one time. Even Paul requested to Timothy to bring him the books, and especially the parchments. There were other books (that would make up the Bible) that he wanted, while he was in prison.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Parchment was the material on which the manuscripts of Bible was written.

You are right in your assessment. The NT books were written between 50 A.D. and 98 A.D.
For that reason spiritual gifts were given during that time, such as prophecy and reveletory knowledge. These gifts were temporary until the canon of Scripture was complete. It was through these gifts that God aided the NT churches of the first century with the NT knowledge that would later be penned in the Bible. God has never left his people without a witness to the truth.

 

So, since we agree, you'll also agree that the Church existed some 20 years w/out any NT writings?

Here you said:

So, what was used to guide the Church some 20 years if Holy Tradition is out of the question?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Correct.

See Acts 17:11
The preaching and teaching of Paul, and of course the other Apostles. John himself lived into the second century. The presence of revelatory gifts, as I already mentioned, had a great deal to do with it. There was no tradition. How could tradition develop within a period of 20 years when the Catholic encyclopedias define tradition as developing over a period of centuries!? Impossible. It was the preaching and teaching of the Word of God, along with the use of the spiritual gifts--all during the first century.

 

Written to me

Hi Bob. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I have never argued against Sola Scriptura. I believe very strongly in it.

The very existence of differing "Tradition" is exactly my point.

Before the post you quoted from, I wrote

i.e. the New Testament-era church's Scriptures.

I am giving credit where credit is due: Catholic polemicists are right that I should not make Orthodox Tradition authoritative, and Orthodox polemicists are right that I should not make Catholic Tradition authoritative. I make neither Tradition authoritative.

I do take what the Lord Jesus Christ's Personal apostles wrote and sanctioned as authoritative. You can also read 1 Corinthians 4:6b quoted in the signature of all my posts. I apologize for anything I might have done to confuse you on this.

 

I, personally, believe that John Wesley's Quadrilateral was useful in this regard. He used three measures or canons to understand God's Revelation to Man...

1.) Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
2.) Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
3.) Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
4.) Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

Nothing superseded the word of God but the other three where thought to be necessary to understand God's Word fully. Wesley saw the Quadrilateral not merely as prescriptive of how one should form their theology, but also as descriptive of how almost anyone does form theology.

 

Someone say that he doesn't eat any meat on Friday because Jesus was killed on Friday. I found this when I visited Germany 10 years ago. Now I hear the same from another ex-Catholic here.

Is that a Holy Tradition of Roman Catholic?

Did any apostles keep such rules?

The problem is that I am quite convinced that Jesus didn't die on Friday.

If you read the other thread about the date of Crucifixion running here, you can find the details.

If Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday morning, He would have been in the tomb only for 2 nights and 2 days ( Friday night and Saturday night), only for 37 hours or so, which apparently contradict what Jesus said in Mt 12:39-40, 3 nights and 3 days.

Roman Catholic have kept so called Good Friday.

Is that a Holy Tradition?

How can you explain the contradiction between Mt 12:40 and Good Friday?

Have you found anyone in the Bible keeping the Good Friday?

 

Indeed, and this marks the beginning of Sacred Tradition - the oral teachings and actions of the Apostles and the Apostolic Church. The only point where we differ is that this phenomenon did not cease at the end of the 1st century; there is no Scriptural authority to suggest it did and Church history shows very plainly that it didn't.

 

From an Orthodox Catechumen perspective, we fast every Wednesday and Friday. We also fast before Divine Liturgy (usually after the Saturday evening meal) and we fast at certain feast days. Some are stricter than others, like the 40 day Nativity fast is less strict than the 40 day fast before Easter.

Don’t ask me to explain all the particulars regarding our fast…like meat, fish, oil, wine, as I am still learning and adjusting…As a Protestant, fasting was something we never discussed or practiced. So I’m a work in progress…

If they were Jews, which they were, I’d say they did in fact fast…Jesus spoke a lot about prayer and fasting…fasting is biblical, just as prayer is.

Before I decided to become Orthodox, I contemplated Catholicism and I didn’t see or hear as much about fasting as I do as an Orthodox. Many old Catholics that are pre-Vatican II still keep the fast, but I’m unaware of a fasting schedule other than before Easter.

In regard to Holy Tradition…Fasting is a certainly a Tradition within Orthodoxy, since fasting can be traced to the Old Testament and New Testament and I would consider that a big “T” Tradition. Now all the fish, meat, oil, wine and days we fast could be…could be a small “t” tradition, which in this case would find itself comfortable within the big “T” Tradition.

ICXC NIKA
-