Any claim to have some kind of oral tradition of the apostles is absurd


#1

#2

The term “oral tradition” is extremely misleading. Almost everything is at some point written down.
It means beliefs held by the Church but not contained in the Scriptures. Since there is no Scripture that claims to be an encyclopedia of faith, or even a catechism, it is almost certain that there were some such beliefs. It becomes absolutely certain when we examine the non-Scriptural evidence.


#3

Mark 13:31

31"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Mark 16:15
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Mark 3:14
14And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to **preach, **

Mark 16:15
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and **preach **the gospel to all creation.

Luke 10:16
16"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

Acts 2:3-4

3And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, **as the Spirit was giving them utterance. **

Acts 15:27

27"Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.

2 Timothy 4:2
2** preach **the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

**Joel 1:3

3Tell your sons about it,
     And let your sons tell their sons,
     And their sons the next generation. **

#4

“No man…is inspired”

I love how these people are so quick to toss out their own bible with the bathwater. :shrug:

I’ve said it more than once: when Protestants argue against the Catholic Church they quite often sound just like faithless atheists.


#5

The New Testament lists three separate ranks of clergy: episcopoi (bishops), 1 Tim 5:19-22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5; presbuteroi (priests), 1 Tim 5:17; James 5:14-15, and diakonoi (deacons), Acts 6:1-6.

The Catholic Church maintains these three ranks. Does your church? Who is your presbuteroi? Is it your elder? Then who is your episcopoi? Mine is Bishop Howard Hubbard.

[quote=justasking4] Look up in I Timothy 3:1-5 where being married was actually used as being a criteria for leadership. In your church, you are disqualified from leadership (priests-bishops etc) if you are married. Big difference
[/quote]

No, marriage was not “a criteria for leadership.” Monogamy was. 1Timothy 3:2 required that a clergyman be limited to only ONE wife, as oppose to MULTIPLE wives. If a clergyman were to be married, he could be only “husband of one wife.” In the Catholic Church, married clergy (and yes, we have them) are allowed to marry only one wife. So what’s the problem?


#6

Yeah, there was that fellow Paul…

I like to ask these folks, if the wife of their married bishop dies, does he cease to be a bishop? After all, a plain reading of the text says “yes”.


#7

LOL.


#8

Right. Catholics agree.

What doesn’t appear as a synonym is “exclusive.” That’s because nowhere does 2 Tim 3:17 or any other Scripture refer to Scripture as the EXCLUSIVE source of knowing God’s word.


#9

The first complaint of the OP was that there is no scriptural basis for the assumption of Mary. When the members appealed to tradition, he rejected that. He was also provoked that nothing was written by the fathers until the fourth century, and therefore, found that it could not be a valid teaching.

Curiously, he accepts the canon…


#10

No! Since he must be married to be a bishop, he must take another wife immediately so he will not have to leave his office! :smiley:


#11

Curious indeed.

Of course, teachings were administered orally throughout history for the simple reason that until a Catholic named Gutenberg inventing the printing press books were prohibitively expensive and most of the people were illiterate in any case. (Of course, since Gutenberg lived in the early 1400s, Protestants would likely consider him no Catholic at all, but rather a member of the Invisible Church as the Catholic Church was founded at Trent unbeknownst to the Pope a century later).

newadvent.org/cathen/07090a.htm

This included the early Protestants, btw, many of whom never read the Bible at all. One presumes Protestants would consider them saved nonetheless, although their experiences were limited to traditional ones.

This is always the trouble with an ignorance of history—one keeps cranking out anachronistic piffle which undermines both one’s arguments and one’s understanding.


#12

In the protestant church that I was a member of for several years, our pastors wife died of ovarian cancer. There were people in the church that left because they did not feel that a single man was qualified to lead the church, and others told him he should step down if he did not plan on remarrying. Of course most stood by him.

Way to treat the pastor when he needed the support of his congregation the most. I don’t know why people get so stuck on church leadership being married.


#13

Yes but how immediately is soon enough and how late is too late? :hmmm:

I know, let’s look it up in the Bible…:rolleyes:

Peace,
+N


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.