Pope: The Unbreakable Unity between Scripture and Tradition

Some clarification is required with regard to your question. By "tradition", the Catholic Church is referring to oral communication...

...Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Baloney. The Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles were widely enough known, with copies having widely circulated from the beginning. The way you put it, is like they were reciting the books or passages from memory alone, with no textual support. That was not the case, at all. What can otherwise be seen and has been established by a variety of historians, is that eventually NT canon was limited to that which had been received, handed down in written form from Apostlic sources, and in the case of Luke, and Acts, first-hand accounts assembled from Apostolic sources by another, contemporary to the times of the earliest, most primitive church. It was those same works which had the most heft all along, with other writings never being considered their equal, save for among the heretical.

The way you put it, is like they were reciting the books or passages from memory alone, with no textual support. That was not the case, at all. What can otherwise be seen and has been established by a variety of historians, is that eventually NT canon was limited to that which had been received, handed down in written form from Apostlic sources, and in the case of Luke, and Acts, first-hand accounts assembled from Apostolic sources by another, contemporary to the times of the earliest, most primitive church.

Yes, but none of it was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn't part of "The Bible" until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD.

There are some instances of Sacred Tradition in the Bible that are interesting. For instance, in Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:

"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.

Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following:

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament. The books of Matthew, Hebrews, Timothy and Corinthians, all contain texts not found in the Old Testament. Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed on to the Apostles and the Church, which carries equal weight with the Church's book, the Bible.

You present argument of assertion, which itself becomes distortion. The "none of it...widely available" is absolute balderdash. There may have been some lesser, smaller works not included in collections of all, or were not uniformly seen as being equal to the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and the greater portion of Paul's letters, but the remainder was broadly enough discussed or mentioned by various individuals prior to the time-frame you present, and looked upon as authentic from the time of Origin, with himself listing that which was considered Apostolic previous to his own time...

The works I mentioned, the greater bulk, was much MORE than less, uniformly known of, thus it can be assumed was present, in various churches East & West, long before the time frame you present. There could be minor exceptions, but that would leave those exceptions being argued as rule, while also still attempting to get away with the hinted at claim, that the books themselves were transmitted orally. Reading from them publicly, or in church assembly, is not the oral transmission which is being argued here.

It is not as if the works were first presented late in the fourth century, and previously transmitted only or chiefly orally, as you originally suggested (just not in those exact words).

It's more like there is record of them being cataloged at that time (late in the fourth century) by an organized group, organized with a purpose, rather than reliance upon their own church/group "tradition", and the more isolated written listings having cropped up previous. That does NOT mean those books were not previously regarded as authentic due to their Apostolic origins, but does mean that such was being written about in 382 AD, as that which had for centuries previous, by tradition, been regarded as authentic. Big difference. Can you see it? It's all about WHERE those books came from, not WHO it was that recognized those basic facts!

Now if one wanted to argue that the authenticity of that which eventually became more formally NT canon, was previous to the end of the fourth century, presented "orally", transmitted much by tradition, that would seem quite safe to assume to a great extent be true, even though there may have been some written listings scattered far and wide, that never made it into the historical record by having been mentioned and/or duplicated, much less surviving extant. What should be logical enough, is that prior to the first attempts to formally, as an assembly of churches/groups define NT canon, there had to have been a pre-existing sense of what that should be composed of.

For reason those books (which are now NT) were themselves widely accepted previous to that time, is the driving reason why those particular books and none other, were at that time cataloged. That such arose as hedge against gnosticisms, would be beside the point, for here we are still considering origins and faithful transmission of that which had been received.

As to disputations, to settle those matters, what can be seen to have been most widely applicable, but to fall upon reliance of that which was Apostolic in origin, setting aside all that which came afterwards? Though there is evidence of earlier isolated inclusions of a variety of NT apocrypha, the widest sense from as can be best reconstructed from earliest mentions, hold fast to the Apostolic, with significant unevenness in regards to NT apocrypha.

"You present argument of assertion, which itself becomes distortion."

That Sacred Tradition preceded New Testament Sacred Scripture and that the early Church relied exclusively on the oral Sacred Tradition cannot be disputed. Sacred Scripture itself attests to this in numerous places, none more clearly than Luke:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. - Luke 1:1-4

Peace be to you

“Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. “

You said something similar in the other post, saying that the scriptures were, allegedly, all “geographically separated,” suggesting, as if, it didn’t really exist until the church (it still was not the Roman Catholic Church for more than 600+ years) “compiled” it. Yet, if we just read, for example, Ignatius or Polycarp, between the two of them they quote almost every book in the New Testament. How did they do that if all those books were “geographically” separated and they needed some Papist person to gather them all together for them?

The Apostles considered their works to be scripture, and so you want us to believe that they made no attempts to preserve it or spread them to the churches, so that the Romanists can allegedly take the credit for it 300-400+ years later, doing what the Apostles themselves failed to do. But considering these works were already known and belonged in the hands of the church, I think we can safely conclude what the truth is.

“On the other hand, every papal encyclical is directly sourced to Scripture. “

At this point you’re no longer appealing to a tradition you allegedly received from the Apostles, but are just saying that Romans have the authority to interpret scripture, and that the Presbyterians, for example, don’t or can’t.

But suppose you DID claim that you got a tradition against cloning from the Apostles. (Mind you, no tradition is valid where it contradicts the scripture, and probably the biggest examples of this in the Roman church is where it is most important... in matters of salvation, where today they hold, essentially, a semi-pelagianist view instead of what Christ and the Apostles clearly taught.) But suppose we spoke of tradition in general, can the Romans prove that they have always held the same tradition from day one? If the tradition has not always existed, or has changed in 2000+ years, there’s no reason to trust Roman claims over Coptic claims, or over Mormon claims, as they all claim extrabiblical authority not founded in the Word of God designed solely to get you into their church with your money and your time and obedience.

So with that introduction, why is it that the Roman doctrine of the Primacy of Rome was not shared by the church even about 600 years after the time of Christ? Why was this not the doctrine of the church from day one? And why did the Romans invent this tradition later, only to claim it has always existed?

As for me, I’ll stick with the sure word of God, as with the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts we have, not counting all the ones in various languages, we know we have a textual record that is the same 99.5% of the time. Better than any record on Earth for any other ancient book in history.

“That Sacred Tradition preceded New Testament Sacred Scripture and that the early Church relied exclusively on the oral Sacred Tradition cannot be disputed.”

This would have ended sometime before the destruction of the Jewish temple for the majority of the New Testament, with only John contributing with Revelation and his Gospel before the end of the first century. You forget, the Apostles were alive and everything they said was authoritative. Yet, since they considered themselves scripture-producers, it’s illogical to think they would leave the most important parts of Christianity up to an oral tradition, so that any Tom, Dick or Autolycus can claim to be spreading something important through word of mouth. Instead, at the end of the first century, we have it on record Ignatius, Polycarp and others all quoting from the vast majority of the New Testament scriptures, and not making arguments like “according to this doctrine which was passed orally from Peter all the way up to me...”.

"You forget, the Apostles were alive and everything they said was authoritative. Yet, since they considered themselves scripture-producers, it’s illogical to think they would leave the most important parts of Christianity up to an oral tradition, so that any Tom, Dick or Autolycus can claim to be spreading something important through word of mouth."

The Apostles, the Disciples and their students and converts had spread the Gospel from India, to Russia and the Balkans, to Spain and North Africa by the end of the first century. Not all Apostles wrote and not all writings attributed to them are inerrant or original. Also consider that Mark and Luke were not Apostles or even eye witnesses, yet the New Testament captures what they learned through the Traditions.

Peace be with you

“Not all Apostles wrote and not all writings attributed to them are inerrant or original.”

So which book of the New Testament that Ignatius or Polycarp quoted from, before the end of the first century and into the second, that is not “inerrant or original”? Since according to you, none of the Apostles considered their works scripture (Luke is quoted and called scripture by Paul), and therefore did not make it a point to collect their works and send them. (How is it that Paul commented on the epistles of Paul, calling them scripture, if Paul and Peter were too busy evangelizing separately?) And did the Romanists truck their canon of scripture to the farthest ends of the Earth to let the hapless converts in faraway places know they finally figured out what was the word of God?

For Polycarp, I’ll let you google Ignatius yourself.

Proportionate to the length of what they wrote, Polycarp has two or three times more quotations and reminiscences from the New Testament that does Ignatius. Of 112 Biblical reminiscences, about 100 are from the New Testament with only a dozen from the Old Testament. Polycarp does not refer to older Christian writings by name, but The Letter to the Philippians has quotations (of approval) from these writings:

Gospel according to Matthew
Gospel according to Mark
Gospel according to Luke
Acts
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
I Thessalonians
II Thessalonians
I Timothy
II Timothy
Hebrews
I Peter
I John
III John

In fact, The Letter to the Philippians is a mosaic of quotations from both Old Testament and Christian writings. The letter is important for its early testimony to the existence of various other New Testament texts. English translations of the letter are in the books [LHH] and [Richardson] , and online at Noncanonical Homepage and Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The quotations below follow [Richardson]. For a summary of this evidence see the Cross Reference Table.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml

"So which book of the New Testament that Ignatius or Polycarp quoted from, before the end of the first century and into the second, that is not “inerrant or original”?"

I did not say that any of the writings within the Canon of Scripture were not inerrant or original. I said not all writings by or attributed to actual Apostles were inerrant. These include Gnostic works like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and the Proto-Evangelium of James. The test of Canonicity was both what to include and what to exclude.

Nowhere did I say that "none of the Apostles considered their works scripture". And yes, when the Canon of Scripture was proclaimed in the late 4th century the "Romanists" shared the proclamation with the whole world.

Peace be with you

“I did not say that any of the writings within the Canon of Scripture were not inerrant or original.”

What you are saying is that no one knew the scripture was the scripture until some Papist person figured it out a few hundred years later, as if no one knew anything, or could know anything, until a decree was made sorting it out.

For what logical reason should we assume that the Apostles, who believed they were writing scripture, did not take measures to insure their works were widely available enough that Polycarp and Ignatius could quote from so many? I thought since the printing press had not been made, there’s no way someone who received an epistle of Paul could have had something from, say, Peter or John.

“These include Gnostic works like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and the Proto-Evangelium of James.”

Looks like Ignatius and Polycarp did not have any problems with the Gnostic works.

“And yes, when the Canon of Scripture was proclaimed in the late 4th century the “Romanists” shared the proclamation with the whole world.”

Really? So, they didn’t have a printing press either, yet could not do what the Apostles could do. Sorry, but that doesn’t appear to have been a real problem for getting the scriptures out to the church. I mean, with 5,000 New Testament manuscripts in GREEK that have been discovered (which implies a whole lot more were available), I don’t think the lack of a printing press or modern transportation was a serious problem for them.

“Many did not know what was legitimate and inerrant and what was not other than through the Sacred Traditions.”

And we should believe your assertion because you repeat it, over and over and over again, despite all the evidence of the New Testament being widely used and available to the faithful from the beginning?

” I will give you partial credit for admitting that a Pope was involved.”

Actually, I was mocking your position by saying it like that. Apparently the church hadn’t figured it out yet that there was even supposed to be a primacy for the Bishop of Rome, even 600 years later.

So much for the “sacred tradition” on that one.

"I mean, with 5,000 New Testament manuscripts in GREEK that have been discovered..."

I am familiar with the work of the INTF. While it is true that the INTF have discovered nearly 5800 New Testament manuscripts that does not mean that they have 5800 complete New Testaments dating to the late first century. There are only partial remnants of writings dating to the late second and early third centuries which not surprisingly contain texts not in the canon of Scripture.

The vast majority of the manuscripts in the INTF collection date from the late fourth century to the 10th century. That the Eastern Church has maintained the use of Greek texts explains this.

Peace be with you

“I am familiar with the work of the INTF. While it is true that the INTF have discovered nearly 5800 New Testament manuscripts that does not mean that they have 5800 complete New Testaments dating to the late first century.”

I did not call them complete, or claim that they date as far back as the first century. I called it a strong record for the New Testament, due to the sheer number that have been discovered.

“There are only partial remnants of writings dating to the late second and early third centuries which not surprisingly contain texts not in the canon of Scripture.”

So, which of those non-canonical texts were Ignatius and Polycarp quoting as scripture, in the late 1st and into the second century, since everyone back then, apparently, couldn’t tell the difference between Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas?

By the way, have you actually READ the Gospel of Thomas or any of the Gnostic works? Thomas, as an example, literally copies straight from Matthew (out of context) and changes the wording and the sense slightly to make gibberish statements, which conclude that women cannot go to heaven until God turns them into men (because they’re cursed). Others retell Genesis, having 365 angels piecing together Adam one organ at a time, with Cain and Abel making an appearance as animal-faced children of the Demiurge. In still others, they imagine a whole pantheon of various other gods, and a Jesus who didn’t die on the cross.

But, apparently, since no one knows anything outside of the Roman Catholic Church (which still didn’t exist yet), the strong difference between the New Testament scripture and the Gnostic works was just too difficult for anyone who read the two.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.