Replies

>Since I do not belong to the Church of nmh, and since neither Christ nor Scripture itself says sola scriptura, I will go with the unbroken teaching of the Christ passed down through His Apostles and their successors, rather than nmh or what might well-have been the 16th century equivalent of Catholics for a Free Choice. The only tragedy of the Council of Trent is that it was about 50 years too late.

So where is this unbroken teaching of traditions? The Protestants claim that this is only found in the Scriptures. Do any of the Early Church Fathers suggest “Hey, Peter taught me this...” ? Or is it just assumed and not really mentioned anywhere?

Since Luke 1:1-4 clearly states that Luke did a bunch of research and told the story as best as he could put it together, as completely as he could, probably even interviewing Mary, and the other Apostles, why is it that much of what Rome claims is not included, but instead merely claimed that you gotta get the whole story via a mysterious tradition that no one can actually point to?

Is the claim by Paul that the whole gospel which he has taught is shown in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, why is Mary’s central role not shown, neither is the concepts of purgatory or the saving grace instilled by the sacraments?

How do we know that the slow development of the doctrines of Rome are not of the false brothers seeking to lead the flock astray which the Apostles did write about in nearly any of the letters in the NT?

Since nearly none of the Early Church Fathers seem to 100% agree with each other, how do we know which Tradition to follow, or why does the RCC adopt a ‘cafeteria catholic’ attitude with them, taking what it seems to think is ‘inspired’ whilst rejecting a lot?

If the ECF’s were all apostolically taught, what gives the RCC, a johnny-come-lately, the right to reject or perhaps choose which doctrine was taught by the Apostles and which are just added, but not inspired? If there is THAT much that is added but not inspired, does this not make the entirety of the traditions suspect?

Should we weep that Beckwith didn’t convert to the Russian Orthodox church rather than revert to the Roman church of his youth?

If it is rather the “burning in the bosom” of the Pope and the Councils, why do I not look to the JW’s or Mormons, as they have the same claim, just not the pedigree or the billions in art and real estate?

I know, I know, I must trust Rome to give me the right teaching...

Since you seem to know your stuff, just a few questions that have kept popping up and no one seems to be able to give a good answer on this forum... I know that it is a lot to cover, but has gone unanswered for a while.

Dear Ottofire,

I know some stuff, but it is far from complete. As the Scriptures say, not all the books in the world could hold all that He taught the Apostles. I do not pretend that what I say is authoritative, but I think I can give answers to some of your questions.

So where is this unbroken teaching of traditions?

Ultimately, the unbroken teaching of traditions comes from the Living Magisterium of the Church. Christ said he would send the Holy Ghost, and that was why He had to go back to the Father, but that He would not leave us alone. The Magisterium is the Teaching Authority of the Church Christ founded. The Apostles are the first Bishops, with Peter as head. In Scriptures, the Apostles openly discuss Bishops and also appoint a replacement for Judas. Even after St. Paul's conversion, he has to be okayed by the authorities in order to play his role and receive instruction.

Of course, the Romans and others had this bad habit of executing the Bishop of Rome, the Seat of Peter. But, there was always a successor and their names are recorded in part in Scripture, but also in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus and Cornelius are commemorated in the Mass in the Canon for that reason. It is recorded that Pope Linus had formally instituted the rule of women covering their heads in Church (echoed by St. Paul, of course, in Scripture). Pope Clement is particularly interesting because one of his letters from the late First Century AD, to another Bishop, is warning that disobedience to him by Corinth in a matter of presbyters would be "no small sin," indicating assertion of universal jurisdiction. Some sections of the early Church actually treated this letter as Scripture, though it certainly never made the final cut.

St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and St. Irenaeus was his student. Around 150AD, "Against the Heresies", and important tome dealing with thos irrepressible Gnostics, who had taken to writing their own apocryphal works (Gospel of Thomas being one example). Anyway, Irenaeus provides some pretty detailed information about the early Church and its structure, and its authority. That's not quite the same as "Peter taught me this", but it has the same import.

To be sure, the Church has both a written and an oral tradition. Some of the early oral traditions were written later, some were written earlier and lost. St. Jerome refers to manuscripts that are no longer extant. Not as many things were written then, as papyrus and vellum were hard to come by.

why is it that much of what Rome claims is not included, but instead merely claimed that you gotta get the whole story via a mysterious tradition that no one can actually point to?

My first inclination is to point to the Gospel According to St. John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (Douay-Rheims) Combine that with, "Not by Bread Alone shall man live, but by every word from the mouth of God" (memory).

As far as Dogma is concerned, for Catholics, the slam dunks are formal Papal pronoluncments on matters of Faith and Morals binding on the Whole Church. Those are nice and cut and dried. However, other teachings regarded as infallible would be "the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church" (Origen and Tertullian are included here even though they later became heretics.) And of course, dogmatic Councils (Vatican II was NOT dogmatic) that wind up getting approved by the Pope, that have real explicit statements of dogma. (You know, the ones that say "si .... anathema sit" "If anyone should say ... lety him be anathema") Even the unbroken custom of the church can have a certain degree of infallibility (most of the early saints were never formally canonized, but were universally recognized as such).

So, the Church is a composite institution. With a deep and rich history. The books that never were deemed inspired in some cases (like the Didache with its early second century pronouncement against abortion, and Pope Clement I and Pope Victor [180AD] showing assertion of universal jurisdiction) are still useful as historic records. A thorough discussion of this would require me to go to my reference books, and I am taking a week long vacation tomorrow, but I invite you to read the Fathers of the Church, especially early ones like Irenaeus. The Faith of the Early Fathers is an affordable and accessible three volume set in paperback that is pretty rreasonably priced. Also, since these things are all in the public domain, an Internet search would work as well, even for English translations.

Since anything ancient can be called into question as to its authenticity, the need for a continuous, organic authority is necessary. I believe that authority is in the Roman Catholic Church.

May Our Lord bless you in your research.