Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
Why no, it doesn't.
It has to do with origins of some particular aspects of what I understand encompasses what you referred to as "Sacred Tradition", as I explained.
Er, I wasn’t advancing the position that Athanasius was anything other than the prime defender of orthodox Christology.
IF not for Athanasius... surely someone would have stepped up to the plate but I don’t know who it would have been.
No, but the people who claim to use it exclusively as a rule of faith have been all over the map.
There's no problem with believing the Bible, the problem is that I don't want to be an Arian.
Didache /=/ dogma of the Church. The Church did not receive it as having the same always-and-everywhere authority as Scripture. It does constitute evidence of the concerns of the Church of that particular time and place.
We know (from Paul) that the Church in Jerusalem, as a result of a famine, and also persecutions which left some households needy because their breadwinner was in prison, needed help. Paul and Barnabas made an initial famine-relief visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 46 and delivered a monetary gift from the church at Antioch (Acts 11:29-30). At that time the Jerusalem church expressed the hope that the believers associated with Paul would continue to remember the Judean believers, which Paul was more than eager to do (Gal 2:10).
Possibly he church in Judea was also troubled by itinerant preachers who stretched their welcome in households which could not afford extended hospitality. The Didache says, "Cut that out." This is not expressed as a rule binding on the whole Church.
Same thing about accepting money: this is not presented as a doctrine or discipline of the universal Church.
As for prophets: you yourself noted that the author(s) of the Didache judged some people to be false prophets if they imposed on people excessively for money or lodging. Obviously they can't forbid judging prophets altogether: that's what they're doing!
Later on the Didache says not to judge "any prophet who speaks in the Spirit." So they would apparently agree with Paul that you have to check what the spirit says! and if it goes against the word it was a false prophet!
Do not get the universal authority of the Scripture confused with the possibly temporary, local, or lesser authority of other Apostolic-age writings, which --- although they are not universal --- still enable us to understand what the local Christians were concerned about.
Well you stepped in it right there...People have been waiting for centuries for you religion to come up with some of this tradition that was handed down from the apostles...So far, it has been none, nein, nada, zero, not one, zip, nil, zilch
You talk a good talk but when it comes right down to it, all we can say is, 'where's the beef'???
Enough jabber. I’m gonna go out and walk!
There's no problem with believing the Bible, the problem is that I don't want to be an Arian.
I don't see that believing the Bible will by default lead to Arianism. If thy are all over the map, then it would be impossible to say where we'd all end up if we believed only the Bible.
FWIW, the church in Acts had nothing but the OT Scripture and what was being written by Paul and the others.
Seems like they were Bible believing Christians as there wasn't all that sacred tradition floating around that didn't get written until later.
Don't forget that Paul's admonition to Timothy was that Scripture was useful for correction. IOW, that's what to use to correct error.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3275781/posts?page=331#331
The most important part of "Sacred Tradition" would be
The other very important parts of Sacred Tradition would be
None of these things are hidden, secret or esoteric. They are all in writing; they are all in the lived customs, heritage and legacy of living communities of Faith which have been out there "for all to see" since the first and second centuries AD.
Have you followed any of the investigations of Christian archaeology?
Are they spoken of in the scriptures??? No??? Then they are no one of significance...
That's the whole objection to "sacred tradition"!! It was not received by the church as authoritative so it should be rejected. Just because there may be some truth in the document doesn't make it right. There's a lot that's false and contradictory in the Didache hence it was rejected by the church.
Possibly he church in Judea was also troubled by itinerant preachers who stretched their welcome in households which could not afford extended hospitality. The Didache says, "Cut that out." This is not expressed as a rule binding on the whole Church.
Now hold on....you can't appeal to "sacred tradition" when it fits the catholic need. It either applies to the whole church or not.
If we use your position, then some could say I agree with "X" or I disagree with "Y". It's not an either or.
Same thing about accepting money: this is not presented as a doctrine or discipline of the universal Church.
But the didache says: "If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."
Does that make our pastors/priests false prophets if they ask for a salary or maybe a raise from the church??
The Didache also goes against the catholic hierarchy. No mention of the pope. Notice the plurality of the office.
Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.
It also goes against transubstantiation also! But I don't cite the didache against this false belief.
The Didache also says to fast one or two days before being baptized. We see no evidence of that in the NT....anywhere.
This is why Christians reject "sacred tradition" outside of that found in Scripture.
Well that's just scary.
Arianism just about conquered the world.
From an historical perspective alone it's important to know about these men and their beliefs so that we don't fall into the same traps all over again by reinventing the heretical wheel.
We (you, I, and the Church) are in agreement that the Didache is NOT Scripture and is NOT authoritatively applicable to the whole Church. The fact that it is one source of some of the evidence contributing to "Sacred Tradition" does not mean that everything in it is sacred. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here.
" Now hold on....you can't appeal to "sacred tradition" when it fits the catholic need. It either applies to the whole church or not... some could say I agree with "X" or I disagree with "Y". It's not an either or"
Here's how we use these sources: we look for converging lines of evidence.
There's a difference between "proof-texting" and "finding converging lines of evidence." The evidence (not "proof") found in early Apostolic-age sources gets real traction when it shows up again and again, indicating that the practice or belief was Church-wide. For instance, if there's something in the North African sources, the Syrian sources, the Anatolian sources and the Greek sources that's in agreement, that's evidence that doctrine X or practice Y was not just a local custom or opinion, but was part of a wider Church consensus. This takes scholarship.
In the words of the Vincentian Canon, we are loyal to "That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." [The Commonitory, ch. 2, by Vincent of Lérins.] Rather than go into a multi-paragraph explanation, I'll just direct you to an excellent source (and not even a Catholic one!) This is from the Orthodox blog, Orthodoxbridge.com, and explains (to a Reformed dialogue partner) the way we can be "sourced" by Tradition without considering any one non-Scriptural source as being equal to Scripture.
I may not get back to this until tomorrow, but meanwhile do go to the link. It's pretty clear, seems to me.
And he has reproduced, that is scarier.
Yes, I accept that without reservation. My apologies for having taken what could be looked upon as more narrowly "Marion" considerations too much into account.
I don't know, either.
History is what it is.
And he has reproduced, that is scarier.
Who is "he"? Arius or Iscool?
Iscool are you "solo" Scripturist or a "sola" Scripturist? I'm having trouble keeping track of who's what.
Praise God!
It seems to me when you write "Rome," blinders come down. Try instead to imagine you are a Catholic who loves the LORD, has made a perfect act of contrition, fully believes everything in the Apostle's Creed, and has entered the assembly to offer a thanksgiving sacrifice by doing whatever Jesus said to do in memory of him. Just try.
Prayers of Thanksgiving for your safety and continues well being..
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.