The deposit of divine Revelation or transmission of revelation

[balshan]

The catechism states there are two forms of this divine revelation being received:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

Now my problem with the RCC on this is that they seem to think the apostles handed down orally, things they did not write down. Can they prove this claim or give an example of such.

They then go on to say this revelation is:

77 in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she
n order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved

There is no continuous line of succession, this is a false statement. For a start Peter was never a pope or Bishop of any place. The ECF have no agreement on who followed Peter. Peter never nominated a successor. Jesus never set up this so called continuous line and there are large gaps in this so called continuous line.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the teachings in the inspired books were to be preserved and not this lie of apostolic preaching?

 

[balshan]

Another thing in the catechism states:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."

If they are closely bound together then why is their discord in their communication with one another. I mean we all know there is nothing in scripture about the PV and to be married in those days as today a condition is it must be consummated. Another is communicating with the dead, it is banned by scripture. Nowhere do we have a record of an apostle EVER praying to the dead. Not only does this tradition not communicate with scripture, it is opposed to scripture.

 

[mica]

The catechism states there are two forms of this divine revelation being received:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established,

the RCC doesn't 'hand on' the gospel. If they did then catholics would know what it is. very few do and those that do still don't know it in their hearts. It's just mind knowledge to them. they can mouth the words but it is foreign to their hearts.

and what does it mean by institutionS ? all of the different sects of the CC ? There wasn't one central institution in NT time. Paul didn't learn what he taught from Peter or the other apostles.

what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

the RCC doesn't teach what the apostles taught or what Jesus taught. and without Christ as Lord and Savior, they don't have the Holy Spirit.

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

Now my problem with the RCC on this is that they seem to think the apostles handed down orally, things they did not write down. Can they prove this claim or give an example of such.

If what the RCC has is needed to be saved, then all of those 'saints' in the NT weren't saved because they didn't have this 'new info' the RCC claims to have received in more recent times (since 100 AD) - that only it received and teaches to people.

They then go on to say this revelation is:

77 in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she
n order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved

There is no continuous line of succession, this is a false statement. For a start Peter was never a pope or Bishop of any place. The ECF have no agreement on who followed Peter. Peter never nominated a successor. Jesus never set up this so called continuous line and there are large gaps in this so called continuous line.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the teachings in the inspired books were to be preserved and not this lie of apostolic preaching?

if the RCC ever knew it and preserved it, then it must have buried it in the basement of the Vatican, because it sure doesn't teach it.

if the apostles left it to them, they should be busy finding it and teaching it.

 

[balshan]

the RCC doesn't 'hand on' the gospel. If they did then catholics would know what it is. very few do and those that do still don't know it in their hearts. It's just mind knowledge to them. they can mouth the words but it is foreign to their hearts.

and what does it mean by institutionS ? all of the different sects of the CC ? There wasn't one central institution in NT time. Paul didn't learn what he taught from Peter or the other apostles.


the RCC doesn't teach what the apostles taught or what Jesus taught. and without Christ as Lord and Savior, they don't have the Holy Spirit.


If what the RCC has is needed to be saved, then all of those 'saints' in the NT weren't saved because they didn't have this 'new info' the RCC claims to have received in more recent times (since 100 AD) - that only it received and teaches to people.


if the RCC ever knew it and preserved it, then it must have buried it in the basement of the Vatican, because it sure doesn't teach it.

if the apostles left it to them, they should be busy finding it and teaching it.

They do not even apply their own rules to their doctrines. It clearly states they must communicate with one another. If they did so, then they would not have doctrines, teachings, disciplines and practices which clearly oppose scripture.

If they did so then they would know the gospel and not add to it. Your post was accurate there was not one central institution that controlled all the others. We know Paul did not consult anyone else when he wrote his letters etc.

We know the continuous line of succession is one big fat myth.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The catechism states there are two forms of this divine revelation being received:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

Now my problem with the RCC on this is that they seem to think the apostles handed down orally, things they did not write down. Can they prove this claim or give an example of such.

It seems pretty self-evident that the apostles handed down orally some doctrines and practices of the faith that were not put down in the NT writings. Just a few off the top of my head: how to baptise, some of the texts considered to be inspired, that special revelation would end with the apostolic age... then there are specific examples in the texts themselves that point to knowledge that was known by the audience but isn't by us (except, perhaps, by implication).

They then go on to say this revelation is:

77 in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she
n order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved

There is no continuous line of succession, this is a false statement. For a start Peter was never a pope or Bishop of any place. The ECF have no agreement on who followed Peter. Peter never nominated a successor. Jesus never set up this so called continuous line and there are large gaps in this so called continuous line.

Apostolic succession isn't just about Petrine primacy - it applies to all bishops. Ignatius of Antioch, an early witness, states in no uncertain terms the centrality of the episcopacy and succession.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the teachings in the inspired books were to be preserved and not this lie of apostolic preaching?

No because most of the books hadn't been written yet. I mean, when the Corinthians received Paul's letters, they likely didn't consider them sacred scripture on a par with the OT. That theology took time to develop.

The texts of the NT are also quite late and yet we know of beliefs occurring before many of the NT texts were penned. This seems to suggest the primacy of the apostolic preaching.

 

[RayneBeau]

The catechism states there are two forms of this divine revelation being received:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

Now my problem with the RCC on this is that they seem to think the apostles handed down orally, things they did not write down. Can they prove this claim or give an example of such.

They then go on to say this revelation is:

77 in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she
n order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved

There is no continuous line of succession, this is a false statement. For a start Peter was never a pope or Bishop of any place. The ECF have no agreement on who followed Peter. Peter never nominated a successor. Jesus never set up this so called continuous line and there are large gaps in this so called continuous line.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the teachings in the inspired books were to be preserved and not this lie of apostolic preaching?

God's Revelations are the sole, solid foundation of knowledge - a claim the teachings of Roman Catholic 'revelation' cannot make or prove.

 

[balshan]

It seems pretty self-evident that the apostles handed down orally some doctrines and practices of the faith that were not put down in the NT writings. Just a few off the top of my head: how to baptise, some of the texts considered to be inspired, that special revelation would end with the apostolic age... then there are specific examples in the texts themselves that point to knowledge that was known by the audience but isn't by us (except, perhaps, by implication).

Apostolic succession isn't just about Petrine primacy - it applies to all bishops. Ignatius of Antioch, an early witness, states in no uncertain terms the centrality of the episcopacy and succession.

No because most of the books hadn't been written yet. I mean, when the Corinthians received Paul's letters, they likely didn't consider them sacred scripture on a par with the OT. That theology took time to develop.

The texts of the NT are also quite late and yet we know of beliefs occurring before many of the NT texts were penned. This seems to suggest the primacy of the apostolic preaching.

And those oral doctrines and practices would align with the Word of God. The apostles, unlike your institution, were not hypocrites. Your false doctrines have no support at all from the Word of God. There is no such thing as apostolic succession that is a made up lie. Most of the books were written very early from 48AD to 80AD, with only John's writings into the 90s. I think it is obvious from Peter's writings Paul's writings held on the level of scripture very early on. Peter's writings being between 64 -68AD. So once again your are misrepresenting the facts.

So your suggestion is false.

 

[jonathan_hili]

And those oral doctrines and practices would align with the Word of God. The apostles, unlike your institution, were not hypocrites. Your false doctrines have no support at all from the Word of God. There is no such thing as apostolic succession that is a made up lie.

Then why is the idea of apostolic succession so prevalent in the early Church? We see examples of it in the NT, e.g. in 2 Timothy 2 where Paul tells Timothy to entrust to others what he himself learned from Paul.

Most of the books were written very early from 48AD to 80AD, with only John's writings into the 90s. I think it is obvious from Peter's writings Paul's writings held on the level of scripture very early on. Peter's writings being between 64 -68AD. So once again your are misrepresenting the facts.

Most scholars would disagree with you, holding the Gospels to be written between AD 65-86. As for the Petrine letters, they are a bit tricky. If they are authentically Petrine, then you're dating's correct. However, there are good arguments for thinking they were written later, as with some of the Pauline epistles.

So your suggestion is false.

 

[Bonnie]

Another thing in the catechism states:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."

If they are closely bound together then why is their discord in their communication with one another. I mean we all know there is nothing in scripture about the PV and to be married in those days as today a condition is it must be consummated. Another is communicating with the dead, it is banned by scripture. Nowhere do we have a record of an apostle EVER praying to the dead. Not only does this tradition not communicate with scripture, it is opposed to scripture.

Except their "traditions" contradict sometimes what is actually IN scripture--like forbidding presbyters--priests--from marrying and remaining priests in good standing in their church....praying to saints dead in the Lord....indulgences....salvation by grace through faith PLUS works....the list goes on...and on....

 

[1Thess521]

It seems pretty self-evident that the apostles handed down orally some doctrines and practices of the faith that were not put down in the NT writings. '...

Are these unwritten doctrines and practices required to be accepted for salvation?

 

[RayneBeau]

The catechism states there are two forms of this divine revelation being received:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

Now my problem with the RCC on this is that they seem to think the apostles handed down orally, things they did not write down. Can they prove this claim or give an example of such.

They then go on to say this revelation is:

77 in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she
n order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved

There is no continuous line of succession, this is a false statement. For a start Peter was never a pope or Bishop of any place. The ECF have no agreement on who followed Peter. Peter never nominated a successor. Jesus never set up this so called continuous line and there are large gaps in this so called continuous line.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the teachings in the inspired books were to be preserved and not this lie of apostolic preaching?

Praise God that all that RCC Catechism blather is for Roman Catholics who mindlessly choose to believe it, and has nothing to do with the new man or woman in Jesus Christ who is the Lord over their thoughts, their beliefs and their life.

 

[RayneBeau]

And those oral doctrines and practices would align with the Word of God. The apostles, unlike your institution, were not hypocrites. Your false doctrines have no support at all from the Word of God. There is no such thing as apostolic succession that is a made up lie. Most of the books were written very early from 48AD to 80AD, with only John's writings into the 90s. I think it is obvious from Peter's writings Paul's writings held on the level of scripture very early on. Peter's writings being between 64 -68AD. So once again your are misrepresenting the facts.

So your suggestion is false.

God has told those who truly believe in Him, to apply our hearts unto His knowledge if we are to know the certainty of the words of truth. This is a concept that is foreign to Roman Catholics.

 

[balshan]

Then why is the idea of apostolic succession so prevalent in the early Church? We see examples of it in the NT, e.g. in 2 Timothy 2 where Paul tells Timothy to entrust to others what he himself learned from Paul.

Most scholars would disagree with you, holding the Gospels to be written between AD 65-86. As for the Petrine letters, they are a bit tricky. If they are authentically Petrine, then you're dating's correct. However, there are good arguments for thinking they were written later, as with some of the Pauline epistles.

It doesn't seem to be until your institution decided it was needed.

Most scholars don't disagree.

 

[1Thess521]

Then why is the idea of apostolic succession so prevalent in the early Church? We see examples of it in the NT, e.g. in 2 Timothy 2 where Paul tells Timothy to entrust to others what he himself learned from Paul.

Is that what the Catholicly doctrine is Apostolic Succession is all about?

passing down what was learned? as in "I told you, now you tell others" ?

is this Apostolic Succession?
Acts 11:
19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

is the Great Commission also Apostolic Succession?
Matthew 28:
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

[balshan]

Except their "traditions" contradict sometimes what is actually IN scripture--like forbidding presbyters--priests--from marrying and remaining priests in good standing in their church....praying to saints dead in the Lord....indulgences....salvation by grace through faith PLUS works....the list goes on...and on....

I agree that is what I meant by discord.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Are these unwritten doctrines and practices required to be accepted for salvation?

Some of them are, e.g. how to be baptised and obedience to your bishop. Now, these are ordinarily required but God can - and does - obviously saved beyond them.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Most scholars don't disagree.

I'm not sure of that. Here's an example regarding authorship of Ephesians (from Wikipedia):

"Biblical scholar Harold Hoehner, surveying 279 commentaries written between 1519 and 2001, found that 54% favored Pauline authorship, 39% concluded against Pauline authorship and 7% remained uncertain.[2] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling found that of six authoritative scholarly references, "four of the six decide for pseudonymity, and the other two (Peake's Commentary on the Bible and the Jerome Biblical Commentary) recognize the difficulties in maintaining Pauline authorship. Indeed, the difficulties are insurmountable."[6] Bible scholar Raymond E. Brown asserts that about 80% of critical scholarship judges that Paul did not write Ephesians.[7].47"

Personally, I think of all the Pauline epistles, Ephesians stands out like a sore thumb and very, very likely not from Paul's hand. If it was, it was probably based on notes or ideas from Paul and written by someone else because it contains elements that are incredibly non-Pauline.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Is that what the Catholicly doctrine is Apostolic Succession is all about?

passing down what was learned? as in "I told you, now you tell others" ?

is this Apostolic Succession?
Acts 11:
19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

is the Great Commission also Apostolic Succession?
Matthew 28:
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Apostolic succession is about passing on of leadership that maintains the tradition, and this is what we see going on in 2 Timothy.

 

[1Thess521]

Apostolic succession is about passing on of leadership that maintains the tradition, and this is what we see going on in 2 Timothy.

Apostolic succession is about passing on of leadership that maintains the tradition, and this is what we see going on in 2 Timothy.

It seems that you are seeing things that are not there

not seeing the "passing on of leadership"
not seeing that Timothy has Paul's authority

2 Timothy 2:2,: "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also."

 

[jonathan_hili]

It seems that you are seeing things that are not there

not seeing the "passing on of leadership"
not seeing that Timothy has Paul's authority

2 Timothy 2:2,: "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also."

Paul is telling Timothy to entrust the tradition to faithful men, who will then become teachers in their turn. If it was just preaching, Timothy would surely be told to preach to anyone who would hear. But here we have authority and tradition being passed on.