"Obey Tradition!" is LITERALLY IN THE BIBLE!
Truth Unites | 4 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29QF5bFT4LE
2:21 Prove the process is fallible, when God is involved.
Please note, "when God is involved" ... you write down the words of someone, that process is fallible. Matthew wrote down the words of Jesus (yes, the Gospel as we have it is 56 % red letter as one would say). Because God gets involved with hagiographers, that process in this case is infallible.
Our contention is, the process of oral (and gestual) transmission is, in the case of Apostolic Tradition, infallible because God gets involved. Please note, the NT promises about this are more direct than any promise about NT books (apart from the Apocalypse).
William Goode was pretty bad, if you'll excuse the pun.
Update ... actually the Bible itself says that oral tradition is reliable on a basic level.
Job 8:8—10 For inquire of the former generation, and search diligently into the memory of the fathers: (For we are but of yesterday, and are ignorant that our days upon earth are but a shadow:) And they shall teach thee: they shall speak to thee, and utter words out of their hearts.
Now, the speaker is Baldad the Suhite, but this is in context with a "line" of his that the irreproachable Job confirms next chapter:
Job 9:1,2 And Job answered, and said: Indeed I know it is so, and that man cannot be justified compared with God.
It is also in connexion with a forecast which God confirms in the events.
2:41 "telephone game" = non-Apostolic fallible intermediaries. [On Ortlund's view]
You are contradicting Scripture.
If any given post-Apostolic intermediary is individually fallible, the whole bunch is nevertheless infallible.
How do I know this? The big one is Matthew 28:16 to 20.
1) The command was for all truth ( = no falsification) of whatever Jesus had said.
2) The promise was Jesus would be with them, but for how long?
3) All days until the consummation of all time.
This absolutely has to include Apostolic Tradition, if only one one specific point, namely the entire OT has a Christological exegesis. NT Scripture only gives small tidbits of that.
The promise makes successors of Apostles - the kind of intermediaries you pretend are fallible - solidaric with the Apostles. Jesus promising to be with Peter promised to be with Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens to the end of time. As the end of time has not occurred yet, this means He is still with the successors of Peter and the other of the Twelve. In order to do what? In order for them to teach the nations all that He had commanded them.
In fact, the argument doesn't quite hinge on whether Petrine succession is sufficient by itself if (theoretically) in conflict with Andrew's or John's etc. I took the beginning of the Pope list as a well known example of Apostolic Succession. That said, I do believe the Petrine succession is per se sufficient.
But comparing a chain of oral tradition with "the telephone game" is reckless idiocy. In that game, the person receiving has no right to ask, has no right to request a repeat and so on. In the handing on of tradition, we speak of several years of apprenticeship, like Jesus offered His twelve and His seventy-two. We also speak of selection of those most apt to preserve tradition un-molested, like Jesus chose seventy-two and twelve.
3:32 How long is the gap between the people around St. Paul and St. Tim and people at present?
I don't mean time lapse. I mean gap. Like a time when there was no transmission.
Between them and yourself, there is obviously a gap starting at the Reformation, which in Sweden was imposed by royal power abuse between 1527 and 1593, when the last remnant of Catholic resistance was crushed.
Between them and me, I claim there is a time lapse, but no gap. Mt. 28:16 to 20, again.
6:03 Chemnitz is either misquoting or disdaining the actual words of the Council.
Here are the words of the council, Session IV, First Decree, quoted from EWTN with their translation:
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
The council never said: "which cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture" - that's Chemnitz mischaracterisation of Traditions.
Apart from a general proof, the two texts you are dealing with, and the fact it has to be preserved, Reformers didn't change from RC to another Church they thought had preserved Tradition better, there is usually at least a hint at each tradition. And never a headon contradiction to it.
Chemnitz would rightly, though inconsistently, have rejected the idea of 7 D A that Sunday Worship has no foundation in Scripture. But it is in fact through Oral tradition that we are this specific.
[My comments after the first one were censored]
9:02 I foresee you are going to make a point about St. Augustine.
From St. Augustine to the 1200's or sth, the Latin Church seems to have had a predominance of denying this, at least in preserved texts.
The answer involves a Christmas hymn from II C. Egypt. In Latin translation, it's just known as a prayer, it's the "Sub tuum praesidium" ... the Latin translation doesn't affirm the uniqueness of Mary, but the Greek has "su moné hagné, su moné eulogémené" ... "thou only pure, thou only blessed" ... given the adjectives are gendered in Greek, She is not being contrasted with Her Son Jesus. She is however contrasted with all other women.
In the East, Original Sin and Her being exempt from it was the common understanding as late as Palamas. That they now deny it is by c. 100--150 years Russian predominance in the Orthodox world, up to WW-I, and this after 1666, when Nikon adopted a "Skirzhal" (handbook) which had been written by a Greek (then translated to Slavonic) who had studied in Venice and unforunately also Wittenberg.
Note, Pope Pius IX did not say "in all of the Church" just "in the Church" ...
Old Believers, like Roman Catholics, affirm (or originally affirmed, some have changed quite a bit) that the Blessed Virgin is exempt from Original Sin.
There are more than one option of how this came to the West.
1) It never disappeared, Augustinian denial of it was always only partial, though by the accidents of text preservations this cannot be documented;
2) It came back in the time of the Crusades;
3) It came back to France specifically as Anne of Kiev married a French King before the schism.
9:37 They are not just directly talking about scenario I.
As per the promise of Matthew 28:16--20, they are foreseeing something like scenario II.
As soon as St. Paul is no longer around in Thessalonica, on your view the question would arise, "is it good enough to hear it from the moouth of St. Tim?"
If you have paid any attention to what Sts Tim and Tite are instructed to do, in the pastorals, it's obvious, it's even good enough to hear it from the mouth of someone who was trained by Tim or Tite when these are no longer around.
There is no Biblical foreshading of the situation changing. There is no Biblical basis for what William Goode pretended. There is a clear one for this involving ecclesial claims about what the Apostles taught.
10:04 St. Paul died in the 60's (I've seen various dates for his and St. Peter's death, from 64 to 68).
Is there even remotely any trace of Thessalonica changing its views on traditions from St. Paul in those years?
10:26 It's from post-Apostolic claims of Apostolic tradition that post-Apostolic manuscripts and printed editions are known to have Apostolic authorships in the first place.
10:40 The Immaculate Conception we have good reason to think are even Biblical.
If you check the words "blessed among women" you will find that they are found twice in the OT.
About a woman who defeated Sisera. About a woman who defeated Holophernes.
They are found twice again in Luke 1. Second time over sounds like an echo of Genesis 3:15.
Mary rejoiced because God had just called Her sinless.
11:53 Irenaeus actually refers to a particular line of tradition. That of Asia Minor.
Like the later cleavage between West and East (prior to the Skirzhal), only one of the strands needs to be correct for universal tradition to be correct.
12:48 The Sub tuum praesidium in Greek and Coptic forms are around the time of Origen.
Given the scarcity of the material of the strictly apostolic age, this is definitely early enough.
13:04 Looking up the sermon and the catena aurea, it's clear that a group of people certainly showed vainglory in an "unseasonable" demand, but it is not clear that the Blessed Virgin was the actual author of this demand, more like She had agreed to be spokesman for Her stepchildren.
What was wrong with the demand?
CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. xliv.) But mark the loftiness of His brethren; when they should have come in and heartened with the crowd, or if they would not this, to have waited the end of His speech, and then to have approached Him—they on the contrary call Him out to them, and do this before the multitude, therein shewing their superabundant love of honour, and also, that with all authority they lay their commands upon Christ. This the Evangelist covertly hints when he says, While he yet spake; as much as to say, Was there no other time? But what did they seek to say? Was it aught of the dogmas of truth? then should they have brought it forth before all, that all might profit thereby. But if of other things that concerned themselves alone, they should not have called Him in such haste, whence it is plain that they did this out of vain glory.
Quoting another part of the same sermon from Catena Aurea.
Our Lady was not sinning, She was just being kind to some who were.
13:21 A frailty is not a sin.
"Guilty" is J. N. D. Kelly's summary, not a direct quote from Origen or any other CF.
14:39 Traditions about worship are not likely to get distorted over time.
Why? Because you worship every Sunday.
So, you have just made an excellent case for Holy Mass being in 1522 what Leo X received it as being, and not what Luther deduced it as being.
16:18 "all you want" ...
Fine. Show a plausible scenario for where there is a wedge between Matthew and Luke and Pius IX. Your example with Origen and Chrysostom doesn't satisfy me as showing that.
Show a plausible scenario for where there is a wedge between Corinthians and Leo X.
If you can show no plausible scenarios, go to Leo X and Pius V, and to Pius IX for Apostolic Tradition at least on these issues!
No comments:
Post a Comment