The purpose of the ccc is to clarify the faith, and it does so quite well. One has to *covet *division in order to find any there. The bible, OTOH, is easily misunderstood/misinterpreted; as it was never intended to serve as a catechism.as do catholics over the ccc.
The bible is true regardless of it’s misunderstanding by generally sincere and well-intentioned people, each often accusing the other of the misuse.The bible is true regardless of its misuse.
Since you copy paste than so shall i here, all your objections anr answered here. besides you just sidestepped what i said.There is anarchy, not unity, understanding that each individual is his own authority to interpret and teach Scripture based on the mere fact that he can read.
Fr. Joseph T. Lienhard, in his collection of lectures, “The Bible, the Church, and Authority, Epilogue” shows the inability to support one’s own position by adopting a relativism as a philosophical tool of interpretation. Fr. Leinhard compares the relationship of authority in the Bible and the Church to discern the ‘final’ authority. The ‘authority’ naturally belongs in Sacred Scripture as being the “Divine Word” of God given to the Apostles. Christ didn’t write His own books but rather teaches through the Apostles. Scriptures therefore are the witnesses understanding of Christ’s words who are commissioned by Christ to teach, not hand out books for everyone to develop what they might mean. Father Leinhard explains:
“The Bible is, and remains the [Catholic] Church’s book, and the Bible can exist as Scripture only in the [Catholic] Church. Rahner also maintains the Catholic insistence on Scripture and tradition as the bearers of revelation. Many recent Protestant authors have also faced up to the need to discuss the role of tradition, at least in the formation of the canon.” Ibid, p 84
Scripture and the Church co-exist and are co-authoritative. Without the Catholic Church to validate Scripture, Scripture loses authority to teach faith and morals. Scripture can never stand alone as the single and only source of God’s word and the sole purveyor of faith and morals. This freezes faith to a first century understanding and is unable to cope and grow with the current era. Simply, Sacred Scripture never makes the claim that it and it alone is the sole authority of faith. Scripture relies on the Church for its authentication which. Equally important Sacred Scripture when defined as “the sole source” of God’s words precludes miracles, prophecy, Church, and the doctrines of the ECFs. We know this not to be the case because the great and small saints of the Church are ‘prophets of God’. Equally important is the Apostles weren’t given a BOOK to worship, they were given a Kingdom to mend the fruits of His nation. It’s within this Church that we find the Catholic Tradition the means of canonization (authentication) of Scripture. Our salvation would be ill advised to stop even at Tradition, rather we find ‘Church’ to be a part of a sole and infallible rule of faith. So we find the Apostles as authoritative witnesses wrote the Scriptures for the authority of the Church.
JoeT
yet it causes division just my point. Have you read ccc? you think that clarifies the faith of the disciples? apertley holy spirit god breather disciples could not do what the ccc does, yet it does not do it well just as shown by Catholics here. The bible was never meant to teach? i have to say i think you have never read the bible or the ccc. The ccc just moves the interpretation from gods word to romes word.The purpose of the ccc is to clarify the faith, and it does so quite well. One has to *covet *division in order to find any there. The bible, OTOH, is easily misunderstood/misinterpreted; as it was never intended to serve as a catechism.
The bible is true regardless of it’s misunderstanding by generally sincere and well-intentioned people, each often accusing the other of the misuse.
I’m not a big White admirer. Nevertheless, I answered your question, whether or not it was cut and past. Are you unable to respond?Since you copy paste than so shall i here, all your objections anr answered here. besides you just sidestepped what i said.
The Sola Scriptura Debate - James White vs Mitch Pacwa 1999
youtube.com/watch?v=nxTEtArbCgs
They were members of the catholic church, the church Christ established. And, no, they weren’t intending to do what a catechism does.yet it causes division just my point. Have you read ccc? you think that clarifies the faith of the disciples? apertley holy spirit god breather disciples could not do what the ccc does, yet it does not do it well just as shown by Catholics here.
Maybe I can help you overcome your presumption. I’ve read both -cover to cover-the bible several times. Now if you *continue *to study-and debate-you’ll eventually end up seeing the futile nature of the doctrine of SS, and the wisdom in the doctrines of the Catholic church.The bible was never meant to teach? i have to say i think you have never read the bible or the ccc. The ccc just moves the interpretation from gods word to romes word.
I think what you need to do, then, is specify why all that I have given you is not the formula or answer you are looking for. Because what I gave in my set of posts is the answer to your question.As I suggested in the post above, the information I provided is crucial for any informed understanding of how God’s word is transmitted in the view of the CC East and West and the EOC, i.e., by STC.
Let me try to connect it. Keep in mind what I said in my post above.
(1) Tradition, viewed through the lens of SS as an isolated addition to the results of one’s own interpretation of Scripture alone here in 2015, is not infallible. Infallibility is a charism given to the Church living in the context of apostolic apostolic tradition and Scripture. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14 also v 12) and the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). She is well-equipped to preserve the oral apostolic word. The clearest exercise of this is in the Ecumenical Councils after the pattern of the apostles in Acts “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:8).
(2) Tradition (within the whole of STC) is found in what are often referred to as the “monuments of Tradition.” These include:
(a) consent among the Fathers of the Church --early Christian writers who are a witness of the life and teaching of the Church going back to the apostles.
(b) the teaching of the magisterium, most importantly, Ecumenical Councils
(c) the Liturgies of the church throughout time
(d) the Doctors of the Church
(e) ordinary expressions of the Christian life in actions and customs
(f) Sacred canons and sacred customs
(g) the saints (as bearers of tradition)
(h) theologians
(3) It is the coherence of all three S, T, and C that assures that a given monument of tradition is an apostolic teaching or follows from apostolic teaching. Included in STC is the charism of discernment on the part of the Church as to what belongs to the word of God and what does not as in (1) above. A great example of this is the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.
jjsmity;12925621:
I am sorry and please correct me if wrong. I am looking for a formula of what determines beliefs set down from early christian that constitutes tradition vs non tradition that was believed and passed down.
responding to everything would take a long time of off topic stuff i am not hear to debate. It did nothing to answer my question as i mentioned by sidestepped it. I posted the debate that does respond if your interested in a response, i am not hear to debate but learn.I’m not a big White admirer. Nevertheless, I answered your question, whether or not it was cut and past. Are you unable to respond?
JoeT
they were meesanic jews fully 100%. But even if you wish to call them catholic that is fine, a catholic church that differs from todays. The fact you say the apostels did not mean to teach and instruct correct doctrine to me would say other catholics would sure disagree with you as the bible clearly would as well.They were members of the catholic church, the church Christ established. And, no, they weren’t intending to do what a catechism does.
Maybe I can help you overcome your presumption. I’ve read both -cover to cover-the bible several times. Now if you *continue *to study-and debate-you’ll eventually end up seeing the futile nature of the doctrine of SS, and the wisdom in the doctrines of the Catholic church.
well i must say all catholic doctrine sure does not do this on any topic i would have to say, maybe 1-2. In fact that is admitted time and again in debates on this topic and shown in church history books. But also it seems to be simply what was decided and what was decided was by a infallible source [claimed] that ends in circular reasoning. JW would do the same. So your post is not a accurate way to determine and is still needs to be interpreted by fallible humans who make a fallible choice to follow supposed infallible men.I think what you need to do, then, is specify why all that I have given you is not the formula or answer you are looking for. Because what I gave in my set of posts is the answer to your question.
P.S. Go to the bottom of the bottom left area of the screen. Look for “DISPLAY.” Click on “Threaded Mode.” That way you can enable yourself to respond directly to my posts (or anybody’s) by clicking on “QUOTE.”
Okresponding to everything would take a long time of off topic stuff i am not hear to debate. It did nothing to answer my question as i mentioned by sidestepped it. I posted the debate that does respond if your interested in a response, i am not hear to debate but learn.
What makes Tradition true is the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus before he ascended.responding to everything would take a long time of off topic stuff i am not hear to debate. It did nothing to answer my question as i mentioned by sidestepped it. I posted the debate that does respond if your interested in a response, i am not hear to debate but learn.
they were meesanic jews fully 100%. But even if you wish to call them catholic that is fine, a catholic church that differs from todays. The fact you say the apostels did not mean to teach and instruct correct doctrine to me would say other catholics would sure disagree with you as the bible clearly would as well.
that may be so, ss may be wrong catholic correct. That is why i am hear to learn, trying to understand what makes “tradition” true in some instances but not others, please help.
The answer to both of these questions is that it is what was handed on from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to The Church. The most prominent component of Sacred Tradition is the New Testament, it is infallible.Few questions on catholic church tradition
how is church tradition decided?
what constitutes what is correct tradition?
.
A minor quibble - The Church would say that the NT is inerrant. Inerrant meaning to be free of error. Infallible meaning unable to teach error.The answer to both of these questions is that it is what was handed on from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to The Church. The most prominent component of Sacred Tradition is the New Testament, it is infallible.
Why would you insist that the early church was different from today? It was smaller, persecuted, didn’t have the fancy cathedrals, etc. but the same church. The gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life, teachings, deeds, passion, death, and ressurection. The apostles writings were meant as instructional to individual churches, addressing specific concerns, and as such can be quite informative and profitable for us today. They were recognized as inspired, collected, and assembled into the NT. They were not meant as any kind of systematic, exhaustive instruction on the faith.they were meesanic jews fully 100%. But even if you wish to call them catholic that is fine, a catholic church that differs from todays. The fact you say the apostels did not mean to teach and instruct correct doctrine to me would say other catholics would sure disagree with you as the bible clearly would as well.
There is absolutely no logical reason for presuming that Gods revelation was complete with the bible. The church preached the gospel before a word of the NT was written and He has led and guided that church continously through the centuries.that may be so, ss may be wrong catholic correct. That is why i am hear to learn, trying to understand what makes “tradition” true in some instances but not others, please help.
(4) Your OP asked for what constitutes tradition and the process by which that is adjudicated. If you look at the teachings of the church as they have been expressed in time–as, say, Newman did in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine–what I gave is exactly the process. 1-3 exactly answered your factual historical and theological question.well i must say all catholic doctrine sure does not do this on any topic i would have to say, maybe 1-2. In fact that is admitted time and again in debates on this topic and shown in church history books. But also it seems to be simply what was decided and what was decided was by a infallible source [claimed] that ends in circular reasoning. JW would do the same. So your post is not a accurate way to determine and is still needs to be interpreted by fallible humans who make a fallible choice to follow supposed infallible men.
is that from bible? were does that come from? I agree 100% anything from holy spirit is true and will lead to truth. I was looking for what is traditionWhat makes Tradition true is the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus before he ascended.
that does not exspalin what is tradition, how do we know what was handed down from apostles outside the bible? what is true tradition vs what is not that was handed down? also all todays doctrine was not written or spoken of by early apostles.The answer to both of these questions is that it is what was handed on from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to The Church. The most prominent component of Sacred Tradition is the New Testament, it is infallible.
different on doctrine today from early church. While i disagree with your statement and would like to answer, that has been done many times before and avalibel to anyone interested. I am hear to learn about tradition.Why would you insist that the early church was different from today? It was smaller, persecuted, didn’t have the fancy cathedrals, etc. but the same church. The gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life, teachings, deeds, passion, death, and ressurection. The apostles writings were meant as instructional to individual churches, addressing specific concerns, and as such can be quite informative and profitable for us today. They were recognized as inspired, collected, and assembled into the NT. They were not meant as any kind of systematic, exhaustive instruction on the faith.
There is absolutely no logical reason for presuming that Gods revelation was complete with the bible. The church preached the gospel before a word of the NT was written and He has led and guided that church continously through the centuries.
ok so could you source from a official catholic doctrine for me please what is tradition and how it is defined?(4) Your OP asked for what constitutes tradition and the process by which that is adjudicated. If you look at the teachings of the church as they have been expressed in time–as, say, Newman did in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine–what I gave is exactly the process. 1-3 exactly answered your factual historical and theological question.
Just to assert, as you do, that the church does not do 1-3 “on any topic,” but (I gather you are saying) sometimes 1-2, complete ignores the unity between the NT, the teachings of the fathers, the teaching value of the ancient liturgies, their contribution to the debates leading up to the Ecumenical Councils, and the teachings of the first 8 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church. You have made sweeping historical statements that require historical data to back them up. You have given none except to mention “church history books” and supposed admissions by supposedly informed Catholics on this forum. That’s not historical evidence. The true issue, though, is below.
(5) The next step is to evaluate 1-3 theologically in view of the method one understands God to have chosen to hand on His word. You have jumped to this next step and given your evaluation of Catholic and EOC theology based on SS without ever justifying why it is more reasonable to adopt that protesting position (SS) over the constant teaching and practice of STC going back to the NT authors, the ECFs, and the early Ecumenical Councils.
The fact that you just skipped to the evaluation part (from your third sentence on) employing SS as your test without ever justifying it, shows that my original answer (Apr 21, '15, 2:48 am) actually did get to the fundamental issues and how circular your thinking really is so far.
Catholic doctrine is based on STC. When will you ever get down to the true task facing you and show why one should abandon STC taught and practiced from NT times in favor of newer Reformation teaching of SS. Why is it so hard to show why one should adopt you new protesting position?
As I asked in that first post: “Regarding the transmission of God’s word, a head on presentation of why it is theologically more reasonable to adopt the protesting position of sola scriptura (SS) and abandon the historically prior position of STC continuously held by the CC East and West and by the EOC is generally not given by Protestant theologians and apologists. . . . The burden is on the one making the protest: Why should one adopt the protesting theological position?”
How about getting down to work and tackle the real task at hand for you: justify the newer and protesting teaching, SS. Then your conclusions follow. Until then your position is circular.
There have been numerous formulations of the doctrine of tradition within the context of STC as a whole that synthesize the teaching and practice found in the NT authors, ECFs, and Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.ok so could you source from a official catholic doctrine for me please what is tradition and how it is defined?
We’d have to look at concrete examples to see what you mean by tradition being “incorrect historically.”how would you feel if it could be shown incorrect historically on a matter?
I gave sources for STC in the early Church from world class historians of doctrine who are not even Catholic.I certainly differ with your opinion on the unity of early church/bible and catholics today. i agree i did not support my claim on the historical problems with your definition of tradition it would impose on Catholics, neither did i mean to i am hear to learn not debate, just why i said well that would pose problems historically. If you wish for sources i would be glad to post them.
No, I want to have a conversation aimed at uncovering the truth without your playing a cat and mouse game every time you find your claims challenged.ss
you want me to debate the two views, that has been done by scholars many times. I am hear to learn if you are looking for arguments i could post if your interested some references. Of course you are likely choosing the correct position by your own fallible mind with the information you have that is clearly not full, more info could correct some false ideas you have know.
my op
I’d be glad to.so what if you could help teach me is help with these three on questions i have on tradition.
This has already been answered in (1)-(3) in posts above and immediately above in this post.1] official catholic doctrine and source on what is tradition and how it is determined.
No it is not. Doctrinal formulations are made in the context of the whole, united means God chose to had on His word, STC. They are also interpreted in that context. There is no such thing as dogmas alone that are interpreted by the individual believer alone.2] is it not true we must use interpret what dogma like the ccc declare by our own inflaibel minds?
No, we are following the word of God transmitted by STC now as it has been for 2000 yrs stemming from teaching and practice found in the NT authors, ECFs, and Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.3] are we not making a fallible choice to follow a claimed infallible source [rome/ccc etc] why not equally mormons or jw’s?
No. The CC and EOC believe God’s word is handed on by the united process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church. Why on earth wouldn’t we cite Scripture (in the context of T and C) in support of doctrine?4] does not the ccc use ss by quoting bible to back up its point on doctrine and expect people to understand. or as jesus clearly states etc.
No, the ultimate authority is God’s word handed on by STC as it has been from the beginning.5] is it not simply tacking the authority of gods word and moving to romes?
I am not sure if you have read this article on Sacred Traditon, and a book by the same author:is that from bible? were does that come from? I agree 100% anything from holy spirit is true and will lead to truth. I was looking for what is tradition
that does not exspalin what is tradition, how do we know what was handed down from apostles outside the bible? what is true tradition vs what is not that was handed down? also all todays doctrine was not written or spoken of by early apostles.
No. it is the other way around. In the history of the Bible, or how it came together, the canon or list of books were selected primarily because the books support what the Church (both the CC and the OC) have always taught.question on this topic
does not the ccc use ss when it quotes the bible to support its point? than act like the reader should agree because the bible says so to support the churches doctrine?
it also in places, to support itself says the bible clearly says this… than quotes bible. Is that not protestant thinking, that god wrote his word to be understood by man his creation?.
thanks.