Church tradition

[fhansen]

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.

Tradition is the practice and teachings of the Church, whether well-supported by Scripture or not so well-supported by Scripture. It’s your option to trust your personal interpretation of Scripture on matters of faith more than you trust the Church on matters of faith. But there’s no logical reason to trust your interpretation more; the Church God established 2 millenia ago would tend to have a better perspective on the facts. Anything else ends up largely a matter of guess-work: let the best exegete think he’s won.

 

[jjsmity]

cut

is the ultimate authority. We differ over how it is transmitted. I’ll go with the way it has been transmitted from the beginning until you show me why I should believe the new protesting view of the Reformation.

Actually the JWs and Mormons split off from Protestantism, so they are more like Protestants who split off from the CC. Rome and the CCC appear to add extraneous content to the Christian faith because their teaching based on STC from the beginning differs from the results of your private, individual interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2015.

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?

No, the ultimate authority is God’s word handed on by STC as it has been from the beginning.

But I’m open to hearing why I should abandon STC in favor of the newer protesting position of the Reformation, i.e., SS.

thanks for response.

references/links
The link provided first one did not have the chapters you referred to it only went to 5, could you please post the correct ones for me. The second link under scripture and tradition simply exspalined what is said to be tradition, not how certain things are declared sacred tradition.

"Debate" I think you misunderstand why i am here. As I have stated my op would be far different if i were hear to debate, that is not my purpose, also to think what you have said or posted is unaware to me or challenged my beliefs i would have to say is arrogant. I am reading catholic scholars books and have been and watching debates with top apologist for catholism on this and many topics, so to think a random poster with copy paste thinks that is reason i am not hear to debate to me is laughably hilarious. Please drop your pride and help me to understand certain aspects of your faith so i can than evaluate properly. This question arises from recent ccc reading [just finished the ccc] and i wanted to make sure i had correct undresnading before i further evaluate the claims and staments and their trustfulness. To ignore further honest study of Catholicism before i properly understand it and than go “debate” some online poster, would be puttting the wagon before the horse i think they say, and who knows maybe with guys like you if willing to drop pride, can help me better understand and convert me. But first i must properly understand. Hopefully know you can understand my reason for being hear.

My questions

1] references did not work or answer please provide again to correct sections.

2] You have misread my question . I will ask again with bold

"2] is it not true we must use interpret what dogma like the ccc declare by our own inflaibel minds?"

basically to understand what church says teaches like bible] we must than use our own minds to understand what the cc/church says.

3] misunderstood slightly i will re post in bold

are we not making a fallible choice to** follow** a claimed infallible source [rome/ccc etc]

so are we not making a choice based on our own fallible understanding/minds to follow the church.

4] misunderstood my fault in use of ss, by using hear [my fault] i meant that the bible can be understood by the lay reader and its meaning, put above dogma of church as it uses the bible verse to prove its dogma point… think deeper more presuppositions

does not the ccc use ss by quoting bible to back up its point on doctrine and expect people to understand or say yes that supports the churches dogma .

not saying they dont see bible as gods word, but in using bible verses to support its claims, it than is using ss to support its position, that is that the bible can be plainly understood by the reader.** Not to say that ss is entire revaluation, but that bible can be understood by lay person.**

5] who is in control lof understanding gods word?..rome. Just moves the authority.

 

[jjsmity]

I am not sure if you have read this article on Sacred Traditon, and a book by the same author:

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Thus, ST is …Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.

IE, Sacred Tradition is can be seen in the dogmas and doctrines, the way the Church has always, what it has always taught, and how it has worshipped.

There are small “T” traditions…which are meant to enhance or are an application of Sacred Tradition.

The Bible also is a product of this Sacred Traditon. The list of books was not handed down by any Apostles, but the canon was discerned over a period of several centuries.

thanks i do not have time at current if any relavent points please copy paste for me.

I see this as circular reasoning. I am looking for** how** tradition true tradition is determined rather than what is declared with a lower case or is deemed not tradition.

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.

So the Bible is used to back up what the CC teaches. In the protestant system, an interpretation is given, then a bible passage is cited.

I think this article would explain it more in detail:

Ecclesial Deism

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

i would say god gave us his word, not the church chose what it already taught.

again all i see is circular reasoning

“‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church,”

and who decides…rome. But i am looking for how true tradition is determined.

Tradition is the practice and teachings of the Church, whether well-supported by Scripture or not so well-supported by Scripture. It’s your option to trust your personal interpretation of Scripture on matters of faith more than you trust the Church on matters of faith. But there’s no logical reason to trust your interpretation more; the Church God established 2 millenia ago would tend to have a better perspective on the facts. Anything else ends up largely a matter of guess-work: let the best exegete think he’s won.

so tradition is what the church teaches, that to me makes tradition completely baseless and circular. Early belief say creation well church does not teach so its not tradition, early church teaches accumulate conception or some added dogma, but because church teaches it its “tradition.”

I agree the very first and early church would best know that is acts and nt and early messanic jews] but how fast people can fall from truth

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1

so the question we are told to evaluate

but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.
1 Thessalonians 5.21

of course i may need a guru to exsplain that passage to me]

i must try best to determine what that early church is and was, is it modern Catholicisms? if so i am in 100%.

 

[fhansen]

so tradition is what the church teaches, that to me makes tradition completely baseless and circular. Early belief say creation well church does not teach so its not tradition, early church teaches accumulate conception or some added dogma, but because church teaches it its “tradition.”

It’s no more circular to say that tradition is a source of the teachings of the church than to say that Scripture is a source of teachings of the church/Christianity. Neither of those claims, that tradition or scripture are true, are self-evident. Faith is inevitably involved. Look into the teachings of the other main branch of the early church, the eastern orthodox, and you’ll find that, even after centuries of isolation, with mutual conflict stretching back at least into the third century, the doctrines are strikingly similar, and very often at odds with Protestant teachings. ECFs are often quite at odds with Protestantism as well, on, for example, the Real Presence, the high regard for and place of Mary in the church, justification, baptism, etc

I agree the very first and early church would best know that is acts and nt and early messanic jews] but how fast people can fall from truth

Would’ve been pretty lame of God to allow that to happen across the board, don’t you think?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

references/links
The link provided first one did not have the chapters you referred to it only went to 5, could you please post the correct ones for me. The second link under scripture and tradition simply exspalined what is said to be tradition, not how certain things are declared sacred tradition.

I actually did. If you look carefully, you’ll note that there are paragraph numbers in the document and I cited #s7-10, not chapters 7-10.

Your question was “could you source from a official catholic doctrine for me please what is tradition and how it is defined?” Both Dei verbum and Verbum domini answer that. As for “how certain things are declared sacred tradition” my #(1)-(3) answered that.

"Debate" I think you misunderstand why i am here. . . . But first i must properly understand. Hopefully know you can understand my reason for being hear.

My point was truth is uncovered in discussion. Pride is not the issue. Your actually responding to questions is. I respond thoroughly to your questions.

My questions

1] references did not work or answer please provide again to correct sections.

They do. Paragraph #s.

2] You have misread my question . I will ask again with bold

"2] is it not true we must use interpret what dogma like the ccc declare by our own inflaibel minds?"

basically to understand what church says teaches like bible] we must than use our own minds to understand what the cc/church says.

My first response does answer this, but let me spell it out more clearly. The word of God, the Faith, comes to a Catholic by STC taken as a whole. So any one element, like a dogmatic formulation or Scripture, is always understood in the light of the whole.

A Catholic does not sit with an isolated dogmatic statement alone out of the context of STC and by himself alone try to figure out what it means. If this is what you mean by using his own mind, that is not the case.

Let’s take the doctrinal statement of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). That statement is read and understood in the context of the preaching of the church, the liturgy, Scripture, statements of the preceding 3 Ecumenical councils, etc. And all of these united and organically-related together authoritatively and normatively hand on God’s word.

If by using his mind you mean he has to exert his intellect to understand a dogmatic statement in the context of STC as I explained, then yes he has to use his mind.

In the case of SS, the individual’s mind alone (i.e., no Tradition or Church or liturgy, etc. taken together have any final say although they may be taken into consideration) is the ultimate interpretive tool and the results are the sufficient and sole rule of faith. That is a very different use of the mind.

3] misunderstood slightly i will re post in bold

are we not making a fallible choice to** follow** a claimed infallible source [rome/ccc etc]

so are we not making a choice based on our own fallible understanding/minds to follow the church.

Again, it depends on what you mean.

If you mean the following, I agree.

A prospective believer is confronted by Catholic and Protestant preaching.

Catholic preaching is derived authoritatively from and includes the affirmation of STC as the means in point of fact that God chose to hand on His word beginning the Church at Pentecost until today. Protestant preaching (as a protest against Catholic teaching) is derived authoritatively from and includes the affirmation of SS as the means in point of fact that God chose to hand on His word.

There are, then, two competing factual claims as to what method God chose to hand on His word. The prospective believer must use his own mind as a fallen and imperfect creature to decide which set of claims are true and consequently which church to follow.

4] misunderstood my fault in use of ss, by using hear [my fault] i meant that the bible can be understood by the lay reader and its meaning, put above dogma of church as it uses the bible verse to prove its dogma point… think deeper more presuppositions

does not the ccc use ss by quoting bible to back up its point on doctrine and expect people to understand or say yes that supports the churches dogma .

not saying they dont see bible as gods word, but in using bible verses to support its claims, it than is using ss to support its position, that is that the bible can be plainly understood by the reader.** Not to say that ss is entire revaluation, but that bible can be understood by lay person.**

OK, thanks for the clarification. Again Scripture for a Catholic (lay or otherwise) is understood in the whole context of STC–the same context in which Scripture was composed. So a passage used in the CCC is often as much supporting a doctrine as it is interpreting a passage. A catholic does not dispute that a lay person can understand the Bible in varying degrees as just described.

5] who is in control lof understanding gods word?..rome. Just moves the authority.

No one disputes that there is a final authority. The question is a factual one: is it STC or SS?

Rome fits under the Church in STC and is bound by God’s word transmitted by STC. Rome or Ecumenical Councils discern what is God’s word or what is is a departure usually in the face of heretical crises.

 

[jjsmity]

It’s no more circular to say that tradition is a source of the teachings of the church than to say that Scripture is a source of teachings of the church/Christianity. Neither of those claims, that tradition or scripture are true, are self-evident. Faith is inevitably involved. Look into the teachings of the other main branch of the early church, the eastern orthodox, and you’ll find that, even after centuries of isolation, with mutual conflict stretching back at least into the third century, the doctrines are strikingly similar, and very often at odds with Protestant teachings. ECFs are often quite at odds with Protestantism as well, on, for example, the Real Presence, the high regard for and place of Mary in the church, justification, baptism, etc

Would’ve been pretty lame of God to allow that to happen across the board, don’t you think?

Interesting thought thanks. I am not hear to defend Protestants tempting as it can be, i am truly looking for a proper undemanding of how tradition is decided it is needed to go further to evaluate tradition vs ss. Plus i need at least some answered to my questions about authority and tradition. I do just want to suggest to you that when the church and bible started being interpreted by greeks and non jewish back grounded people, that change occurred rapid in only a few hundred years, i say by nicean it started to change thoe what the council determined is correct.

 

[jjsmity]

I actually did. If you look carefully, you’ll note that there are paragraph numbers in the document and I cited #s7-10, not chapters 7-10.

Your question was “could you source from a official catholic doctrine for me please what is tradition and how it is defined?” Both Dei verbum and Verbum domini answer that. As for “how certain things are declared sacred tradition” my #(1)-(3) answered that.

My point was truth is uncovered in discussion. Pride is not the issue. Your actually responding to questions is. I respond thoroughly to your questions.

They do. Paragraph #s.

My first response does answer this, but let me spell it out more clearly. The word of God, the Faith, comes to a Catholic by STC taken as a whole. So any one element, like a dogmatic formulation or Scripture, is always understood in the light of the whole.

A Catholic does not sit with an isolated dogmatic statement alone out of the context of STC and by himself alone try to figure out what it means. If this is what you mean by using his own mind, that is not the case.

Let’s take the doctrinal statement of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). That statement is read and understood in the context of the preaching of the church, the liturgy, Scripture, statements of the preceding 3 Ecumenical councils, etc. And all of these united and organically-related together authoritatively and normatively hand on God’s word.

If by using his mind you mean he has to exert his intellect to understand a dogmatic statement in the context of STC as I explained, then yes he has to use his mind.

In the case of SS, the individual’s mind alone (i.e., no Tradition or Church or liturgy, etc. taken together have any final say although they may be taken into consideration) is the ultimate interpretive tool and the results are the sufficient and sole rule of faith. That is a very different use of the mind.

Again, it depends on what you mean.

If you mean the following, I agree.

A prospective believer is confronted by Catholic and Protestant preaching.

Catholic preaching is derived authoritatively from and includes the affirmation of STC as the means in point of fact that God chose to hand on His word beginning the Church at Pentecost until today. Protestant preaching (as a protest against Catholic teaching) is derived authoritatively from and includes the affirmation of SS as the means in point of fact that God chose to hand on His word.

There are, then, two competing factual claims as to what method God chose to hand on His word. The prospective believer must use his own mind as a fallen and imperfect creature to decide which set of claims are true and consequently which church to follow.

OK, thanks for the clarification. Again Scripture for a Catholic (lay or otherwise) is understood in the whole context of STC–the same context in which Scripture was composed. So a passage used in the CCC is often as much supporting a doctrine as it is interpreting a passage. A catholic does not dispute that a lay person can understand the Bible in varying degrees as just described.

No one disputes that there is a final authority. The question is a factual one: is it STC or SS?

Rome fits under the Church in STC and is bound by God’s word transmitted by STC. Rome or Ecumenical Councils discern what is God’s word or what is is a departure usually in the face of heretical crises.

link references
given that you will not re post just were these references are specifically, and given when i found what you referred to did not answer question but just exspalined what tradition is in catholic thought, and given noone else seems to have these secret references [not ccc for sure or anyone on this forum] and lastly given you have misunderstood a few of my questions, i think i am just to assume you are mistaken. of course you could post for me next post directly what expsalines in catholic dogma what counts as tradition and what is not tradition that was believed.

question 2

interesting, however as i said and it stands, the catholic must use his own interpretation and mind to understand dogma like the ccc just as a protestant does the bible using church fathers etc just not at level of bible] so it just moves the infallible authority from gods word, to rome word who also decided what true tradition is yet no formula for how] so we all use our fallible minds and interpretations, just different authority. Just as when catholics fallible chose rome as authority or a protestant the bible.

3 ] agreed fully.

4 ok so if catholics say the bible can be understood by lay persons, than should not those lay people come to catholic beliefs by reading the bible? at least the doctrines the church uses to support its certain dogmas?

5 right difference in authority.

you said

Rome fits under the Church in STC and is bound by God’s word transmitted by STC. Rome or Ecumenical Councils discern what is God’s word or what is is a departure usually in the face of heretical crises.

do you not see circular reasoning hear? I could also say i am bound by tradition and gods word, than decide tradition is a separate interpretation and only our church can understand it [jw].

 

[fhansen]

Interesting thought thanks. I am not hear to defend Protestants tempting as it can be, i am truly looking for a proper undemanding of how tradition is decided it is needed to go further to evaluate tradition vs ss. Plus i need at least some answered to my questions about authority and tradition. I do just want to suggest to you that when the church and bible started being interpreted by greeks and non jewish back grounded people, that change occurred rapid in only a few hundred years, i say by nicean it started to change thoe what the council determined is correct.

It’s sort of funny how darn correct that council was tho.

 

[JoeT777]

Interesting thought thanks. I am not hear to defend Protestants tempting as it can be, i am truly looking for a proper undemanding of how tradition is decided it is needed to go further to evaluate tradition vs ss. Plus i need at least some answered to my questions about authority and tradition. . . .

Solo Scriptura at the very best is can only be said to be implicit in Scripture. Scripture makes no claim that it is the sole and infallible rule of faith. Catholic dogma does not place Sacred Scripture against Sacred Tradition. However, the Church was commissioned to teach a Divine Word divinely how can that happen by teaching conflicting Truths, either out of Scripture or out of Tradition. Wherefore, the body of knowledge comprising both Scripture and Tradition are to be objective Truth. A truth given on any one thing cannot have multiple realities with each individual guided by a spirit of different truths.

In Scripture it is clearly the Church that has the authority. That Church is the same Church Christ and Tradition holds as the authority till His second coming. The sole and infallible rule of faith in the Word of God is ‘HEARD’ to for the purpose of perfecting the faithful who are the Catholic Church. This rule guided by the Holy Spirit and consists of eight principles each revealed by God to be , Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning. As there is One Truth, there is One Divine Catholic Church.

JoeT

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

link references
given that you will not re post just were these references are specifically, and given when i found what you referred to did not answer question but just exspalined what tradition is in catholic thought, and given noone else seems to have these secret references [not ccc for sure or anyone on this forum] and lastly given you have misunderstood a few of my questions, i think i am just to assume you are mistaken. of course you could post for me next post directly what expsalines in catholic dogma what counts as tradition and what is not tradition that was believed.

Let’s recap.

Your OP asked: “how is church tradition decided? what constitutes what is correct tradition?”
(1)-(3) directly addressed this and answered it.

You next question asked: “could you source from a official catholic doctrine for me please what is tradition and how it is defined?” Dei verbum, #s 7-10 tells you what it is and how it is defined. That directly answers the question you posed.

So before we can go forward, you need to tell me why these two direct answers that are exactly on point are not what you are looking for.

question 2

interesting, however as i said and it stands, the catholic must use his own interpretation and mind to understand dogma like the ccc just as a protestant does the bible using church fathers etc just not at level of bible] so it just moves the infallible authority from gods word, to rome word who also decided what true tradition is yet no formula for how] so we all use our fallible minds and interpretations, just different authority. Just as when catholics fallible chose rome as authority or a protestant the bible.

No, it does not stand. Again, a Catholic does not seek to gain or use his own private isolated interpretation of a dogma. His understanding/interpretation is in context of the whole authoritative means of transmitting God’s word, STC. The Catholic seeks to think with the Church, the Body of Christ. He does not seek to make his own individual interpretation irrespective of whether it differs from the whole context and the mind of the Church.

For the Protestant interpreting scripture, on the other hand, no matter what other sources may enter into his hermeneutic effort, the final arbiter is the results of his own interpretation regardless of who or what community it differs from. He could, like so many, depart from any denomination and start his own church based on the results of his own interpretation.
The two could not be more different.

AGAIN, we both accept God’s word as the final and ultimate authority. We differ over how God’s word is transmitted authoritatively and normatively: is it STC as it has been from the beginning going back to the NT authors, the ECFs, and the early Ecumenical Councils; or is it the newer protesting position of the Reformers, SS.

If the Reformers protest, they must have be able to give the reasons why the dissent from the constant teaching and practice of the Church.

The ultimate authority is always God’s word. There is no transfer. It is a question of how it is transmitted. To put it differently, one who is steeped in SS would have to come to realize God’s word is transmitted down through time not by SS, but by STC. Rome is not the main issue: STC is.

3 ] agreed fully.

OK, cool. Now in your case, you are a believer already brought up in SS.

4 ok so if catholics say the bible can be understood by lay persons, than should not those lay people come to catholic beliefs by reading the bible? at least the doctrines the church uses to support its certain dogmas?

Again you’re not seeing the big picture. Catholics come to their beliefs by STC taken as a whole. So, by all means, Catholics come to their faith by reading the Bible in the context of STC. But they do not come to their Catholic faith from their private, individual interpretation of the Bible alone. There’s a big difference.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

5 right difference in authority.

you said

Rome fits under the Church in STC and is bound by God’s word transmitted by STC. Rome or Ecumenical Councils discern what is God’s word or what is is a departure usually in the face of heretical crises.

do you not see circular reasoning hear? I could also say i am bound by tradition and gods word, than decide tradition is a separate interpretation and only our church can understand it [jw].

No, it is not. Your claim of circularity for STC holds only for one who already accepts SS, i.e., only if SS is true. But that is exactly what you have to prove. Why should one hold SS over STC?

Let’s go through the reasoning. And now it’s your turn to answer some questions, as I have done with yours.

(a) God’s word came first, then it is transmitted. Whether it is Jesus’ life and teaching; or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost instructing and guiding the apostles including St. Paul in their oral preaching and teaching; or His inspiration in NT authors, God’s word comes first, then it is transmitted to subsequent generations. Agreed? Yes. No. Why?

(b) We both agree, as Christians, that God’s word is the ultimate authority. So accepting doctrine on the authority of God’s word is not circular. Agreed? Yes . . .

(c) Since God’s word is transmitted authoritatively and normatively by a method/means, accepting God’s word as it comes to us through that means is not circular either. Agreed? . . .

(d) We differ over what God in fact established as the means/method of transmission: STC as it has been from the beginning going back to the NT authors, the ECFs, and the early Ecumenical Councils versus the newer protesting position of the Reformers, SS. Agreed? . . .

(e) (i) If STC is the method God chose, there is nothing circular about it. That is, the Church, in this view, 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 word, the gospel, unadulterated as it is transmitted first orally then in Scripture and Tradition. The church’s authority is always an authority to preserve and hand on God’s word.
(ii) If SS is the means God chose, there is nothing circular in accepting God’s word and the doctrine coming to us as the results of the individual’s interpretation of the Bible alone as the final authority.
Agreed? . . .

(f) The Reformers, and Protestants with them, protest against STC which goes back to the NT authors, the ECFs, plus the early Ecumenical Councils and the content of the faith handed on by STC. But before one can abandon STC (with the faith handed on by it) and accept their protesting position including SS as the ultimate authority, it is incumbent on Protestants to make the case for their newer protesting claims.

Why should one adopt their newer protesting position when STC goes back to the beginning? That has to be answered by a person considering which of the two God established. Understand? Agreed? . . .

(g) The only place circularity enters in is if one attempts to justify the newer protesting claim of SS in response to STC by using SS.

As I said before it goes like this:
(i) Start with SS.
(ii) Discover that the results of SS differ from those of STC in history.
(iii) Conclude that therefore Tradition and Church have added to God’s word.
(iv) Ergo, STC is not the method God chose and SS is.

That is circular.

Since, as you have said, you are trying to learn about the CC, ask yourself, Why should one abandon STC and hold SS? Or why should one adopt the newer protesting position?

This is not debate: it is conversation and discussion to arrive at the truth.

Now, it’s your turn to address my concerns.

 

[jjsmity]

Let’s recap.

Your OP asked: “how is church tradition decided? what constitutes what is correct tradition?”
(1)-(3) directly addressed this and answered it.

You next question asked: “could you source from a official catholic doctrine for me please what is tradition and how it is defined?” Dei verbum, #s 7-10 tells you what it is and how it is defined. That directly answers the question you posed.

So before we can go forward, you need to tell me why these two direct answers that are exactly on point are not what you are looking for.

No, it does not stand. Again, a Catholic does not seek to gain or use his own private isolated interpretation of a dogma. His understanding/interpretation is in context of the whole authoritative means of transmitting God’s word, STC. The Catholic seeks to think with the Church, the Body of Christ. He does not seek to make his own individual interpretation irrespective of whether it differs from the whole context and the mind of the Church.

For the Protestant interpreting scripture, on the other hand, no matter what other sources may enter into his hermeneutic effort, the final arbiter is the results of his own interpretation regardless of who or what community it differs from. He could, like so many, depart from any denomination and start his own church based on the results of his own interpretation.
The two could not be more different.

AGAIN, we both accept God’s word as the final and ultimate authority. We differ over how God’s word is transmitted authoritatively and normatively: is it STC as it has been from the beginning going back to the NT authors, the ECFs, and the early Ecumenical Councils; or is it the newer protesting position of the Reformers, SS.

If the Reformers protest, they must have be able to give the reasons why the dissent from the constant teaching and practice of the Church.

The ultimate authority is always God’s word. There is no transfer. It is a question of how it is transmitted. To put it differently, one who is steeped in SS would have to come to realize God’s word is transmitted down through time not by SS, but by STC. Rome is not the main issue: STC is.

OK, cool. Now in your case, you are a believer already brought up in SS.

Again you’re not seeing the big picture. Catholics come to their beliefs by STC taken as a whole. So, by all means, Catholics come to their faith by reading the Bible in the context of STC. But they do not come to their Catholic faith from their private, individual interpretation of the Bible alone. There’s a big difference.

recap

you cannot give any reference to official catholic teaching on how tradition is determined, that is why we must move on or please provide.

second section you have missed my point again i will try once more.

i must say you need to think presuppositions, before you go and trust rome authority, you use your own mind/logic/faith to trust in romes theology and opinions.

also we have different opinions on bible, your bible is what rome says your bible is. You keep wanting to debate ss go start a thread not topic hear, i will not let you drag the topic away from questing rome authority reasoning and how it is circular and no better than ss, what makes ss better to many is not topic of thread.

however if bible can be understood by lay people as you said a few post back, why do all “bible alone” seem so at odds with catholic theology? i am not asking for 100% agreement, but basic agreement if what you say is true, plus it still assumes bible can be understood by the lay ccc reader and their interpretation of it

 

[jjsmity]

No, it is not. Your claim of circularity for STC holds only for one who already accepts SS, i.e., only if SS is true. But that is exactly what you have to prove. Why should one hold SS over STC?

Let’s go through the reasoning. And now it’s your turn to answer some questions, as I have done with yours.

(a) God’s word came first, then it is transmitted. Whether it is Jesus’ life and teaching; or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost instructing and guiding the apostles including St. Paul in their oral preaching and teaching; or His inspiration in NT authors, God’s word comes first, then it is transmitted to subsequent generations. Agreed? Yes. No. Why?

(b) We both agree, as Christians, that God’s word is the ultimate authority. So accepting doctrine on the authority of God’s word is not circular. Agreed? Yes . . .

(c) Since God’s word is transmitted authoritatively and normatively by a method/means, accepting God’s word as it comes to us through that means is not circular either. Agreed? . . .

(d) We differ over what God in fact established as the means/method of transmission: STC as it has been from the beginning going back to the NT authors, the ECFs, and the early Ecumenical Councils versus the newer protesting position of the Reformers, SS. Agreed? . . .

(e) (i) If STC is the method God chose, there is nothing circular about it. That is, the Church, in this view, 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 word, the gospel, unadulterated as it is transmitted first orally then in Scripture and Tradition. The church’s authority is always an authority to preserve and hand on God’s word.
(ii) If SS is the means God chose, there is nothing circular in accepting God’s word and the doctrine coming to us as the results of the individual’s interpretation of the Bible alone as the final authority.
Agreed? . . .

(f) The Reformers, and Protestants with them, protest against STC which goes back to the NT authors, the ECFs, plus the early Ecumenical Councils and the content of the faith handed on by STC. But before one can abandon STC (with the faith handed on by it) and accept their protesting position including SS as the ultimate authority, it is incumbent on Protestants to make the case for their newer protesting claims.

Why should one adopt their newer protesting position when STC goes back to the beginning? That has to be answered by a person considering which of the two God established. Understand? Agreed? . . .

(g) The only place circularity enters in is if one attempts to justify the newer protesting claim of SS in response to STC by using SS.

As I said before it goes like this:
(i) Start with SS.
(ii) Discover that the results of SS differ from those of STC in history.
(iii) Conclude that therefore Tradition and Church have added to God’s word.
(iv) Ergo, STC is not the method God chose and SS is.

That is circular.

Since, as you have said, you are trying to learn about the CC, ask yourself, Why should one abandon STC and hold SS? Or why should one adopt the newer protesting position?

This is not debate: it is conversation and discussion to arrive at the truth.

Now, it’s your turn to address my concerns.

I am sorry i started to read but it just seems another attempt to try and get thread off topic with statements and claims that have been answered many times before out there for free for anyone who wants answered. I normally am a debater and love all topics, but you must understand i need to understand topic first,than evaluate than debate.

is it circular, i say is no less circular than jw saying they have perfect understanding, that is why i try not to listen to man but god [bible]

I think you hit on it with d, if rome has the authority it claims than sure it is correct in all things, so that must be evaluated and not assumed, just as the bible should as well. But if that is the starting assumption and everything in bible or church history is taught told only the way rome says, than it becomes circular as jw.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

OK, you said several times in various ways, as you now do in the post below, “i need to understand topic first” before you “evaluate than debate.” Again, I respect that. I truly have been trying to help you understand what the Catholic and EOC doctrine of tradition–really Apostolic Tradition–is in the context of the whole, STC. In order to do that sometimes I have show you the presuppositions and assumptions (usually SS) behind your questions so that you can see how these questions make no sense to a Catholic or EOC whose understanding of how God’s word is handed on in STC and Tradition’s place in that whole goes back to the beginning in the NT authors, ECFs, and early Ecumenical Councils

For example, let’s say someone asks me “why did the Catholic Church add to God’s word with its traditions?” That question is meaningless or makes no sense to a Catholic because it assumes SS, or simply rephrases SS. It goes like this for the person asking the question.
(a) God’s word is limited to and coextensive to the written text of Scripture.
(b) The results of that person’s interpretation of the text of scripture alone differ from the content of the faith handed on by STC.
(c) So the conclusions is that tradition added to the word of God. And so the question.

The only way for a Catholic or EOC to answer the question it to point out the person’s presupposition and assumption here. And that is what I have been trying to do with you here. Do you understand this elementary point?

When I ask you to you to justify your presupposition you have called that “debate” and dismissed it. So in the future I will just point out the presupposition on your part and leave the justification of your presupposition until you are ready.

recap

you cannot give any reference to official catholic teaching on how tradition is determined, that is why we must move on or please provide.

Oh yes I can. But bear in mind if your going to ask a grown up theological question, you can’t demand a 4th grade theological answer. See multiple posts below.

Official Catholic teaching does not presuppose SS, so the exact type of answer you are looking for may not be in any official decree.

second section you have missed my point again i will try once more.

i must say you need to think presuppositions, before you go and trust rome authority, you use your own mind/logic/faith to trust in romes theology and opinions.

Again, as I have repeated, it is not primarily Rome (or the evil Romish Catholic Church, or evil Popery, etc., that you were apparently brought up to believe), it is the Church within STC. If we are considering the authority of the Church within STC, Ecumenical Councils have made far more acts of discernment as to what is or isn’t God’s word than the Pope. The authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) arises from that of the Church, which in the Catholic view 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 word, the gospel, unadulterated in Scripture and Tradition as she has from the beginning. Again, it is STC that hands on God’s word authoritatively and normatively in Catholic teaching.

also we have different opinions on bible, your bible is what rome says your bible is. You keep wanting to debate ss go start a thread not topic hear, i will not let you drag the topic away from questing rome authority reasoning and how it is circular and no better than ss, what makes ss better to many is not topic of thread.

I won’t ask you to justify SS, because you consider that dragging the topic away from what you wish to discuss.

But your claim of circularity for STC–Rome is not the issue–holds only for one who already accepts SS, i.e., it only holds if SS is your presupposition. Your question or point, therefore, makes no sense to a Catholic. Again, I am only pointing out your presuppositions, not asking you to justify them.

Also, again, it is not Rome: it is STC for a Catholic that hands on the faith authoritatively from the beginning. It is not first Rome but the Church, in the Catholic view, which has the “Spirit of Truth” and the “mind of Christ”. She is well-equipped to preserve the word, the gospel, unadulterated in Scripture and Tradition as she has from the beginning.

I’ve said this many times, but your upbringing, apparently, has taught you to see the evil of Romanism or Popery behind what the CC teaches.

however if bible can be understood by lay people as you said a few post back, why do all “bible alone” seem so at odds with catholic theology? i am not asking for 100% agreement, but basic agreement if what you say is true, plus it still assumes bible can be understood by the lay ccc reader and their interpretation of it

What I said was lay Catholics understand the Bible in the context of STC taken together as the authoritative means of handing on God’s word. I already explained above how radically this differs from SS.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

(a) As the NT authors teach and practice, Christianity itself is a tradition: the Church Christ founded hands on the “deposit of faith”, the gospel, entrusted to it by the Lord. E.g., Paul entrusts to Timothy the charge to preach the gospel (1 Tim 1:18) and reminds him to guard the deposit entrusted to him (6:20). He repeats his injunction to guard the trust/deposit (2 Tim 1:14) as he himself has (1:12) and then further tells Timothy to entrust it to others so they can orally teach yet others (2:2). Jesus said go forth and preach.

(b) In Acts, the apostles said “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:8). Here they determined what was and was not in the content of the gospel they handed on. 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 word, the gospel, unadulterated in Scripture and Tradition as she has from the beginning.

(c) Fellow workers and successors were appointed by the apostles over the flock [AA 14:23; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1,15; cf. 1 Tim 5:19-21, 22]. Paul states that the Holy Spirit has appointed them overseers (AA 20:28). In Col 1:7 we learn that Epaphras, a fellow worker with Paul, founded the Church at Colossae.

(c)(i) Scores of other NT data shows STC which I can provide if you like.

(d) The ECFs bear witness to this same consciousness on the part of the church that it possesses the deposit of faith from the apostles to guard and hand on with the help of teh Holy Spirit.–before the NT was collected. One way the ECFs know what is Apostolic tradition is by what the churches founded by the apostles taught. E.g., Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses (late 100s) and Tertullian Praescriptione Haereticorum (~200) taught this as the method used.

We also see this in the Ecumenical Councils after the pattern of the apostles (AA 15:8) of whom the bishops are the successors. The participants at these Councils knew both the Scriptural data the ECFs I cited.

(e) So drawing on and bound by the word of God handed down in Scripture, and the monuments of Tradition I mentioned above in (2)(a)-(h), Ecumenical Councils, knowing they represent the mind of Christ and have the Spirit of truth, discern what pertains to the word of God and what does not, what traditions are apostolic and what are not. They explicitly say this.

(f) You wanted formal teachings on the subject, they are below first by actions preserving God’s word then by explicit statement.

And those who say “there once was when he was not,” and “before he was begotten he was not,” and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis [hypostaseos] or substance [ousias], affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
[Council of Nicea, Profession of Faith §2]

Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars, and who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands. But before all this it is fitting that they give a written undertaking that they will accept and follow the decrees of the catholic church, namely that they will be in communion with those who have entered into a second marriage and with those who have lapsed in time of persecution and for whom a period [of penance] has been fixed and an occasion [for reconciliation] allotted, so as in all things to follow the decrees of the catholic and apostolic church.
[Council of Nicea, canon 8]

We shall succeed [in rightly expounding the doctrine of the faith to those seeking the truth] if, betaking ourselves to the statements of the Fathers, we are careful to esteem them highly and putting our own selves to test as to whether we are in the faith, as it is written (2 Cor 13:5) thoroughly conform our own beliefs to their sound and unexceptional doctrines. . . .
This is the account of the true faith everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed. So have they dared to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh.
[Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius] accepted by the Council of Ephesus as doctrinally correct.

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul [meaning human soul] and a body.
[Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, Definition of the Faith concerning the two natures of Christ]

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils, have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it is established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadows of lying.
The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbor.
. . . .
When we met together, therefore, we first of all briefly made a confession of the faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, true God, handed down [tradidit] to has holy apostles and by means of them to the holy churches, the same faith which those who afterwards were holy fathers and doctors handed down [tradiderunt] to the people entrusted to them. We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicea and handed down [tradiderunt] the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the same faith which they both followed and preached. We confessed that we held to be condemned and anathematized all those who had been previously condemned and anathematized by the catholic church and by the aforesaid four councils.
[Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the “Three Chapters”, 553 AD]

Such then are the assertions we confess. We have received them from Holy Scripture, from the teaching of the holy fathers, and from the definitions about the one and the same faith made by the aforesaid four holy synods [Nicea, Constantiniople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon].
[Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD, Canon 14] DS 438

The holy, great and universal synod, by the grace of God . . . following the tradition [traditionem] of the catholic church.
. . . .
To this gracious offer some people paid no attention . . . , and setting themselves against the tradition [traditionem] of the catholic church . . .
[Second Council of Nicea, 787 AD, Definition] (Tanner, I:133)

So having made investigation with all accuracy and having taken council, setting for our aim the truth, we neither diminish nor augment, but simply guard intact all that pertains to the catholic church.
[Second Council of Nicea, 787 AD, Definition] (Tanner, I:134)

To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions [traditiones] that have been entrusted to us, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.
We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition [traditionem] of the Catholic Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material, must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Savior, and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men. [DS 600]
And so the teaching of our holy Fathers is strengthened, that is, the tradition [traditio] of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. [DS 602]
Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions [traditiones] of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries, if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion. [DS 603]
[Second Council of Nicea, 787 AD, Definition]

If anyone rejects all ecclesiastical tradition either written or not written, let him be anathema.
[Second Council of Nicea, 787 AD, Anathama #4, DS 609]

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

[W]hen either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.
[Vatican II, *Lumen gentium, #25]

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I am sorry i started to read but it just seems another attempt to try and get thread off topic with statements and claims that have been answered many times before out there for free for anyone who wants answered. I normally am a debater and love all topics, but you must understand i need to understand topic first,than evaluate than debate.

Answered above. I’ll stay away from expecting you to justify why one should assent the newer protesting doctrine of SS and abandon STC that was taught and practiced from the beginning.

is it circular, i say is no less circular than jw saying they have perfect understanding, that is why i try not to listen to man but god [bible]

I showed you how the argument is circular.

A Catholic and EOC listens to God’s word too. We hold as we always have that from the beginning His word is handed on by STC, not the newer doctrine of SS. We consider SS to be a man-made doctrine since it was invented in the Reformation.

But I already said that if God in fact chose SS to hand on His word it is not circular to live by it.

Circularity enters into arguments used to justify the new Reformation doctrine of SS as the means that God in fact chose to hand on His word…

I think you hit on it with d, if rome has the authority it claims than sure it is correct in all things, so that must be evaluated and not assumed, just as the bible should as well. But if that is the starting assumption and everything in bible or church history is taught told only the way rome says, than it becomes circular as jw.

Actually this is already an evaluation. Nonetheless your presupposition in this statement is that the newer doctrine SS is true, and that STC taught and practiced from the beginning is false. Apart from that presupposition your evaluation makes no sense.

Again, evil Popery is not the issue: STC is. The authority of the Pope grows out of that of the church as a part of STC possessing the mind of Christ and the spirit of truth to hand on God’s word.

 

[eddie_too]

has anyone provided something that shows Jesus teaching young earth science, and I acknowledge I am using the word science very loosely when I put it in the same sentence as young earth?

has anyone provided something that shows one of the apostles teaching young earth science?

what about other authors of the NT? anyone shown where they teach young earth science?

did some of the early and later Church fathers teach young earth science as Church doctrine? if they did, I would like to know which one it was.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12927777:

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.

that does not exspalin what is tradition.

Ah, sorry. Sacred Traditiont is what was handed on from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to The Church. The preeminent Tradition is the New Testament itself and secondly, the correct understanding of Scripture. That is why Jesus founded His Church, so that it could be handed on down through the millennia so that we and future generations can receive it. Eventually His Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined that some of it should be written down, gathered those writings and declared which ones constitute the New Testament.

Canon of Scripture
The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

**The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
*It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. *
*The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. *
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…**

IOW, Christ gave us Sacred Scripture through His Church Church as part of Sacred Tradition.

As far as citing all that has been handed down, Even a part of that comprising only what Jesus did and said John 21:25 And there are also many other things, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

And that would only be a part of it. Jesus founded His Church and the Holy Spirit guides her, why would anyone go anywhere else?