S
sandusky
Guest
What does that mean, “pillar and bulwark of the truth?”
Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible?
- Status
R
ralphinal
Guest
I would take it to mean that which defends (bulwark) and that which upholds (pillar). I would say that it means that to see if something is true, you go to the Church. Remmember that there is a very good chance that when Paul wrote his letters, at least one of the Gosples had not been written, possibly as many as all four. Acts was in the process of being composed, or at least lived out. Revelation was not writen yet. Something had to contain the Truth, and it was the Church. It still is. It would be illogical for the entire Truth as given to the Apostles to go from 12 men into a rather small book, especially when that book does not cover everything that Jesus said or did.
That is all personal interpretation.
What is your take?
S
sandusky
Guest
You’re saying that what the apostles taught orally differs from what the apostles taught in writing; how do you support that?
That’s certainly the RC position; I don’t deny that.
S
sandusky
Guest
List all of the oral traditions with attribution, and you’ll have convinced me.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, but the writings don’t “teach”. People teach. The writings document the teachings, but once they are separated from the teaching authority that produced them, the meaning of them becomes distorted. The Apostles may spin in their graves about some of the modern renderings of their writing. The idea that baptism has nothing to do with water would make them all pull their hair out!
It has nothing to do with “Romishness”. It seems that you have a prejudice against Roman Catholicsm, that is why some of the posters here think you have some sort of unhealed wound. You cannot even let go of your Roman hostility enough to recognize Catholic teaching that is not germaine to the Roman Rite.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
Hisalone,
BTW, Jesus Christ gave his Church to us all and yes he does want us to follow it Totaly!
Question is who do you follow since you don’t follow the CHUCH Jesus Founded? Is it Martin Luther
Ufamtobie
R
ralphinal
Guest
ALL? Come on, that is a bit much
If you are disputing that the Bible does not contain everything that Jesus said or did, please refer to the end of John’s Gospel.
In Acts, St. Paul quotes Jesus by saying something that no Gospel recorded. No one disputed it at all. Paul could not have heard it from Jesus, so it must have been taught to him orally.
Are you questioning the methodology of the first 20 some odd years of spreading the Truth of Jesus?
T
Tietjen
Guest
First, I’d ask that you watch your acronyms. While the words aren’t used, what they stand for is universally understood and whether or not you believe in a God and/or Christianity, you show your ignorance by using the language within this community.
Secondly, and to the point of your ridiculous attack, the facts that many were tortured and killed during the Inquisitions are true. However, the numbers reported are over inflated and MANY who actually did the tortures and killings are likewise incorrect. For example, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile set up the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. I do not deny that the Church had a hand in the Spanish inquisition and I certainly do not deny that some within the Church committed horrible crimes, but if you seriously investigate the situation, you would find that these individuals were not carrying out the wishes of the Church but rather were acting on their own behalf and on the behalf of civil authority.
Also friend, I should point out that the “witch trials” and burnings/roastings that you say you delight in were NOT part of the Spanish Inquisition. In the witch trials approx 100,000 executions took place. During the entire 350 year Inquisition only 3,000 to 5,000 people were executed. It needs to be pointed out that while even a single death is a terrible thing, one cannot, with any intelligence, say that the two were equally devastating. It should also be pointed out that the witch-hunts, trials, and executions were in fact carried out by civil authorities and the populace. Yet, you would throw this charge upon the Church as well… who now is holding a witch-hunt?
Well, I won’t debate this with you since there is no point. The facts are available to you should you someday wish to learn something. However, since you have 0% chance of convincing me of your anti-Catholic lies, and I know that I lack the ability to help someone who lives by hate rather than truth; it would be a pointless waste of time for both of us. God bless.
T
Tietjen
Guest
LOL - Then I suppose this argument is over. You have, as expected, accomplished nothing since you refuse to provide any substance for you argument. Take care my separated brother and I will pray for you. As for me, I’m off to other threads… perhaps we’ll run into one another again.
S
sandusky
Guest
That’s what I said, what the apostles taught in writing. I don’t understand your objection.
Don’t forget the Marian Doctrines; those may have them doing cartwheels.
I acknowledged what you said as being the position of the RC; are you now saying that it’s not?
S
sandusky
Guest
Why? Has the church misplaced them?
I’m neither disputing nor questioning anything stated in the scripture.
T
t68ware
Guest
Your use of acronyms is totally out of place!! Are you that childish that you have to use text speak like teenagers use to get your point across? I have reported your post and I hope you will cease from using language that has no place in Catholic forums.
G
guanophore
Guest
My objection is that the Sacred Writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Apostolic Teaching from whence they came.
And jumping up and down! They all experinced the personal holiness of the Mother of God, and I am sure treated her with the utmost respect (venteration) as long as she was on earth.
I am saying that you are sounding anti-Roman. The doctrine is not “Roman”. It is Catholic. The Roman Rite is only one of the 23 Catholic Rites. The doctrine is not bound to Romanism. It is also shared by all the Apostolic Churches, the Orthodox and Oriental, etc.
S
sandusky
Guest
You’re continue saying that the oral teaching is different from the written, but have yet to offer any credible support for that.
List all of the oral teachings of the apostles.
And which of those 23 rites is the leader of the band?
T
t68ware
Guest
Lets take a small break from technical discussions for a moment and lets look at those Christians, Protestant or Catholic, who actually live the Christian life. Do their lives point to Christ? Are they witnesses in their actions, not just their words? We can discuss this topic until we are blue in the face, but the proof that God is blessing a life is found in their fruit. A bad tree does not bear good fruit.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, I have NEVER said that. They complement one another. The oral tradition reveals how we are to interpret the written. They came from the same Source, so they are not different. Those who separate them from one another often perceive them differently, because the context in which the NT was written is lost.
The Teaching of Jesus Christ is not reduced to a “list”. Frankly, I am baffled why modern evangelicals seem to want to make such reductions. Another example is the least amount a person has to know and do in order to be saved.
For Catholics, and all those of Apostolic Faith (Orthodox, etc.) The Way spoken of in the NT cannot be reduced to a “list”. It is
" all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning 2 until the day when he was taken up to heaven…" Acts 1:1-2 We receive this from the Successors of the Apostles and devote ourselves to this way of life, just as the first converts did in Acts 2:41-42
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
The teaching, the type of fellowship, the way bread was broken and the prayers ( all these comprising liturgy and devotionals) has been preserved intact from that day until this. It is not a list!
That would be our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, the vicar of Christ. He happens to come from the Roman Rite, but this is not required of a Pope.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
One of the hilarious things in this thread is seeing in action the exact things that make a written record of statements a disputable source of teaching and also so necessary as a source!
Take the recent exchange between Guanophore and Sandusky over the exact title that should be used to refer to what in normal discourse is called the Roman Catholic Church. Guanophore takes issue with Sandusky’s use of the word “Roman”, isolating the phrase from its context and interpreting it to mean Sandusky has no awareness of the multiplicity of minor rites within that branch of Christianity. Guanophore haughtily suggests it implies not merely ignorance but close-mindedness as well. The plain meaning gets trampled under eagerness to close with the foe. I’ve seen this sort of thing from both Protestants and Roman Catholics as they rip verses out of written, historical, and cultural context to fling them in each others’ faces. The slightest jot or tittle gets used as a lever to imply an avalanche of authoritative teaching. The first thing that gets buried is the love and humility we’re supposed to show each other. “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” is an accusation easily leveled at almost anyone who engages in doctrinal disputations.
Just as the Roman Catholic apologists here note (my pardon if I’m leaving out anybody from the Orthodox or Coptic churches), many people do take passages out of context, interpret the literal as figurative and vice-versa, and add strange definitions and meaning to words and phrases that are perfectly clear. Just as they’ve done in replies and counter-replies in this thread. Any writing can be wildly misinterpreted, especially by those whose main aim is to justify their own practices. Not that there’s anyone with those motivations here, of course…
Perhaps Guanophore would challenge the motivations and emotions I’m ascribing as well. That’s another weakness of the written record. Emphases and emotion can get lost, especially in writing systems without punctuation, like Koine Greek!
Yet no one on this entire thread has replied to another by saying “You know, I heard that you said…” Nope, people get quoted. And there’s no point in faking a quote, because anybody can go back and look at the original post. Without a posted record, nobody would take the quotes seriously at all, because all of the weaknesses of passing on written communication are multiplied in oral communication. Phrases get forgotten, emphases get changed, words change their meaning from one generation to the next. Without a record and demonstration that Roman Catholic bishops have a super-heavy training in exact recall of orally transmitted messages, nobody outside Roman Catholicism is going to take seriously the idea that they’ve maintained an unbroken oral tradition. (And even then, people would want to see a comparison of a modern bishop’s recitation with an ancient written record as proof.)
I’ve also never heard of a Roman Catholic apologist saying “I’m not sure what Augustine had to say about that, let me go ask my bishop. He’ll remember.” Everyone just goes to the written record, because it is more trustworthy than a bishop’s memory. You might ask a bishop for a more technical explanation of a portion of Augustine’s writing, but you’ll quote the passage to him rather than say “you remember the part where he said something like…” because you want an exact, trustworthy answer, not an off-the-cuff reply to something that might not be quite accurate.
It’s a really, really nice idea that there is a group of people somewhere who have accurately maintained an oral tradition of the exact meaning and emphasis of the teaching of Christ and his Apostles (however many of them there were). That would be terrific. Unfortunately, I think the very existence of arguments and disagreements over correct doctrine between bishops from the very earliest days of Christianity indicated that if there is anybody who can make that claim, it certainly ain’t them. The reason we know about those disagreements, and don’t dispute their existence, is simple - we have the written record.
Take the recent exchange between Guanophore and Sandusky over the exact title that should be used to refer to what in normal discourse is called the Roman Catholic Church. Guanophore takes issue with Sandusky’s use of the word “Roman”, isolating the phrase from its context and interpreting it to mean Sandusky has no awareness of the multiplicity of minor rites within that branch of Christianity. Guanophore haughtily suggests it implies not merely ignorance but close-mindedness as well. The plain meaning gets trampled under eagerness to close with the foe. I’ve seen this sort of thing from both Protestants and Roman Catholics as they rip verses out of written, historical, and cultural context to fling them in each others’ faces. The slightest jot or tittle gets used as a lever to imply an avalanche of authoritative teaching. The first thing that gets buried is the love and humility we’re supposed to show each other. “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” is an accusation easily leveled at almost anyone who engages in doctrinal disputations.
Just as the Roman Catholic apologists here note (my pardon if I’m leaving out anybody from the Orthodox or Coptic churches), many people do take passages out of context, interpret the literal as figurative and vice-versa, and add strange definitions and meaning to words and phrases that are perfectly clear. Just as they’ve done in replies and counter-replies in this thread. Any writing can be wildly misinterpreted, especially by those whose main aim is to justify their own practices. Not that there’s anyone with those motivations here, of course…
Perhaps Guanophore would challenge the motivations and emotions I’m ascribing as well. That’s another weakness of the written record. Emphases and emotion can get lost, especially in writing systems without punctuation, like Koine Greek!
Yet no one on this entire thread has replied to another by saying “You know, I heard that you said…” Nope, people get quoted. And there’s no point in faking a quote, because anybody can go back and look at the original post. Without a posted record, nobody would take the quotes seriously at all, because all of the weaknesses of passing on written communication are multiplied in oral communication. Phrases get forgotten, emphases get changed, words change their meaning from one generation to the next. Without a record and demonstration that Roman Catholic bishops have a super-heavy training in exact recall of orally transmitted messages, nobody outside Roman Catholicism is going to take seriously the idea that they’ve maintained an unbroken oral tradition. (And even then, people would want to see a comparison of a modern bishop’s recitation with an ancient written record as proof.)
I’ve also never heard of a Roman Catholic apologist saying “I’m not sure what Augustine had to say about that, let me go ask my bishop. He’ll remember.” Everyone just goes to the written record, because it is more trustworthy than a bishop’s memory. You might ask a bishop for a more technical explanation of a portion of Augustine’s writing, but you’ll quote the passage to him rather than say “you remember the part where he said something like…” because you want an exact, trustworthy answer, not an off-the-cuff reply to something that might not be quite accurate.
It’s a really, really nice idea that there is a group of people somewhere who have accurately maintained an oral tradition of the exact meaning and emphasis of the teaching of Christ and his Apostles (however many of them there were). That would be terrific. Unfortunately, I think the very existence of arguments and disagreements over correct doctrine between bishops from the very earliest days of Christianity indicated that if there is anybody who can make that claim, it certainly ain’t them. The reason we know about those disagreements, and don’t dispute their existence, is simple - we have the written record.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
One of the hilarious things in this thread is seeing in action the exact things that make a written record of statements a disputable source of teaching and also so necessary as a source!
Take the recent exchange between Guanophore and Sandusky over the exact title that should be used to refer to what in normal discourse is called the Roman Catholic Church. Guanophore takes issue with Sandusky’s use of the word “Roman”, isolating the phrase from its context and interpreting it to mean Sandusky has no awareness of the multiplicity of minor rites within that branch of Christianity. Guanophore haughtily suggests it implies not merely ignorance but close-mindedness as well. The plain meaning gets trampled under eagerness to close with the foe. I’ve seen this sort of thing from both Protestants and Roman Catholics as they rip verses out of written, historical, and cultural context to fling them in each others’ faces. The slightest jot or tittle gets used as a lever to imply an avalanche of authoritative teaching. The first thing that gets buried is the love and humility we’re supposed to show each other. “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” is an accusation easily leveled at almost anyone who engages in doctrinal disputations.
Just as the Roman Catholic apologists here note (my pardon if I’m leaving out anybody from the Orthodox or Coptic churches), many people do take passages out of context, interpret the literal as figurative and vice-versa, and add strange definitions and meaning to words and phrases that are perfectly clear. Just as they’ve done in replies and counter-replies in this thread. Any writing can be wildly misinterpreted, especially by those whose main aim is to justify their own practices. Not that there’s anyone with those motivations here, of course…
Perhaps Guanophore would challenge the motivations and emotions I’m ascribing as well. That’s another weakness of the written record. Emphases and emotion can get lost, especially in writing systems without punctuation, like Koine Greek!
Yet no one on this entire thread has replied to another by saying “You know, I heard that you said…” Nope, people get quoted. And there’s no point in faking a quote, because anybody can go back and look at the original post. Without a posted record, nobody would take the quotes seriously, because all of the weaknesses of passing on written communication are multiplied in oral communication. Phrases get forgotten, emphases get changed, words change their meaning from one generation to the next. Without a record and demonstration that Roman Catholic bishops have a super-heavy training in exact recall of orally transmitted messages, nobody outside Roman Catholicism is going to take seriously the idea that they’ve maintained an unbroken oral tradition. (And even then, people would want to see a comparison of a modern bishop’s recitation with an ancient written record as proof.)
I’ve also never heard of a Roman Catholic apologist saying “I’m not sure what Augustine had to say about that, let me go ask my bishop. He’ll remember.” Everyone just goes to the written record, because it is more trustworthy than a bishop’s memory. You might ask a bishop for a more technical explanation of a portion of Augustine’s writing, but you’ll quote the passage to him rather than say “you remember the part where he said something like…” because you want an exact, trustworthy answer, not an off-the-cuff reply to something that might not be quite accurate.
It’s a really, really nice idea that there is a group of people somewhere who have accurately maintained an oral tradition of the exact meaning and emphasis of the teaching of Christ and his Apostles (however many of them there were). That would be terrific. Unfortunately, I think the very existence of arguments and disagreements over correct doctrine between bishops from the very earliest days of Christianity indicated that if there is anybody who can make that claim, it certainly ain’t them. The reason we know about those disagreements, and don’t dispute their existence, is simple - we have the written record.
Take the recent exchange between Guanophore and Sandusky over the exact title that should be used to refer to what in normal discourse is called the Roman Catholic Church. Guanophore takes issue with Sandusky’s use of the word “Roman”, isolating the phrase from its context and interpreting it to mean Sandusky has no awareness of the multiplicity of minor rites within that branch of Christianity. Guanophore haughtily suggests it implies not merely ignorance but close-mindedness as well. The plain meaning gets trampled under eagerness to close with the foe. I’ve seen this sort of thing from both Protestants and Roman Catholics as they rip verses out of written, historical, and cultural context to fling them in each others’ faces. The slightest jot or tittle gets used as a lever to imply an avalanche of authoritative teaching. The first thing that gets buried is the love and humility we’re supposed to show each other. “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” is an accusation easily leveled at almost anyone who engages in doctrinal disputations.
Just as the Roman Catholic apologists here note (my pardon if I’m leaving out anybody from the Orthodox or Coptic churches), many people do take passages out of context, interpret the literal as figurative and vice-versa, and add strange definitions and meaning to words and phrases that are perfectly clear. Just as they’ve done in replies and counter-replies in this thread. Any writing can be wildly misinterpreted, especially by those whose main aim is to justify their own practices. Not that there’s anyone with those motivations here, of course…
Perhaps Guanophore would challenge the motivations and emotions I’m ascribing as well. That’s another weakness of the written record. Emphases and emotion can get lost, especially in writing systems without punctuation, like Koine Greek!
Yet no one on this entire thread has replied to another by saying “You know, I heard that you said…” Nope, people get quoted. And there’s no point in faking a quote, because anybody can go back and look at the original post. Without a posted record, nobody would take the quotes seriously, because all of the weaknesses of passing on written communication are multiplied in oral communication. Phrases get forgotten, emphases get changed, words change their meaning from one generation to the next. Without a record and demonstration that Roman Catholic bishops have a super-heavy training in exact recall of orally transmitted messages, nobody outside Roman Catholicism is going to take seriously the idea that they’ve maintained an unbroken oral tradition. (And even then, people would want to see a comparison of a modern bishop’s recitation with an ancient written record as proof.)
I’ve also never heard of a Roman Catholic apologist saying “I’m not sure what Augustine had to say about that, let me go ask my bishop. He’ll remember.” Everyone just goes to the written record, because it is more trustworthy than a bishop’s memory. You might ask a bishop for a more technical explanation of a portion of Augustine’s writing, but you’ll quote the passage to him rather than say “you remember the part where he said something like…” because you want an exact, trustworthy answer, not an off-the-cuff reply to something that might not be quite accurate.
It’s a really, really nice idea that there is a group of people somewhere who have accurately maintained an oral tradition of the exact meaning and emphasis of the teaching of Christ and his Apostles (however many of them there were). That would be terrific. Unfortunately, I think the very existence of arguments and disagreements over correct doctrine between bishops from the very earliest days of Christianity indicated that if there is anybody who can make that claim, it certainly ain’t them. The reason we know about those disagreements, and don’t dispute their existence, is simple - we have the written record.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
Oh, that’s terrific. Now I look like I can’t wait to repeat myself. The system said I wasn’t logged in and so couldn’t post and then posted anyway. Sigh.
Okay, who can spot what I changed between those two almost-identical posts? Is that a significant change? Will anyone say that the change is so significant that it’s clear my “teaching” changed from one writing to the next? (Maybe there’s not enough 19th-century scripture-criticism fans here to pick up on it.)
Okay, who can spot what I changed between those two almost-identical posts? Is that a significant change? Will anyone say that the change is so significant that it’s clear my “teaching” changed from one writing to the next? (Maybe there’s not enough 19th-century scripture-criticism fans here to pick up on it.)
H
holy_wood
Guest
Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible?
Do Supreme Court Judges twist what the Constitution says to promote their neo-liberal ideologies (i.e. abortion)
Same prnciple, ppl see what they were condtioned to see. I as a Catholic look at Protestantism and see confusion.
I don’t mind debating the meaning of scripture as long as t is done in an adult manner.
Catholic: John 6 supports the Eucharst.
Protestant: Nu-uh
Catholic: yeah-huh
(repeat 50 times)
The only way out of the cycle is to turn to something outside of scriptures. Catholics turn to the Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch would be a prime example to use to support the Eucharist. Unfortunately his teaching authority is rejected despite him being a 40 yr. disciple to John. So were back to
Protestant: Nu-uh
Catholic: yeah-huh
(endless bickering)
What a great testament to the unbelieving world
Do Supreme Court Judges twist what the Constitution says to promote their neo-liberal ideologies (i.e. abortion)
Same prnciple, ppl see what they were condtioned to see. I as a Catholic look at Protestantism and see confusion.
I don’t mind debating the meaning of scripture as long as t is done in an adult manner.
Catholic: John 6 supports the Eucharst.
Protestant: Nu-uh
Catholic: yeah-huh
(repeat 50 times)
The only way out of the cycle is to turn to something outside of scriptures. Catholics turn to the Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch would be a prime example to use to support the Eucharist. Unfortunately his teaching authority is rejected despite him being a 40 yr. disciple to John. So were back to
Protestant: Nu-uh
Catholic: yeah-huh
(endless bickering)
What a great testament to the unbelieving world
- Status