S
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right, unfortunate, it is the issue which confronts us though. The how in the west was contingent on the easts teachings though in Greek terminology I “think” thus the word meta-ousiosis. I believe Fr Hardins sight addressed this. Course the entire issue of the west encompassed other areas as well in western teaching, which again touch on St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in relation to the reformation. Which we discussed here on various threads. Nevertheless the point is well taken.
Peace
L
Lochias
Guest
Apparently not. I tried to get him to respond three times…I can only assume that he’s safely ensconced in what he prefers to believe, rather than what is actually true.
Lochias, obviously he does not want to mess with Texas!
G
guanophore
Guest
Sometimes, all we can do here at CAF is make it clear that this is the case, and pray for them.
L
Lochias
Guest
Yup. Planting the seed, and all that. God is very good at finishing what we can’t, if only we have the courage to start in the first place.
S
submariner2
Guest
PR,This is not a correct understanding of what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.
It is nothing more, and nothing less, than the Word of God transmitted to us through the Apostles and their successors.
It is not “the presence of Christ in our lives” and I don’t think you can find any knowledgeable Catholic who would give that definition a
A little.
Can you offer an official source for this definition of Sacred Tradition that your church uses, Rob? Thanks.
Of course it is transmitted to us by the apostles and their successors. That is scripture and preaching.
But I think you may be referring to the magesterium and that is not the Word of God according to Catholic experts. Here is Father Raymond Brown to explain.
“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statments have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.
Rob
S
submariner2
Guest
guano,
Of course the truth is unchangeable. No one would argue with that. Yet magesterial statments are admitted to be “changeable”. The ME I provided shows that.
You are free to interpret that as you see fit.
Rob
G
guanophore
Guest
I thought you didn’t believe the Apostles HAD successors? Sacred tradition did produce the Scriptures, and it can sometimes be found in preaching, but it is not limited to that, and there is plenty of preaching that is NOT in accordance with Sacred Tradition. believe me, I have heard a fair share!
Sacred Tradition is the Word of God residing infallibly in the Church. It is present in councils, prayers, liturgies and writings of the Fathers and Doctors. It is the duty of the Magesterium to protect and promulgate the Sacred Tradition.
No, Sacred Tradition does not = the Magesterium. The Magesterium is the Teaching Authority put in place by Christ, and is the servant of the Sacred Tradition.submariner2 said:
S
stewstew03
Guest
Amen.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Yes, the West sometimes wants to get a bit too analytic.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I think that the proper way for scripture to interpret scripture is to read scripture in its proper order. To begin at the beginning. To not read scripture ‘backwards.’
To start at the start, and understand thoroughly the foundational teachings of the gospels and Jesus. Because understanding builds upon understanding. To understand what comes after depends upon understanding what came before. This seems obvious, but many miss it.
They start somewhere in the middle, think they understand that, then interpret everything else from that point of view.
An example of this is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They seize upon Paul’s saying that Jesus was raised in the spirit, take that to mean as a spirit, and then deny that Jesus was raised bodily. All this because they read the bible backwards.
My opinion is that Luther made that same mistake. He even admits it. He liked John’s gospel, the one true tender true gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. He then says that Romans, Galations, and Ephesians and Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know; even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. !!!
My opinion is that some verses in Romans or Galatians may seem clear, but that people who think so fool themselves into thinking they understand when they do not. They do not understand because they lack the prior understanding of Jesus and the early gospels. 2Peter 3:16.
Scripture is always to be understood within the context of the people of God, the Church.
To start at the start, and understand thoroughly the foundational teachings of the gospels and Jesus. Because understanding builds upon understanding. To understand what comes after depends upon understanding what came before. This seems obvious, but many miss it.
They start somewhere in the middle, think they understand that, then interpret everything else from that point of view.
An example of this is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They seize upon Paul’s saying that Jesus was raised in the spirit, take that to mean as a spirit, and then deny that Jesus was raised bodily. All this because they read the bible backwards.
My opinion is that Luther made that same mistake. He even admits it. He liked John’s gospel, the one true tender true gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. He then says that Romans, Galations, and Ephesians and Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know; even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. !!!
My opinion is that some verses in Romans or Galatians may seem clear, but that people who think so fool themselves into thinking they understand when they do not. They do not understand because they lack the prior understanding of Jesus and the early gospels. 2Peter 3:16.
Scripture is always to be understood within the context of the people of God, the Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think what Rob is trying to proclaim here is that since the Pope has declared (according to Rob) that the Eucharist is the spiritual presence of Christ, that this is synonymous with the Pope **also **declaring that Christ is not truly and substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.What I’m not clear on what it is you actually understand happens with Spiritual?
Not sure where Rob gets this.
But that’s his story, and he’s stickin’ to it!
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly.
Our (Catholic) successors have been anointed by someone who was anointed by someone who was anointed by someone <snip 2000 years> who was anointed by the Apostles, who were anointed by Christ.
I don’t think that your church can claim the same.
Right.
No Catholic here is claiming that the Magisterium is the Word of God.
Indeed.
Amen!
S
submariner2
Guest
PR,
Catholic scholars disagree with that history. Here is Father Raymond E. Brown on that.
"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.
My church claims no less succession from the apostles than yours. Our bishops and pastors have taken on the tasks of the apostles no less validly.
Rob
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, good. I can see you’re online right now.
So could you please offer some posts from Catholics here on the forum that you spoke of here. At least 10 would be helpful (that’s reasonable, when you claim “many” and there are thousands of Catholics posting, so I am being quite generous with this request). Thanks.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I guess from that point of view, anyone can appoint himself bishop or pastor and claim he has taken on the tasks of the apostles, no less validly, but no more validly either. Which implies the idea of presbyter-bishop has no real meaning.
(Hmm…does your statement imply that Catholic bishops are as valid as your church’s?)
S
submariner2
Guest
PR,
I have seen it. No time to do all that. In fact I often find differences of opinon on these issues among Catholics. Not a big deal to me however since protestants vary a lot sometimes.
Rob
S
submariner2
Guest
mack,
I see no reason why not Catholic bishops are no less valid than those of my church… It depends on if they take on the tasks of the apostles and I presume they do just as the bishops of my church. I have great admiration for some of your bishops.
I am not sure what your comment on presbyter-bishops means. I think that they were leaders of a christian gathering according to the historians I have read.
They also took on the tasks of the apostles in leading their christian congregation. But historians teach they were not formal clergy as we think of today, since there was no separation of layman and clergy until near the 3rd century.
Rob
P
PRmerger
Guest
You cannot back up your claim, then?
What else have you proffered here that is suspect?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Amen!
I see that he affirms that the Church had already formalized ordination from as early as the 3rd century.
That’s even earlier than the Bible you use was put together by the successors of these men.
And even earlier than the Trinity that you believe in was formalized by the successors of these men.
So not sure what you are saying here in reference to the 3rd century.
Are you saying that the Trinity is a new concept from the 4th century on, if that’s your argument for ordination?
- Status