Help with debating a Mormon

[dianaiad]

ThuriferAcolyte:
Read the Catechism excerpts as well as those articles to understand what Sacred Tradition is.

I did…and I still find that everything that the church regards as ‘Sacred Tradition’ has been written down somewhere.

 

[SimonArizona]

OK, so Tradition is the way your church has interpreted scripture, but it isn’t scripture in and of itself. Tradition makes no claim to divine revelation for itself…(or it would BE scripture and accepted as such.) It is…commentary. Incredibly important commentary, but only commentary, non-the less.

Not scripture.

So.

Why not scripture? What happened?

I am trying to answer multiple questions that are good questions, so it may take me a minute to answer each one,

with that said, 1. Tradition guides the interpretation of Scripure. we ask how has scripture been tradtionally understood? The way we understand scripture today is a mirror image of how those who first wrote it and received it understood it. It is an unbroken lineage of scripture interpretation. When someone has a radical understanding of scripture we point to many centuries of one constant understanding. that is the power of tradtion and why it is sacred. 2. Tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit. it is evident because 1. Christ said he will send us the holy spirit that will lead us into all truth. i.e not error. 2. because it is unchanging.

 

[SimonArizona]

Saint Paul never called himself Catholic. In fact, the bible never mentions the Catholic Church. And I think that the early Christians would not call themselves Catholic. Now maybe they called themselves the Church of Christ or The Church of Jesus Christ, but not the Catholic Church. They did refer themselves to be saints.

Tradition matters very little if that tradition is false. One must decide if a tradition is false or true.

The term Catholic, is seen as early as 100 a.d. in the letters of St. Ignatius on his way to execution for the faith. it is used to describe the Church on the Rock, and may very well have been used by paul and others including St. John because Ignatius was a pupil of St. John.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Read the Catechism excerpts as well as those articles to understand what Sacred Tradition is.

I did…and I still find that everything that the church regards as ‘Sacred Tradition’ has been written down somewhere.

Sacred Tradition is not something that is written down. Before the New Testament was written and compiled, the early Christians had Sacred Tradition that guided them in the same Faith that we find in the Bible. Sacred Tradition guided the early Church to organize the Bible. The Bible does not have a table of contents, it doesn’t say which books belong and which don’t. Through Sacred Tradition, the Church knew what was inspired and what was not. For Catholics, the Assumption of Mary was believed in long before it was formally defined in 1950. Indeed, the Orthodox Church, completely separate from the Catholic Church, has believed in the equivalent doctrine the “Dormition” long before as well. It was through Sacred Tradition that this dogma was transmitted from the beginning. Sacred Tradition is not written, Scripture is written. We can read about Sacred Tradition, but the Tradition itself is not in written form.

“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. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32.”

“In summary then, Sacred Tradition is handed down “both by word of mouth and by letter.” In Scripture, as today, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 10) so that the Bible is part, not the whole, of the apostolic paradosis. In Scripture, as today, the Bible is materially, not formally, sufficient to reveal the fullness of the gospel of Christ. In Scripture, as today, both written and unwritten Tradition are from Christ and made by him to stand inseparably united like hydrogen and oxygen that fuse to form living water or like the words and tune of a single song. In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.”

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

what other scriptures do we need? What is Scripture?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

It is all a matter of interpretation. And that is the point. Some say this and some say that. But it certainly can be interpreted as Christ building his rock upon Peter because Peter will receive revelation to guide his church. And one can say the same about Paul. Paul had the rock of revelation and with that rock he could not fail.

Everything is a mater of interpretation, lol. For Catholics, the rock is Peter. For Mormons, the rock is revelation. For Protestants, the rock is the profession of faith.

 

[SimonArizona]

Everything is a mater of interpretation, lol. For Catholics, the rock is Peter. For Mormons, the rock is revelation. For Protestants, the rock is the profession of faith.

but who did Jesus say is the rock?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

A human being can not be a rock but he can be a rock for revelation and for mormons, I believe, that the lds interpret that verse to mean revelation. Since Christ will speak through Simon, Simon will become the rock that Christ will build his church on. And when the devil unleashes temptest in an attempt to destroy Christ’s church, Christ will guide his Church by revelation.

That doesn’t make sense. You said that a human can’t be a rock, but that they can be a rock for revelation.

A human being can be a rock. For Catholics, Peter, his office, is a rock The Bible also says that Jesus is a rock.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I’m having a friendly debate with some Mormon friends and the argument they kind of have me stumped on is their concept of continuing revelation. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe that everything we need for salvation has been revealed by the Deposit of Faith and that we don’t need ongoing revelation.

I mention the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the church and they say that means the Holy Spirit would continue to provide revelation to the church and the fact that the Catholic church relies on councils to determine things proves that we don’t have the spirit revealing the truth to us.

Bataar, in addition to everything that the Catholics have given you on how to show the Catholic point of view on this issue, check out my blog (shameless plug ) for some info on how to begin to defend the Catholic Faith, whether in person or online. I used to have similar debates with my Protestant friends in high school, there’s nothing wrong with this.

onecatholic.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/so-you-wanna-be-a-catholic-apologist/

 

[why_me]

That doesn’t make sense. You said that a human can’t be a rock, but that they can be a rock for revelation.

A human being can be a rock. For Catholics, Peter, his office, is a rock The Bible also says that Jesus is a rock.

Revelation is the rock and the human being has that rock. If it is a prophet such as Peter, he would have the rock of revelation that can not be prevailed against because it is from Christ.

 

[why_me]

Everything is a mater of interpretation, lol. For Catholics, the rock is Peter. For Mormons, the rock is revelation. For Protestants, the rock is the profession of faith.

Exactly. And debating this issue will only give a headache to the original OP. Much better to be happy go lucky and have a hot dog with mustard and relish with the mormons.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Revelation is the rock and the human being has that rock. If it is a prophet such as Peter, he would have the rock of revelation that can not be prevailed against because it is from Christ.

Yes, all according to Mormons. According to Catholics, the rock is Peter, including his office. This is emphasized in Simon’s name change.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Exactly. And debating this issue will only give a headache to the original OP. Much better to be happy go lucky and have a hot dog with mustard and relish with the mormons.

LOL sure hot dog with mustard and relish LOL. Debating may give some a headache, but not the rest of us. If the OP wants help in explaining and defending his Faith, Catholics can and will help him do so.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, all according to Mormons. According to Catholics, the rock is Peter, including his office. This is emphasized in Simon’s name change.

Thurifer Acolyte,
Hello there. I am a Mormon. I just wanted to let you know that I know that Christ is the rock, and both Peter and Christ knew that when Christ used the words “upon this rock I will build my church” He was referring to knowledge about Himself and His divine mission on earth. This Peter attests in 1 Peter 2:4-8.

Christ is the “stone which the builders disallowed,… made the head of the corner,”
“And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient…”

Peter had responded to Christ when Christ asked the twelve apostles Whom he said He was. Peter used the words “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”–meaning that Peter knew absolutely that Christ was the promised Messiah, the Anointed One, the Son of God, because the Father had revealed this knowledge to Peter.

When Peter said “Thou art the Christ,” he might just as well have been saying “Thou art the promised Messiah, the Anointed One, He of whom the Psalms prophesied and Isaiah prophesied–the Stone which the builders disallowed.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; all are witnesses to Him, as are the various books of the NT. You do not, after all, through the Pauline letters out because you already had the gospels and Acts, do you?

Mormon “scripture” contradicts the teachings of the Church. This includes scripture and tradition.

You don’t throw Revelation out because you have Peter’s letters? It is written that ALL scripture is good to study…we simply recognize that scripture didn’t stop being written less than a hundred years after Christ died, as you believe it did.

Of course Diana, anyone can claim new scripture. The question is, should we accept it?

 

[Stephen168]

What is Scripture?

The word of God as defined by the Catholic Church passed down by Sacred Tradition.

 

[dianaiad]

Mormon “scripture” contradicts the teachings of the Church. This includes scripture and tradition.

Correction. It contradicts some Catholic interpretation of scripture, and much of Tradition. Not quite the same thing…and of COURSE it does. If it didn’t, we’d be Catholics.

Of course Diana, anyone can claim new scripture. The question is, should we accept it?

That is the rub, yes…but then there is also a method for figuring that out. The problem is, is it wise to avoid the possibility of accepting something that is NOT scripture by refusing to acknowledge that real scripture is possible?

Isn’t that showing a rather spectacular lack of faith?

 

[dianaiad]

The word of God as defined by the Catholic Church passed down by Sacred Tradition.

You realize that you have just put God in a secondary position to the Catholic Church; God’s word is subject to what the Catholic church says it is?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Correction. It contradicts some Catholic interpretation of scripture, and much of Tradition.

Correction. It contradicts the NT. For example, compare Mark 10:1-12 to D&C 132:58-66.

Not quite the same thing…and of COURSE it does. If it didn’t, we’d be Catholics.

But then you would also be defying the teachings in the NT.

Galations 1

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel 7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

That is the rub, yes…but then there is also a method for figuring that out. The problem is, is it wise to avoid the possibility of accepting something that is NOT scripture by refusing to acknowledge that real scripture is possible?

Isn’t that showing a rather spectacular lack of faith?

No, it is showing an understanding of Who Jesus Christ is, exactly.

 

[dianaiad]

Correction. It contradicts the NT.

But then you would also be defying the teachings in the NT.

Well, I understand that you believe this. I, however, do not think I am. I can understand and appreciate your faith, and that you believe differently than I do—why can’t you do the same?

Facts are facts. The FACT is, Rebecca, that I honestly do not believe that the Catholics are right. I honestly, deeply and sincerely believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS right.

The difference between us is that I understand that you have an equally deep faith in your own beliefs, and that in so doing, you aren’t, really, simply being rebellious, understanding, some how ‘deep down’ that you really know the truth and are just being stubborn.

I am quite aware that you disagree with my intepretation of scripture, because you believe your interpretation is the "true’ one. Of course you do; you are not a hypocrite.

Now, when you figure it out that I’m not one either, and that I honestly believe that my interpretation of scripture is the ‘true’ one, we can identify the real topic, and talk about that.