How does Marian devotion save?

[Tomster]

Just as I said. Catholicism is not Scripture based but tradition based. Scripture being just a part of your Tradition.

Moondweller,

Tradition possess a permanent binding force.

Whether a given truth, delivered to the Church, has or has not been afterwards laid down in Scriptures, our duty to believe is the same.

The motive of our faith is the authority of God. Now, God speaks to man no less when He communicates with him through His envoys by word of mouth than He reveals His thoughts in writing. Who doubts that the early Christians, to whom the truths of salvation could be made known only by word of mouth, were bound to believe, or that, if the Apostles had left no writings, yet faith would have been no less obligatory? Does not St. Paul expressly command the faithful to hold the traditions which they had received, whether by word or epistle? (2 Thess. 2:14) Since, therefore, the obligation to believe oral tradition existed before the Scriptures, and we nowhere find that the obligation of believing what was orally transmitted was abolished after the Scriptures had been written, the same obligation holds at the present day in regard to all those truths that have been handed down by tradition.

We are certainly bound to believe not only the word, but chiefly the sense of the Scriptures. Now, this sense is not always quite clear and can only be ascertained by the aid of tradition. Hence we are bound to believe tradition as a necessary aid to the understanding of the Scriptures.

Tradition has always enjoyed the same veneration in the Church as the Scriptures. It was to tradition that the Church appealed in its struggles with heresies, as the acts of its councils prove. Tertullian (de praescript. c. 19) maintains that in disputes with heretics we shouls appeal to tradition, and not to Scripture, and, above all, should ask: Whose is the Scripture? By whom, through whom, when, and to whom were the doctrines of salvation delivered? The bac? Hardly! Commenting upon the words of St. Paul (2 Thess. 2:14), St. John Chrysostom (hom. iv. in 2 Thess.) says: “It is evident that the Apostles did not communicate all in writing, but much without writing. Both deserve equal faith . . . It is tradition; ask no more.” As Catholics were distinguished by their adherence to tradition, so heretics, according to the Fathers, were known by their repugnance to it; tradition invariably bore testimony against them. The Council of Trent (Sess. iv.) voiced the teaching of the Church in ALL ages by anathematizing those who rejected tradition.

 

[Tomster]

Just as I said. Catholicism is not Scripture based but tradition based. Scripture being just a part of your Tradition.

Moondweller,

All the rules of faith established by non-Catholic Christians are arbitrary. This applies to the supposed illumination of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to those who read Scriptures. Experience, moreover, plainly shows that with all their pretended illumination of the Spirit in interpreting Scriptures, they surrender the doctrines of faith one by one, and forfeit all unity of belief. It is self evident that this much vaunted illumination cannot claim infallibility, and cannot be regarded as a supreme authority. Moreover, if, as the conflicting opinions in Scripture interpretation show, this divine illumination is not given to all, by what means are we to know who is thus inspired, so that all not only may, but must, believe his interpretation? The fact that they have recourse to such arbitrary rules of faith is an acknowledgment of the insufficiency of human reason as the interpreter of Scriptures. Experience and reason itself manifestly show the insufficiency of such a rule of faith. In those passages in which the Apostles exhort the faithful to try and to prove before accepting (John 4:1; Thessalonians 5:20-21), there is no question of revealed doctrine, but either of persons of doubtful mission or of miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Tomster]

Well then, I think all of the Catholic posters on this thread would be interested in your answer to the following:

a.) I, Moondweller, have searched the Scripture all on my own. I have determined the correct interpretation of the whole of Scripture by myself and am now presenting my interpretation to all for their benefit.

or

b.) I, Moondweller, have had help from either some other person and/or writing (translated: extra-biblical tradition) to enable me to interpret Scriptures and present them to all for their benefit.

Choose: A or B!

Either way, Moondweller, it appears that you are trying to give us your own interpretations of Scripture, dare I say, your own personal ORAL TRADITION, and expecting us to fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Moondweller,

AN ANSWER, NOW!

A or B

 

[moondweller]

Well then, I think all of the Catholic posters on this thread would be interested in your answer to the following:

a.) I, Moondweller, have searched the Scripture all on my own. I have determined the correct interpretation of the whole of Scripture by myself and am now presenting my interpretation to all for their benefit.

or

b.) I, Moondweller, have had help from either some other person and/or writing (translated: extra-biblical tradition) to enable me to interpret Scriptures and present them to all for their benefit.

Choose: A or B!

Either way, Moondweller, it appears that you are trying to give us your own interpretations of Scripture, dare I say, your own personal ORAL TRADITION, and expecting us to fall for it hook, line and sinker.

“Tradition,” my friend, is not one’s interpretation of Scripture, or how he arrived at it, but the supposed teachings (doctrines) of the Apostles that were supposedly not written and preserved in Scripture but supposedly handed down, infallibly, by men, orally.

Paul writes to Timothy:2 Tim 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."I don’t think this directive only applies to Timothy. All who call themselves Christian should study God’s Word. And in so doing one should employ the works of other men as a resource to aid him in “handling accurately the Word of truth.” I study the Word of God and have in my library many literary works of others who have also studied “the Word of truth.” All this has to do with what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures and nothing to do with some supposed “oral” tradition comprised of doctrines completely different from what was preserved for us in Holy Writ. Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica:2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter from us."Whether by word (orally), or by letter (written), they were the SAME traditions, the SAME teachings. What we have preserved in the Scriptures are the doctrines regarding the faith that the Apostles taught to the churches. That’s why scribes from earliest times copied the Scriptures to preserve them. That’s why Christians should study them in order to test “the tradition of men,” heeding this warning by the Apostle Paul:Col 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

 

[Tomster]

“Tradition,” my friend, is not one’s interpretation of Scripture, or how he arrived at it, but the supposed teachings (doctrines) of the Apostles that were supposedly not written and preserved in Scripture but supposedly handed down, infallibly, by men, orally.

Paul writes to Timothy:2 Tim 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."I don’t think this directive only applies to Timothy. All who call themselves Christian should study God’s Word. And in so doing one should employ the works of other men as a resource to aid him in “handling accurately the Word of truth.” I study the Word of God and have in my library many literary works of others who have also studied “the Word of truth.” All this has to do with what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures and nothing to do with some supposed “oral” tradition comprised of doctrines completely different from what was preserved for us in Holy Writ. Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica:2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter from us."Whether by word (orally), or by letter (written), they were the SAME traditions, the SAME teachings. What we have preserved in the Scriptures are the doctrines regarding the faith that the Apostles taught to the churches. That’s why scribes from earliest times copied the Scriptures to preserve them. That’s why Christians should study them in order to test “the tradition of men,” heeding this warning by the Apostle Paul:Col 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

I take it, then, that your your answer is B?

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,

All the rules of faith established by non-Catholic Christians are arbitrary. This applies to the supposed illumination of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to those who read Scriptures. Experience, moreover, plainly shows that with all their pretended illumination of the Spirit in interpreting Scriptures, they surrender the doctrines of faith one by one, and forfeit all unity of belief. It is self evident that this much vaunted illumination cannot claim infallibility, and cannot be regarded as a supreme authority. Moreover, if, as the conflicting opinions in Scripture interpretation show, this divine illumination is not given to all, by what means are we to know who is thus inspired, so that all not only may, but must, believe his interpretation? The fact that they have recourse to such arbitrary rules of faith is an acknowledgment of the insufficiency of human reason as the interpreter of Scriptures. Experience and reason itself manifestly show the insufficiency of such a rule of faith. In those passages in which the Apostles exhort the faithful to try and to prove before accepting (John 4:1; Thessalonians 5:20-21), there is no question of revealed doctrine, but either of persons of doubtful mission or of miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

This is “mumble jumble.” pure sophistry.

 

[Tomster]

“Tradition,” my friend, is not one’s interpretation of Scripture, or how he arrived at it, but the supposed teachings (doctrines) of the Apostles that were supposedly not written and preserved in Scripture but supposedly handed down, infallibly, by men, orally.

Paul writes to Timothy:2 Tim 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."I don’t think this directive only applies to Timothy. All who call themselves Christian should study God’s Word. And in so doing one should employ the works of other men as a resource to aid him in “handling accurately the Word of truth.” I study the Word of God and have in my library many literary works of others who have also studied “the Word of truth.” All this has to do with what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures and nothing to do with some supposed “oral” tradition comprised of doctrines completely different from what was preserved for us in Holy Writ. Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica:2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter from us."Whether by word (orally), or by letter (written), they were the SAME traditions, the SAME teachings. What we have preserved in the Scriptures are the doctrines regarding the faith that the Apostles taught to the churches. That’s why scribes from earliest times copied the Scriptures to preserve them. That’s why Christians should study them in order to test “the tradition of men,” heeding this warning by the Apostle Paul:Col 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

It would really be in your best interest to review posts #318, 319 and 320. You are on very thin ice, theologically speaking.

 

[moondweller]

I take it, then, that your your answer is B?

No, my studies have nothing to do with “extra-biblical tradition.” I explained that to you in my post.

 

[Tomster]

This is “mumble jumble.” pure sophistry.

Are you saying that can interpret Scriptures infallibly?

 

[moondweller]

It would really be in your best interest to review posts #318, 319 and 320. You are on very thin ice, theologically speaking.

:coffeeread:

 

[Tomster]

No, my studies have nothing to do with “extra-biblical tradition.” I explained that to you in my post.

But you are more than willing to give us your interpretation of Scriptures gleaned from the writings of other people interpreting Scripture which are extra-biblical. It is apparent that your whole house of cards has fallen.

 

[Tomster]

Are you saying that can interpret Scriptures infallibly?

Answer please.

 

[Tomster]

To correct you as well, the church Christ is presently building is catholic (universal, catholic being an adjective); it is the church, catholic. It is not “the Catholic Church” which historically was a development over time of western Christendom. Western Christendom adopted the NAME “the Catholic Church,” while eastern Christendom adopted the NAME “Orthodox.” Western Christendom by its moniker claimed catholicity while eastern Christendom by its moniker claimed orthodoxy. Each to the exclusion of the other. Your church is not “universal” but is restricted to those who have put themselves under authority and are in communion with your Pope, its head.

There is a fundamental difference between the church, catholic, which Christ has been building since Pentecost and “the Catholic Church.” The former is made up ONLY of those whose sins have been forgiven, the saved, the redeemed, the reconciled, the justified, the sanctified and in the future, the glorified. It has no NAME but has an identity: the body/bride of Christ. The church, catholic, transcends earthly bounds and monikers, but the Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).

Is this in the Bible or is it your own spin on history?

 

[moondweller]

Are you saying that can interpret Scriptures infallibly?

Only God is infallible. But one, through study and illumination by the Holy Spirit, can interpret the Scriptures accurately. Else Paul would have not written to Timothy to accurately handle the Word of truth.

 

[clmowry]

Well let me propose this challenge, the earliest Christians in fact left a host of writings for us to examin… I quoted St. Palycarp earlier, can you find any writings which support any idea that the historic christian church looks anything at all like your faith tradition?

I think you could find good example in the Gnostic “fathers” but I’m guessing that’s not what you meant .

Chuck

 

[moondweller]

Is this in the Bible or is it your own spin on history?

If you knew the Bible you’d know it does not go beyond the first century (the Bible isn’t about the history of Christendom). It’s not my spin on history - it’s history.

 

[Tomster]

Only God is infallible. But one, through study and illumination by the Holy Spirit, can interpret the Scriptures accurately. Else Paul would have not written to Timothy to accurately handle the Word of truth.

So, now, are you claiming to be illumined by the Holy Spirit to authentically interpret Scriptures?

See post # 320 please.

 

[Tomster]

If you knew the Bible you’d know it does not go beyond the first century (the Bible isn’t about the history of Christendom). It’s not my spin on history - it’s history.

Which history book are you relying on? Are you accepting some other historian’s spin, his, dare I say, his teaching?

 

[Tomster]

If you knew the Bible you’d know it does not go beyond the first century (the Bible isn’t about the history of Christendom). It’s not my spin on history - it’s history.

Let’s play nice, now!

 

[Tomster]

Only God is infallible. But one, through study and illumination by the Holy Spirit, can interpret the Scriptures accurately. Else Paul would have not written to Timothy to accurately handle the Word of truth.

How does a simple Catholic distinguish between the many voices outside of the Catholic Church who claim to be illumined by the Holy Spirit but preach (give us their own oral tradition) different doctrines?

Additionally, who, within Protestantism, has the authority to determine who is illumined and who is not. Who, within Protestantism, has the authority to say which preacher is correct and which preacher is not?