How is it an ecumenical problem?
Simple - the whole basis of this conversation is that We have no problem with Oral tradition and you do. Likewise You have no problem with Sola Scriptura and we do. So th problem lies, not in what we accept for ourselves, but in the manner by which we can explain and understand the other’s position.
It has been my experience that, where we are willing to look at each others positions and views on theology, doctrine and practice openly and with love, ther usually turns out to be a surprising amount of common ground.
I simply offer your list of responses below to my previous responses to your responses and so forth back through this thread as the example of the ecumenical difficulties we face.
That the apostles taught orally is not an issue. The rest of the clause is but an assertion.
This is meant to disarm, but at its core is necessitated by the fact that you cannot produce a list of Oral Tradition, and that’s not my problem.
We catholics are often accused of mis-understanding the concept of SS, and in my case that may well be true. However, in your case, it appears that you misunderstand the concept of Oral Tradition. I have tried to explain that it entails much more than the idea of some “list” as you seem to believe.
I would ask that you please simply reconsider ALL the the idea of Oral tradition entails.
With respect to your earlier illustrations, I know that the writing of scripture was superintended by the Spirit, and I’m certain that what He had recorded is all that is needed.
The Church supports that postion completely. The Holy Spirit caused to be recorded all that He Wished to be recorded. However, Christ left us a Church with a Tradition of all the nuances passed down by teaching through the apostles to the suceeding Church Leaders. (See the example of music training in previous post.)
Every sinner who rejects Christ is guilty of His body and blood on the cross; likewise, any Christian coming to the Lord’s Supper in an “unworthy manner,” or in a “sinful disposition,” is guilty of the cross as well. Paul is not offering a theological treatise on the real presence in that passage; in fact, none of the writers of scripture offers a theological treatise on real presence.
This is your position based on, 1) your reading of Scripture without the benefit of the Oral Teachings of The Church and, 2) The tradition passed on to you by the founders of the SS belief system.
Our position, fortified by 2000 years of tradition, is that there are several examples in the Bible where the authors obviously believe in the real presence. Outside of the Bible I can think of no better proof of the early church’s belief in the Real Presence than the Fact that Both the Catholic Church at Rome, and the Orthodox Churches believe the same. They believe in the Real and Substantial Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.
That’s simply a statement of your position.
Well we’re both doing a lot of that.
I appreciate your polite and highly Christian attitude. It’s a pleasure sharing with you.
Transubstantiation, being what it is, and the importance that the “one true church” places on it, **I expect **the Spirit would have explained it for us, in writing.
I think you are 1) putting too much emphasis on a definition and 2) missing the very real biblical instances of clear explanation.
In the first case, I would point to the fact that Gravity was real and excepted by all as fact long before Newton put any definition to it. The fact that it had not been defined did not change the truth of it any more than the lack of a definition for the Real Presence changed the truth of it.
In the second case, Jesus himself talked of the Real Presence when He told the disciples that they MUST eat His Flesh and He did not call them back when many left saying this teaching was too hard.
**I believe **the RCC lacks a proper understanding of that verse, and would cite, without going into details because it’s touchy for you, its leadership’s handling of the pedophile priests.
I appreciate your not wishing to get into details of the touchy subject. Every Catholic is rightly ashamed of what happened, just as any faith community should be ashamed in a similar situation. We are greatful that it has finally been brought to light and that the issue is being dealt with.
Furthermore, the verse says nothing about the sinner being “cut off,” but that he’s to be treated as a gentile and a tax collector (and if guilty of a felony, he should be immediately turned over to the civil authorities [cf Rom 13:1-4]).
I’m surprised at your assertion here. In Jewish law, gentiles and tax collectors WERE, in fact, cut-off. Considered as unclean and proper Jews would have little or nothing to do with them.
But this remains a detail to the actual point of the verse.
Christ Left us, not a book, but a Church - A church with His Authority to bind and Loose - He did not promise us a book, nor did he pormise to “Be With” a book. All of these Promises he gave to The Church - His Church.
Peace
James
**
