S
Subrosa
Guest
WOW! Three minutes is a LONG TIME to think about something!
You came to the right conclusion, too. Impressive!
Sub
- Status
You came to the right conclusion, too. Impressive!
Sub
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I was mostly trying to make a funny…I agree with what you have written.
I think an important distinction is that Tradition is “the living transmission of the faith”. At the risk of blowing you away with a long passage from the Catechism, I would beg your indulgence (
) and ask you to consider the following explanation:77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Thoughts?
C
Curious
Guest
You came to the right conclusion, too. Impressive!
Yes…that’s whay I don’t post a lot. I don’t want to overwhelm people with my brilliance too much.
Lol…just kidding. Actually the “okay I thought about it” was a bit of humor too. But my thought that the statement was kind of profound - that was sincere.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Well for one the Catechism is quite difficult for me to understand.
Second, if Sacred Tradition is defined as the oral teachings of the apostles, then maybe Sacred Tradition is not the best title here. Not that Catholicism has a monopoly on questionable titles mind you.
Actually I agree with the premise that Scripture should be read in the light of history (is history maybe another term for tradition). In fact I would take it a step further and say that the purest form of Christianity to be practiced would be that which was practiced by the very earliest of Christians…before doctrines had a chance to deviate (er…develop) on all sides and when it was wonderfully simple.
My problem is that on a number of fronts I have a difficult time equating the Catholic church with this purest form of Christianity practiced by the earliest Christians. But that’s ok, on a number of different fronts I have similar problems with the assorted Protestant churches.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
I would probably have a little trouble picking you out of a crowd if all I had was one of your baby pictures to go on.
S
Subrosa
Guest
So modest!Yes…that’s whay I don’t post a lot. I don’t want to overwhelm people with my brilliance too much.
Lol…just kidding. Actually the “okay I thought about it” was a bit of humor too. But my thought that the statement was kind of profound - that was sincere.
Sub
S
Subrosa
Guest
Huh? Eh? :ehh:I would probably have a little trouble picking you out of a crowd if all I had was one of your baby pictures to go on.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Mozart said: My problem is that on a number of fronts I have a difficult time equating the Catholic church with this purest form of Christianity practiced by the earliest Christians.
In the same way, a person could have a difficult time equating a baby picture of someone with the full-grown adult they see before them. It’s still the same person, though. The 1st Century Christians didn’t have words like “Trinity”, “Hypostatic Union”, “Transubstantiation”, or even “New Testament” in their working vocabulary, though they did believe and teach those things. Does that help?
S
Subrosa
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
There is not a shred of proof that Christ and his apostles taught a “baby form of Christianity”. If no one mentions the Assumption of Mary, which outside of the resurrection of Christ would have been the most spectacular proof of Christianity, for over 300 years, I would suggest you are seeking truth in myths and legends.I would probably have a little trouble picking you out of a crowd if all I had was one of your baby pictures to go on.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
No, but it was “early” Christianity, and like I explained, the first Christians didn’t have words like “Trinity” etc… though they believed and taught it. They didn’t even have a complete New Testament!
Genesis 5:24 - Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.
Heb 11:5 - By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and “he was found no more because God had taken him.” Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.
2 Kings 2:11 - As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Someone being assumed into Heaven is not contrary to Scripture.
Matthew 27:52-53 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep (dead) were raised;
53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
Revelation 11:7-12 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that cometh up out of the abyss shall make war with them, and overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.
9 And from among the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations do men look upon their dead bodies three days and a half, and suffer not their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb.
10 And they that dwell on the earth rejoice over them, and make merry; and they shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwell on the earth.
11 And after the three days and a half the breath of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them that beheld them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they went up into heaven in the cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Enoch, Elijah, the saints at Christ’s resurrection, and the 2 witnesses are assumed body and soul into heaven before the return of Christ. Why not Mary?
Also, if Mary was not assumed into Heaven, why han’t anyone been able to locate her gravesite and her physical remains? Surely you’re aware that the Catholic Church has bones (relics) of many of the apostles and saints. If Mary’s bones had ever been found somewhere on Earth, don’t you think some Church would LOVE to say they have them?
M
mozart-250
Guest
I dunno, but I tend to believe that “development of doctrine” is code for “deviation of doctrine”.
Sort of like the Supreme Court of the United States where the meaning of the constitution has umm…developed…over time so that the right to kill babies (unborn) is now somehow in the constitution.
Sometimes these umm…developments…need to be brought back in again bit so that what we have might be recognizable to the framers.
I have no reason to believe that say St. Ignatius believed in either the immaculate conception nor the assumption of Mary…(umm it is a total violation of logic to assume that because we don’t have the bones of Mary…therefore she must have been assumed…and the issue here is not could she have (of course she could have) but was she).
B
BrianH
Guest
I will tell you where her bones are when the Catholic Church can tell me about what year she was assumed, in what city, who witnessed it, and THEN we can talk about bones.
As far as people who dig up bones of dead people, that is their problem, not mine. I would not support defiling anyones grave. That early Christians had the decency to not dig her up after 20 years speaks highly of their moral character. Even the earliest mention of venerating bones that Catholic appeal to is from the Martyrdom of Polycarp written in 190 AD. BUT what they do not tell you is that is not what the passage says. The context clearly shows that even in 190 AD, they had the decency to not go around fascinated with the bones of dead people.
The fact of the matter is that early Christianity(Ante-Nicene) did not say a single word about what would be the second greatest proof of the truth of Christianity. Not a word because it did not happen.
No one is arguing about what is “fitting” or could have occured.
E
exoflare
Guest
LOL even at the time, how do you expect they could “prove” the Assumption of Mary… no matter what they said they would always have people like you who decide to doubt no matter what. If the best “proof” they could offer is the mere absence of a body, then it would be easy for adamant skeptics of the day to just repeatedly claim “we haven’t found where they hid the body yet”.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I don’t condemn anyone for having traditions, which sort of shoots down this whole thread. Some traditions are good, some are bad. In some cultures it is traditional to eat the dead. That is one that is bad. For one thing, you can get prions. Other traditions are good, like Christmas, because you can get presents (it’s also bad, though, because you can get to stand in line at the return counter, or get into debt, or get fruitcake).
There are good traditions in the Catholic Church, and there are bad ones. Some things are traditional but condemned as superstitious, such as burying a St. Joseph statue, and some are traditional but good, like the St. Joseph’s table.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, Paul himself states that he is teaching elementary things:
*]1 Corinthians 3:2
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.
1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 3 (Whole Chapter)
*]Hebrews 5:12
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
Although Paul wanted to go deeper, the Corinthians (at least) were not ready! So, in this sense, Paul declares that what he is writing is for beginners or “infants”. Imagine if the Bible contained more advanced stuff!
But that is not that Pixie said. She makes the valid point that the Church has developed its understanding of doctrine over time as the Spirit has led the Church into all truth.
Thus, we use sophisticated terms like “trinity” and “transubstantiation” and “hypostatic union” to describe what we now know to be true.
The earliest Christians would not have known these words, but they would be comfortable with the doctrines that have matured from the seed delivered “once for all to the saints.”
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I notice you have chosen the “cut-off date” of what you will or won’t acknowledge very carefully. Could that be because you realize the just a few years later, the doctrine apprears with increasing frequency? However, if this date is authoritative, does this mean you are willing to accept other Catholic doctrines on the testimony of an ante-Nicene father? This is happy news! But I digress…
Shame on those later Fathers for teaching false doctrines and lying to us down through the centuries…ah well, here they are anyway:
Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary
Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 A.D. 300]).
Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian
The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary A.D. 400]).
Gregory of Tours
[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . . (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 A.D. 575]).
Theoteknos of Livias
It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God (*Homily on the Assumption *[ca. **A.D. 600]).
Modestus of Jerusalem
As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him (*Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae *[ante **A.D. 634]).
Germanus of Constantinople
You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Sermon I A.D. 683]).
John Damascene
It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God (Dormition of Mary A.D. 697])
Gregorian Sacramentary
Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself (Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante **A.D. 795]).
B
BrianH
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
This is apparently an incredible source. What you may not know is that this source also contains some very specific information about the Assumption of Mary!! Oddly enough, when I read the Catechism, it DOES NOT contain the historically accurate information from Pseudo Melito. Which is shocking considering the valuable information he provided. For example:
She was alone but of course related this to Pseudo Melito…Sacred Tradition in action.
This is incredible stuff. Jesus appeared again! Can you believe it?! I am tempted to be mad at Ignatius, Polycarp, the Apostle John, Irenaues, Ambrose, Clement, Justin Martyr, Jerome etc times 100 for not mentioning this historical truth…but I guess they knew Pseudo Melito would get around to it.
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna A.D. 400]).
I admit, you got me on this one. I have spent the last 30 minutes looking for the text of this and no luck, in fact, who is Timothy of Jerusalem? I only seem to find this quote, name, and year on Catholic websites. I found Methodius Oration on Simeon and Anna…please provide a link of the text and a little background on someone who appears to be a rather obscure ECF. I am sure you have it, who would quote something unless they had some background?
400 AD?? John had some serious longevity…whoa…
Could you mean this?
"This Greek narrative is one of the earliest witnesses to the “Bethlehem” traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, so-called because some of their events take place in Bethlehem. This is in contrast to other early traditions in which the setting is limited to Jerusalem. This narrative is probably from the sixth century,"
uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/texts/dormitionG2/dormitionG2.htm
I will stop there for now, you have got some powerful allies on your side:
Pseudo M.
Timothy of Jerusalem…whoever he is
and a 400 year old man!
B
BrianH
Guest
Any luck providing the text of Homily on Simeon and Anna Randy?
- Status