Question on Matthew 5:29

[Gorgias]

But when I ask for a consensus of voices in the N.T. all pointing to a succession of papal authority, you never answer.

Huh? It’s all over the Early Church Fathers!

It’s not even taught in the most likely places it should be taught such as the book of Ephesians.

This is the least likely place to find it… it doesn’t even make sense that it be there! After all, the apostles were still alive at that point, and therefore, the question of succession can’t be expected to appear there!

If we were to believe your assertion here, then we’d have to likewise assert that we should find a list of the canon of Scripture in Ephesians. If Scripture hadn’t yet come into existence, why would we expect to find the canon listed there? Same story with apostolic succession. If we don’t find the canon in Paul’s letters, we can’t fault the absence of the establishment of apostolic succession from being there.

Christ Himself taught nothing about this so called "duel office, " or vicar of Christ concept. none! All you can point to is the Matthew 16 passage itself.

Given that Christ gives an absolute proxy to Peter, that suffices. After all, you don’t find Jesus asserting a canon of Scripture… but you’re willing to accept that, aren’t you?

But I can quote this verse all day long. It falls on deaf ears unfortunately.

No. I refuted that approach. Not “deaf ears”, but refutation.

It’s like the word of God doesn’t matter if it upsets the apple cart of pre-conceived theology.

I know. Matthew 16, brother. It upsets your preferred apple-cart of pre-conceived traditions of men.

 

[tgGodsway]

Peter professed it to Jesus Himself . Literally. To His face! And you’re suggesting that we need more witnesses? C’mon, tg… it’s time to admit you’re clinging to a tradition of men, here…

I am not sure what tradition you are talking about Gorgias. I know it is difficult for you to except a basic principle of how to form Christian doctrine. Doctrine is never based on one verse of scripture, ever! (This is not to say I agree that this one scripture says what you say it says, because I don’t.) But the principle is very simple. I quote it on this site all day long but it gets quickly dismissed. Here it is: “The SUM of thy word is truth!..” In other words all the added parts of God’s word on any given subject and without contradiction, arrives at a truth. Ps. 160:119 NASV.

This means behind each passage of scripture is a voice and a witness. Jesus had many O.T. voices and witnesses to support and validate who he was and His ministry. That is a fact. He did not come, solely on His own authority without others supporting Him. I thought you knew this stuff. I will pray for you Gorgias. May the Lord open the eyes of your heart to these nuggets of truth.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not sure what tradition you are talking about Gorgias.

The tradition of men that denies Mt 16 and claims that the Petrine ministry is not authoritative.

I know it is difficult for you to except a basic principle of how to form Christian doctrine. Doctrine is never based on one verse of scripture, ever

To a certain extent, I agree. Doctrine is whactually based on apostolic teaching. Sometimes, this is found in Scripture. Sometimes, not explicitly. Remember what the Gospel of John taught about the recording of the entirety of Jesus’ words and deeds in the Gospels?

On the other hand, how do you assert the sufficiency of Scripture? 2 Tim 3:16, perhaps? C’mon, tg… methinks the lady doth protest overmuch.

But the principle is very simple. I quote it on this site all day long but it gets quickly dismissed.

That’s because it’s a principle that was developed 1500 years after the foundation of the Church.

He did not come, solely on His own authority without others supporting Him.

Really? You might want to re-read Matthew 5, then. “You have heard… but I tell you”. You see, Christ came in order to teach authoritatively. Not as one who relied on others, but as one who taught as the Son of God and on His own authority. I’ll pray that the Lord may open the eyes of your heart to see the truth of His own words.

 

[tgGodsway]

I suspect one day, when you least expect it, your eyes are going to be opened. Peace

thank you irenaeuslyons. Every day more and more. May the Lord bless you abundantly and may you prosper in all truth.

 

[EndTimes]

Are there any known cases where someone has actually had one of their “members” removed in the interest of this statement?

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

The first part actually sounds kind of Oedipal, so I guess it is possible…

Of course it’s possible - whether or not one ‘knows’ about it -.

Better to discard any withered branch while you’re still alive on Earth
… than to be denied inheriting Eternal Life

 

[tgGodsway]

That’s because it’s a principle that was developed 1500 years after the foundation of the Church.

Well this I agree. You are absolutely right. It has taken actually over 1500 years for the Church to begin to think critically about how it interprets scripture. It’s about time. Luther got the ball rolling, but even greater thinkers perfected the science of interpretation. It is shameful that it was such a blind spot for so many centuries.

 

[EndTimes]

It has taken actually over 1500 years for the Church to begin to think critically about how it interprets scripture.

Scriptures AND the Church Teach that God’s Holy Spirit IS THE Interpreter of Scriptures.

No room for purely personal interpretation which divide and divide a la those who Protest…

 

[tgGodsway]

Scriptures AND the Church Teach that God’s Holy Spirit IS THE Interpreter of Scriptures.

No room for purely personal interpretation which divide and divide a la those who Protest…

Yes I can agree in part. The Church does teach the Holy Spirit reveals the truth not interpret it. God does his part and we must diligently do our part by using good science of interpretation skills. But the Church is subject to the very same scrutiny of scripture to govern itself, lest the Church drift into heresy.

 

[tgGodsway]

Huh? It’s all over the Early Church Fathers!

When you say early church fathers, none of them on your list were apart of the inner circle of apostolic authority. None of them were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. So this whole idea of “Church father’s” is unconvincing and has no bearing to the point made.

 

[Gorgias]

It has taken actually over 1500 years for the Church to begin to think critically about how it interprets scripture. It’s about time.

When you denigrate apostles, 20 centuries of bishops, and millions of Christians, and attempt to say “Luther began the effort to think critically about Scripture”, then I think it’s time to wish you well and exit the conversation.

(Edited to correct my math: 20 centuries, not millennia. )

It is shameful that it was such a blind spot for so many centuries.

What’s shameful is that someone decided – on his own initiative – that the Church that Christ founded had gotten it wrong for 1500 years, and decided to change it on his own. The hubris!

When you say early church fathers, none of them on your list were apart of the inner circle of apostolic authority. None of them were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. So this whole idea of “Church father’s” is unconvincing and has no bearing to the point made.

To be fair: neither was Luther. I guess we can call him “unconvincing” and assert that his ideas “have no bearing”, too, right? I mean… what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

(By the way: do you have evidence from extant writings by the apostles? Evidence that shows that they opposed “apostolic succession”? If not, then you can’t make the claim you’re making. Over and above that: by this standard you propose, what you’re really saying is “gee, you know what? After they were martyred, no apostle ever said that a successor in his ministry should be appointed!!!” That’s just ludicrous! . )

 

[tgGodsway]

What’s shameful is that someone decided – on his own initiative – that the Church that Christ founded had gotten it wrong for 1500 years, and decided to change it on his own. The hubris!

Gorgias, I can feel the undercurrent of hostility coming from your post. This is never my goal. Please forgive me if I sound brash. This web site, by design, is to refute all teaching contrary to the Catholic Church to which it does all day long. By your own gratuity you allow opposing points of view here. But I’m not sure why you do if when those points are made you want to send us packing.

It is common knowledge the bible has been only a second thought in comparison to Catholic tradition over the centuries. Only in recent years has the mass been spoken in Latin, now in English.

I was reading some interesting history about William Tyndale the other day who made the first translation into English for his homeland country. He did it because he said the entire nation at the time did not have a copy of the bible they could read or understand. The Catholic church had all the power to do the interpreting. But the problem was, all of the English speaking priest were doing the mass in Latin and reading the scriptures in Latin. so that the English priest and the people could not understand the word of God.

This, only in more recent years, has changed. But some of the most Atrocious interpretations of scripture ever heard come from both Catholic and early Protestant groups in my view. Why? Because they have a blind-spot to what it takes to render a good interpretation. Scholars today who specialize in the science of interpretation run circles around the old school groups in my opinion. But relax Gorgias, it’s just my opinion, in the same way you give yours.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

It is common knowledge the bible has been only a second thought in comparison to Catholic tradition over the centuries. Only in recent years has the mass been spoken in Latin, now in English.
I was reading some interesting history about William Tyndale the other day who made the first translation into English for his homeland country. He did it because he said the entire nation at the time did not have a copy of the bible they could read or understand. The Catholic church had all the power to do the interpreting. But the problem was, all of the English speaking priest were doing the mass in Latin and reading the scriptures in Latin. so that the English priest and the people could not understand the word of God.
This, only in more recent years, has changed. But some of the most Atrocious interpretations of scripture ever heard come from both Catholic and early Protestant groups in my view. Why? Because they have a blind-spot to what it takes to render a good interpretation. Scholars today who specialize in the science of interpretation run circles around the old school groups in my opinion. But relax Gorgias, it’s just my opinion, in the same way you give yours.

Consider this, what if every bible were to instantly vanish?

I believe the ecclesial communities born out of, or after, the reformation would wither and die. The Catholic Church would still successfully lead souls to Christ. Why do I say that?

What do you have, if you have not the scripture? If one is to believe in scriptural authority, whence comes your bulwark of truth?

On the other hand, the Church would easily thrive. Just as it did when there was no scripture. Because the Church is the “Holy Way” from Isaiah where fools will not err therein. In other words, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, how well you read, or how well you interpret scripture. The Church provides a path to salvation, to all equally, regardless of intellect. Pray on that. Its an important point.

The Catholic teachings are embedded in sacred Tradition, sacred architecture, sacred music, sacred art, etc, etc. Since the non Catholic churches have no interpretive authority, it is incumbent on the intellect of the individual to properly interpret the way to salvation. How unfair is that? Could God have done such a thing? Leave scripture but no authority? How might the dumb be saved without an authority to interpret it, and show them the “way”? That horror scenario sounds more like Darwinian Christianity.

Some people are smarter than others. The Church provides that Holy Way, through its authority so that all may be saved whatever their ability. And it would be able to do that without a single bible surviving just as it did in the first centuries.

Holy Bible (Douay Rheims)
Isa 35:8 • ‘And a path and a way shall be there, and it shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it, and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein.’

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, I can feel the undercurrent of hostility coming from your post. This is never my goal.

It has taken actually over 1500 years for the Church to begin to think critically about how it interprets scripture. It’s about time. Luther got the ball rolling… It is shameful that it was such a blind spot for so many centuries.

Pot, meet kettle?

It is common knowledge the bible has been only a second thought in comparison to Catholic tradition over the centuries.

This is hardly true. It is common knowledge, though, that this is the story that Protestants have told for 500 years. (I also suspect that your definition of “Catholic tradition” might be suspect, if you view it in this kind of light.)

Only in recent years has the mass been spoken in Latin, now in English.

The Mass in Latin was the Mass in the vernacular! Moreover, if you look at the Eastern Church, you’ll find that their Liturgies are in the languages of their patrimony. Is that a bad thing?

did it because he said the entire nation at the time did not have a copy of the bible they could read or understand.

Not at all. You might want to read this analysis which, in part, asserts:

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English…

He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

So, the issue wasn’t “Bible in English”, it was “unauthorized and heretical personal translation of the Bible.” If you want to characterize the Catholic Church as “all about having all the power”, you’re free to do so. People who understand the context of the issue will realize that you’re either misinformed or being unreasonably polemic.

 

[Gorgias]

But the problem was, all of the English speaking priest were doing the mass in Latin and reading the scriptures in Latin.

Latin was the language of the literate, so I’m not sure where you’re seeing a ‘problem’ there.

so that the English priest and the people could not understand the word of God.

Wait – are you saying that the priest, who celebrated the Mass, didn’t understand what he was saying?

 

[EndTimes]

Yes I can agree in part. The Church does teach the Holy Spirit reveals the truth not interpret it

Actually both Scriptures

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. … For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Peter

__________________________

And the Church Teach this (from the CCC)

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 "But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

_____________________

WITH THAT IN MIND - THERE CANNOT EXIST
CONTRADICTORY (and SO-CALLED PERSONAL) INTERPRETATIONS of SCRIPTURES

 

[tgGodsway]

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy.

Nice try Gorgias. John Wycliffe’s so-called heresy-translation was not so much about the translation as it was about his doctrine. But I’ve always said, context matters. It was during a time when the CC had three popes all leveraging for power simultaneously. The Church Council of Constance assembled in 1414 under pressure from the holy Roman Emperor to resolved the “three-pope” problem. In this context, was John Wycliffe who spoke out against the so-called infallibility of the CC staring down three popes.

Meanwhile, in 1415, the Council had considered, and condemned as heretical, the teachings of another man named, Jan Hus. They burned him at the stake in Constance for the same reasons they would John and for the same reasons they would William Tyndale in later years.

Thought to have been born in the mid-1320s, John Wycliffe was a Yorkshire man, who studied at Oxford University, became a student of Merton College and went on to win a brilliant reputation as an expert on theology. Ordained priest in 1351, he was vicar of Fylingham, a Lincolnshire village, from the 1360s, but spent most of his time at Oxford. In 1374 he was made rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire.

By that time Wycliffe had developed startlingly unorthodox opinions, which were condemned by Pope Gregory VII in 1377. He had come to regard the scriptures as the only reliable guide to the truth about God and maintained that all Christians should rely on the Bible rather than the unreliable and frequently self-serving teachings of popes and clerics. He said that there was no scriptural justification for the papacy’s existence and attacked the riches and power that popes and the Church as a whole had acquired. just to name a few.

William Tyndale, on the other hand came years later but was given the same treatment. He simply wanted his countrymen to know the scriptures. Everywhere in England the gospel was preached in Latin, a language nobody understood.

By this time the printing press was invented and so William ran off to Germany to hide from both the CC and Henry the 8th. He, there, began a mass printing of his English translation into the language of the people. To make a long story short, he was eventually found-out and dragged back to England and put to death by the cooperation of both the CC and Henry the 8th.

But it was too late for the CC. Too many copies had gotten back to England and circulated. Just to say the Lord’s prayer in English would get you killed in those days. These are historical facts found in the pages of Church history. It was a sad time.

All three of these men were heroes of the faith in my view, and I’m sure Jesus will say on that day, “Well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of the Lord.”

 

[tgGodsway]

This is hardly true. It is common knowledge, though, that this is the story that Protestants have told for 500 years.

I must point out how the CC nullifies or destroys the word of God when she maintains that alongside the written Word there is also an unwritten word, an oral tradition, which was taught by Christ and the apostles but which is not in the bible. It is said that it was handed down generation after generation by word of mouth.

This unwritten word of God comes to expression in the pronouncements of the Church councils and in papal decrees. It takes precedence over the written word and interprets it. The pope, as God’s personal representative on the earth, can legislate for things additional to the bible as new situations arise. All of this was mostly expressed via Council of Trent in 1546.

This council determined that the word of God is contained both in the bible and in tradition, that the two are of equal authority and that it is the duty of every Christian to accord them equal respect.

But the untrustworthiness of oral tradition, is apparent for several reasons: Those closest to Christ and the apostles, and whose testimony would have been most valuable, wrote very little history because of the persecutions to which they were exposed. So that all that is left is a oral report! (literally) orally only report, as the sole means of preserving doctrine.

The second and third centuries of historical information, has but little reference to the doctrines which at present are in dispute between protestant and Roman Catholics since Catholic doctrine has evolved as decrees are implemented over time. 1546 is a long period of time to trust after the teachings of that inner circle of Apostles. Prior to the decrees of Trent, the push to establish the importance of oral decree and tradition was not on the table at all. All of it is a blunder of theological craziness in my view. No personal insult intended.

 

[Gorgias]

@tgGodsway,

I’d like to direct my response to you in the context of your claims about Catholic “oral tradition”. It seems that you’re laboring under a misunderstanding of what the Church is claiming, and are asserting something that the Church doesn’t claim.

(The stuff about Tyndale, hopefully, we can set aside for the moment. After all, that discussion really just boils down to the argument of whether Tyndale wanted folks to read Scripture, or whether he wanted folks to read Scripture in the way he read it and with the biases that he held to, and whether he had legitimate authority to do so on his own initiative.)

Let’s look at your statements on “written / oral teaching.” You seem to be conflating the notions of “apostolic tradition” and “oral tradition” in a way that gives the characteristics of the latter to the former. That would be a mistaken assumption. (It’s also a confusing one to hear a Bible-believing Christian make!)

“Oral tradition” speaks to the transmission of a body of knowledge across generations, through the use of memory and repeated speech. It’s odd that you call this “untrustworthy”. You hold to the canon of Scripture as your rule of faith, right? Doesn’t that include the Old Testament? Wasn’t the content of the OT preserved through oral tradition? So… if you want to call apostolic tradition by the name “oral tradition” and condemn it thusly, aren’t you also condemning the Scriptures themselves as “untrustworthy”?

Nevertheless, “apostolic tradition” – as the Church defines it – is not the same thing as “oral tradition.” Rather, the Church asserts that the Gospel was first transmitted by the apostles themselves in preaching. Later, some of that preaching was written down. But, at that point, preaching did not cease! It continued to be a means by which the Gospel was spread!

The Church maintains that this charism of authoritative preaching was handed down from the apostles to their successors. We believe that, since Christ gave authority to the apostles, and since He protects them from teaching doctrinal error (“the gates of hell shall not prevail…”), that this protection extends to the successors of the apostles to this very day!

So, with respect to modes of transmission of Revelation:

“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“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.”

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.”

(CCC, #81)

So… the Church doesn’t teach “oral tradition” in the way you express it here, but rather, that the teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit!

 

[EndTimes]

Obviously, Actual Events folllowed by Oral Teachings of The Apostles preceded the Written Forms

And it was these Events - such as occurred during and via Jesus Himself - and Events such as at Pentecost w/Peter and Apostles - which occurred Before Written Accounts - which enabled FAITH in Jesus - witnessed by the conversions - as later recorded (and deemed True) aka the written books of the New Testament - written AFTER the Events and subsequent Oral Teachings.

 

[tgGodsway]

“Oral tradition” speaks to the transmission of a body of knowledge across generations, through the use of memory and repeated speech. It’s odd that you call this “untrustworthy”. You hold to the canon of Scripture as your rule of faith, right? Doesn’t that include the Old Testament? Wasn’t the content of the OT preserved through oral tradition?

Odd?.. are you kidding? The traditions of the O.T. were carried until God so chose to write them down. We call that the O.T.
When will these Catholic Church traditions be written down so we can call it the N.T.?