Question on Matthew 5:29

[De_Maria]

I already know John and Timothy and Matthew and all N.T. writers had an infallible message and they preached it…

Agreed.

and they taught others to believe it and preach it.

And we believe that God ensured that His message was infallibly passed on.

But that is not the same thing as to say the “Church” is infallible.

We believe it is. That is why Scripture says:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And:

Ephesians 3:10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

amongst other things.

Can the Church prophesy falsely? Of course you and I can! …

No, it can’t.

of course the pope can!

Not when preaching on faith and morals from the See of Peter or when speaking in union with the Magisterium.

of course Joel Osteen can …

Sure.

of course the Cardinal’s in Rome can …

Not when preaching in union with the Pope and the Bishops on matters of faith and morals.

By what standard should our message be judged to determine whether or not it is false?.. by the standard laid down by the founders of the faith, we call “scripture” Jesus Christ being the chief and head. Eph. 2:20.

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

What does Scripture say?

2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The standard laid down by the Founders of our Faith, is Tradition. Scripture is only one component of Tradition.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

This special rule you made that only when Peter was sitting in his special chair could he decree with infallibly, has zero support by any O.T. or New author, only to the contrary!

You say this because you can’t understand the Scripture that you claim to value so much. St. Peter has taken the place of Moses. Listen to what Jesus said about the chair of Moses.

Matthew 23:1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Do you know what the chair of Moses signifies?

Exodus 18: 14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

Those who sit in the chair of Peter have even more authority than those who sat in the chair of Moses.

Many unified voices validate the truth, not just a select few in a select church.

Read actual Church history. Not that which has been invented by anti-Catholics.

You made it up. When the Church councils convened to discuss a matter, in, lets say the 1500’s: by what truth-measurement did they use to arrive at their theological deductions?..

Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

If you say the bible, then surely we can take a look at the scriptures they used and see their interpretations and see if the holy Spirit who lives in us, bares witness with them.

Sure, if you knew how to interpret Scripture. But you don’t. You act as though a 20th century American wrote Scripture. You don’t recognize the Hebraic culture which is air the Scripture breathes. You don’t recognize the Sacred Traditions which are the foundation of the New Testament. You act as though the Scriptures were written and Tradition followed based upon Scripture, when the truth is precisely the other way around.

If you say, they relied on the oral traditions handed down, … now we have a hard time tracking the origins of the decree.

We don’t. You do, because your tradition was invented and no longer has anything to do with what Jesus Christ taught and commanded to be taught.

So if it was decreed that Mary was born sinless, for example through a special miracle at conception, and tradition reflects this truth, okay… but tradition is the end result of someone’s teaching.

Tradition is Teaching. And Sacred Tradition is the Teaching of Jesus Christ.

You draw a blank when I ask you to steer me to the original teacher of that doctrine.

No I don’t. You simply refuse to accept the fact that I continually repeat to you. Jesus Christ is the author and original Teacher of all Catholic Doctrine.

My aim is to connect the teaching to it’s foundational leaders who walked with Christ.

It’s been done for you. In and by, the Catholic Church.

 

[tgGodsway]

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

What does Scripture say?

2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught , whether by word, or our epistle.

The standard laid down by the Founders of our Faith, is Tradition. Scripture is only one component of Tradition.

cont’d

Again, tradition is the end result of someone’s belief. It should never be in the driver’s seat leading the pack or some kind of parallel voice. In the case of 2nd. Thess. 2:15 it is clear.

              "So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were 
                taught BY US,  either by our spoken word, or by our letter." ESV.

This is not rocket science. Paul uses his Apostolic authority given by God to say… my traditions can be found in my literal speech, or my letter. All true. But a day would come when the Apostle Paul would no longer be with them literally. But his letters are.

There is a huge disconnect between what Paul called tradition, and what came years later. But when we attempt to trace back the traditions held by today’s CC, we should be absolutely able to trace them to the founders of Christianity. If we cannot, then all we can do is conclude the traditions do not have an apostolic foundation. That is reasonable and this is my only point.

Secondly, I do not see apostolic succession taught by any Apostle, or the Matthew 16 passage. Therefore I do not believe that we should follow tradition simply because it is tradition. It must have a apostolic root to it’s fruit in order for me to consider it to be of any value for the sake of truth.

 

[Gorgias]

I do not see apostolic succession taught by any Apostle

It’s in Acts. Peter led the effort to name a successor to the ministry abandoned by Judas.

 

[tgGodsway]

yes and what was that unique and special qualification to be an Apostle in the ranking of the 12?

 

[Gorgias]

yes and what was that unique and special qualification to be an Apostle in the ranking of the 12?

Precision is really important here, since you’ll end up with an incorrect understanding if you get sloppy.

Peter is the one who calls for a replacement for Judas. As such, this is an exercise of the authority that Jesus granted to him. In this case, Peter calls for a person who traveled with Jesus during His earthly ministry. However, the fact that Peter calls for this standard in this case does not establish that it is the only standard that Peter could call for.

So, the question becomes: does the person who assumes this ministry become “one of the 12”, or does he merely assume the ministry of the 12? Clearly, it’s the latter: his role is “to take the place in this apostolic ministry” (Acts 1:25). Is Matthias identical to the apostles? Nope. He was “he was counted with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26), and not as a ‘thirteenth apostle’.

I get that you don’t want to assert the authority of Peter, but that’s clearly what Scripture is asserting here. Peter uses his authority to make a call. That call results in a successor, who shares in ministry. And, that continues to this very day in the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

Again, tradition is the end result of someone’s belief.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

In the case of the New Testament Church, Jesus came first. He hatched Tradition. And He handed it down to the Church. So, if tradition is the end result of someone’s belief, then we can say that Sacred Tradition is the end result of Jesus’ beliefs, which He passed down and commanded to be Taught by the Church.

It should never be in the driver’s seat leading the pack or some kind of parallel voice.

Interesting. Do you see Scripture as being in the driver’s seat?

I don’t. A quick scan of the Protestant denominations shows that everyone of them is driving Scripture in different directions.

Let’s understand what Scripture is. You will find this insulting, but it isn’t. Scripture is a DEAD letter. Scripture can not think. Scripture can not get up and correct you. If you read Scripture wrong and interpret it in a manner that no one else ever dreamed it would be driven, Scripture can’t correct you. PERIOD.

Sacred Tradition is also not in the driver’s seat. But Scripture and Tradition, together, have the directions. Tradition has the directions. Scripture confirms the directions. The Catholic Church uses these two to plumb the line which must be followed. The Word of God, in Sacred Tradition and Scripture, are the plumb which the Church uses to ensure that we are understanding God’s will, correctly.

In the case of 2nd. Thess. 2:15 it is clear.

            "So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were 
            taught BY US,  either by our spoken word, or by our letter." ESV.

This is not rocket science. Paul uses his Apostolic authority given by God to say… my traditions can be found in my literal speech, or my letter. All true.

Agreed.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

But a day would come when the Apostle Paul would no longer be with them literally. But his letters are.

Where do you see this admonition? I don’t see it anywhere. Nowhere in Scripture does any Apostle say, “When we die, you’ll have the Scriptures to help you carry on. Interpret them to the best of your ability. It doesn’t matter if you wind up interpreting it wrong. God will forgive you.”

Uhuh! Scripture is clear. And it is St. Paul who says it the clearest.

2 Timothy 2:2And the things that thou hast heard of me

HEARD ME

among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men,

TEACH OTHERS.

who shall be able to teach others also.

AND THEY SHALL TEACH OTHERS.

This is the model of Apostolic Succession and of Sacred Tradition described in their essence. This is what the Catholic Church continues to do to this day. This is what you DOUBT can happen infallibly. This is where you lack faith that the Holy Spirit can protect the Word of God being transmitted without error.

There is a huge disconnect between what Paul called tradition, and what came years later.

No, there’s not. There’s a great deal of doubt which you have in Christ being able to transmit His message infallibly through the Church He established for that purpose.

But when we attempt to trace back the traditions held by today’s CC, we should be absolutely able to trace them to the founders of Christianity.

We can.

If we cannot, then all we can do is conclude the traditions do not have an apostolic foundation.

We can.

That is reasonable and this is my only point.

It isn’t reasonable, it is wrong. If you had faith in Jesus Christ being able to transmit His message throughout history, then you would see how unreasonable it is.

Secondly,

I hate to point this out, but you just said your only point was above.

I do not see apostolic succession taught by any Apostle,

Well, look at 2 Tim 2:2. Then see what Gorgias pointed out to you in Acts 1. Then see what Jesus said about being with the Church til the end of time (think about it, if the Church is around until the end of time, someone has to take over it’s leadership offices.) Then see 1 Tim 4:14, whereby Bishops are installed by the laying on of hands. Remember, the Apostles are Bishops, as is proven in Acts 1, where Matthias takes over Judas’ bishoprick.

There are more, but these suffice.

or the Matthew 16 passage.

Uh, the Matthew 16 passage is taught by an Apostle.

Therefore I do not believe that we should follow tradition simply because it is tradition.

Nor do we. But you follow Protestant tradition simply because it is Protestant.

It must have a apostolic root

Show me the Apostolic root for sola Scriptura and sola fide.

to it’s fruit in order for me to consider it to be of any value for the sake of truth.

Yeah, no. You follow anything that appeals to your presuppositions. It doesn’t matter how thoroughly the Protestant ideas are proven to be false, illogical, anti-Scriptural and thoroughly without value, you cling to them because you don’t like the True Word of God. Bottomline, you prefer your ideas over and above, God’s Word.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes agree Peter exercises authority in Acts 1. I have never argued that Peter didn’t have authority. He had just as much as the others and in this case he took the initiative to organize a vote. The successor of the apostolic office needed to meet the stated qualifications. It is obvious that this group of 12 was limited based on those stated qualifications.

 

[tgGodsway]

In the case of the New Testament Church, Jesus came first. He hatched Tradition. And He handed it down to the Church. So, if tradition is the end result of someone’s belief, then we can say that Sacred Tradition is the end result of Jesus’ beliefs, which He passed down and commanded to be Taught by the Church.

All agreed!.. we then should be able to trace each tradition to Christ. But in actuality there are many traditions in the CC we cannot even get into his century. They are traditions without a founder, is the point.

 

[tgGodsway]

Interesting. Do you see Scripture as being in the driver’s seat?

I don’t. A quick scan of the Protestant denominations shows that everyone of them is driving Scripture in different directions.

Yes I agree. Tradition shouldn’t be anything more than one’s carbon copy of their convictions and beliefs. Those convictions play out in one’s practices.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

In the case of the New Testament Church, Jesus came first. He hatched Tradition. And He handed it down to the Church. So, if tradition is the end result of someone’s belief, then we can say that Sacred Tradition is the end result of Jesus’ beliefs, which He passed down and commanded to be Taught by the Church.

All agreed!.. we then should be able to trace each tradition to Christ.

We can.

But in actuality there are many traditions in the CC we cannot even get into his century.

Name one.

They are traditions without a founder, is the point.

All Catholic Sacred Tradition is based upon the Teaching of Jesus Christ, either explicit or implied.

Yes I agree.

No. We don’t agree at all.

Tradition shouldn’t be anything more than one’s carbon copy of their convictions and beliefs. Those convictions play out in one’s practices.

Jesus Christ is the Founder of our Traditions. We believe them because He Taught them.

Tradition shouldn’t be anything more than one’s carbon copy of their convictions and beliefs. Those convictions play out in one’s practices.

I repeated this statement of yours because it highlights a significant difference between the Protestant way of looking at things and our own. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God infallibly passed down by the Catholic Church. We believe it because it is handed down by Jesus Christ. We believe it whether we like it or not.

For example. We would all love to be saved the moment we believe in Jesus Christ. But this is not the Teaching which Jesus Christ handed down. No matter what we think we understand in the Teaching of St. Paul.

First of all, because Jesus Christ said otherwise.
Secondly, because the Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church to pass down His Teachings and the Church Teaches otherwise.

Therefore, if we look at Scripture and interpret it differently than that which was handed down by Jesus Christ through His Church, we reject our fallible understanding and accept the infallible Teaching of Jesus Christ passed down through His Church.

 

[tgGodsway]

Name one.

The tradition that eventually became apart of Catholic dogma in 1959. This tradition stated that Mary was born without original sin. She lived her life sinless and then died to rise again by a special miracle who now sits at the right hand of Jesus making intercession for the saints and better known as the queen of heaven - that tradition. Please trace this tradition down to the apostolic circle, including Jesus. Can the Apostles validate it?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Name one.

The tradition that eventually became apart of Catholic dogma in 1959. This tradition stated that Mary was born without original sin. She lived her life sinless and then died to rise again by a special miracle who now sits at the right hand of Jesus making intercession for the saints and better known as the queen of heaven - that tradition. Please trace this traditions down to the apostolic circle, including Jesus. Can they validate it?

Sure. It is confirmed in the word, “kecharitomene” which is applied to Our Lady. Protestants reduce this word to its base, “charitoo”. But it is not it’s base. That’s like saying, unfaithful means faithful because faith is its base.

Charitoo means “graceful”. Kecharitomene means “ever and always faithful”. Therefore, Mary was faithful from the moment of her conception.

 

[tgGodsway]

Sure. It is confirmed in the word, “kecharitomene” which is applied to Our Lady. Protestants reduce this word to its base, “charitoo”. But it is not it’s base. That’s like saying, unfaithful means faithful because faith is its base.

Charitoo means “graceful”. Kecharitomene means “ever and always faithful”. Therefore, Mary was faithful from the moment of her conception.

Okay De_Maria. I’ve heard this approach on this site before. But as meaningful as it sounds, it is still a very subjective implication. You have imposed many “Mariology” ideas not actually in the word “ever and always graceful.” At best, the CC has embellished on the word.

In 1854 pope Pius IX on December 8th. decreed the greatest pronouncement of the century. I’m sure he shook the Church over it at the time. He took the CC to a place never seen in Church history before. These “Mary” ideas had been bounced around for a century or two but this pope was the one who dared to decree it… absolute heresy.

Let’s face it, people like me will never get the solid and verifiable evidence we need, linking traditions like this one to the 1st. Century inner circle of foundational leaders. I have always known this De_Maria, but I know you still place your faith in it. But that’s okay, we are brothers in Christ either way.

 

[Gorgias]

[Peter] had just as much [authority] as the others

…except that the contexts of Mt 16 and Mt 18 differ, as well as the issues they address, in what Jesus proxies to the apostles.

The successor of the apostolic office needed to meet the stated qualifications.

In that context. Agreed. Can you show Scripture that asserts that these qualifications must apply in all cases? After all… doesn’t Paul name leaders who have the same authority as the apostles have, in the churches he founds?

It is obvious that this group of 12 was limited based on those stated qualifications.

As a group of 12? I’d be willing to entertain that thesis. However, that thesis does not, on its own merits, mean that this set of qualifications must, per se, apply to all future leaders. Can you show Scripture that asserts that it does?

The tradition that eventually became apart of Catholic dogma in 1959. This tradition stated that Mary was born without original sin. … Please trace this tradition down to the apostolic circle, including Jesus. Can the Apostles validate it?

Heck, I can do better than that! I can point to Scripture! “Kecharitomene”. If she was full of grace, prior to the conception of Jesus, then where does this grace-filled-ness take place? The only logical place is “at the moment of conception”. Any other place in time is logically problematic, if not outright inconsistent!

But, perhaps you’re conflating the immaculate conception with the notion of Mary as Queen of Heaven. That’s not too difficult to see. So… where do we find the rationale for Mary as Queen of Heaven? In Scripture!! Mary is the mother of the Davidic King for all eternity. So… who is the queen in the Davidic context? The mother of the king, not his wife. So… our King of Heaven has a Queen Mother… Mary.

Let’s face it, people like me will never get the solid and verifiable evidence we need

And the question, therefore, is: does that reflect on the arguments or on those who are hearing the arguments? Peace, brother… and may the truth of the King of Heaven enter your heart.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Sure. It is confirmed in the word, “kecharitomene” which is applied to Our Lady. Protestants reduce this word to its base, “charitoo”. But it is not it’s base. That’s like saying, unfaithful means faithful because faith is its base.

Charitoo means “graceful”. Kecharitomene means “ever and always faithful”. Therefore, Mary was faithful from the moment of her conception.

Okay De_Maria. I’ve heard this approach on this site before. But as meaningful as it sounds, it is still a very subjective implication. You have imposed many “Mariology” ideas not actually in the word “graceful.” At best, the CC has embellished on the word.

In 1854 pope Pius IX on December 8th. decreed the greatest pronouncement of the century. I’m sure he shook the Church over it at the time.

On the contrary, it was a very hohum statement. The vast majority of the Church already believed it.

He took the CC to a place never seen in Church history before.

Nope.

These “Mary” ideas had been bounced around for a century or two but this pope was the one who dared to decree it… absolute heresy.

On the contrary, the heresy was the idea which had begun to pop up, that this Doctrine was not true.

Let’s face it, people like me will never get the solid and verifiable evidence we need.

There’s an old saying. For some, no evidence is necessary. For others, no evidence is ever enough.

But, it’s not really the evidence that makes the difference. It is grace.

linking traditions like this one to the 1st. Century inner circle of foundational leaders. I have always known this De_Maria, but I know you still place your faith in it. But that’s okay, we are brothers in Christ either way.

Amen.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

One thing though. Here’s what the Decree says:

Ordinary Teaching of the Roman Church

These truths, so generally accepted and put into practice by the faithful, indicate how zealously the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all Churches, has continued to teach this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.

Testimonies of Tradition

And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.

Ineffabilis Deus - Papal Encyclicals

For Catholics, this was a ho-hum statement. But it came after the time of the Protestant Reformation. And it is, in my opinion, because Protestants were objecting to this Doctrine, that the Church made time to define it in an extraordinary manner, so that Catholics would not be confused by Protestant claims.

And finally, a bit of logic based upon Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Heresies have a purpose. To make the truth manifest. If you poll the Early Church Fathers to the earliest of times, the vast majority believed in the Immaculate Conception. Whilst a few held the heretical belief that the Doctrine was illogical. In the end, though, God has made the truth manifest, through the Church which He established for that purpose (1 Tim 3:15). That truth being, that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived. This is the Doctrine that has been infallibly Taught, through the centuries.

 

[tgGodsway]

In that context. Agreed. Can you show Scripture that asserts that these qualifications must apply in all cases? After all… doesn’t Paul name leaders who have the same authority as the apostles have, in the churches he founds?

No… the Acts 1 qualifications were specifically for the original 12 Apostles and cannot be repeated without two things: being an eyewitness to the life of Christ and (2) an eyewitness to the resurrection. This original group included Peter by the way. The idea that he left his office of apostle and became a pope by 42 a.d. is neither seen in scripture, or validated by the foundational apostles as a true ministry of God.

Paul was NOT an eyewitness to the life of Christ but was clearly ranked as an Apostle along with Barnabas called by the Holy Spirit. Paul never claimed apostleship with the original 12. His apostleship did not begin for at least 17 years after Acts.

The third ranking of Apostle can clearly be seen in scripture by those called by the Church.

All three had authority to function as an apostle for the purposes of God.

 

[tgGodsway]

Can you show Scripture that asserts that it does?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) tgGodsway:

I’m not sure what you are talking about.