Sacred Tradition

[josephdavid]

Please read.
Scripture pertaining to Tradition.

 

[fcfahs]

Hi again All,

I apologize for my delayed reply and I thank you all for such a wealth of Apologetic (name removed by moderator)ut.

Please know, Della, that I fully agree that the Sacred Scriptures are an integral part of Sacred Tradition, but I wouldn’t say (as you did in post #9) they “came out of” Sacred Tradition. If anything, I would say that Sacred Tradition “came out of” the Sacred Scriptures, for it was the information given in the Scriptures that initially directed and nurtured the customs and oral teachings of Sacred Tradition. To be sure, Jesus and His deciples routinely referred to the Sacred Scriptures as the basic authority behind their teachings.

Here are only a handful of the many Bible verses which clearly demonstrate this…

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Matt.22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. [30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Acts:17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, …[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Matt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith

Continued next post…

 

[fcfahs]

Now, in post #7, Catholic Dude claimed “Even the concept of missing Mass has its roots in one of the 10 Commandments.”
However, I cannot, for the life of me, see which of the 10 commandments implies that we must attend mass every Sunday. As far as I can see, it’s simply a law (a canon law) of the RCC and not a law of God.

My other pervasive question about this is “Why would the RCC make such a law and what prompted it?” For it’s one thing to command that we “keep holy the Lord’s Day” in the vein of the 4th commandment and another thing to command that you do this by attending mass (after which it’s OK to be about your worldly business of mowing the back yard and shopping at the local mall.). Quite frankly, I have many true christian friends who keep the Lord’s Day much holier by spending the entire day focused on the Lord’s works, like visiting the sick, reading the bible, and other spiritual pursuits. And, although I can understand the church making mass avaiable every Sunday, I cannot see the church sentencing us to Hell for not attending. Why? Because it takes so much of the love out of attending mass when we are forced to do it by decree, rather by our spontaneous choice. For example, how much love of giving your mother a box of candy and bouquet of roses on Mother’s Day would be lost if the church, because of the 5th commandment, decreed that we all must do this under pain of mortal sin?

As for the canoniation of Sacred Scripture being something that “came out of” Sacred Tradition, this was mearly a rigorous academic effort, prayerfully guided by God, to ascertain which of the many handed-down scriptures were from God’s mind (sacred) and not from man’s. Accordingly, the canonization of Sacred Scriptures neither added nor removed anything from the original Scriptures, which were then (and still are) believed to be inspired by God. Again, the canonization of Sacred Scripture didn’t give us anything new or in addition to the scriptures, it simply resolved for us which scriptures were sacred. Perhaps this will speak also to post #2 from itsjustdave1988.

All that being said, I think vern humphrey’s post #14 is more on target about the posture and value of Sacred Tradition, if we can trust that the early christians were correctly understanding and practicing what the Apostles tried to teach them.

In post #15, awalt states his feeling that the concept of the Trinity isn’t glaring in the Bible, but I assure him that it is, although I don’t know about the filioque clause, over which the Eastern and Western Orthodox Catholics bitterly disagree.

Speaking about the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, it’s interesting to note that before the Great Schism of 1054, they were nurtured on and believed in the same Sacred Tradition as the Western Orthodox Catholics. Yet the EOCC doesn’t dictate that attending mass every Sunday is required. This imples that the RCC’s decree that we must attend mass on every Sunday, under threat of eternal damnation, comes neither from the Sacred Scripture nor pre-11th century Sacred Tradition.

Also in post #15, awalt claims that the Bible doesn’t tell us that the Sacred Scriptures were inspired." But here again I assure him that it does. One place is 2 Peter 1:21, which reads “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Continued next post…

 

[fcfahs]

Post #13 from itsjustdave1988 is, indeed a real eye-openner for me, for it clearly shows, from Saint Basil’s statements, that some of our early church constitution and ordinances arose from unwritten traditions, devoid of explicit Scriptural authority. However, it’s also clear that Saint Basil et.al. believed that such dogma had to at least withsand the scrutiny of written Scripture.

I’m not at all surprised to see Matt 16:19; 18:18, used by porthos11 in post #17, to defend the RCC’s authority to make any rule she pleases, with complete assurance that God will ratify it. I’ve seen these verses used before to endorce the RCC’s extensive rule-making. But, I’m not totally convinced that these verses apply to anything much more than the church’s authority to prevent (bind) or allow (loose) certain practices. For example, Moses allowed a bill of devorcement for
adultery which, in Matt 19:7-9, Jesus reminds the Pharisees was allowed by Moses only because of the hardness of their hearts and not something that God intended from the beginning. Yes, I believe it’s necessary (according to God’s will) for the church to “step in” on thing like abortion issues and prevent (bind) by decree that abortion is murder and a deadly sin, but not to set up such a an elaborate set of man-contrived works we must do under threat of eternal damnation. For this, I believe, is misusing the authority given to them in Matt 19:7-9.

Finally, one might ask why I should be so concerned about the “shots” the church calls, rather than simply believing in everything she tells us to believe in and doing everything she says we must do. Well, it’s because I believe that every “jot and tittle” of the prophets will be eventually be fullilled, as in Matt 5:18, including, that spoken of Daniel the prophet and referred to in Mark 13:14, which reads:

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:”

And, it’s ominously interesting how this prophecy is paralleled by the vision of Pope Leo XIII, which is vision approved by the RCC and one which many (not only the sedevacantist churches) believe applies to Vatican II and contemoprary trends of the Catholic Church. For infornation on that miracle and what I’m talking about, I refer you to the following article (albeit with the caution that this web page is hosted by a sedvactist church, focused on bad-mouthing Vatican II and the post-Pope Pius XII papacy): stjosephschurch.net/leoxiii.htm

Again, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[fcfahs]

josephdavid:

Please read.
Scripture pertaining to Tradition.

Hi josephdavid,

Could you provide a link to this article?

I would very much appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I too know many Protestants that agree with Catholics as to the regenerative power of the real grace of baptism, and many Protestants who reject Unitarianism, and reject Universalism, and firmly uphold the Nicene Creed as “biblical.” Yet, what one “bible only” Christian sees as implicit in Scripture, another rejects.

The Catholic Church rightly teaches against *Sola Scriptura, *not because it wants to sneak something new into its teachings, but because it wants to hold fast to what was old, to what she learned from the apostles in the unwritten Traditions. Such teachings that Jesus was “eternally begotten of the Father” is not explicit in Scripture, but when Scripture is understood in light of what is old, that is, the apostolic teaching that was handed on, we can be assured that this creedal affirmation is absolutely true and an essential article of Christian faith.

To reject “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) as non-authoritative is to de-value Sacred Scripture, since St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.

According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):

paradosis “a handing down or on” (akin to paradidomi, “to hand over, deliver”), denotes “a tradition”

St. Paul tells us that we are to shun those who do not hold fast to the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that has been taught (Gk “paralambano”) by the apostles (cf. 2 Thess 3:6). Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…

“*So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk "paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" *(2 Thess 2:15).

According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):

paralambano: to receive with the mind 1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the*** tradition*** proceeds 2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

So, it appears that to uphold tradition is Biblical. Sacred Tradition is an “extra biblical help”, the faithful instruction of lawfully ordained pastors handed on throughout Christian history which help us to understand the true deposit of faith handed on by the apostles.

Protestants too use "extra biblical helps" in their attempt to understand the teachings of the apostles. For example, the preface to my Protestant KJV Bible recommends extra-biblical “study helps” to better understand Scripture, affirming that …

The reader will want to keep in mind as well. In no instance, however, has the emerging light from these extra-Biblical sources ever done violence to or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God. These helps only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter. (*The Open Bible, *preface, Authorized King James Version, Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1975).

I find the above admission rather revealing. Catholics have always contended that the “extra-Biblical study helps” of Catholic Tradition has “in no instance … ever done violence or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God.” But instead, Catholic tradition “only serves to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.”

It seems that when my Protestant friends and family use “study helps” from “extra-Biblical sources” they “only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.” Yet, when I say the same thing of the “extra-Biblical source” of Catholic tradition, they charge me with following “traditions of men” instead of the “Bible alone.” I don’t find such a rebuttal at all convincing, however, as I see the inconsistency behind their charge.

The fact is, they don’t actually use the “Bible alone” as they often assert, but also use the relatively new “traditions” or the “extra-Biblical study helps” that they choose, novel as they are, whereas I use the ancient tradition or “extra-Biblical helps” that have been handed on by our common Christian forefathers. I find these more compelling and believe they more convincingly describe the intent of the entire deposit of Faith, both oral or written, “traditioned” to us from the apostles.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fcfahs:

… prayerfully guided by God, to ascertain which of the many handed-down scriptures were from God’s mind (sacred) and not from man’s. Accordingly, the canonization of Sacred Scriptures neither added nor removed anything from the original Scriptures, which were then (and still are) believed to be inspired by God. Again, the canonization of Sacred Scripture didn’t give us anything new or in addition to the scriptures, it simply resolved for us which scriptures were sacred.

Do you know what was actually canonized as Sacred Scritpure in the 4th century? What that Divinely guided prayer gave us from God’s mind?

The earliest canon was from the Synod of Rome in AD 382.

*It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. *

***The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book’ … ***Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Jeremias [included Baruch], one book; Daniel the longer LXX recession], one book; … Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther the longer LXX recession], one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees

, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives…

The same canon above was decreed at a Synod in Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

According to a Protestant source, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232):

A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament … which is identical with the list given at Trent.

According to Protestant historian Philip Schaff:

The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both***, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures***, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the Martyrs on their memorial days. … The New Testament canon is the same as ours.

This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman See it received when Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.

This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.

(Schaff, P., History of the Christian Church, Ch. IX, § 118. Sources of Theology – Scripture and Tradition)

I agree that this was a result of Divine guidance, but the object of discernment was clearly concerning that which was “traditioned” by the apostles. We only know, for example, that Mark, a pupil of Peter, wrote one of the Gospels because of Sacred Tradition, not anything within Mark’s Gospel, right?

Take a look at the Book of Daniel as a specific example. By what authority do Protestants reject the longer recession of the Book of Daniel? Every Christian Church accepted it. Origen accepted it. St. Jerome accepted it. The New Annotated Oxford Bible edited by Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger states that all Greek manuscripts place the prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Jews in Dan. Ch. 3, as did the Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic manuscripts. This Sacred Scripture doesn’t appear to be rejected by any Christians until Luther. What gives? Isn’t it salvationally critical to know what the Bible consists of? If this was determined by Divine guidance by the Church in the 4th century, then how could it be undetermined by men in the 1500s? Or can we add and subtract from the Bible as our own personal preferences dictate?

 

[fcfahs]

Hi Dave,

I’m not sure how the focus on this thread go shifted to the Protestants and their “Sola Scripture” doctrine. I, for one, am not Protestant, nor do uphold the “Sola Scripture” doctrine. My greater quandary (and concern) is how the Eastern Orthodox Catholics and even the sedvantists, who believe in and uphold the very same Sacred Tradition as the Western Orthodox Catholics, could wind up in such crossfire with the Western Orthodox Catholics.

For example, why do the EOC not “buy” the WOC’s doctrines of Papal Infability, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the Filioque clause, and even the making of missing-mass-on-Sunday a deadly sin. If the EOC draws from the same Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the WOC, how can a “man in the street” Catholic like myself, without access to the secret Vatican files, be sure of who’s right? If there’s anything I detest, it’s being a witness to false doctrine.

Respectfully,
Frank

 

[Bishopite]

[vern humphrey]The test of canonicity is not being written by an apostle – neither Mark nor Luke were apostles.

The sole test of canonicity wasn’t apostolicity, however it was one of the criteria used by the Church. And I know that Mark and Luke weren’t apostles and let’s not forget Jude My point was that a book merely being attributed to an apostle is one of the arguments Protestants cite for the canonicity of Scripture among many others, yet it fails when it comes to the book of Hebrews, for no one can say who wrote Hebrews, but the Catholic Church knew Hebrews was considered part of the canon through Sacred Tradition passed down within the Church and that makes the Catholicism even the more important when it comes to having God-given authority.
Apostolicity is one of the criteria used to determine the canonicity of a book but it wasn’t the only criteria. The Catholic Church well affirms this but the problem is that Protestant apologists often cite this as the “key” in determining canonicity, yet they can’t answer to who wrote Hebrews and their criteria fails unless sacred Tradition (oral Tradition) is part of the criteria. The Church relied on sacred Tradition when it first cited the canon at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 AD.

When we examine the documents making up the New Testament, we wouldn’t go far wrong in saying the test of canonicity is tradition – the documents accepted as canonical were orthodox and had a long history of acceptance among major segments of the Church.

Yes apostolic or sacred Tradition is the key, if you will, that answers how the Church determined the canon in a wholistic sense, however even if the major segments of the Church did accept many of the books we now have, that didn’t answer specifically which books were to be accepted and discarded. To get even one book wrong meant to NOT have a complete or correct canon and therefore, not a totality of Gods word. Apostolicity is though a requirement to canonicity as Henry Graham affirms in his book “Where we got the Bible.”

“But further still–what is even more striking and is equally fatal to the Protestant theory–in this second class of “controverted” and doubtful books some were to be found which are not now in our New Testament at all, **but which were by many considered to be inspired and apostolic, **or were actually read at the public worship of the Christians, or were for instructions to the newly converted; in short ranked in some places as equal to the works of James or Peter or Jude.
Among these we may mention specifically the “Shepherd” of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel According to the Hebrews, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, Epistle of Clement, and others.” (Where we got the Bible page 21)

 

[Bishopite]

[fahs]

I’m not sure how the focus on this thread go shifted to the Protestants and their “Sola Scripture” doctrine. I, for one, am not Protestant, nor do uphold the “Sola Scripture” doctrine. My greater quandary (and concern) is how the Eastern Orthodox Catholics and even the sedvantists, who believe in and uphold the very same Sacred Tradition as the Western Orthodox Catholics, could wind up in such crossfire with the Western Orthodox Catholics.

If you don’t mind I’d like to answer your questions. The subject of Sola Scriptura always seems to come up when the canon of Scripture is discussed simply because Protestants very much revere Scripture as Catholics do and consider it the infallible word of God, yet they so adamently affirm the “bible alone” as their only authority, yet they can’t honestly say what the canon is without the Catholic Church first showing them. That’s our concern with Protestants. I know I was one for most of my adult life, I affirmed Sola Scriptura but unknown to me was the fact that the very Bible I so loved and read was recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church.

For example, why do the EOC not “buy” the WOC’s doctrines of Papal Infability, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the Filioque clause, and even the making of missing-mass-on-Sunday a deadly sin. If the EOC draws from the same Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the WOC, how can a “man in the street” Catholic like myself, without access to the secret Vatican files, be sure of who’s right? If there’s anything I detest, it’s being a witness to false doctrine.

Sedevacantists and the Eastern Orthodox can disagree because they don’t fall uder the authority of the Pope and can create and falsely interpret what is sacred Tradition; this is exclusively reserved to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church just as the canon was. The bottom line is one of authority; who has the authority given to it by God. Who authoritatively recognized the canon is a clear indication to who God allows to speak for Him on Earth. Therefore, since the Catholic Church was given the authority to recognize what was and wasn’t the infallible word of God it certainly has a God-given authority that surpasses any other “Church” and is the Church of Matthew 16:18; one that the gates of hell will not prevail against. Many groups have schismed during the history of the Church orthodoxy has always been found in the bishop of Rome. Sedevacantists and the EOC aren’t able to fully recognize sacred Tradition and do NOT have the authority to do so.

 

[Bishopite]

[fcfahs]Now, in post #7, Catholic Dude claimed “Even the concept of missing Mass has its roots in one of the 10 Commandments.”
However, I cannot, for the life of me, see which of the 10 commandments implies that we must attend mass every Sunday. As far as I can see, it’s simply a law (a canon law) of the RCC and not a law of God.

Catholicdude said it has its roots in not that it is excedingly explicit within the decologue. It seems you are starting your argument with a false premise,that you have the sole authority to interpret what Scripture says, something not found in Scripture and with that false premise one can make virtually any argument they wan’t for or against their postion. The essential question is WHO has the God-given authority to speak for God on this Earth and can show it does?

The historical facts prove that the Catholic Church recognized the books of the canon as they authoritatively cited the correct 27 NT books which bolsters our case for the authority of the Catholic Church speaking for God and makes our case much more pursuasive than others

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fcfahs:

I’m not sure how the focus on this thread go shifted to the Protestants and their “Sola Scripture” doctrine. I, for one, am not Protestant, nor do uphold the “Sola Scripture” doctrine.

Sacred Tradition is antithetical to Sola Scritpura. Yet Scripture itself insists upon the authority of Tradition, precisely because Scritpure alone is not perspicuous as is claimed by Protestantism. I suppose I’m reacting to your assertion that Tradition did not add anything that was not explicit in Scripture. It did, and I think I gave several examples. The canon of Scripture, for one, was passed on from the apostles. It wasn’t simply a “educated guess” made later in history, but a explicit declaration of what was handed on (Gk “paradidomi”) by the apostles compared to what was merely spuriously claimed to be apostolic, but was not handed on.

fcfahs:

My greater quandary (and concern) is how the Eastern Orthodox Catholics and even the sedvantists, who believe in and uphold the very same Sacred Tradition as the Western Orthodox Catholics, could wind up in such crossfire with the Western Orthodox Catholics.

To me, the evidence of history is clear as to what “primacy” meant pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, even without the “secret Vatican files.” So I am also baffled by the Eastern Orthodox assertion to the contrary. The Council of Chalcedon itself seem to clearly show that the bishops knew Pope Leo had the sole authority to ratify or veto the canons they decided upon. This clearly shows jurisdictional authority in matters of governing the universal Church.

However, some EO patriarchs, such as the Melkite Catholics, have reunited with the Roman Pontiff, and submit to Catholic doctrines in their entirety.

Melkite Catholic Bishop John states:

As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.

As for sedevacantists, I can’t even take them very seriously. How many popes in a row are we do pretend are not popes before the charade of sedevacantism makes itself clear to all? I suppose some demons can only be expelled through prayer and fasting.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Bishopite:

Catholicdude said it has its roots in not that it is excedingly explicit within the decologue. It seems you are starting your argument with a false premise,that you have the sole authority to interpret what Scripture says, something not found in Scripture and with that false premise one can make virtually any argument they wan’t for or against their postion. The essential question is WHO has the God-given authority to speak for God on this Earth and can show it does?

The historical facts prove that the Catholic Church recognized the books of the canon as they authoritatively cited the correct 27 NT books which bolsters our case for the authority of the Catholic Church speaking for God and makes our case much more pursuasive than others

Thats a good point, it is incorrect for me to remove myself from the parameters of Tradition and presume that it is part of the 10 Commandments. I need to keep that in mind when discussing SS with protestants.

 

[Bishopite]

Catholic Dude:

Thats a good point, it is incorrect for me to remove myself from the parameters of Tradition and presume that it is part of the 10 Commandments. I need to keep that in mind when discussing SS with protestants.

I was thinking that the first commandment of the decalogue “…shall have no other gods before me…” would suffice as at least an implicit and even explicit proof of Sunday obligation, being that those Catholics who knowingly disobey Christ’s Church and its authority are putting other gods before God by following those “gods” on Sunday instead of worshiping the true God.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Bishopite:

I was thinking that the first commandment of the decalogue “…shall have no other gods before me…” would suffice as at least an implicit and even explicit proof of Sunday obligation, being that those Catholics who knowingly disobey Christ’s Church and its authority are putting other gods before God by following those “gods” on Sunday instead of worshiping the true God.

Dont forget that the CC removed the “second” commandment

 

[abcdefg]

First don’t get me wrong, I don’t belong to any schismatic group
I’d like to use tradition and dogmas, but they can be changed. at least before Benedict XV(15), It’s dogma and tradition that Genesis must be interpreted literally. what now? they can be (quite a few member tried to show me it’s “should be”) interpreted symbolically.
Pope John Paul I came so close to alter Church’s teaching on contraception. who knows what would have happened if he had lived longer? perhaps his early death prevented a massive contraception debate on this forum.
If one chapter of Bible is allowed to be interpreted symbolically, why other chapters can’t?
What if most scientists claim the skeleton of Jesus is found? so far no document explicitly states Jesus’ skeleton went to heaven. Do we have to modify the teaching into Jesus’s flesh went to heaven while the bones were left on the earth to suit the new discovery?
By then do we still have a God?

Tradition and dogmas are the most powerful weapon against modernism but looks like it’s pretty much forgotten.

 

[Bishopite]

[abcdefg]First don’t get me wrong, I don’t belong to any schismatic group
I’d like to use tradition and dogmas, but they can be changed. at least before Benedict XV(15)

That dogma can change is not correct. Dogma can not ever be changed nor can Apostolic/sacred Tradition. Dogma and Tradition can develop, sure but that is completely different from change. An example of the developement of dogma could be best described as an acorn becoming an oak tree. Cardinal Henry Newman used this analogy decribing the Catholic Church. An acorn is small, a seed, and not developed, yet it contains all the DNA (dogma/sacred Tradition) to become an oak tree, as its properities are that of an oak tree. The Church in its infancy was the same as the acorn and in 2000 years it hasn’t changed one dogma, not one ever but has grown up.

Development of dogma is simply delving deeper into the truths that were once delivered to the apostles. Revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle but developing dogma still continues because the oak tree is still alive and growing

Vatican II explained, "The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

It’s dogma and tradition that Genesis must be interpreted literally. what now? they can be (quite a few member tried to show me it’s “should be”) interpreted symbolically.

It is not dogma that Genesis has to be taken literally. It is my view but not one the Church requires.

Pope John Paul I came so close to alter Church’s teaching on contraception. who knows what would have happened if he had lived longer?

Obviously you mean NFP which isn’t anything other than obstaining for a period of time and that ISN’T a sin if done with serious reasons, in fact Scripture says we should abstain from time-to-time. What if your spouse is seriously ill, doesn’t the other spouse need to obstain?

“Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.” (1 Cor 7:5)

perhaps his early death prevented a massive contraception debate on this forum.
If one chapter of Bible is allowed to be interpreted symbolically, why other chapters can’t?
What if most scientists claim the skeleton of Jesus is found? so far no document explicitly states Jesus’ skeleton went to heaven.

Jesus resurrected physically which also includes his bones.

 

[Bishopite]

Catholic Dude:

Dont forget that the CC removed the “second” commandment

Yes I’ve heard this but I’ve not studied it in any length. Did it remove the second commandment or combine the first and the second?

 

[abcdefg]

Bishopite:

…

Catechism of Rome directly deny any natural process on the form of the body of man.

**
Production Of Man
Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God

Baltimore Catechism holds the same view

**Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal? **

A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not

prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay

of the earth.

And science today still can’t prove evolution theory.

About the length human history
**
**

****Q. 345. How many years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came? ****

A. About 4,000 years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came.

Various councils have declared Genesis must be taken literally

Current teachings on these matters did NOT DIRECTLY oppose the tradition, however making traditionally settled question ambiguous again isn’t a positive development. a modernism infiltration.**

 

[abcdefg]

JP I meant he would modify Church’s teachings to allow artificial contraception for some cases