Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church

[wmscott]

That is the individuality part read 1 Corinthians 12.

It is talking about the different Spiritual gifts, the different parts of the body how each one is valued.

One application of the interpretation could be: Human cloning takes away a persons individuality.

Individuality of a person is used in different ways in the Bible- we will be judged as individuals. Cloning would really gum up the works!!

Actually you are helping me to make my point. In 1 Cor 12 the references that you state are there, but they do not specifically state embryonic stem cell research or human cloning is bad. This is a matter of interpretation of Sacred Scripture according to schaick. However interpretation of Sacred Scripture according to (fill in the name or church) will disagree with you as is evident of multitude of Protestants who see no issue with embryonic stem cell research or human cloning. So who is right? you or the multitude of other Protestants who disagree with you. See my issue here? There is two dynamically opposing views, and one is obviously wrong.

Whereas within the catholic Church this is not an issue. Because of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, interpreted and taught by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, there is only one “Correct and True” interpretation.

 

[JRKH]

So are you saying that the Holy Spirit comes only to the Catholic Church and that the power is through the priest?.

No - The Holy Spirit can and does act through every Christian. However there are many “Gifts” as Paul notes and each is called to particular gifts. We are each called to a vocation. Those vocations have pluses and minuses. Those called to the Priesthood and validly ordained through apostolic succession have the gift of confecting the Eucharist. Those who are not - don’t.

Yes just like our Church our Pastors do through Luther.

Do you have proof that none other can confect the Eucharist?

Mark 9
38"Teacher," said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Ahhhhh - - - - Now now now -
You asked about "Sacred Tradtions.

I gave you one.

It is part of Ancient and Sacred Tradition that Only a Validly Ordained Priest has the authority, Granted by Christ Through His Authoritative Church, to confect the Eucharist.

Now you want to argue, to disprove, the validity of this “Sacred Tradition”.
This is what occurs whenever these thread come up.
If it is something “derived from scripture” that we all agree on like, “the Trinity” then is is not “tradition” but “sound belief”. If is something that we don’t agree on, even if it IS derived from Scripture" then the cry goes up, “wheres the beef” - umm- I mean Proof - "Where’s the Proof.
The fact is that virtually every belief, every doctrine, is a combination of Sacred Tradition with Scriptural support in one form or another.

As for Proof, Yes I have Proof. I have Proof in the teaching of the Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church, as well as the Orthodox Church - Both clearly traceable to the Apostles and both teaching that the Eucharist is confected only by a validly ordained priesthood.

As for Mr Luther - Luther was never a bishop and only Bishops may ordain. Luther was also excommunicated from the Church and so had no faculties to confect the Eucharist. Any ordination stemming from Luther is invalid. Sorry -

I am sure you will disagree with that, but until the Church teaches otherwise, Sacred Tradition, along with the authority of the Magiserium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, teaches that the Eucharist can be confected only by validly ordained Priests. It has not only taught this since the reformation but has always taught this.

Peace
James

 

[schaick]

IF the Bible were a COMPLETE catalog of God’s Word, and IF personal interpretation was the way God intended us to learn His Truths, then there would be, at most, ONE Protestant denomination, since that is the approach they have to Christ’s truths. The Bible, and the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), personally interpreted.

Yet, that’s not the case. There are literally thousands of man-made Protestant denominations, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, personally interpreting the same Bible. But yet, they have different interpretations of the same Scriptures!

For example, Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not.

Baptists consider an “adult” profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism, while Presbyterians do not.

Presbyterians consider the predestination of the elect to be anessential doctrine but Free Methodists do not.

Nazarenes consider personal holiness anessential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not.

Calvinists consider the “irresistability of grace” an essential belief, while Lutherans do not.

Episcopalians consider sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not.

Presbyterians regard the belief in the “total depravity” of man essential, but Methodists do not.

The Dutch Reformed consider creeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not.

Baptists consider “altar calls” essential but Presbyterians do not.

And we could go on and on through thousands upon thousands of contradictory, man-made doctrines, all made up by folks personally interpreting Scripture and claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is NOT the Spirit of Confusion, but of Truth. The Truths of Christ can never contradict themselves.

We will know Christ’s truths by its fruit. Disunity is not the work of Christ. The disunity of Protestantism disproves it’s validity.

Are these groups really saying that these things are needed for our salvation? Or is it an expression of the one faith?

I see where you say that is the case for - Nazarenes consider personal holiness an essential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not.

Do Nazarenes really say this or are you mis-understanding - the way so many misunderstand Catholic relationship with Mary?

 

[schaick]

Ahhhhh - - - - Now now now -
You asked about "Sacred Tradtions.

I gave you one.

It is part of Ancient and Sacred Tradition that Only a Validly Ordained Priest has the authority, Granted by Christ Through His Authoritative Church, to confect the Eucharist.

Now you want to argue, to disprove, the validity of this “Sacred Tradition”.
This is what occurs whenever these thread come up.
If it is something “derived from scripture” that we all agree on like, “the Trinity” then is is not “tradition” but “sound belief”. If is something that we don’t agree on, even if it IS derived from Scripture" then the cry goes up, “wheres the beef” - umm- I mean Proof - "Where’s the Proof.
The fact is that virtually every belief, every doctrine, is a combination of Sacred Tradition with Scriptural support in one form or another.

As for Proof, Yes I have Proof. I have Proof in the teaching of the Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church, as well as the Orthodox Church - Both clearly traceable to the Apostles and both teaching that the Eucharist is confected only by a validly ordained priesthood.

As for Mr Luther - Luther was never a bishop and only Bishops may ordain. Luther was also excommunicated from the Church and so had no faculties to confect the Eucharist. Any ordination stemming from Luther is invalid. Sorry -

I am sure you will disagree with that, but until the Church teaches otherwise, Sacred Tradition, along with the authority of the Magiserium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, teaches that the Eucharist can be confected only by validly ordained Priests. It has not only taught this since the reformation but has always taught this.

Peace
James

I don’t doubt that there was an authority -We see in Scripture and early Church Fathers that in fact there is authority in the Disciples as a group. We also see that there was a diifferent way of choosing and that the authority was local - decentralized.

newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
A college of presbyters was established at an early date at Jerusalem and in Palestine, but elsewhere not before the second century; its members were chosen from among the presbyteroi, and in its hands lay all authority and disciplinary power.

Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops.

At some point Catholic Sacred Tradition has canceled out Scripture and the earliest Church Fathers traditions. Where, when, how, why did this happen? ** Is there any concrete evidence that this new Sacred Tradition is TRUTH?** That only the Catholic Church has the authority?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6481160&postcount=596
I found a great article explaining my question:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

*What I will show is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, together with traditional papal conclave legislation, leaves no room for the view that the commission of heresy or apostasy prevents a man from validly attaining or retaining the papal office.

On the basis of twentieth-century canon law (found in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes), a pope who fulfilled the canonical requirements for heresy—that is, who pertinaciously doubted or denied one or more truths to be believed with divine and Catholic faith (cf. 1983 Code 751; 1917 Code 1325 §2)—would not have the moral right before God to be pope. Therefore, his remaining in office would be illicit. Still, if he refused to resign, he would truly be the pope in the sense that his acts of papal governance would still be valid before God and the Church. It should go without saying that divine providence would never permit him to define his heresy ex cathedra. The dogma of papal infallibility assures us this can never happen.*

Here it gets tricky the immoral Pope excomunicates Luther illicitly, but it remains a valid excommunication. Luther refuses to give up his post- he is acting illicitly but everyting he does is valid:

*For instance, a bishop who carries out an episcopal consecration without papal mandate acts illicitly but validly. He violates a just law, but the man he ordains receives the sacramental powers of a bishop so that he in turn can ordain true priests capable of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass. A priest who celebrates Mass while in a state of mortal sin or without using proper vestments acts illicitly. But, assuming there are no other defects in the way he offers Mass, it is still valid: The bread and wine he consecrates truly become the body and blood of Christ.

… For instance, a bishop who appoints a certain priest as pastor of a parish knowing that the man is morally or psychologically unfit for the task acts illicitly, since the appointment violates canon law (cf. canon 521 §2, 1983 Code; canon 453 §2, 1917 Code). But the appointment is still valid. In other words, that priest is the rightful pastor of the parish so that, for instance, the marriages he witnesses there will be true marriages. The parishioners are obliged to accept and obey his just decisions for as long as the bishop keeps him in office.

It is thus seen that a minister who is himself evil does not invalidate either this or any of the other Sacraments, because it is Christ who, by the merits of His passion, gives to each Sacrament its efficacy; and He is good.*

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I don’t doubt that there was an authority -We see in Scripture and early Church Fathers that in fact there is authority in the Disciples as a group. We also see that there was a diifferent way of choosing and that the authority was local - decentralized.

newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
A college of presbyters was established at an early date at Jerusalem and in Palestine, but elsewhere not before the second century; its members were chosen from among the presbyteroi, and in its hands lay all authority and disciplinary power.

Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops.

At some point Catholic Sacred Tradition has canceled out Scripture and the earliest Church Fathers traditions. Where, when, how, why did this happen? ** Is there any concrete evidence that this new Sacred Tradition is TRUTH?** That only the Catholic Church has the authority?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6481160&postcount=596
I found a great article explaining my question:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

*What I will show is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, together with traditional papal conclave legislation, leaves no room for the view that the commission of heresy or apostasy prevents a man from validly attaining or retaining the papal office.

On the basis of twentieth-century canon law (found in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes), a pope who fulfilled the canonical requirements for heresy—that is, who pertinaciously doubted or denied one or more truths to be believed with divine and Catholic faith (cf. 1983 Code 751; 1917 Code 1325 §2)—would not have the moral right before God to be pope. Therefore, his remaining in office would be illicit. Still, if he refused to resign, he would truly be the pope in the sense that his acts of papal governance would still be valid before God and the Church. It should go without saying that divine providence would never permit him to define his heresy ex cathedra. The dogma of papal infallibility assures us this can never happen.*

Here it gets tricky the immoral Pope excomunicates Luther illicitly, but it remains a valid excommunication. Luther refuses to give up his post- he is acting illicitly but everyting he does is valid:

*For instance, a bishop who carries out an episcopal consecration without papal mandate acts illicitly but validly. He violates a just law, but the man he ordains receives the sacramental powers of a bishop so that he in turn can ordain true priests capable of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass. A priest who celebrates Mass while in a state of mortal sin or without using proper vestments acts illicitly. But, assuming there are no other defects in the way he offers Mass, it is still valid: The bread and wine he consecrates truly become the body and blood of Christ.

… For instance, a bishop who appoints a certain priest as pastor of a parish knowing that the man is morally or psychologically unfit for the task acts illicitly, since the appointment violates canon law (cf. canon 521 §2, 1983 Code; canon 453 §2, 1917 Code). But the appointment is still valid. In other words, that priest is the rightful pastor of the parish so that, for instance, the marriages he witnesses there will be true marriages. The parishioners are obliged to accept and obey his just decisions for as long as the bishop keeps him in office.

It is thus seen that a minister who is himself evil does not invalidate either this or any of the other Sacraments, because it is Christ who, by the merits of His passion, gives to each Sacrament its efficacy; and He is good.*

Ok let me take a crack at this.

1). Sacared Tradions
A. The Church being one Holy and Apostolic
B. The Canon of Holy Scripture
C. Apostolic Sucession
1. Form Chirst to the Apostals ( note there are directives that Chirst gave to the twelve and not to all of the disciples), the those that were selected be the Apostals to succeed them down to this day in the Office of Bishop.
D. The teaching of the Trinity. ( note that though you can conclued from Scripture that God is Trinitarian in is never and no were directly stated.
E. The seven Sacraments

There are more and some have along with these have been listed in other post. Another is that Only Bishops can ordain. As Chirst choose the 12 and they choose others ( Acts chapter one the replacemnt for Judas) shows us that the Office of the Apostols is seperate from the others and how that the Apostols Ordained another.
Apostal became known as Bishops and the Faith Spread more were needed. each had a area that was their responcability. we see also in Act the creation of the Diaconate. Men to assist them. Agaon as the faith grew and spread the Preisthood grew as they were not fully ordain as Bishops, but with more authoriy than deacon. They could act in the Bishop place veriou just assit as with the Deacon.

The rule for what you need to do to be prepared for ordination have and don change over time. the method ( laying of hand by a Bishop) does not. And only a Bishop can ordain a priest can not ordain.

contined

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Now with Luther. He was a preist. He had authority of that office. When he was excommonicated he was still a priest ( once a priest always a priest). if you administed the sacremnets they were still valid, but were illicit. think of it this way you have to have a licence to cut hair if your licence is revoked and you cut someone hair it is still a valid hair cut just illegal. Being that he was not a Bishop he could not ordain other preist.

This is why you find that only with in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Angelicans are there Preist. ( I do not want to get into Angelicans Preisthood being valid or not thats another topic. All the other Christian traditions have ministers, pastors, preacher . ect…

Aslo you do not have to be a Preist to be a preacher throughout there have been preachers of the Gospel that were not Preist. Today it is not common to hear of a person in the Catholic Church as preacher other than preist. but there are those that could be considered preachers amoung the Laity.

I hope this helps you.

 

[schaick]

Ok let me take a crack at this.

1). Sacared Tradions
A. The Church being one Holy and Apostolic
B. The Canon of Holy Scripture
C. Apostolic Sucession
1. Form Chirst to the Apostals ( note there are directives that Chirst gave to the twelve and not to all of the disciples), the those that were selected be the Apostals to succeed them down to this day in the Office of Bishop.
D. The teaching of the Trinity. ( note that though you can conclued from Scripture that God is Trinitarian in is never and no were directly stated.
E. The seven Sacraments

There are more and some have along with these have been listed in other post. Another is that Only Bishops can ordain. As Chirst choose the 12 and they choose others ( Acts chapter one the replacemnt for Judas) shows us that the Office of the Apostols is seperate from the others and how that the Apostols Ordained another.
Apostal became known as Bishops and the Faith Spread more were needed. each had a area that was their responcability. we see also in Act the creation of the Diaconate. Men to assist them. Agaon as the faith grew and spread the Preisthood grew as they were not fully ordain as Bishops, but with more authoriy than deacon. They could act in the Bishop place veriou just assit as with the Deacon.

The rule for what you need to do to be prepared for ordination have and don change over time. the method ( laying of hand by a Bishop) does not. And only a Bishop can ordain a priest can not ordain.

contined

Yes ok thank you to all. It is falling into place- the Catholic thought.!

The Sacred Traditions that a non-Catholic Christian doesn’t have access to according to the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church.

I think I understand now - why Sacred Tradition for the Catholic is on equal terms with Scripture. The authority can’t really be concretely proved- it must simply be accepted.

On other threads I was not connecting the obedience part and why you say statements/traditions are not to be tested/ or don’t have to be tested - as in testing, or actually looking for for the Fruits of the Holy Spirit in the person doing the leading of the congregation, preaching, consecrating the Eucharist, etc…

I now understand why I and other mere Christians hold Scripture with so much authority, as our final rule or measuring stick- because in Scripture we can see that not all of the Church Jesus is building is contained only in the Catholic Church.

Have a BLESSED EASTER!!

 

[JRKH]

Yes ok thank you to all. It is falling into place- the Catholic thought.!

The Sacred Traditions that a non-Catholic Christian doesn’t have access to according to the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church.

This may not be entirely, but is the crux of the matter in most instances. In fact it is this authority that is cited by many non-catholic christians as a big reason for their coming into the church. The reach the understanding that, without authority, scritpure can be tweisted into whatever anyone wants and there is no one to authoritatively tell them that they are wrong.

I think I understand now - why Sacred Tradition for the Catholic is on equal terms with Scripture. The authority can’t really be concretely proved- it must simply be accepted.

Certainly that authority can be “concretely proved”, unless one simply chooses to reject the proofs. We always have free will though and so are perfectly free to reject “concrete proof”.

On other threads I was not connecting the obedience part and why you say statements/traditions are not to be tested/ or don’t have to be tested - as in testing, or actually looking for for the Fruits of the Holy Spirit in the person doing the leading of the congregation, preaching, consecrating the Eucharist, etc.

You are right. Obedience, and submission are important aspects of the Christian life. It is called, incase your wondering, humility. Being humble enough to recognize that we are not the “last word” on what scripture means. Humble enough to realize that we have flaws and so may our priests. Humble enough to accept that Christ gave us a Church, through which He gave us the Bible. A bible to be used within The Church and not as an instrument to denounce The Church.

I now understand why I and other mere Christians hold Scripture with so much authority, as our final rule or measuring stick- because in Scripture we can see that not all of the Church Jesus is building is contained only in the Catholic Church.

All IS contained in the Catholic Church which holds the Fullness of faith. That does not preclude the Holy Spirit’s use of other communites to lead people to Christ. The CCC is clear on this.
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Have a BLESSED EASTER!!

And you as well.

Peace
James

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Yes ok thank you to all. It is falling into place- the Catholic thought.!

The Sacred Traditions that a non-Catholic Christian doesn’t have access to according to the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church.

I think I understand now - why Sacred Tradition for the Catholic is on equal terms with Scripture. The authority can’t really be concretely proved- it must simply be accepted.

On other threads I was not connecting the obedience part and why you say statements/traditions are not to be tested/ or don’t have to be tested - as in testing, or actually looking for for the Fruits of the Holy Spirit in the person doing the leading of the congregation, preaching, consecrating the Eucharist, etc…

I now understand why I and other mere Christians hold Scripture with so much authority, as our final rule or measuring stick- because in Scripture we can see that not all of the Church Jesus is building is contained only in the Catholic Church.

Have a BLESSED EASTER!!

I’m not sure you do. It is the Authority of the Church that the Holy Scripture comes to us. Without this Authority what is Scripture and what is just a good book with nice ideas can not be determined. It is only over the last 500 years that The Bible has Taken on this role of being supreme authority. For the first 400 years of the Christian/Catholic Church outside of the Books of what is Now know as the Old Testement there was no Scripture. And even then which books of Jewish Scripture were not agreed upon.(even amoung the Jews). The Bishops came together and and form them about 400 or so years ago the cannon of Chirstian Scripture was Declared. Without the Authority of the Church there would be no Bible.

Also In America I think we tend to Look at The Bible on a religios plane the way we look at the constitution on a goverment plane That the Bible gives the Church its Authority like the constitution give the government its. This is not how it works. In the Church The Bible is equal in Authoirity to The Teaching Authority of the Church and the Traditions of the Church. And non of them can over ride the other. The kicker is without The Authority that the Church was give by Christ as (as seen in the Bible) each and every person is free to make scripture say what they want it to say.

May God Bless you this Easter.
He has Risen!! Amen, He has Risen!!!