Scripture and the Catholic Church - Human tradition?

[Della]

There are three legs on which the church stands. One is scripture, the second is tradition, and the third is the magisterium. Lent and confession as they are formally defined come from tradition. There is scriptural support for confession but the whole sacrament itself isn’t formally laid out in scripture.

If I understand correctly, the mandate against contraception came from the magisterium, which represents church tradition. A non-Catholic Christian would likely view the magisterium as they did the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who placed heavy burdens on the people but themselves would not lift a finger to help them.

By the way I am not questioning the Catholic teachings myself, though I struggle with defending them against opposing views because in many ways when people point out parallels with the Pharisees and teachers of the law it kind of strikes a chord within.

Your whole premise here is that the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are traditions of men. They aren’t. Sacred Tradition is the whole of God’s revelation to man culminating in Christ, including the Scriptures. The Bible is a witness to that revelation–it is not the revelation itself. God has always revealed himself to men, not to books, no matter how sacred they may be. Authority lies in persons not in documents. Documents, such as Scripture, are useful as guides and references, but they are not authorities–men are–the men God has appointed to have that authority, as Christ did when he founded the Church on Peter and the Apostles–the first Magisterium. It is the Holy Spirit who ensures that the Church is teaching truth and making the right decisions in matters of faith and morals, not fallible human beings.

You do know that not all contraceptives are abortifacients, right?

I’m sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the fact that she could have sought an abortion for medical reasons. Since I don’t know her case, I cannot say if that would have been against the tenets of the faith. There are instances in which an abortion is an unintended side effect of saving the mother’s life. But such cases are determined according to their merit, which I am not free to judge.

NFP is not infallible. We need to exercise a bit of self-restraint. If a woman cannot have more children due to health, the couple needs to be especially careful as to when they engage in sex. In our society ‘restraint’ has become a dirty word. But we have free will. Our glands ought not to rule over our heads. God gave us intelligence. We can do or not do anything if we determine we will do what is best, instead of what is worst or even less good. We’re adults who should be formed in our faith, not recalcitrant children who can’t control themselves.

Now, I’m not saying the couple in this case did anything amiss–don’t get me wrong. Still, the attitude that if I check off all the right boxes God has to give me what I want is a very bad one. Our lives are in God’s hands to do with as he pleases. We should always have the attitude (and pray with the intention) that Jesus had in the Garden–“Thy will be done” not “my will be done.”

 

[CompSciGuy]

Your whole premise here is that the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are traditions of men. They aren’t. Sacred Tradition is the whole of God’s revelation to man culminating in Christ, including the Scriptures. The Bible is a witness to that revelation–it is not the revelation itself. God has always revealed himself to men, not to books, no matter how sacred they may be. Authority lies in persons not in documents. Documents, such as Scripture, are useful as guides and references, but they are not authorities–men are–the men God has appointed to have that authority, as Christ did when he founded the Church on Peter and the Apostles–the first Magisterium. It is the Holy Spirit who ensures that the Church is teaching truth and making the right decisions in matters of faith and morals, not fallible human beings.

I’m sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the fact that she could have sought an abortion for medical reasons. Since I don’t know her case, I cannot say if that would have been against the tenets of the faith. There are instances in which an abortion is an unintended side effect of saving the mother’s life. But such cases are determined according to their merit, which I am not free to judge.

NFP is not infallible. We need to exercise a bit of self-restraint. If a woman cannot have more children due to health, the couple needs to be especially careful as to when they engage in sex. In our society ‘restraint’ has become a dirty word. But we have free will. Our glands ought not to rule over our heads. God gave us intelligence. We can do or not do anything if we determine we will do what is best, instead of what is worst or even less good. We’re adults who should be formed in our faith, not recalcitrant children who can’t control themselves.

Now, I’m not saying the couple in this case did anything amiss–don’t get me wrong. Still, the attitude that if I check off all the right boxes God has to give me what I want is a very bad one. Our lives are in God’s hands to do with as he pleases. We should always have the attitude (and pray with the intention) that Jesus had in the Garden–“Thy will be done” not “my will be done.”

I get where you are coming from, but here is an analogy. Christian scientists shun basically all forms of medical intervention. They believe in faith healing and that if you go to the doctor and get chemotherapy, for example, for your cancer, or antibiotics for your infection, then you don’t trust in God’s will. I sort of see a parallel here. I guess outside of the will of the church it is hard to tell the difference between the two attitudes.

I also get what you are saying about your glands cannot rule your head. My wife and I practice NFP and are currently avoiding pregnancy, as we just had a little boy (our first) a few months ago and don’t have the energy for another right away. I think it is a good thing that I started my conversion to faith while I was in college because honestly, unless you are working actively toward a chaste and godly life before marriage, it is going to be very difficult to practice NFP because you will have no experience with self-discipline and self-restraint. Choosing to abstain, even when you don’t want to, is hard for people who did not have practice doing this before they got married. You are right about society, the rule of it is “if it feels good, do it.” Most people are ruled by their passions and the thought of not indulging every single one baffles a lot of people.

 

[sirach2v4]

There are three legs on which the church stands. One is scripture, the second is tradition, and the third is the magisterium.

IMHO, every church, religion, and denomination has scripture, tradition, and magisterium, they just don’t admit it. That’s one commendable thing about the RCC that it teaches this as truth, while as you notice some deny tradition (Tradition) and/or magisterium. There are preachers who offer their preaching as infallible, they just conveniently sidestep saying as much.

Judaism and Christianity run parallel, superficially, with respect to their interpretation of the Old Testament: The Jewish interpretation of it is called the Talmud (“study [of the torah]”) and the Christian interpretation of the OT is the “New Testament.” The NT was first Christ’s body and blood, then later morphed in meaning into a collection of writings called the New Testament.

As you point out, it was an ordinary, every-day occurrence to discuss the commands of the Torah. I sense that Jesus’s rebuke was not against tradition, in itself, but against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

The situation of the woman who died in childbirth is too complicated to address here.
I’ve heard of other death-related fallings-away from the Catholic Church, even in my own family. Almost a century ago, my grandmother lost a child in childbirth, and, as I understand it, the priest would not bury the baby with a funeral.

There’s two interesting books on the Jewish perspective on morality that I’ve found interesting, Love Your Neighbor and yourself by Elliot N. Dorff and The 6 Constant Mitzvos [commandments] by Rabbi Yitzchak Berkowitz. The latter is about six of the 613 commandments the Jews recognize in the Torah that must be observed every second of the day.

 

[Della]

I get where you are coming from, but here is an analogy. Christian scientists shun basically all forms of medical intervention. They believe in faith healing and that if you go to the doctor and get chemotherapy, for example, for your cancer, or antibiotics for your infection, then you don’t trust in God’s will. I sort of see a parallel here. I guess outside of the will of the church it is hard to tell the difference between the two attitudes.

The difference is the Christian Scientists have no true authority from God, whereas the Catholic Church was founded by Christ who gave her the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. That being said, CS folks are within their rights to practice their faith as they see fit. The Church plainly teaches this (you need to read the Catechism about these things). All who belong to the Catholic faith are subject to the Catholic Church’s precepts just as all who are US citizens are subject to the laws of the USA.

I also get what you are saying about your glands cannot rule your head. My wife and I practice NFP and are currently avoiding pregnancy, as we just had a little boy (our first) a few months ago and don’t have the energy for another right away. I think it is a good thing that I started my conversion to faith while I was in college because honestly, unless you are working actively toward a chaste and godly life before marriage, it is going to be very difficult to practice NFP because you will have no experience with self-discipline and self-restraint. Choosing to abstain, even when you don’t want to, is hard for people who did not have practice doing this before they got married. You are right about society, the rule of it is “if it feels good, do it.” Most people are ruled by their passions and the thought of not indulging every single one baffles a lot of people.

In our times the rule of faith is not supported by the culture, making it much harder for people to understand why they need to obey the Church. Add to this the poor catechesis many had after Vatican II when many dioceses ran off on tangents, dabbling in silly experimentations, teaching “all you need is love” instead of the truths of the faith.–not the fault of the Council but of those didn’t think the Council “went far enough”, as if it were up to them to decide that. It’s no wonder so many are confused and downright rebellious. They simply haven’t been taught what they ought to have been. Still, each of us is responsible before God for forming our conscience in line with Church teaching. Contrary to what many believe, doing so doesn’t put undue burdens on us, rather it frees us to live the life of faith, hope, and charity God intended we should.

 

[PJM]

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

One MUST NOT confuse “going to Confession” John 20:19-23 with “tradition”. Ceremonial washing, and Lent are PRACTICES, NOT doctrine.

Sacramental Confession is a MANDATE & a Doctine, not a “tradition”

The “traditions” addressed in Mark refer to the 613 ADDED to the Commandments by MEN; and given the “binding authority” of GOD.

There is absolute no need to make excuse, or to even explain these issues when the Bible is correctly understood.

Jesus KNOWING that he would soon be put to death, Rise again on the 3td and then ascend back into heaven; and having accomplished his Mission which HAD to include Founding a NEW system, WITH a NEW set of Faith beliefs; and having changed the Mandate from 'GO to the house of Israel ONLY {Mt 10:5-6 to NOW the “entire world”** Mt 28:19-20**}; Jesus HAD TO also establish Peter & successors} with the essential tools: the Authority & Power NEEDED to fulfill the:YOU GO TO THE ENTIRE WORLD mandate: This is affirmed in** Jn 17: 18 & Jn 20:21**. Cf. As the Fahter sent ME; NOW I God send YOU"!

At that time & place the terms “bind & loose” meant precisely: UNLIMITED POWERS OF GOVERNANCE. Jesus WAS following OT Tradition of ALWAYS appointing one MAN to be his emissary:

Abram, Noah, Moses, the Judges, Kings like David & Jacob, and Prophets like Isaiah. Each set the “tradition”-stage for Jesus Choosing Peter.

[2]: If one understands the .God-assigned-roles of the OT & NT; which is that the OT leads to the NT; and the NT completes, fulfills and perfects the OT; one can see the role assigned to “TRADITION” as God-inspired.

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents

My friend your understanding here is not totally on the mark.

The Moral of this account is the hypocrisy of the Priest & Pharisees who DEMAND obedient-compliance for OTHERS< BUT not so much for THEMSELVES. The P & P were abusing the LAW imposed by the 4th Commandment: HONOR YOUR FATHER & YOUR MOTHER; by seizing a loop hole that permitted donations to THEM .{in the name of the temple} rather than to assume their responsibility towards taking care of their parents in their old age or illness.

“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

While a very limited cause MIGHT{???} allow this; it ought NEVER be done without consulting their priest. EACH case would have to be studied and discussed with their Physicians. This IS NOT a decision one takes on their own.

As A FYI: IN the case of a pregnancy if the women is endanger of the POSSIBILITY of dying in childbirth; she must nevertheless, TRUST in God and go through the delivery process.

This is just one example. I kind of see a parallel there in regard to sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of the people following it. I actually remember learning of a man who left the Church because he and his wife followed NFP and became pregnant still when his wife had some serious health issues; she ended up dying in childbirth. The man and his children are now Episcopalian

OK:blush:

BUT who;s in charge of our lives?

God in His Brilliance gives ONLY 2 options:

We are , or God is. And the responsibility can’t be split.

This man blames the 'Church" when his issue is really, directly and exclusively with God; who ALONE .determine Life & death issues.

Even the CHURCH cannot overrule GOD: Thou SHALT NOT KILL God’s Commandment; and taught as demanded by that same God.

THIS MESSAGE OF BE FRUITFUL & MULTIPLE APPEARS ABOUT 30 TIMES IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS [mean s “Life”]

**Gen.38: 6-10 **“And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. **And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also” ** MEANING GOD KILLED HIM BOTH PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY [condemned to ETERNAL Hell!]

I would be interested to hear any discussion on this subject.

God Bless you,

PJM

 

[CompSciGuy]

In our times the rule of faith is not supported by the culture, making it much harder for people to understand why they need to obey the Church. Add to this the poor catechesis many had after Vatican II when many dioceses ran off on tangents, dabbling in silly experimentations, teaching “all you need is love” instead of the truths of the faith.–not the fault of the Council but of those didn’t think the Council “went far enough”, as if it were up to them to decide that. It’s no wonder so many are confused and downright rebellious. They simply haven’t been taught what they ought to have been. Still, each of us is responsible before God for forming our conscience in line with Church teaching. Contrary to what many believe, doing so doesn’t put undue burdens on us, rather it frees us to live the life of faith, hope, and charity God intended we should.

Not to mention, the fact that practically everyone in my generation grew up with everyone around us, teachers, celebrities, etc. beating us over the head with the message: “just be yourself.” That’s it. The problem is, most of us as kids had no idea who we were; heck, we were still being formed! Kids need guidance! Telling a ten-year-old “just be yourself” without any other form of guidance is like telling a blank canvas to just be art. If only my peers grew up being taught not to “be yourself” but rather to “be virtuous.” Be honest. Be patient. Be just. Be diligent. Be chaste. Be self-controlled. And then show kids how to implement these things. Think of what the world would look like…

 

[CompSciGuy]

The difference is the Christian Scientists have no true authority from God, whereas the Catholic Church was founded by Christ who gave her the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. That being said, CS folks are within their rights to practice their faith as they see fit. The Church plainly teaches this (you need to read the Catechism about these things). All who belong to the Catholic faith are subject to the Catholic Church’s precepts just as all who are US citizens are subject to the laws of the USA.

The only issue with this is that it is an argument from authority… it doesn’t hold up to those who question the authority of the Church, and carries even less weight with those concerned with population issues and poverty. The point being, if one can get mad at a Christian Scientist for refusing to obtain antibiotics for their kids when they have a deadly infection, and not be able to take the heat from non-Catholics about family planning, then it would seem awfully hypocritical. I know that you will bring up NFP, but there are many people who question the efficacy of NFP compared to other forms of birth control. I believe in NFP myself and practice it, but I can’t help but wonder, when I hear people say for example that it is just as effective as other forms of birth control at avoiding pregnancy, I can’t help but wonder if that is just propaganda…

 

[Abu]

CompSciGuy #22
The only issue with this is that it is an argument from authority… it doesn’t hold up to those who question the authority of the Church, and carries even less weight with those concerned with population issues and poverty.

Then demonstrate the reality of the authority given by Christ to His Church, which is crystal clear.

On population issues, demonstrate the reality.

The world’s next great leap forward
Towards the end of poverty
Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same again
Jun 1st 2013
“Much of world poverty has in fact been reduced or alleviated, as a recent essay in The Economist has shown. Christians often seem not to know that this change has happened or why it happened.”

“….the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people.”
tinyurl.com/ldjt6go

Apart from the developing demographic winter with below replacement birthrates virtually worldwide, the sensible solution to poverty is Christianity which “holds that the poor qua poor have as good a chance of reaching beatitude as the rich qua rich, probably a better one. Unless this end is understood, no amount of discussion of wealth and poverty in this world will make much difference. But when the question of the poor does arise, as it should, the main question should not be identification with it, but what really alleviates their condition.” [Fr James A Schall, S.J.]
catholicworldreport.com/I…e_poverty.aspx

there are many people who question the efficacy of NFP compared to other forms of birth control. I believe in NFP myself and practice it, but I can’t help but wonder, when I hear people say for example that it is just as effective as other forms of birth control at avoiding pregnancy, I can’t help but wonder if that is just propaganda…

The efficacy of NBR may be gauged from the great work of Mrs Mercedes Wilson.

Wilson’s Family of the Americas Foundation now teaches NBR in more than 100 countries, including China. “God would not be so cruel that unless you can read you can’t follow natural family planning,” she insists. “Why make it so complicated?” Wilson’s bold decision to dispense with the thermometer and rely solely on observations of mucus was followed by the Billings in Australia several years later.

NBR families, whether Couple to Couple or Billings followers, report an astonishingly low divorce rate — one informal study puts it at 1.3 percent, as compared with about 50 percent in society at large. Even accounting for the high level of dedication of the NBR group studied, experts estimate that the divorce rate for NBR couples does not go above 4 percent. Wilson’s Family of the Americas has a study that shows a 2 percent divorce rate. Advocates say that NBR promotes communication between husband and wife because both must be involved. Husbands are encouraged to help with the charting.

Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among “the poorest of the poor” in Guatemala. “There’s no excuse anymore to pretend that only those with strong religious convictions can follow natural family planning,” [NBR] she writes.

Unlike the rhythm method, the Billings method does not depend on a stable menstrual cycle. Numerous independent trials have confirmed the 99 percent success rate of the Billings Method, including a recent study following thousands of women for more than a year. If any further proof is needed, the method has been regularly used up to date by over 2,686,400 fertile couples in China for avoiding pregnancy with an overall success rate of approximately 99 percent.

Meet a giant in the Catholic World of Justice, Love and Peace:
Mrs Mercedes Arzú Wilson is founder and President of Family of the Americas Foundation since 1977.
She has received three Honorary Doctor Degrees and numerous awards for her work in the pro-life/family movement, most recently from Franciscan University at Steubenville. (Doctor of Humane Letters 2006)
In 1994, she was appointed as a founding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life by St John Paul II, and continues to defend life from the moment of conception until its natural end.
omsoul.com/catalog/wilson…rzu-m0102.html

 

[mackbrislawn]

Here is an approach that those who argue against tradtion may not have heard before. It uses Galatians 1:8-9: “Yet I say that if I, or an angel from Heaven, were to preach to you any other gospel than the one you have heard, may he be damned. You have heard me say it before and now I say it again–may anybody who preaches any other gospel than the one you have already heard be a damned soul.” (The New Testament in Modern English)

Notice that this, the “gold standard” gospel was a preached gospel, one that the Galatians heard. Not one that was written down. Not one that they read. It was a gospel that was heard orally, and transmitted orally. In other words, tradition. All other gospels, including written gospels, were to be compared to this initial, original, preached gospel, which could only be known through oral tradition.

Tradition, then, is absolutely essential for recognizing and understanding the gospel.

 

[fhansen]

As part of my daily prayers today I was going through the daily readings. If anyone else has read it today, the gospel is from Mark. It reads as follows:

When I read this I heard a number of voices of opposition in my head. For some background, I grew up Protestant.

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure):

“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

This is just one example. I kind of see a parallel there in regard to sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of the people following it. I actually remember learning of a man who left the Church because he and his wife followed NFP and became pregnant still when his wife had some serious health issues; she ended up dying in childbirth. The man and his children are now Episcopalian.

I would be interested to hear any discussion on this subject.

The faith is pretty much private interpretation and guess-work: may the “best” exegete win, if Tradition/the lived experience of the Church that God established has no say in the understanding of that faith, if all understanding must come solely from Scripture IOW.

 

[Della]

The only issue with this is that it is an argument from authority… it doesn’t hold up to those who question the authority of the Church, and carries even less weight with those concerned with population issues and poverty.

Which is, quite frankly, their problem since the Church’s authority is well documented in secular history. Up until the split with the Orthodox (over ecclesial jurisdiction not authority) the Catholic Church was the only Church, except for some churches in Africa and other remote places cut off from the main body. No other church can claim to have the authority to decide matters of faith and morals, and most Protestant churches don’t make that claim. Odd splinter groups, such as CS do, but they have no historical basis for that claim at all.

The point being, if one can get mad at a Christian Scientist for refusing to obtain antibiotics for their kids when they have a deadly infection, and not be able to take the heat from non-Catholics about family planning, then it would seem awfully hypocritical. I know that you will bring up NFP, but there are many people who question the efficacy of NFP compared to other forms of birth control. I believe in NFP myself and practice it, but I can’t help but wonder, when I hear people say for example that it is just as effective as other forms of birth control at avoiding pregnancy, I can’t help but wonder if that is just propaganda…

That is a false premise since, as I have cited, the CS has no such authority from God. That doesn’t mean their faithful can’t follow their decisions on such matters, but they cannot legitimately claim their right as coming from God since Christ did not found the CSs. It’s only hypocritical if the Church’s claims were false, but they aren’t. The Church has more right to claim her authority as Christ’s Church as the Queen of England has to claim her rights as queen. Christ founded his Church, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore the Church is his Church and has his authority to speak in his name on all such matters. Non-Catholics are not bound by the Church’s precepts, but they are missing out on the graces that come with obeying them, just the same.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Which is, quite frankly, their problem since the Church’s authority is well documented in secular history. Up until the split with the Orthodox (over ecclesial jurisdiction not authority) the Catholic Church was the only Church, except for some churches in Africa and other remote places cut off from the main body. No other church can claim to have the authority to decide matters of faith and morals, and most Protestant churches don’t make that claim. Odd splinter groups, such as CS do, but they have no historical basis for that claim at all.

That is a false premise since, as I have cited, the CS has no such authority from God. That doesn’t mean their faithful can’t follow their decisions on such matters, but they cannot legitimately claim their right as coming from God since Christ did not found the CSs. It’s only hypocritical if the Church’s claims were false, but they aren’t. The Church has more right to claim her authority as Christ’s Church as the Queen of England has to claim her rights as queen. Christ founded his Church, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore the Church is his Church and has his authority to speak in his name on all such matters. Non-Catholics are not bound by the Church’s precepts, but they are missing out on the graces that come with obeying them, just the same.

What you are putting forth is what is referred to as divine command theory. Basically it comes down to this: whatever God says (or whoever claims to represent Him) is right or wrong is right or wrong. As opposed to the idea that an action is inherently right or wrong and that God, being all good, demands that which is right. According to divine command theory, if God (or the pope for that matter) infallibly declared that it was an act of justice to commit genocide against an entire ethnic group, then that action would automatically become right, regardless of our consciences or our ability to reason. I do not believe that this view (divine command theory) is one that the Church believes in or supports.

 

[Della]

What you are putting forth is what is referred to as divine command theory. Basically it comes down to this: whatever God says (or whoever claims to represent Him) is right or wrong is right or wrong. As opposed to the idea that an action is inherently right or wrong and that God, being all good, demands that which is right. According to divine command theory, if God (or the pope for that matter) infallibly declared that it was an act of justice to commit genocide against an entire ethnic group, then that action would automatically become right, regardless of our consciences or our ability to reason. I do not believe that this view (divine command theory) is one that the Church believes in or supports.

Whoa, you are taking this way too far. The pope and the Magisterium’s God given authority extends only to matters of faith and morals, based on Sacred Tradition, which includes the Bible. No way has any pope ever declared such a thing, nor would he–he doesn’t have that authority. It would go against all that Jesus taught his Apostles and which has been passed down from them to us. Jesus didn’t give the Church authority over all human affairs, only those that pertain to Church governance, how the faithful are to conduct themselves in the world, and deciding matters of doctrine/dogma. No one in the Church has ever claimed the kind of sweeping power you presented here.

 

[fisherman_carl]

… Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother.

I think the crux of Jesus’ message is summed up when he says:

“How well you have set aside the commandment of God
in order to uphold your tradition!" (Mk 7:9)

Jesus is not against all human traditions, only bad ones. And, we also, need to look at what a tradition is. A tradition is simply handing something on. I wouldn’t consider NFP to be a tradition, just like I wouldn’t consider not stealing to be a tradition. And, as far as I am aware there is no commandment of God against using NFP. NFP is a technique, not a tradition, and it is used rather than artificial birth control for reasons that are related to the moral law like stealing or murder. Not sinning would not be considered a human tradition. But, rather a moral requirement. So I think we can distinguish between a tradition and a moral requirement. One doesn’t just hand down a requirement to not steal as if it is only some human tradition that we do just because we’ve always done it that way. Rather, it is a moral imperative that is proven true at any time. But, also, on the subject of birth control, people still get pregnant using birth control as well. The only full proof method is complete abstinence. Also, birth control pills are allowed to treat medical conditions. Just, not for birth control. But, this is not for reasons of tradition, but for moral reasons. And, to be obedient to God who commands us to be fruitful and multiply, and who was against Onan because he refused to get pregnant his dead brother’s wife when he slept with her (See the sin of Onan).

Now consider some Protestants tradition that the Eucharist is only symbolic. Well, this would be an example of a human tradition that goes against what Jesus said in the gospels. Thus, it would be a bad tradition.

What’s interesting to me about that passage is that Jesus says the Pharisees break the commandments of God to uphold their traditions. And he says they do many such things. I would be curious to know what these other many things that they do that Jesus is talking about.

I’ve been reading a book called, “The Apostasy That Wasn’t: The Extraordinary Story of the Unbreakable Early Church”, by Rod Bennett. In this book he writes about the Pharisees and describes some of their practices versus the surrounding peoples. There were actually many kinds of ‘Jews’. For instance, many Jews had been scattered around because they had been deported to Babylon and Egypt. Jews that had settled down with Greek culture were called Hellenized Jews. But, there was also another type of ‘Jew’ that wasn’t actually a Jew. These were called the ‘God fearers’. These were actually Greeks who had converted to Judaism. This movement started about 200 years before Christ. They were influenced by Socrates who taught only one God and since this is what Judaism taught they moved towards it. However, they did not follow all the practices of the Jews.

For instance, the God fearers remained uncircumcised as circumcision was considered vile by the Greeks. As, well they did not follow all of the practices that the Pharisees in Jerusalem did. They for instance did not see the need to count how many steps you took on the Sabbath or in all the ceremonial washings that the Pharisaical Jews did. But, what’s interesting is that the ‘true’ Jews in Jerusalem, the Pharisees did not accept neither the Hellenized Jews or the ‘God fearers’ as true Jews. Nor would they ever no matter what they did. And, the Pharisees made sure that they were aware of the fact that they were not welcome. Thus, people like the ‘God fearers’ and the hellenized Jews could only be content to “receive the scraps that fall from the master’s table”. They knew they would never be considered a true Jew and could not completely be a part of God’s people. And, this explains why Jesus had much more success converting the Jews outside of Jerusalem than in it. The Pharisees had no need for Jesus. They were too busy with their religious practices, traditions and doctrines to accept anything Jesus was saying, (or to stop for a person beat up on the side of the road like the good Samaritan did). And, it explains why Jesus found more faith among the gentiles then with the Jews in Jerusalem. Those on the outskirts looking in were welcomed into God’s kingdom by Jesus despite not being ‘true’ Jews according to the Pharisees.