second question for our non-catholic brethern

[eddie_too]

perhaps we should take the approach of identifying what has been taught constantly and consistently by the “bishop of rome” since apostolic times.

that would seem to ensure the authenticity of such teachings as they relate to originating in the life and teachings of our Lord.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, now it’s the Roman Catholic position that the Bible is not the word of God? Jesus is the Word of God, the Logos, and the Bible is the word of God.

The phrase, Word of God, is complex, isn’t it?

The Bible is the written portion of the Word of God. But there’s more to the story. From the Catechism:

THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Kliska

Please consider the following:

Tradition and A Few Good Catholic Men

Tradition is often thought to add to the content of the Gospel, and indeed, there are things that we know from Sacred Tradition that we cannot learn exclusively from Sacred Scripture. This manner of looking at Scripture and Tradition is known as the “Two Source” model, and it is one valid way of understanding the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. However, another model, called the “Two Mode” model, recognizes that Tradition is also properly understood to be another mode of transmission of the one Gospel.

I want to focus here on the Two Mode model, and I would like to offer an excerpt from the movie, A Few Good Men, which illustrates this principal very clearly. In this courtroom scene, Cpl. Barnes is on the witness stand being cross-examined first by the prosecutor, Capt. Ross, and then by the defense attorney, Lt. Kaffee.

---

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Corps Outline for Recruit Training. You’re familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: You’ve read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you open it up to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip open to the page of the book that talks about code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I really don’t think that…
Capt. Ross: Ah, we’re in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we’ll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I right?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir.
Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I’m a Marine. Is there no book, no pamphlet or manual, no regulation or set of written orders or instructions that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal, would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffee, that’s not in the book either, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you’ve been at Gitmo you’ve never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Well, I don’t understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn’t in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: Thanks. No more questions.

+++

Lt. Kaffee powerfully demonstrates the idea that some things in the life of a marine are learned not from a book but from observation of others. In the life of the Church, Catholics refer to this oral form of teaching as Sacred Tradition, and it is every bit as authoritative as the written word because God has authored them both.

When the Apostles taught about whether infants were to be baptized, how the Lord’s supper was to be celebrated, about confession, weddings and many other things, they did not write an instruction manual. They taught by their actions and their personal example - their living witness - what we are to believe and do.

Jesus quoted scripture but never wrote a word Himself; the Apostles learned exclusively from what He said and what He did. In turn, the Apostles taught their disciples by their oral preaching and teaching, by their personal example, and by their written letters. Finally, the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, continue to teach as Jesus and the Apostles did - from the scriptures, from their manner of life and from their oral teaching.

 

[eddie_too]

whenever we attempt to interpret and understand the bible, we should start with the facts that: 1) Jesus spent three years with the apostles teaching and training them; 2) the bible does not contain all that Jesus taught the apostles and through the apostles, us; 3) the books of the new testament were written long after the Church was born; 4) it is quite impossible that everything Jesus did and taught the apostles in His three years of traveling and living with them could have been written down in the few books that compose the new testament; 5) the contents of our faith were transmitted through speech for years before anyone wrote any of it down; and, 6) the bible is meant only to be an aid in growing our faith and holiness.

where does a person go to learn what Jesus taught but was not included in the sacred scriptures?

is it possible to possess the fullness of the faith without learning what Jesus taught that was not written down in the new testament?

 

[Protestor]

. emphasis not shouting here

You should stop attempting to make convoluted arguments that take people 20 minutes just to decipher.

This is something like what your argument should say. “These two conditions had too and have too exist because God is perfect” First Mary had to be perfected. She can be perfected because time does not exist for God. Then of her own free did she no sin.

You understand that premise is God is perfect and your conclusion is Mary had to be to birth Jesus and that after she of her own free will never sinned. I want you to know this if you get nothing out of this talk with me you need to get this out

Your conclusion has to be able to be understood and to must be entailed somehow(some say follow from) to your premise(s). You have not done this hear. You have not explained anything, because you lack any connections.

example
[1]God is omnipotent
[2]God cannot be bound by anything because it would mean he was not omnipotent
[3]God created time
[4]God’s omnipotence extends to things he creates
//God is not bound by time
This is something like what you should be doing if you want to formulate your arguments the way you are trying to. This is actually a sloppy example but I’m sure my logic professors would not care.

Many philosophers would disagree with your view of God and how time works for him. I do not think that God is bound by time being as it is something that he created. What you are stating is something different all together. I am not even sure that it is necessary for your conclusion to be possible. What you should say is that God is not bound by time and that the workings of this are and will remain a mystery.

Jesus was perfect, but stating that he had to come out of a person who was perfect is wrong. It’s not like her sin is his.

 

[eddie_too]

i must have missed it.

where exactly in sacred scripture and Church history is the support for believing that the Blessed Virgin Mary was NOT preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception?

there seem to be some people who strongly reject that teaching.

exactly what support from scripture and history do they provide to justify their rejection?

 

[Protestor]

i must have missed it.
there seem to be some people who strongly reject that teaching.
exactly what support from scripture and history do they provide to justify their rejection?

I think you mistake me for someone who is trying to defend a point. In case you missed it I am not. On a less crass note I sadly brought the subject up by accident. My point was more about infallibility and less to do with Mary. It was actually like 70 posts back around the mid to late 30’s if you feel like looking for it.

Just for clarification I am not looking for quotes that state your opinion this time. Instead this time I am looking for why it could not have happened any other way. I am looking for this because to me the proposition seems to be that Mary had to be immaculately conceived and she had to be sinless for her whole life in order that Christ could be birthed by her.

 

[jmcrae]

Look I understand you might think this. When you say faith means belief this is how I view that statement as being faith≡belief or faith=belief. Either of which do not sit well with me. I am pretty sure that neither one of these actually has to entail the other so ≡ should be out of the question. What I am trying to say is that these words although they have been and still are they should not be used interchangeably. I am not so stupid to think that there are they are not in each others definitions, but English can be a silly language sometimes. Saying you have faith in things, like truths, is cool, but saying you have faith in beliefs is weird. It would be like saying I have belief in these certain beliefs of mine. So my point is that faith does not just mean belief. I think we are past this point now and we are actually trying to figure one faith means.

A random free-floating faith in nothing would have no saving power.

We must believe what is true about Jesus, in order to be saved. We must believe it so strongly that it affects how we behave, and where we go, and what we think about.

In order to believe what is true about Jesus, we have to look to the Apostolic Tradition - what did they teach? What did they do? What do they expect us to do with what they left for us? These are important questions - otherwise, the “Jesus” you have faith in might not even exist, and it would be a sin to worship a god who does not even exist, would it not?

 

[jmcrae]

I think you mistake me for someone who is trying to defend a point. In case you missed it I am not. On a less crass note I sadly brought the subject up by accident. My point was more about infallibility and less to do with Mary. It was actually like 70 posts back around the mid to late 30’s if you feel like looking for it.

Just for clarification I am not looking for quotes that state your opinion this time. Instead this time I am looking for why it could not have happened any other way. I am looking for this because to me the proposition seems to be that Mary had to be immaculately conceived and she had to be sinless for her whole life in order that Christ could be birthed by her.

Because she is the redemption of Eve, who was also conceived without sin. Her “Yes” to the Angel Gabriel (and to God) undid the “Yes” that Eve gave to the Devil. As Eve did not create sin, but made sin possible, so also Mary did not redeem the world, but she made the world’s redemption possible. But for that to work, she has to be, like Eve, a perfect Creation - she has to be without Original Sin.

 

[eddie_too]

whether Mary had to be conceived without original sin or not seems to me to be a purely speculative theological issue.

discussing this speculative aspect of the theology of the doctrine has little appeal to me at this time. so, i will leave it to those who find such an inquiry to be interesting to discuss the doctrine.

we do have scripture and history that support this doctrine. we have no scripture or history that opposes this doctrine. we know is that the doctrine of the immaculate conception has been taught by the Church from its earliest years.

without evidence or support that indicates this doctrine to be facilely created by later generations of christians, there is no real reason to oppose the proclamation and promotion of this doctrine.

surely a person should have sound evidence and support for opposing the validity of a teaching of Christ’s Church that has support in both scripture and history.

speculate to your heart’s content. do not use speculative issues to disrupt your acceptance of this constant and consistent teaching of the Church Jesus established.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To conclude that the doctrines are false. Implicates the rest of Doctrines of the CC which I mentioned. The Bible only Sola Scriptura continuity doesn’t stand alone without the doctrines.

Thus if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. Which btw is why I do not take the later position serious.

Difficult language such as “had to” and “has to” doesn’t change the argument it merely needs to be refined, Gods perfect plan of love for His creation, in which Mary is preserved by a singular act of grace, thus becomes Mother to the Incarnate Word of God, thus most filling at the IC.

I’m not sure as I was saying how SS advocates of Bible only explain this supernatural event?

 

[Protestor]

Because she is the redemption of Eve, who was also conceived without sin. Her “Yes” to the Angel Gabriel (and to God) undid the “Yes” that Eve gave to the Devil. As Eve did not create sin, but made sin possible, so also Mary did not redeem the world, but she made the world’s redemption possible. But for that to work, she has to be, like Eve, a perfect Creation - she has to be without Original Sin.

Why does Eve need a redemption(through a person)? Look this is just an unnecessary thing that looks like a cool relation. I would tell you to read Romans 5 but I am sure you have. You are not join to get that a second Eve needed to be in the mix, you might be able to say God did it for fecal matters and giggles.

 

[Protestor]

Where is the scripture?

 

[Protestor]

To conclude that the doctrines are false. Implicates the rest of Doctrines of the CC which I mentioned.

They do not explain what does not need to be explained. Especially if it not specifically seen in scripture or cannot be inferred from scripture.

Ding, ding, ding which is why they are so set on SS. If one doctrine is false when it was supposed to be infallibly true your system crumbles. You finally are starting to understand why this is so hard for me.

 

[eddie_too]

no one has demonstrated with any support or evidence than any de fide teaching of the RCC is false.

it is pointless speculation to even discuss such a proposition until someone, anyone, comes up with evidence or support that conclusively demonstrates that a de fide teaching of the RCC is in error.

continually casting doubt and innuendo about de fide teachings of the RCC without suppolying any evidence or support for the doubt is pointless and leads to rightful questioning of the intergrity of those who persist in doing this.

even the flimsiest of actual evidence is superior to NO evidence.

on a different point, how can a human being be full of grace and also in the state of sin?

Mary is full of grace according to the bible.

people who conclude that she is a sinner seem to think that one can be both full of grace and in the state of sin. not sure exactly how that works logically?

 

[GaryTaylor]

They do not explain what does not need to be explained. Especially if it not specifically seen in scripture or cannot be inferred from scripture…

They do explain what you admittedly state you have not read in depth on to understand. But you do state you adhere to SS. So where is the Nature of Jesus Christ found and how does this apply to the incarnation thus sin/human nature?

Surely you understand this point since you hold the Bible as your infallible authority then it should be easy.

 

[pocohombre]

. "O Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the winds, and whose breath gives life to all the world, hear me.

I am small and weak; I need your strength and wisdom.

Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset.

Make my hands respect the things you have made and my ears sharp to hear your voice.

Make me wise so that I may understand the things you have taught my people.

Let me learn the lessons you have hidden in every leaf and rock.

I seek strength, not to be greater than my friend, but to fight my greatest enemy, myself.

Make me always ready to come to you with clean hands and straight eyes.

So when life fades, as the fading sunset, may my spirit come to you without shame."

This prayer is attributed to Native American Indian Lakota (Sioux) Chief Yellow Lark in 1887.

.

Howdy Daler .Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[pocohombre]

Jesus quoted scripture but never wrote a word Himself;But He sure dictated to His “secretaries” enough. They don’t call Him the Alpha and Omega (used in writing) for nothing…but seriously He is both Logos and Alpha, King of Word and Written Word.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Protestor, I’m waiting for you to show us in SS understanding the Trinity, Nature of Jesus Christ, Incarnation, original sin, the continuity of understanding.

Lets go by your premise for the heck of it and assume the CC is wrong for the sake of cicular argument.

Ok so your right, above then, explain away, I’m all ears. I want to learn

 

[Protestor]

They do explain what you admittedly state you have not read in depth on to understand. But you do state you adhere to SS. So where is the Nature of Jesus Christ found and how does this apply to the incarnation thus sin/human nature?

I do not strictly adhere to SS. I do not mind defending it every so often though. This is not one of those times. I will restate what I have said before “I do not want to get into what can or cannot be implied from 2tim.4” , whatever the chapter and verse are, mostly because know one ends up thinking differently on the subject.

[Ding, ding, ding which is why they are so set on SS]≠*

I think you I will refer you to Rom 5 although I am not sure what you want for Christ’s nature or what I need to make a point so that you will believe what I do about Christ’s nature. Oh yeah there is that verse in the 22nd chapter of John that clearly states the nature of Christ.*