SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[JoeyWarren]

Lets look at the bread and wine and see if the catholic understanding is correct. If Jesus literally became the bread and wine before His disciples at the Last Supper then a couple of things would follow:

1. it would mean Jesus now has another nature i.e. that of bread and wine

What a ridiculous idea.

1. there is no indication in the least that the bread or wine has the characteristics of deity.

Faith my boy, Faith. That same faith that tells you that the Bible is not just another book of mythology and that same Faith that tells you that God exists. The characteristics are embedded in the essence ( the transubstantiation ).

1. there is no indication from the response of the disciples at this supper they took Jesus in a literal way since to do so would have violated the command not to drink blood. We see no objection to this from them.

This took place earlier in John 6.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? THOSE JEWS TOOK IT LITERAL AS THEY SHOULD HAVE

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?AND THEY COULD NOT BELIEVE SO…

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? IF NOT LITERAL THEN WHY DID JESUS ASK THE QUESTION? EITHER YOU BELIEVE OR YOU DO NOT.

666 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BELIEVE BEYOND THE LAW
DID JESUS MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO STOP THEM FROM LEAVING? DID HE STOP THEM AND SAY “Hey I was only speaking symbolicly” NO SIRREE BOB HE DID NOT.
PRIOR TO THIS, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT JESUS WAS A RABBI/TEACHER SINCE (59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.) AND A RABBI WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGATED TO CORRECT ANY MISUNDERSTANDING. THE DESCIPLES THAT LEFT TOOK HIM LITERALLY AND THE RABBI(JESUS) FELT NO NEED FOR CORRECTING A MISUNDERSTANDING SINCE NONE EXISTED. IT IS A CASE OF “EITHER YOU BELIEVE WHAT I JUST SAID OR YOU DON’T”

SO JESUS WANTED TO KNOW IF HIS FAITHFUL ONES WANTED TO LEAVE TO SO HE ASKED 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? THE 12 WERE JUST AS DUMBFOUNDED AS WELL, BUT THEY HAD WITNESSED ALL THE MIRACLES SINCE THE WEDDING AT CANA, SO THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO ON FAITH THAT JESUS WAS TELLING THE TRUTH LITERALLY EVEN THOUGH IT WENT AGAINST THE LAW. AT THIS TIME THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT JESUS WOULD BE THE PASCHAL LAMB THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE EATEN ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. THEY WENT ON PURE FAITH.

 

[mercygate]

Lets look at the bread and wine and see if the catholic understanding is correct. If Jesus literally became the bread and wine before His disciples at the Last Supper then a couple of things would follow:

1. it would mean Jesus now has another nature i.e. that of bread and wine

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH. Jesus does not become bread and wine. The Bread and Wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Big difference.

1. there is no indication in the least that the bread or wine has the characteristics of deity.

Transformation is not topical but “substantial” – used in in its philosophical sense to mean UNDER-support not “substantial” in the sense we use the word in everyday speech.

1. there is no indication from the response of the disciples at this supper they took Jesus in a literal way since to do so would have violated the command not to drink blood. We see no objection to this from them.

Oh come ON! JA4 – you are above these naive and shopworn objections.

Same rule applies here as to the bread. The change is “substantial” not topical. After all the time you have spent on these forums, can you please give us the respect to approach these matters as the Church understands them? This stuff is all easily and widely available.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3601387]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets look at the bread and wine and see if the catholic understanding is correct. If Jesus literally became the bread and wine before His disciples at the Last Supper then a couple of things would follow:

1. it would mean Jesus now has another nature i.e. that of bread and wine

mercygate
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH. Jesus does not become bread and wine. The Bread and Wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Big difference.

What then is the difference besides it not being human?

Do you not “show reverence” to the host when there is a Eurachristic Adoration by bowing towards it?

Quote: justasking4
2) there is no indication in the least that the bread or wine has the characteristics of deity.

mercygate
Transformation is not topical but “substantial” – used in in its philosophical sense to mean UNDER-support not “substantial” in the sense we use the word in everyday speech.

Can you give me an example of this?

Quote:justasking4
3) there is no indication from the response of the disciples at this supper they took Jesus in a literal way since to do so would have violated the command not to drink blood. We see no objection to this from them.

mercygate
Oh come ON! JA4 – you are above these naive and shopworn objections.

I’m not trying to be a smart alec about this but trying to understand what the disciples thought by their reactions to what He had just said.

Same rule applies here as to the bread. The change is “substantial” not topical. After all the time you have spent on these forums, can you please give us the respect to approach these matters as the Church understands them? This stuff is all easily and widely available.

It is true i could read all there is about the catholic faith and be done with it. However that would still not tell me how individual catholics believe. Secondly i think its important to discuss these matters and i have respected catholic beliefs even though i don’t agree with many of them. On this particular issue this is not an easy thing to articulate nor believe.

---

 

[JoeyWarren]

On this particular issue this is not an easy thing to articulate nor believe.

An Atheist would say the same about the existence of God.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I’m not trying to be a smart alec about this but trying to understand what the disciples thought by their reactions to what He had just said.

Read John 6 and read my last post(219) on John 6

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;3601381]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets look at the bread and wine and see if the catholic understanding is correct. If Jesus literally became the bread and wine before His disciples at the Last Supper then a couple of things would follow:

1. it would mean Jesus now has another nature i.e. that of bread and wine

JoeyWarren
What a ridiculous idea.

How so? If Jesus is now saying that He has somehow “become” the bread and wine via transubnation then it would follow that He would have another nature i.e. the intrinsic or essential character of somebody or something.
Do you not believe that the bread and wine is now somehow Jesus?

 

[justasking4]

Read John 6 and read my last post on John 6

This would open up a whole big discussion and i’m not sure i could give it right now what it deserves. This would be a good discussion to have.

 

[JoeyWarren]

How so? If Jesus is now saying that He has somehow “become” the bread and wine via transubnation then it would follow that He would have another nature i.e. the intrinsic or essential character of somebody or something.
Do you not believe that the bread and wine is now somehow Jesus?

Yes, without a doubt what so ever. It has the substance of his body, soul, and divinity.

Here are some definitions:

**Transubstantiate **To change into another substance

**substantiate: **2. represent in bodily form; “He embodies all that is evil wrong with the system”; “The painting substantiates the feelings of the artist”

Substance: 10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole.

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3601363]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Of course you are. Otherwise we would not be discussing this and how it fits in our churches.

BHTech
Please explain? I don’t understand. Aren’t we talking about the passage John 10 and your desire to understand what Jesus meant?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Those that believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again coupled with the profession of it would be this flock. (See I Cornithians 15:1-4 and Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 3:4-6)

BHTech
Lutherans, Anglicans all believe that yet you did not seem to include them in your list of doctrinally sounds Protestant denomination. You indicated only Southern Baptists fit your bill. Why is that? Did you forget them or are they not doctrinally sound? What is wrong with them?

To include all the different protestant churches and denominations would take days and countless posts. Instead i chose a major denomination to look at. Lutherans, Anglicans etc i think would agree on the essentials but have differences of opinions on non-essentials or less important doctrines and practices. Even here it gets dicey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
They may not share the same church name or building but they do share the same faith in Christ and the various characteristics stated above. They are of the same flock though they have differences.

BHTech
Why don’t they share the same building or make the buildings to conform to the Southern Baptist style or have the same type of worship? Why?

The Scriptures don’t require it. It says nothing about how these things are to be done and in what way.

Are Onenes Pentecostals in that flock in your opinion?

No. Oneness theology denies the Trinity which is a fundamental doctrine of the faith.

Brent

 

[grandfather]

Do you believe and know everything the catholic church teaches?

 

[mercygate]

What then is the difference besides it not being human?

I admit, I’m stumped by this question. What do you mean “not human?” Christ is perfectly human and perfectly divine. In the Blessed Sacrament He is fully present: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Do you not “show reverence” to the host when there is a Eurachristic Adoration by bowing towards it?

“It” is the Person of Jesus Christ. You know we worship Him in the Blessed Sacrament.

Can you give me an example of this?

Can’t think of anything else on earth that comes to us in this way. It sure would be easier if we just copped out on the definitions and did the Orthodox thing: “It’s a mystery.” Well. We DO say it’s a mystery. The philosophical language we structure around it pretty much falls short of the Truth. The Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is one of those things that human understanding can stretch toward but never fully apprehend.

I’m not trying to be a smart alec about this but trying to understand what the disciples thought by their reactions to what He had just said.

The record is pretty thin. I can imagine some sideways glances to one another – maybe remembering the miracle of the loaves, but more likely not – and some thoughts like “There he goes again! I wish he would make hismelf clear?” I don’t think the Apostles had any IDEA what was meant until after the Resurrection.

It is true i could read all there is about the catholic faith and be done with it. However that would still not tell me how individual catholics believe.

But what individual Catholic believe is only a picture of what an individual Catholic believes. If I were poorly taught in scripture and theology, I could “believe” the moon is made of green cheese but it wouldn’t be what the Catholic Church teaches.

Secondly i think its important to discuss these matters and i have respected catholic beliefs even though i don’t agree with many of them. On this particular issue this is not an easy thing to articulate nor believe.

---

It sure isn’t easy to grasp. But by this point after many, many dialogues, and with many good resources at your fingertips, you are on a higher level than the guy off the street who comes here in high Jack Chick dudgeon to mock us with ancient, long-settled inanities like “drinking blood.”

 

[BHTech]

Yes.

Ok.

To include all the different protestant churches and denominations would take days and countless posts. Instead i chose a major denomination to look at. Lutherans, Anglicans etc i think would agree on the essentials but have differences of opinions on non-essentials or less important doctrines and practices. Even here it gets dicey.

So some doctrines are more important than others? Its gets dicey? Please elaborate. Like compare a Southern Baptist doctrine with a Lutheran Doctrine.

The Scriptures don’t require it. It says nothing about how these things are to be done and in what way.

Oh I see. So because the scriptures don’t say how to worship or where to worship, you, the Southern Baptists and X, Y, and Z all holding to doctrinal sound principals are free to worship separately. I still don’t get it because the Southern Baptists and X, Y, and Z are still not one fold. Did not Jesus pray that they may be one?

No. Oneness theology denies the Trinity which is a fundamental doctrine of the faith.

They would say you are schismatic since you don’t have the truth or the correct doctrine. Who is correct?

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[Chuck_H]

(Deleted fro brevity)

The Church tells us, exhorts us to study Sacred Scripture. If something in Romans 5 is difficult to understand - I just read through and it seemed rather straightforward, honestly - I can look at the Catechism and see what it says regarding the whole of Scripture’s teachings on faith, grace, and justification, not just one isolated chapter in one book. If I’ve come to one conclusion; for instance, if I read vs 20 Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. and I mistake that to mean that I should sin all I want, since the more sins I commit the more grace I get, then my belief is at odds with the rest of Sacred Scripture, and the Teaching of the Church, and I am in error.

Your post got my interest since I just read a great book by Richard Rohr.

I’ll paraphrase it for brevity.

He’s referring to Roman’s 9 and Roman’s 7 . The “Law” is a foil (a necessary frustration) that we keep tripping over (sin) so we have to ultimately trust in Him. We have to humbly admit that no matter how hard we try, we are going to keep stumbling around and when we finally cry out to Him in frustration “I can’t do this!”, He says back, “Of course you can’t, trust in Me and My grace and I will get you home”. And, of course, He does just that. Paul is telling us that the law is there as a stumbling block to keep us humble.

It’s a great book
*
Things Hidden-Scripture as spirituality* Richard Rohr OFM St Anthony Messenger press

 

[bnapgh]

Not necessarily so. We should never just accept what a church teaches without first examining it as I Thessolians 5:21 exhorts us to.

You mean this citation?

19 Extinguish not the spirit. 20 Despise not prophecies. 21 But prove all things: hold fast that which is good.

Now, who exactly will tell us what ‘‘that which is good’’ means?
Can everyone do this on his/her own?
What did Peter say?

2 Peter 3:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

If ANY disciple may misinterpret scriptures to his/her own destruction, then who can disciples rely on to know what is the ‘‘good’’ to which we should hold fast?

Now who does Scripture tell us can explain such interpretations with the Grace of the Paraclete?

Who can we be most certain that the Paraclete will remain with ‘‘for ever’’, so as to assure all disciples ‘‘for ever’’ of the fidelity of interpretation?

Hmmmm?

 

[guanophore]

Do you believe the catholic church was wrong in the inquistions?
Do you believe the catholic church was wrong when they condemned Joan of Are and later made her saint?

This thread is for you, ja4, but that does not mean it is ok to derail it. If you want to start the mudslinging and stone throwing on these favorite topics, please open a new thread. I would be interested to know what you think the Church taught on these subjects.

Do have you authority to say Protestants are wrong?

The Catholic Church was given the authority by Christ to teach the faith as He taught it to them. Therefore, the Church has the authority to determine whether doctrine is consistent with the Teaching they received. Defining and explaining the Truth are core functions of the Church. The Church, in the course of teaching the apostolic faith, sometimes must condemn errors. She does not do this in a personal way, but points to the error of faith and morals.

What “facts” of Mary’s supposed assumption are you referring to? It has already be established that it is not known what happened to her. There are no “facts” that can be shown to support any assumption.

You will not be able to grasp these facts just yet, ja4, because you are still stuck on the elementary things.

Do you realize this same kind of thing goes on in the catholic church? Catholics believe different things among themselves just as protestants do.
Take the Sedevacantist in the catholic church who don’t believe the current pope is legit and if i’m not mistaken the mass of today is also wrong since its not in Latin. This catholic movement as far
i can tell they reject some or all of Vatican 2.

Certainly there are divisions and disagreements among the individuals in the Church. However, to the extent that one does not embrace the true Apostolic Teaching, then they are not Catholic. Many persons who call themselves Catholic are actually Protestant, and don’t realize it. The group you mention is a schismatic group. The unity is in the doctrine. Those who embrace the doctrine are in unity with one another.

What “verbal transmission of Traditions within the Church” are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples and who spoke them?

You have been given many examples on many threads for over a year. I do not think you are ready for this information.

What do you think what “doctrine” the inquistions were working on? What doctrine were the popes using to justify them?

You are letting your anti-Catholic hatred get the better of you again, ja4. And it was so peaceful for a few days! If you absolutely need to find fault with the Church on this point, it will need to go on another thread. Unless, of course, you can find a way to relate it to the topic.

Do you think that as a catholic you have a responsiblity to listen carefully to what your priest, bishop or catholic prof says and teaches and if they are not in harmony with catholic doctrine you should hold them accountable in some fashion? ( I know this would be difficult to carry out to actually do something about it).

It is not difficult at all, ja4. Unless, of course one does not know how to follow the instructions in scripture, where is is clearly shown that one is to go to the brother and tell them their fault.

I lieu of the fact that you have been given the answer to this question already, I am beginning to believe that your intention is either one of to feign ignorance or an attempt to frustrate posters.

Although these two things are also true, neither is the motive. The motive is to convert Catholics into “bible Christians”.

QUOTE=justasking4;3600060]I’m asking for the proof for the “**verbal transmission **of Traditions within the Church”. How are you going to demonstrate for example what an apostle taught verbally if its not written down?
Can you do that?

I don’t think these things ought to be “demonstrated” to the uninitiated. That is one reason they are called Divine Mysteries.

All that we know of what the apostles taught is found only in the NT.

You are free to believe this, ja4. However, what is puzzling is why you come to a Catholic Board, and try to assert such a thing to people that know otherwise. Do you really believe that by repeating your private interpretation of the faith that you will be able to get us to abandon the precious and sacred teachings we have from the Apostles? Nope. :nope: Not even if you were an angel, which, as demonstrated by your posts, you are not.

 

[BHTech]

Although these two things are also true, neither is the motive. The motive is to convert Catholics into “bible Christians”.

Interesting!

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[grandfather]

Lets look at the bread and wine and see if the catholic understanding is correct. If Jesus literally became the bread and wine before His disciples at the Last Supper then a couple of things would follow:

1. it would mean Jesus now has another nature i.e. that of bread and wine
2. there is no indication in the least that the bread or wine has the characteristics of deity.
3. there is no indication from the response of the disciples at this supper they took Jesus in a literal way since to do so would have violated the command not to drink blood. We see no objection to this from them.

1. Luther taught the doctrine of consubstantiation. He said that the elements or matter of bread and wine remain and Christ is there also. Catholics hold to transubstantiation, the bread and wine no longer exist. It is Chirst present, body, blood, soul and divinity, hidden behind the appearance of bread and wine. Jesus does not take on the nature of bread and wine.
2. Only to those with faith. There have been many saints who could tell the difference between concsecrated and unconsecrated elements.
3. Yes they did not object. They also were prepared for this moment by the Lord. They heard Him say before that He was the bread come down from heaven. My body is REAL food. My blood is REAL drink. They heard Him say, unless a man eat my body and drink my blood he has no life within him. You are prepared also by reading His words in your Bible, but you deny them. Many of the Jews left then, scandalized by His words. It is in your Bible. Read it. He asked His disciples if they would leave also and they answered that it was a hard saying, but there was nowhere else to go, for only He has the words of eternal life. You are one of the ones who leave Him, because the saying is too hard for you. Maybe someday you will have faith and come to Him. He waits for you there, real food to feed you with Himself. You refuse to come to the Lord and receive Him.

We are sorry for you. Go and pray. Ask Him if He is there and it is true as the Church and all her saints have always taught and that He wants you to come and receive Him.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by guanophore
Although these two things are also true, neither is the motive. The motive is to convert Catholics into “bible Christians”.

BHTech
Interesting!

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3601606]
Originally Posted by justasking4
To include all the different protestant churches and denominations would take days and countless posts. Instead i chose a major denomination to look at. Lutherans, Anglicans etc i think would agree on the essentials but have differences of opinions on non-essentials or less important doctrines and practices. Even here it gets dicey.
BHTech
So some doctrines are more important than others?

Yes. To deny that Christ died for your sins would condemn you while not believing the Scriptures to be inerrant would not.

BHTech
Its gets dicey? Please elaborate. Like compare a Southern Baptist doctrine with a Lutheran Doctrine.

I’m not that familiar with Lutheran doctrines. However I would think that Lutherans and southern Baptist believe in the core doctrines such as the deity of Christ and that He died for our sins. What they would probably differ on are issues like communion and infant baptism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The Scriptures don’t require it. It says nothing about how these things are to be done and in what way.

BHTech
Oh I see. So because the scriptures don’t say how to worship or where to worship, you, the Southern Baptists and X, Y, and Z all holding to doctrinal sound principals are free to worship separately. I still don’t get it because the Southern Baptists and X, Y, and Z are still not one fold. Did not Jesus pray that they may be one?

what did Jesus mean that they would be of one fold with one shepherd then? Does it mean that all Christians must worship identically and in exactly the same way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
No. Oneness theology denies the Trinity which is a fundamental doctrine of the faith.

BHTech
They would say you are schismatic since you don’t have the truth or the correct doctrine. Who is correct?

I am since the Scriptures attest that God is Trinitarian. In fact catholics would agree with my position also.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How so? If Jesus is now saying that He has somehow “become” the bread and wine via transubnation then it would follow that He would have another nature i.e. the intrinsic or essential character of somebody or something.
Do you not believe that the bread and wine is now somehow Jesus?

JoeyWarren
Yes, without a doubt what so ever. It has the substance of his body, soul, and divinity.

Here are some definitions:

**Transubstantiate **To change into another substance

**substantiate: **2. represent in bodily form; “He embodies all that is evil wrong with the system”; “The painting substantiates the feelings of the artist”

Substance: 10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole.

What follows then is that the communion host is God in bread form. Correct?

If this is true then we run into problems in understanding the incarnation. In the incarnation God and man were joined as one in the man Christ Jesus. Transubnation changes this by adding another characteristic-element to the incarnation