SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[guanophore]

You must have had a bad hair day. Your nastier than i have ever seen you…:bigyikes:

I did not mean to be nasty, but I recently did realize that you ask many questions about matters of the faith that you cannot access, because you have not yet had a foundation in the basics. Without these elementary doctrines in place, it is not possible to build on a solid foundation to understand other things. In this thread, you have demonstrated the following:

you either don’t understand or refuse to accept the difference between doctrine, devotional practices, and disciplines

You don’t understand the nature and function of the Church

You don’t understand the nature and function of baptism

You don’t understand or refuse to accept basic concepts about biblical interpretation

You don’t understand or refuse to accept the teachings of Jesus on the value of celibacy, unity in the church, and obedience to the Truth

You don’t understand what respect means

These are just a few very elementary matters, but all of them are foundational to understanding more advanced tenents of the faith, such as Eucharist, Holy Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the development of doctrine. So, basically, you are getting ahead of yourself. If there is anyone on the thread who can help me to make this point in a more charitable manner, please don’t hesitate to let me know, as it is not my intention to be nasty.

 

[grandfather]

You don’t understand

These are just a few very elementary matters, but all of them are foundational to understanding more advanced tenents of the faith, such as Eucharist, Holy Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the development of doctrine. So, basically, you are getting ahead of yourself. If there is anyone on the thread who can help me to make this point in a more charitable manner, please don’t hesitate to let me know, as it is not my intention to be nasty.

It is true that he lacks understanding of the matters you raise.

What I wonder is if he is genuinely trying to understand, or willfully shutting his ears to what is being presented. Is he looking for argument for argument’s sake, out of some perverse sense that it is enjoyable, or is there a genuine interest in what the Church believes and why?

One of the things that seems curious to me among Protestants is they can’t seem to get away from the disputes they have with Catholics. Catholicism is kind of an inescapable reference point for them. We are right, because we do not believe this and that, that those faulty Catholics believe. Why can’t they go off and do their thing and forget about what Catholics believe? JA4 for example is clearly obsessed with comparing his personal beliefs with Catholicism. I wonder how anyone could have so much time to spend as it would take to do all he does here. It must be a full time job. His life is about arguing with Catholics. I have a family life and a job and have time to tune into a forum here and there for a few minutes. I can’t imagine how it is possible for someone to be so prolific and so engaged in so many discussions at once.

 

[BHTech]

But we do have evidence for Him in nature and in our hearts. Some of this does involove our senses. We also have in the scriptures and most clearly in the Lord Jesus.

Have you seen God?

I suppose so. We believe God could do all kinds of things.

Are you doubting God? Supposing implies doubt my friend.

Thats not the issue though. The issue here is: did He do it and if He did what is the evidence for it?

That is the issue. Did he not say we are to eat and drink him? How he chooses to accomplish it is not up to you and me. Can you prove that he said and meant otherwise? Show me the evidence of what Jesus really meant and how you arrived at that? Is that part of the Southern Baptist doctrinal beliefs?

We can deal with that later if you like.

Will consider it.

Absolutely. We believe all kinds of things on far less evidence and on “pieces of paper” at that.

If this is your criteria, are not others entitled to the same? Who are you to determine what qualifies as evidence? What about evidence that is unperceivable to the senses? Ex. The human eye sees only visible light and the ear is good for 20Hz-20kHz.

There are a lot of excellent books and articles on this. I highly recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Read it. Gave it away to a Muslim friend. You should give the remainder of your books to non-Christians.

 

[grandfather]

Are you doubting God? Supposing implies doubt my friend.

s.

The question was can God break His own laws, if I recall. JA4 answered that he supposed God could break his laws.

He does work miracles and has power over nature, but there are things God can not do. He can not do that which is opposed to His nature. So for example, God is truth. God can not lie. He can not deceive nor be decieved.

He can not break His own word. If He says that if you repent of your sins you will be saved, and if you do repent of your sins He can not, not save you. If He says He can not spurn a humble heart that means He can not spurn (reject) a humble heart.

He can not contradict Himself. He can not tell one person X is true and another person X is false.

This is why we know that denominationalism is not of God. He can not lead one group of people to believe A and B, and another group to believe the opposite. The Church must be one, if it is God’s Church. So when Jesus says unity tells the world it is He who sent us, this is what He means.

JA4 keeps talking about unity of essentials. But what are essentials. We certainly do not come close to agreeing. Catholics say the Eucharist is essential. It is not essential to him. In addition to that Jesus in scripture did not say be unified in essentials. The disunified made that doctrine up on their own to justify their disunity. Jesus told us to be one and we are almost one so that is close enough, I say.

In scripture we see that God founded a Church. Scripture does not give authority to men who read scripture to found Churches willy-nilly based on the doctrines they derive from scripture. Yet that is what we see men do all the time. It is called Protestantism. A group decides they don’t want to baptize babies and we have the anabaptist sects that break off from some previous sect that was separated from the Church. They do not see disunity as a bad thing, even. It is part of their organizational principles. Disunity breeds disunity. It is part and parcel of the Protestant phenomenon. It is acceptable and when it is pointed out to them as opposed to Jesus commands, they shrug it off, because essential to Protestantism is the notion that things are wrong doctrinally and correctable by self ordained individuals with their Bibles.

No Church authority is acceptable in any of these groups, because all authority is in the Bible alone. But they have leaders who are self ordained men in authority. When someone in the group disagrees he makes himself an authority claiming the Bible gives Him the authority to do what Luther did, and there is a split.

In my small city of about 40,000 people, there are 125 denominations listed in the phone book. There are about six Baptist churches that have nothing to do with one another. One says drinking alcohol is sinful, but dancing is OK. Another says drinking and dancing are both sinful.

There are two Lutheran churches that despise one another. One celebrates being gay and welcoming and the other says gay behavior is sinful. They both look to Luther in some way as the guy who set things straight.

There are several kinds of Wesleyian groups from Methodists to Nazarenes. There are free Methodists and another one. There are a bunch of ‘non-denominational’ denominations that set up shop to preach the Bible. There are several Calvinist groups who do not call themselves Presbyterians for one reason or another and will not associate with them.

There are a couple that refuse all medical treatment as essential doctrine claiming the Bible teaches this. I have a friend who is a bishop in one of these groups called the Church of the Firstborn.
They will let their kids die rather than go to a doctor. There are two different tiny Churches of the Firstborn within about ten miles. One believes divorce and remarriage is forbidden and the other says it is ok, so they will not have anything to do with one another, but they both say it is sinful to get medical treatment. They insist all their doctrines come from the Bible. If a member is in a car wreck they will refuse help from an ambulance. My friend who is the bishop in this group has two elderly aunts he wants to go see. He will not get on an airplane to go see them, because he is not in great health. He has a disease that is treatable with simple drugs. He is afraid that if he gets sick or passes out in an airline terminal or public place someone will call an ambulance and he will wake up in a hospital. I am not exagerating in the slightest.

JA4, this is what Protestantism has wrought, division after division and some of it is really bizarre. It is in your foundational Bible only genes. Saying it all does not matter, because you are united in essentials is absurd. There is no unity. You are not united. The cause of your division is your false doctrine of sola scriptura. It is plain to see, evident and undeniable. Where does Protestantism go from here? It can only continue on the same path.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Can you give a couple of examples of “the oral preaching of the Apostles” not recorded in the scriptures?

Is the living Tradition of the church different than the scriptures? If so how?

JustAsking4:

Holy Tradition defines and interprets the Sacred Scriptures through Ecumentical Councils and the consesus of the writings of the Successors of the Apostles who are in communion with the See of Peter (Ordinary Magisterium) - So Tradition will tend to speak more clearly on issues where Scripture at least appears to be vague or to admit of more than one interpretation.

Therefore; there won’t be any real differences between what Scripture says on an issue and what Tradition says. It’s just that Tradition will speak more clearly…

The Archangel Gabriel says in Luke 1:35, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God…” (Luke 1:35 RSV) And, Elizabeth says in Luke 1:42-43, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..” (Luke 1:42-43 RSV)

While the First Council of Ephesus says more clearly, “And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.” (The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII. Anathematisms.)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html

And while our Lord Jesus says in the Gospel of John, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” (John 6:53-56 RSV)

And, St. Paul the Apostle said in 1st Corinthians, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (I Cor 11:23-29 RSV)

While the Council of Trent stated conclusively that the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into our Lord’s Body and Blood by the action of the Holy Spirit during the Words of Institution, and that the Divine Liturgy is an offering in the Sacifice of the Christ made on the cross made on behalf of the body of Christ to God the Father Almighty.
newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

I hope this makes sense.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

You must have had a bad hair day. Your nastier than i have ever seen you…:bigyikes:

JustAsking4:

Guanophore is trying to make it clear what one needs to accept to be a Catholic. That’s like saying what one needs to know in order to become an American, or an Israeli, or an English Citizen… How is that having a bad hair day?

Protestantism is a Protest against something. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be 31,000 Christian denominations in this country, most of them with congregations in communities that that don’t talk to or pray for each other or find common cause to work together, and this wouldn’t happen if Protestants learned to submit to each other on matters of interpretation or that weren’t esssential for salvation.

The Bishop’s Ring is a symbol of the Bishop’s spiritual authority and of the Christian’s duty to submit to that authority, and the Bishop’s hands’, like those of the priest, consecrate and distribute the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even St. Francis of Assisi kissed the hands of a priest as he said, These hands bring me Christ." If that’s good enough for a Saint, it’s good enough for me…

It seems to mee as if you’re having a problem with SUBMISSION. It’s the hardest word in the English language. What’s your problem with authority? Why don’t you want anyone telling you something may “shipwreck your faith”?

And, as Catholic doctrine stands as a whole, what is it that really bothers you? Is it the all-male Sacerdotal priesthood set up by our Lord and the Apostles? Is it the insistance that you must eat the flesh of Lamb of God for the Angel of Death to Pass over you and for you to have eternal life? Is it the insistance that you must confess your sins to one of these male priests in order for your sins to be forgiven (The early Church did it in front of the entire assembly)? Is it the insistance on baptism in water and the Spirit in order to be “born again”? Is it the insistance that “Once married always married” and that people shouldn’t be divorced and remarried?

Or, Are you angry at something else, something that since the Pope has now apologized for it and told the Bishops to fix it, you know it can’t legitimately hold a grudge against (that troublesome phrase in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”)?

Before you accuse me of “having a bad hair day”, look in the mirror.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mercygate]

.

The host has no qualities of being human. There is no human blood of flesh present in the host.

That is correct. There is no biological human blood or flesh present in the form of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist. That is one reason why it is NOT cannibalism. So I’m hoping that when your Protestant brethren come up with the cannibalism canard, you will clear that up for them. Thank you very much.

The “accidents” or attributes of ‘breadness’ and ‘wineness’ remain, while the “thingness” of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

When we see “bread” and “wine”, we are seeing with natural eyes – the eyes of the flesh. When we discern Our Lord Himself “under the veil”, we are discerning with the supernatural eyes of faith.

Just as all faith is a divine and supernatural gift of the Spirit, so faith in the Eucharist is a Divine and supernatural gift of the Spirit. One cannot be argued into it. If one chooses to accept Christ fully: His whole Person – Body, Blood, Soul, Diviinity, Heart Mind and Will – one may beg Him to send that grace. And He will send it. Nevertheless, it lies in the heart of love to accept it. God is a gentleman and will not force Himself upon your heart.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by justasking4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
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).

Originally Posted by Guanophore:
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 have done this before(actually twice). Our current priest was teaching something wrong about Suicide. I entered the Pastoral Council meeting uninvited and cited what the RCC teaches concerning this. He no longer teaches this. Another time he was telling people how to vote and if you vote for this type of character you were not in good standing with the Catholic Church. I corrected him on this as well and pointed out that we could loose our Tax exempt status. That soapbox has been removed as well.

No, not difficult at all. Once you recognize the Priest as a person and take him off the pedestal that others put him on, then…

 

[guanophore]

It is true that he lacks understanding of the matters you raise.

What I wonder is if he is genuinely trying to understand, or willfully shutting his ears to what is being presented. Is he looking for argument for argument’s sake, out of some perverse sense that it is enjoyable, or is there a genuine interest in what the Church believes and why?

I will concede that he has learned some things over the last year and a half, but there is also a very willfull shutting of ears (mind and heart). These responses have been presented many times, along with others not mentioned in this thread, and the hardness of heart remains.

You are correct, too, that there is a perverse sense of joy in badgering the Church. He seems to feel a divine calling to uproot what he consideres weeds in God’s wheat field. He is not content to wait for the angel God has appointed to this task.

Clearly his purpose is evangelical, and not to learn, or as his disingenuous name implies, “justasking”.

I have seen this claim many times about Sacred Tradition and those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not inspired-inerrant.

Those things not in the scriptures are not binding though. They do not carry apostolic authority.

Keep in mind that most of these if not all of them are not grounded in the scriptures.

ja4 believes that the Sacred Tradition is false teaching, and wants Catholics to use the Bible to question and confront the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, because they have strayed from Biblical Truth.

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

(talking about Sacred Tradition) might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

"guanophore:

But you have already made it clear that you consider these “speculations of men” and false teachng that has crept into the Church, so why keep bringing it up?

i want to help others see it to.

ja4 believes all the Catholic Traditions he cannot find in his bible are “false gospel”.

If what you say is true, then this would be a false gospel since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church. See Galatians 1:8-9. He never taught anything about the marian doctrines for example. That was never a requirement of the gospel he taught.

You can claim to be led all you want but if its not in the scriptures nor are there any historical facts you don’t have the truth but speculations.

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

(Magesterium)

Confront them and expose them.

"guanophore:

It seems to me that justasking4 is only on CAF to get Catholics to question their leadership

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church. The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.

The agenda seems clear to me, and has been consistent from the very first post. I went back and checked.

One of the things that seems curious to me among Protestants is they can't seem to get away from the disputes they have with Catholics.  Catholicism is kind of an inescapable reference point for them.  We are right, because we do not believe this and that, that those faulty Catholics believe.   Why can't they go off and do their thing and forget about what Catholics believe?    JA4 for example is clearly obsessed with comparing his personal beliefs with Catholicism.  I wonder how anyone could have so much time to spend as it would take to do all he does here.  It must be a full time job.  His life is about arguing with Catholics.  I have a family life and a job and have time to tune into a forum here and there for a few minutes.  I can't imagine how it is possible for someone to be so prolific and so engaged in so many discussions at once.

There is definitely an obsessive, perseverative quality to it. The laundry list in this thread seems like it is right out of the jack chick series. The laundry list has not changed either, so obviously the needs have never been met, whatever they may be.

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

As mentioned in the other thread:

Sunday Worship - Tradition
Abortion is murder - Tradition
New Testament Table of Contents - Tradition
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a “Trinity” - Tradition
Jesus is 100% Man, 100% God - Tradition

Those are all Biblical “Tradition, ie-teaching”.

Give some examples of Apostolic oral tradition.

The NT Canon IS one of the Traditions of the Church! Also, the living Tradition helps us understand Sacred Scripture, so we aren’t all divided and left to our own interpretations.

Such as what in Sacred Scripture?

Examples please.

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

JustAsking4:

Guanophore is trying to make it clear what one needs to accept to be a Catholic.

Try this, lets come to a clear understanding of what one needs to accept to be Christian.

Protestantism is a Protest against something.

“Protestant” was a perjorative term invented by Roman Catholics during the Reformation for “Evangelical Catholics”(what you call Lutherans) and “Reformed Catholics”(what you call Calvinists), being the True Catholics.

Otherwise, there wouldn’t be 31,000 Christian denominations in this country

Red herring and fabricated misrepresentation, where all kinds of heretical cults such as Mormons and JWs, who both have more in common with Roman Catholicism, are thrown in to pad the numbers.

most of them with congregations in communities that that don’t talk to or pray for each other or find common cause to work together

That too comes from the Roman Catholic Chack Cick comics version, and is simply hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts.

and this wouldn’t happen if Protestants learned to submit to each other on matters of interpretation

And exactly what interpretations would those be?

or that weren’t esssential for salvation.

Such as?

It seems to mee as if you’re having a problem with SUBMISSION.

Submission to whom?

And, as Catholic doctrine stands as a whole

Oh, you mean that Roman Catholic doctrine that is always changing?

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3603465]
Originally Posted by justasking4
But we do have evidence for Him in nature and in our hearts. Some of this does involove our senses. We also have in the scriptures and most clearly in the Lord Jesus.

BHTech
Have you seen God?

Not with my eyes but with my senses i.e. in creation and in heart. I have seen Him in the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by justasking4
I suppose so. We believe God could do all kinds of things.
Are you doubting God? Supposing implies doubt my friend.

At times. Not so much that He may not be able to do something but did He and will He do something i ask.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Thats not the issue though. The issue here is: did He do it and if He did what is the evidence for it?

BHTech
That is the issue. Did he not say we are to eat and drink him? How he chooses to accomplish it is not up to you and me. Can you prove that he said and meant otherwise? Show me the evidence of what Jesus really meant and how you arrived at that? Is that part of the Southern Baptist doctrinal beliefs?

Here is the core issue in trying to understand what the Lord Jesus meant. If you are familiar with His teachings which it appears you and others are then we know that some things were not meant to be taken at a “wooden literal” understanding. If we did then many of His teachings would be absurd. Even the disciples had great difficulty in understanding Him at times. So it is with the Lord’s supper. I don’t have the time to give you my understanding but maybe later.

Originally Posted by justasking4
We can deal with that later if you like.
BHTech
Will consider it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Absolutely. We believe all kinds of things on far less evidence and on “pieces of paper” at that.

BHTech
If this is your criteria, are not others entitled to the same? Who are you to determine what qualifies as evidence?

Who do I have to be? I would think most rational adults have the capacity to determine what qualifies as evidence.

BHTech
What about evidence that is unperceivable to the senses? Ex. The human eye sees only visible light and the ear is good for 20Hz-20kHz.

I have no problem with this. There is evidence for this is that can be checked and verified by others. Correct?

Originally Posted by justasking4
There are a lot of excellent books and articles on this. I highly recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
BHTech
Read it. Gave it away to a Muslim friend. You should give the remainder of your books to non-Christians

.

 

[justasking4]

grandfather;3603350]
Originally Posted by guanophore
You don’t understand

grandfather
These are just a few very elementary matters, but all of them are foundational to understanding more advanced tenents of the faith, such as Eucharist, Holy Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the development of doctrine. So, basically, you are getting ahead of yourself. If there is anyone on the thread who can help me to make this point in a more charitable manner, please don’t hesitate to let me know, as it is not my intention to be nasty.

It is true that he lacks understanding of the matters you raise.

What I wonder is if he is genuinely trying to understand, or willfully shutting his ears to what is being presented. Is he looking for argument for argument’s sake, out of some perverse sense that it is enjoyable, or is there a genuine interest in what the Church believes and why?

One of the things that seems curious to me among Protestants is they can’t seem to get away from the disputes they have with Catholics. Catholicism is kind of an inescapable reference point for them. We are right, because we do not believe this and that, that those faulty Catholics believe. Why can’t they go off and do their thing and forget about what Catholics believe? JA4 for example is clearly obsessed with comparing his personal beliefs with Catholicism. I wonder how anyone could have so much time to spend as it would take to do all he does here. It must be a full time job. His life is about arguing with Catholics. I have a family life and a job and have time to tune into a forum here and there for a few minutes. I can’t imagine how it is possible for someone to be so prolific and so engaged in so many discussions at once.

It is true that I do lack understanding on a lot of catholic beliefs and practices. The Vatican is exhuming his body according to a recent article on Catholic online (see short quote below). Where is this commanded in Scripture and who did such venerations in the early church? Did the church fathers promote this kind of practice?

“The body of St. Padre Pio will be exhumed, studied and displayed for public veneration from mid-April to late September, said the archbishop who oversees the shrine where the saint is buried.”

 

[guanophore]

Try this, lets come to a clear understanding of what one needs to accept to be Christian.

Welcome to CAF, Saint_Iguanas. There is no difference between being a Catholic and being a Christian. All Christains were Catholic until the Reformation about 500 years ago.

“Protestant” was a perjorative term invented by Roman Catholics during the Reformation for “Evangelical Catholics”(what you call Lutherans) and “Reformed Catholics”(what you call Calvinists), being the True Catholics.

Whether such persons are referred to as Reformers, or Protestants, they are not Catholic, and they are protesting.

Red herring and fabricated misrepresentation, where all kinds of heretical cults such as Mormons and JWs, who both have more in common with Roman Catholicism, are thrown in to pad the numbers.

Frankly, I thought the whole part on the unity of the flock was off topic, so I will let this one pass.

That too comes from the Roman Catholic Chack Cick comics version, and is simply hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts.

Possibly, but this was off topic also.

And exactly what interpretations would those be?

This is a good question, but is off topic in this thread as well.

Such as?

justasking4 has brought a shotgun of issues forward to derail the thread. One of them was about what doctrines were essential, and which were not.

Submission to whom?

The successor of Peter, and the Magesterium of the catholic church.

Oh, you mean that Roman Catholic doctrine that is always changing?

If you think that Catholic doctrine is always changing, it is certainly a subject worthy of discussion, but does not belong on this thread.

 

[guanophore]

It is true that I do lack understanding on a lot of catholic beliefs and practices. The Vatican is exhuming his body according to a recent article on Catholic online (see short quote below). Where is this commanded in Scripture and who did such venerations in the early church? Did the church fathers promote this kind of practice?

“The body of St. Padre Pio will be exhumed, studied and displayed for public veneration from mid-April to late September, said the archbishop who oversees the shrine where the saint is buried.”

This is an interesting subject of discussion, but is also off topic.

 

[justasking4]

This is an interesting subject of discussion, but is also off topic.

Would this not be some kind of Tradition?

 

[mercygate]

It is true that I do lack understanding on a lot of catholic beliefs and practices. The Vatican is exhuming his body according to a recent article on Catholic online (see short quote below). Where is this commanded in Scripture and who did such venerations in the early church? Did the church fathers promote this kind of practice?

“The body of St. Padre Pio will be exhumed, studied and displayed for public veneration from mid-April to late September, said the archbishop who oversees the shrine where the saint is buried.”

Scripturally the veneration of relics arises from two main sources. The first is the promise Joseph required of his brothers that when they left Egypt to take his bones with them (Gen 50) – and when Moses left on the night of the Passover, he took them (Ex 13); Joshua buried them in Shechem (Jsh 24), and it is reported in Sirach, “No man like Joseph has been born, and his bones are cared for.”

The second, and more specific, reference is the miraculous effect of the bones of Elisha in 2 Kg 13:21: And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave ofElisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones ofElisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

The Christian tradition of venerating the relics of the martyrs was alive and well by the mid-second century.

 

[guanophore]

Would this not be some kind of Tradition?

The fact that God preserves the physical bodies of saints, and works miracles through inanimate objects is indeed an element of Sacred Tradition. However, these things do not “define” Tradition. Besides, you were not addressing Tradition in your post:

It is true that I do lack understanding on a lot of catholic beliefs and practices. The Vatican is exhuming his body according to a recent article on Catholic online (see short quote below). Where is this commanded in Scripture and who did such venerations in the early church? Did the church fathers promote this kind of practice?

It is another example of how you are trying to get ahead of yourself. You have not even grasped the basic and elementary doctrines of Christ. You see, for a person who rejects the communion of saints as you have, such practices make no sense at all. You believe that those who have departed from the body are not with the Lord. If a saint is not alive in heaven, and has no knowledge of what goes on here, then veneration of the body of the saint will make no sense at all.

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
Try this, lets come to a clear understanding of what one needs to accept to be Christian.

Thanks.

There is no difference between being a Catholic and being a Christian. All Christains were Catholic until the Reformation about 500 years ago.

That is a matter of debate.

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
“Protestant” was a perjorative term invented by Roman Catholics during the Reformation for “Evangelical Catholics”(what you call Lutherans) and “Reformed Catholics”(what you call Calvinists), being the True Catholics.

Whether such persons are referred to as Reformers, or Protestants, they are not Catholic, and they are protesting.

No, actually the True Catholics you call Protestants were not “protesting” but were affirming the True Gospel as taught and handed down by Christ and the Apostles, in opposition to Rome’s false gospel.

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
Red herring and fabricated misrepresentation, where all kinds of heretical cults such as Mormons and JWs, who both have more in common with Roman Catholicism, are thrown in to pad the numbers.

Frankly, I thought the whole part on the unity of the flock was off topic, so I will let this one pass.

Roman Catholicism is not the united monolith it tries to portray itself as.

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
That too comes from the Roman Catholic Chack Cick comics version, and is simply hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts.

Possibly, but this was off topic also.

Then why make that tired old false “jack chick” snide comment?

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
And exactly what interpretations would those be?

This is a good question, but is off topic in this thread as well.

Then you should not have raised the topic.

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
Such as?

justasking4 has brought a shotgun of issues forward to derail the thread. One of them was about what doctrines were essential, and which were not.

Looks like you like to regurgitate the Roman Catholic talking point cliches but when pressed to suppor them beg off with excuses.

By the way, justasking4 is raising questions that are completely relevant to Rome’s claims of it’s doctrines, dogmas and practices being based on “oral tradition”.

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
Submission to whom?

The successor of Peter, and the Magesterium of the catholic church.

Which of course is a myth.

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
Oh, you mean that Roman Catholic doctrine that is always changing?

If you think that Catholic doctrine is always changing, it is certainly a subject worthy of discussion, but does not belong on this thread.

The the subject should not have been brought up.

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

I did not mean to be nasty, but I recently did realize that you ask many questions about matters of the faith that you cannot access, because you have not yet had a foundation in the basics. Without these elementary doctrines in place, it is not possible to build on a solid foundation to understand other things. In this thread, you have demonstrated the following:

you either don’t understand or refuse to accept the difference between doctrine, devotional practices, and disciplines

You don’t understand the nature and function of the Church

You don’t understand the nature and function of baptism

You don’t understand or refuse to accept basic concepts about biblical interpretation

You don’t understand or refuse to accept the teachings of Jesus on the value of celibacy, unity in the church, and obedience to the Truth

You don’t understand what respect means

Common reply when Roman Catholics are not able to present a legitimate argument from facts.

These are just a few very elementary matters, but all of them are foundational to understanding more advanced tenents of the faith, such as Eucharist, Holy Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the development of doctrine. So, basically, you are getting ahead of yourself. If there is anyone on the thread who can help me to make this point in a more charitable manner, please don’t hesitate to let me know, as it is not my intention to be nasty.

The fact is, Rome has developed it’s definition of “Tradition” into one that is totally foreign to that of the early church, or even the medieval church, having revised the definition several times since the council of Trent, into the new, revised version of “soli ekklesia, soli roma via viva voce”, or, whatever Rome says it is and can change it at any time.