SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[pismopal]

We know the apostles in their writings never spoke of her like this and we have no oral tradition or traditions of the apostles that is not in Scripture. In fact the catholic church admits it does not know what happened to her.

Since these things are true, where did this idea come from?

The Church admits that it doesn’t know what happened to her? If she was buried, do you not think the Church would know where? No…I know you wouldn’t admit this but if Mary died and was BURIED the Church would know where and there would be a Basillica over the spot. She was not buried because she was Assumed. Where did this idea come from? I suspect it came from her Son…who was GOD.

 

[BHTech]

Justasking4 said

We know the apostles in their writings never spoke of her like this and we have no oral tradition or traditions of the apostles that is not in Scripture. In fact the catholic church admits it does not know what happened to her.

Since these things are true, where did this idea come from?

Before I proceed with your question I would like to say that it is true the Catholic church does not know what happened to Mary. That is, whether she died and was assumed or she simply was assumed into heaven through Jesus power either way. Obviously if she died and stayed dead they would have found her bones by now but they haven’t which supports the assumption. Hence the reason the Dogmatic proclamation that she was assumed body and soul into heaven which leaves room for the possibility of her death.

What as Catholics we do know is she was certainly subject to the laws of death like her son, but her incorruptibility is a direct consequence from her fullness of grace spoken of in Luke 1:28 and her full participation in the redemptive work of Christ (Genesis 3:15). There are also inklings of her assumption from sacred scripture such as Rev. 12:1, and Psalms 131:8 in reference to the ark of the covenant. Mary has been described by several fathers of the church as a type of ark made of incorruptible wood which has contributed to the development of the dogma. Finally, I would just like to mention that when Catholics speak of Tradition just so we are clear, they refer to the teachings of the Saints and Doctors of the church, councils and creeds, the writings of the Early church fathers, Popes and especially the celebration of the liturgy from the earliest times to this day.

On to your direct question. Here is what we do know. Certain Apocrypha such as the “Falling Asleep of Mary” supposedly written by St. John the Theologian are the first known historical mention of it, perhaps around the 4th-5th century. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about it as well and I quote

**THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: … The full text can be found here newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm **

I hope that helps.

Blessings

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

 

[grandfather]

Part 1

Would you happen to have chapter and verse for this?

Who warned in scripture about false teachers? Jesus said many would come in His name and decieve many. There is not doubt that there are many teachers, self ordained, proclaiming the Bible as their authority, who teach doctrines that contradict other teachers who proclaim the Bible as their authority.

There were already controversies in the time of Paul and John. So back then who would be right? It had to be the apostle. So today who is right. It is not simply those who can trace their authority to the apostles, which is a valid argument, but whose teaching conforms to the continuous teaching of the Church. The teaching has to be unchanged, because truth can not change. Going back to baptism, if it was recently discovered the Church was wrong for all these centuries, then the Church did not know truth for all that time. That poses two problems. It says Jesus promise failed and it also says that there is no doctrine that is ever settled. The Church may decide X about Y doctrine and the next generation will say this is wrong. After further review… We used to believe this about that, but no longer do. We were wrong yesterday. There can never be any cerainty in doctrine under this Protestant model of continuous changeability.

 

[grandfather]

Part 2

Bad counsel. Keep in mind that the minister is infallible as no man is.

No this does not unite us. We all believe this and are not united. We are divided and this division is causing the destruction of Christian culture and civilization.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3592734]
Originally Posted by justasking4
the catholic church has not been teaching what the apostles taught for the past 2000 years but have added much. There is a lot things in the catholic church that the apostles never knew nor taught.

guanophore
This is what Jesus meant when he said that the mustard seed would become a great tree. The understanding of the Divine Deposit of Faith has grown over the years. We can even see this in the NT.

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” John 16:12-15

The Spirit has continued to take from Jesus and declare it.

You have one problem in using this passage to support your view. To whom was Jesus speaking to? To whom in this passage was He promising would be guided by the HS?

guanophore
Sorry, ja4, what is true for you is not true for all! We receive the Traditions from the Apostles as the Scriptures instruct. We have not separated the Holy Writings from the Holy hands that produced them by the power of God. It is your perogative to reject the Word of God, but why attack us for accepting it? If you wish to reject part of the Teachings, you are free to do so! Somehow you feel you must stomp out those of us who have received the commandment:

The problem is that you do not know anything of what the apostles taught that is not in Scripture. You can claim this all you want but the fact of the matter is you don’t know what else the apostles taught or said outside the Scriptures. No one does.

" So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15

What specific “traditions” is Paul referring to here?

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thess 2:13-14

We are not here to force the Sacred Traditions we have received upon you, but neither are we here for you to pursuade us to abandon the faith that has been entrusted to us. Will you not respect our right to guard our beliefs?

If only it were that simple. You are making a truth claim about something that is vitally important that is foundational to catholic beliefs and if true would mean that those who hold to protestant beliefs would be deficent and outright misleading. If such extra biblical teachings of the apostles exist then you have responsiblity to produce examples of it so that we to can believe.

"…guard what has been entrusted to you…1 Tim 6:20

What exactly did Paul entrust to Timothy?

 

[justasking4]

Who warned in scripture about false teachers? Jesus said many would come in His name and decieve many. There is not doubt that there are many teachers, self ordained, proclaiming the Bible as their authority, who teach doctrines that contradict other teachers who proclaim the Bible as their authority.

There were already controversies in the time of Paul and John. So back then who would be right? It had to be the apostle. So today who is right. It is not simply those who can trace their authority to the apostles, which is a valid argument, but whose teaching conforms to the continuous teaching of the Church. The teaching has to be unchanged, because truth can not change. Going back to baptism, if it was recently discovered the Church was wrong for all these centuries, then the Church did not know truth for all that time. That poses two problems. It says Jesus promise failed and it also says that there is no doctrine that is ever settled. The Church may decide X about Y doctrine and the next generation will say this is wrong. After further review… We used to believe this about that, but no longer do. We were wrong yesterday. There can never be any cerainty in doctrine under this Protestant model of continuous changeability.

The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men. Secondly, the catholic church has not always taught the same things. It has changed its teachings about various things a number of times. Just take the marian doctrines which were not believed in the early church to papal infalliblity to celibate priests. All these things have changed over time.

 

[justasking4]

The Church admits that it doesn’t know what happened to her? If she was buried, do you not think the Church would know where? No…I know you wouldn’t admit this but if Mary died and was BURIED the Church would know where and there would be a Basillica over the spot. She was not buried because she was Assumed. Where did this idea come from? I suspect it came from her Son…who was GOD.

Here are some quotes from catholic scholars about Mary’s death:

The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

 

[Thing]

The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men. Secondly, the catholic church has not always taught the same things. It has changed its teachings about various things a number of times. Just take the marian doctrines which were not believed in the early church to papal infalliblity to celibate priests. All these things have changed over time.

Don’t think celibacy is a doctrine.
The other two have not changed to be fair, e.g. it is not true that the Church proclaimed Marian doctrine - changed its mind and abolished it - then changed again and reinstated it. The Church has not as you say ‘changed its teachings’.

 

[Thing]

The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men.

The other thing is that you are also fallible. So you make no progress there.

There is however an example of St. Peter making a wrong decision and being corrected, together with the promise that the Church Christ founds will be protected from error - and finally Christ’s words ‘and on this rock I will build My Church’.
It cannot fail. Be in it.

 

[wanner47]

The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men.

As opposed to Protestants, who have a standard based on **fallible mens’ ****interpretations **of an infallible book written by fallible men.

Secondly, the catholic church has not always taught the same things. It has changed its teachings about various things a number of times.

Why don’t you hold Protestant Churches to the same standard?

For example - up until 1930, every single Christian denomination taught that contraception was immoral. Today, *only *the Catholic Church holds to this teaching.

Therefore, if you believe that the Catholic Church is wrong because it has allegedly changed its teachings, then you must also believe that every single other Christian denomination is ALSO wrong – because they have also changed their teachings.

Just take the marian doctrines which were not believed in the early church to papal infalliblity to celibate priests. All these things have changed over time.

The Church has not changed its teachings in regard to Mary or Papal infallibility. Your proof of this is…?

Teaching regarding a celibate priesthood *has *changed. It’s a discipline, not a dogma, and disciplines can certainly change.

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3593870]Justasking4 said

Before I proceed with your question I would like to say that it is true the Catholic church does not know what happened to Mary. That is, whether she died and was assumed or she simply was assumed into heaven through Jesus power either way. Obviously if she died and stayed dead they would have found her bones by now but they haven’t which supports the assumption. Hence the reason the Dogmatic proclamation that she was assumed body and soul into heaven which leaves room for the possibility of her death.

Its not necessarily true that since the church has not found her bones by now supports the assumption. We haven’t found the bones of countless others in scripture either and we would not assume that to were assumed into heaven either. We is needed are eyewitness accounts of her assumption to validate this doctrine. That we do not have.

What as Catholics we do know is she was certainly subject to the laws of death like her son, but her incorruptibility is a direct consequence from her fullness of grace spoken of in Luke 1:28 and her full participation in the redemptive work of Christ (Genesis 3:15).

This kind of exegesis cannot be supported by the texts you are using. Look up the words “full of grace or favored one” in a NT Greek lexicon and you will not find any reference in the meaning about being morally pure or sinless.

There are also inklings of her assumption from sacred scripture such as Rev. 12:1, and Psalms 131:8 in reference to the ark of the covenant. Mary has been described by several fathers of the church as a type of ark made of incorruptible wood which has contributed to the development of the dogma.

Are there any catholic scholars that support this? i know of a couple that reject the idea that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.

Finally, I would just like to mention that when Catholics speak of Tradition just so we are clear, they refer to the teachings of the Saints and Doctors of the church, councils and creeds, the writings of the Early church fathers, Popes and especially the celebration of the liturgy from the earliest times to this day.

So it has nothing to do with any teachings of the apostles not recorded in Scripture?

On to your direct question. Here is what we do know. Certain Apocrypha such as the “Falling Asleep of Mary” supposedly written by St. John the Theologian are the first known historical mention of it, perhaps around the 4th-5th century. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about it as well and I quote

**THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: … The full text can be found here newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm**

I hope that helps.

Blessings

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

How does this impact you if you believe in the assumption of Mary knowing that there is no evidence for it and the evidence that is used is from a corrupted source?

 

[BHTech]

Justasking said

The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men.

This is incorrect because your argument is attempting to extend the fallen nature of man to a church that God setup. Yes we are all sinners, but God in his infinite wisdom can and does use the church as a means of salvation for those same sinner. The Church therefore is a hospital for sinners, but that is precisely why it exists. To draw fallible men to God so that we are perfected along the way to heaven. To extend your point to the extreme or your logical conclusion is to degenerate into subjective truth and to believe that we can make it up as we go along which is blatantly false. You also ignore the words of Jesus in John 16 “12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you.” That is the Holy Spirit will use fallible men who otherwise would go astray to lead them always to the truth.

Secondly, the catholic church has not always taught the same things. It has changed its teachings about various things a number of times. Just take the marian doctrines which were not believed in the early church to papal infalliblity to celibate priests. All these things have changed over time.

You are also incorrect here. As I pointed out in a previous post on Mary the early church has always held belief in the Assumption from around the 4th-5th centuries. If you want to look at the remaining 3 Marian doctrines they go back even earlier in the writings of the church fathers. On papal infallibility before you slander it make sure you have a good understanding of it. One can also see the underpinnings of it in the writings of the church fathers. On your last point of celibacy you are confusing church practices with doctrine teachings. They are not the same.

Blessings

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

 

[justasking4]

wanner47;3595085]As opposed to Protestants, who have a standard based on **fallible mens’ ****interpretations **of an infallible book written by fallible men.

Not even protestants can claim infalliblity in their understanding of scripture. Its not necessary to to understand the scriptures.

Why don’t you hold Protestant Churches to the same standard?

I do.

For example - up until 1930, every single Christian denomination taught that contraception was immoral. Today, *only *the Catholic Church holds to this teaching.

Where is contraception taught in the scritpures?

Therefore, if you believe that the Catholic Church is wrong because it has allegedly changed its teachings, then you must also believe that every single other Christian denomination is ALSO wrong – because they have also changed their teachings.

I’m not saying the catholic church is wrong because it changed its teachings. What i’m showing is that the catholic church does change its teachings.

The Church has not changed its teachings in regard to Mary or Papal infallibility. Your proof of this is…?

In regards to papal infalliblity we can look at church history. It the 1870 Vatican Council that issued the pronouncement on papal infallibility.
In regards to the marian doctrines they were not believed in the earliest centuries by the church. Take the assumption of Mary. Unknown for centuries. If you were a Christian living in the 2nd century you would know nothing about this while a catholic of today does.

Teaching regarding a celibate priesthood *has *changed. It’s a discipline, not a dogma, and disciplines can certainly change.

Is not the discipline based on a doctrine i.e. the doctrine that Christ was celibate?

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3595293]
justasking4
The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men.

BHTech;
This is incorrect because your argument is attempting to extend the fallen nature of man to a church that God setup. Yes we are all sinners, but God in his infinite wisdom can and does use the church as a means of salvation for those same sinner. The Church therefore is a hospital for sinners, but that is precisely why it exists. To draw fallible men to God so that we are perfected along the way to heaven. To extend your point to the extreme or your logical conclusion is to degenerate into subjective truth and to believe that we can make it up as we go along which is blatantly false.

If men are fallen as you and i agree then all the interpretations of the church are based on the thinking of fallible men. It does not make the truth subjective as you state nor that we make it up as we go along but that we are limited in our understanding of the truth.
In regards to “making things up as we go along” you certainly have some evidence for this in the catholic church. Take Mary’s assumption. There is no evidence in Scripture nor historical evidence for it either. The catholic church admits it does not know what happened to her but it assumes without evidence she was assumed into heaven.

BHTech;
You also ignore the words of Jesus in John 16 “12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you.”

In this passage to “whom” is Jesus addressing?

BHTech;
That is the Holy Spirit will use fallible men who otherwise would go astray to lead them always to the truth.

Not necessarily. If this was all we had about this issue you might be correct. However, the scriptures are clear about false teachers coming into the church itself and decieving many. 2 Peter 2:1 is a case in point.

Quote:justasking4
Secondly, the catholic church has not always taught the same things. It has changed its teachings about various things a number of times. Just take the marian doctrines which were not believed in the early church to papal infalliblity to celibate priests. All these things have changed over time.

BHTech;
You are also incorrect here. As I pointed out in a previous post on Mary the early church has always held belief in the Assumption from around the 4th-5th centuries.

You make my point. This has not always been believed by the church for over 3 centuries.

If you want to look at the remaining 3 Marian doctrines they go back even earlier in the writings of the church fathers.

But none go back the apostles themselves. Secondly, just because a church father may have beleived something does that mean the entire church beleived it?

On papal infallibility before you slander it make sure you have a good understanding of it. One can also see the underpinnings of it in the writings of the church fathers.

Were not talking underpinnings here. Did all the church leaders believe that the bishop of Rome was infallible since the first century?

On your last point of celibacy you are confusing church practices with doctrine teachings. They are not the same.

What is this doctrine based on?

Blessings

Brent

 

[wanner47]

Not even protestants can claim infalliblity in their understanding of scripture. Its not necessary to to understand the scriptures.

So what you’re saying is that EVERYONE could be wrong when it comes to Scripture interpretation.

That being the case, why are you even debating on this forum if your interpretation of Scripture is fallible, and thus possibly wrong? How do you know you’re right?

Where is contraception taught in the scritpures?

Nice dodge. Why don’t you answer the question?

Since Protestant churches have changed their teachings on contraception, does that mean that they are all wrong about everything else?

I’m not saying the catholic church is wrong because it changed its teachings. What i’m showing is that the catholic church does change its teachings.

And so do Protestant Churches, as I have shown. If it’s okay by you for Protestant churches to change their teachings, why are you criticizing the Catholic Church for allegedly changing its teachings? Why is it okay for Protestants and not Catholics?

In regards to papal infalliblity we can look at church history. It the 1870 Vatican Council that issued the pronouncement on papal infallibility.

No, they just confirmed a dogma that had **always been taught ** since the time of Christ.

In regards to the marian doctrines they were not believed in the earliest centuries by the church. Take the assumption of Mary. Unknown for centuries. If you were a Christian living in the 2nd century you would know nothing about this while a catholic of today does.

Proof?

Is not the discipline based on a doctrine i.e. the doctrine that Christ was celibate?

I don’t believe “Christ was celibate” is a doctrine.

Priestly celibacy is based in part due to the fact that Christ was celibate, and also based on St. Paul’s teachings (and example) about celibacy. See here for more information.

 

[mercygate]

To whom was Jesus speaking to? To whom in this passage was He promising would be guided by the HS?

To the Eleven. The same Eleven guys he charged with teaching “all that I have commanded,” and promising to be with them “to the close of the age.”

This clearly points to both Apsotolic Succession and (taken together with the passages on binding and loosing as well as the promise of the Keys) is not a promise that where the Apostles – and by necessity, their successors – that the teaching will be authentic “to the close of the age.”

The problem is that you do not know anything of what the apostles taught that is not in Scripture. You can claim this all you want but the fact of the matter is you don’t know what else the apostles taught or said outside the Scriptures. No one does.

The actual practice of the sub-apostolic Church ain’t chopped liver, JA.

You are making a truth claim about something that is vitally important that is foundational to catholic beliefs and if true would mean that those who hold to protestant beliefs would be deficent and outright misleading. If such extra biblical teachings of the apostles exist then you have responsiblity to produce examples of it so that we to can believe.

Once a person sees the connection between the unfolding of doctrine in response to heretical challenges, and the core connection of that unfolding doctrne with the historic Church, he comes face-to-face with the Incarnational aspect of the Church. Christ’s Church, His Body, His Bride, His terms.

FYI: Origen, the most quoted Christian author of the third century (b. ca 182) and named by Jerome as “the second teacher of the church after Paul,” four times in his writings refers to the custom of infant baptism as “received from the Apostles.” Augustine refers to it as a practice that the Church has “always had, always held.”

What exactly did Paul entrust to Timothy?

The teaching which accords with godliness.

 

[justasking4]

Thing;3595080]
The problem is that if you use the church as the criteria for truth then you have a standard based on fallible men.

Thing
The other thing is that you are also fallible. So you make no progress there.

Your right. I’m not infallible nor is your priest, bishop or pope infallible either. Lets take the pope who is the only one in the catholic church is said to be able to speak infalliblity. How many “ex cathreda” pronouncements by the popes have been made?

There is however an example of St. Peter making a wrong decision and being corrected, together with the promise that the Church Christ founds will be protected from error - and finally Christ’s words ‘and on this rock I will build My Church’.
It cannot fail. Be in it.

The problem is that Jesus never promised His church would be protected from error otherwise the warning of false teachers coming into the church to decieve would be absurd. Secondly, the catholic church has erred. Take the case of Joan of Arc. She was condemned and killed as a heretic and later was made a saint. This is one of many examples of error on the part of the catholic church.

 

[e61iuser]

Wow. I didn’t know the Catholic Church ever taught as dogma that Joan of Arc was a heretic. And they had to retract that erroneous dogma too.

The things you learn.

 

[mercygate]

Your right. I’m not infallible nor is your priest, bishop or pope infallible either. Lets take the pope who is the only one in the catholic church is said to be able to speak infalliblity. How many “ex cathreda” pronouncements by the popes have been made?

A teaching need not be pronounced ex cathedra to be required de fide for Christian belief. The Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Ascension, the inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture are all infallible teachings of the Church that have never been promulgated by the extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra).

The problem is that Jesus never promised His church would be protected from error otherwise the warning of false teachers coming into the church to decieve would be absurd. Secondly, the catholic church has erred. Take the case of Joan of Arc. She was condemned and killed as a heretic and later was made a saint. This is one of many examples of error on the part of the catholic church.

Of course Jesus promised protection from error. He promised to the Eleven that He would send a paraclete to “guide you into all the Truth” and He promised to be with them “to the close of the age.” He gave them the power of “binding and loosing.” And He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, built on the foundation of Peter. I.e., the Apostles in Communion with Peter ARE the privileged place of Christian teaching, as Our Lord Himself promised.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3595445]
Originally Posted by justasking4
To whom was Jesus speaking to? To whom in this passage was He promising would be guided by the HS?

mercygate
To the Eleven. The same Eleven guys he charged with teaching “all that I have commanded,” and promising to be with them “to the close of the age.”

This clearly points to both Apsotolic Succession and (taken together with the passages on binding and loosing as well as the promise of the Keys) is not a promise that where the Apostles – and by necessity, their successors – that the teaching will be authentic “to the close of the age.”

Would you not agree that the successors as you call them are the bishops and bishops are not apostles in the same sense as the 12?

Quote:justasking4
The problem is that you do not know anything of what the apostles taught that is not in Scripture. You can claim this all you want but the fact of the matter is you don’t know what else the apostles taught or said outside the Scriptures. No one does.

mercygate
The actual practice of the sub-apostolic Church ain’t chopped liver, JA.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you give examples of things the apostles taught that is not in scripture?

mercygate
[qupte]You are making a truth claim about something that is vitally important that is foundational to catholic beliefs and if true would mean that those who hold to protestant beliefs would be deficent and outright misleading. If such extra biblical teachings of the apostles exist then you have responsiblity to produce examples of it so that we to can believe.

mercygate

Once a person sees the connection between the unfolding of doctrine as challenges arose and the core connection with the historic Church, he comes face-to-face with the Incarnational aspect of the Church. Christ’s Church, His Body, His Bride, His terms.
What challenges did the early church face about Mary being sinless and assumed into heaven?

FYI: Origen, the most quoted Christian author of the third century (b. ca 182) and named by Jerome as “the second teacher of the church after Paul,” four times in his writings refers to the custom of infant baptism as “received from the Apostles.” Augustine refers to it as a practice that the Church has “always had, always held.”

I can see how people would believe in infant baptism on the face of it. It break down though when you look at what precedes baptism i.e. belief. Even though Augustine may have believed that it was “received from the Apostles” does not mean he was right. What evidence does he produce that shows the apostles taught this? It can’t be the scriptures since it does not mention it.

justasking4
What exactly did Paul entrust to Timothy?
mercygate
The teaching which accords with godliness.

Where do we find this teaching of godliness that Paul refers to? What are some examples of it?