SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[BHTech]

Justaskin4 said

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.

To the best of my knowledge we have all the bones of the apostle located at various parts of the world. they are the important ones and Mary was part of that group of early Christians. That said you cannot say that because we don’t have Mary bones that it did not happen. Saying it ain’t so does not make it so. Now the absence of her bones given her proximity and role with Christ is a greater proof or lends more credence to the fact that she was assumed. In other words the probability is higher for her assumption than it is for other characters in the Bible. We also know that Elijah was taken up into heaven so the possibility exists that it applied to Mary as well.

We is needed are eyewitness accounts of her assumption to validate this doctrine. That we do not have.

Oh. Did you have an eyewitness account of God (the father) to believe that he exists or gave you a particular doctrine to believe? Or how about trials proceeding without eyewitness. Murders have been committed in the past and no eyewitness have been around, but the fact remains that a murder has been committed and people get tried and sometimes convicted for it. You have never seen me and neither I have never seen you, but you and I both believe that the other exists.

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.

That is because the scholars who write or translate those texts change the meaning to diminish the effect. No translation is perfect but hey if Luther and the Protestant reformers thought of Mary as sinless who am I to argue with them.

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.

Read Dr. Ludwig Ott book “Fundamentals of Catholic dogma” as a starting point. It is true that over the years some fathers have interpreted this passage of scripture to mean various things, but if you look at the modern scholarship today, no one (an intellectually honest scholar) will doubt the notion that the woman in revelations is Mary.

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

I’m not sure that your question in the first place is a valid one.

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?

As I said earlier on, I believe that there is evidence for it and in response to your last point, I do not believe that it is from a corrupted source. The latter are your words, not mine.

Blessings

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

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3595488]
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.

mercygate
Of course Jesus promised protection from error. He promised to the Eleven the 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.”

He did promise to be with them and guide them. We see this in Acts. However He did not promise they could not err. Peter himself was in serious error a number of times and was rebuked by Jesus and Paul. If the HS was protecting them from error this would not have happened.

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.

What does it mean the “gates of hell would not prevail against His Church”? Certainly it cannot mean it would never err since we both know that the past centuries up to today the church has done much evil.

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3595507]justasking4
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.

BHTech
That is because the scholars who write or translate those texts change the meaning to diminish the effect. No translation is perfect but hey if Luther and the Protestant reformers thought of Mary as sinless who am I to argue with them.

I’m not referring specifically to how Bible translate the words but what do the words themselves mean in context. Thats what we need to know and understand.
Here is what the word “full of grace or favored one” means in a Greek dictionary of the NT:
grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.
This is from a scholarly work. Notice that there is nothing here about her being sinless.

Quote:]justasking4
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.

BHTech
Read Dr. Ludwig Ott book “Fundamentals of Catholic dogma” as a starting point. It is true that over the years some fathers have interpreted this passage of scripture to mean various things, but if you look at the modern scholarship today, no one (an intellectually honest scholar) will doubt the notion that the woman in revelations is Mary.

Here is a reputable scholar who shows otherwise:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

As you can see he gives the reasons why the woman of Revelations 12 is not Mary.

 

[justasking4]

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.

Did not the church during this time period teach that Joan of Arc was a heretic (based on dogma) until they made her a saint?
Did not the catholic church err in this? Is this not a matter of faith and morals necessary for salvation?

 

[Thing]

He did promise to be with them and guide them. We see this in Acts. However He did not promise they could not err. Peter himself was in serious error a number of times and was rebuked by Jesus -]and Paul/-]. If the HS was protecting them from error this would not have happened.

Thats what I was talking about; Jesus prevented St. Peter from falling into error, or from passing on error.
Then He tells them He will always be with them and the Holy Spirit will guide them.
You just gave the first examples of infallibility in His Church.
And the infallibility of St. Peters office.

 

[BHTech]

justasking4 said

If men are fallen as you and i agree then all the interpretations of the church are based on the thinking of fallible men.

Let me add the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit.

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.

I stated that the extreme case of your original thought/response was that truth will be subjective. Truth by definition is objective and immutable, but I of course do not believe in your logical conclusion, but I thought I would mention it to you.

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.

This point has been addressed before. Either you believe it or you don’t. There is no need to bring it up again.

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.

At some point the truth must be revealed and Jesus said it will be the Holy Spirit that will do it.

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?

Have you ever written down everything you have come across, seen, heard, or spoken in your lifetimes? I will answer it for you. The answer is no, so why should you expect the apostles to do the same?

Blessings

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

 

[e61iuser]

Did not the church during this time period teach that Joan of Arc was a heretic until they made her a saint?
Did not the catholic church err in this? Is this not a matter of faith and morals necessary for salvation?

Sure they did! But I didn’t know that teaching was elevated to dogma.

Thanks for the knowledge justasking4! Something to add to my collection.

 

[justasking4]

Thats what I was talking about; Jesus prevented St. Peter from falling into error, or from passing on error.
Then He tells them He will always be with them and the Holy Spirit will guide them.
You just gave the first examples of infallibility in His Church.
And the infallibility of St. Peters office.

Peter was not prevented from falling into error. If that were the case Paul would not have rebuked him in Galatians 2

 

[mercygate]

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?

The term “Apostle” is reserved by Tradition to those of the eye-witness age. The Apostolic FUNCTION of teaching and of celebrating the Sacraments MUST continue by the Authority of Christ “to the close of the age.” That is what the Church does. “Makes disciples” and teaches.

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

While Catholics see the practice of Confession in Scripture (Mt. 16:19, Jn 20:23, 2Cor 2:10, Jas 5:16), and know that it was an Apostolic teaching and practice, but Protestants do not. So as a Catholic I can say that “Confession is in Scripture.” As a student of history, apart from Scripture, I know that confession was practiced publicly by the early Church. Today, although the disicipline of the sacrament has changed the fundamental theology has not.

What challenges did the early church face about Mary being sinless and assumed into heaven?

For the umpty-eleventh time. Doctrine develops. The Marian dogmas all emerge from the great Conciliar definitions of the Person of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest Marian dogma is her title, accepted by all mainstream Protestant groups, as “Theotokos” – Mother of God. The teaching on her sinlessness, of her perpetual virginity, of her Immaculate Conception and Assumption ALL derive from her privileged place in the economy of salvation. None of these teachings can be separated from the Person of Jesus Christ.

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.

You are using an entirely modern concept of what constitutes “belief” that did not hold for the Apostolic age. There are 2nd and 3rd century tombstones of Christian infants that say “Believer from Believers” – in other words, “Faith” was BOTH personal and communal, and – deriving from the model of the Church as God’s FAMILY of faith, the Children were included – as with circumcision (and that parallel IS scriptural).

Actually, you are making this hard for me by asking for things outside of Scripture. I am accustomed to finding in Scripture the sprouts of many things that Protestants do not find there.

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

At the time Paul was writing, this teaching would have been found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as transmitted by Lois and Eunice and by Paul himself, and (since this letter was written late in Paul’s life) in whatever written portions of the Gospels Timothy might have had.

 

[Thing]

Peter was not prevented from falling into error. If that were the case Paul would not have rebuked him in Galatians 2

St. Paul did not rebuke St. Peter.
And yes, St. Peter as you said was protected from falling into error by Jesus.
St. Peters office has His protection. You proved it to yourself.

 

[BHTech]

I’m not referring specifically to how Bible translate the words but what do the words themselves mean in context. Thats what we need to know and understand.
Here is what the word “full of grace or favored one” means in a Greek dictionary of the NT:
grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.
This is from a scholarly work. Notice that there is nothing here about her being sinless.

Here is a reputable scholar who shows otherwise:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

As you can see he gives the reasons why the woman of Revelations 12 is not Mary.

In response to what you have written rather than response to the parts of the documents you quote, my response is on Mary’ sinlessness and Rev. 12, again I refer you to Dr. Ott’ book and writings of the church fathers particularly Justin Martyr. I would advice you to read other authors and other writings. I cannot convince you without taking up all my time which I do not have.

Blessings

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

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3595636]**
justasking4
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?

BHTech
Have you ever written down everything you have come across, seen, heard, or spoken in your lifetimes? I will answer it for you. The answer is no, so why should you expect the apostles to do the same?**
Good point. This also means that a person 500 years from now for example would have no way of knowing what i said or thought unless it was written down or recorded. Today we can use recorders to record what we say but the apostles did not have such things. The only things we know of what the apostles taught is written in the scriptures. I agree that they did say more but we have no way to know what it was unless it was written down.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Peter was not prevented from falling into error. If that were the case Paul would not have rebuked him in Galatians 2

Thing;
St. Paul did not rebuke St. Peter.
And yes, St. Peter as you said was protected from falling into error by Jesus.
St. Peters office has His protection. You proved it to yourself.

Maybe you didn’t read my post carefully enough. I said “Peter **was not prevented **from falling into error”.

 

[mercygate]

Good point. This also means that a person 500 years from now for example would have no way of knowing what i said or thought unless it was written down or recorded. Today we can use recorders to record what we say but the apostles did not have such things. The only things we know of what the apostles taught is written in the scriptures. I agree that they did say more but we have no way to know what it was unless it was written down.

This is a very “Guttenberg” point of view. There was a LOT of fidelity in the transmission of information in the first through fifth centuries. And remember, it was not until the 4th Century that it was SAFE for Christians to write things down and to keep them in one place. Verbal transmission was much more accurate then than we of the print age can match. It wasn’t like the “telephone game.”

 

[guanophore]

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?

No, ja4, I have no such problem, and I would appreciate it if you would own your own problems, and avoid trying to pass them off to other members of CAF.

Jesus is speaking to His Apostles, and it is upon them that He built His church. They are the foundation, with the prophets, and He is the cornerstone. That is why we rely so heavily upon the Apostolic Succession. The promises are attached to that, and only that. Those who embrace unity with the successor of Peter have access to these very great and precious promises.

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.

Well, you cannot, and neither can anyone who rejects the Sacred Tradition. However, your refusal to embrace the biblical commandment to hold fast to these does not nullify them for those who have chosen to obey. You can make them invalid for yourself, but not to others.

What specific “traditions” is Paul referring to here?

I don’t think it would be productive to try to talk about this, since you still have not grasped the elementary doctrines of Christ. Perhaps further down the road, when you have been able to acquire more of these, it might be useful?

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.

You are right, it is foundational for Catholics, and we do believe that those who fail to teach these things teach a deficient and misleading gospel. However, our goal here is not to disparage those who are imperfectly connected to the Body such as you are. Our goal here is to present the fullness of the Apostolic Faith. You are free to reject this, as you seem to have done. Why should it matter to you if someone else thinks your theology is deficient? Since you are convinced that you are right, and that you posess the perfection, then why is it so difficult to let it go?

If such extra biblical teachings of the apostles exist then you have responsiblity to produce examples of it so that we to can believe.

No, I don’t think so. The Mysteries are only available to those who have been initiated, and you have not. In the scriptures, you have sufficient information to lead you to faith in Christ, which seems to have happened. I know you claim to be a Christian, and I am not in a position to dispute that, in spite of your ffrequent unchristian behavior on this board. Be it done to you accordingto your faith. If your faith fills the teaspoon, why do you need a cup?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Catholic doctrine is based on revelation from God, not scholarship.

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

Catholics consider the Revelation of God to be one, whole, and entire deposit of faith. Therefore, distinction are not made about which part is recorded in the NT, and which part is not.

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?

This is an impossible question for faithful members of Apostolic Faiths to answer. For us, the Church provides sufficient evidence through the Sacred Traditions, and we consider the Church to be the pure Bride of Christ, and uncorruptible.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."

I think this is only problematic for those who can’t “see” the Church.

If men are fallen as you and i agree then all the interpretations of the church are based on the thinking of fallible men.

What you are basically saying here, ja4, is that God is weak/impotent, or disinterested in keeping his promises. First Jesus promises that He will send His Spirit to guide the Apostles into all truth, then he apparently falls down on the job (maybe he forgot?) and does not send the Spirit, or the Spirit of God is also impotent, and cannot fulfill the promise Jesus made. Either way you look at it, God comes out awfully small!

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.

Catholic doctrine is based on revelation from God, not scholarship.

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

Catholics consider the Revelation of God to be one, whole, and entire deposit of faith. Therefore, distinction are not made about which part is recorded in the NT, and which part is not.

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.

I agree that human understanding is limited. That is why it is so important to place the revelation of God over our own scholarship.

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.

There is no evidence that you can accept, ja4. Perhaps, in time, if you grow in Christ, you will be able to perceive these things?

"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14-15

In the meantime, I fear they will appear as folly to you.

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.

Don’t worry, ja4. We know you are here, and we are on guard! :knight2:

 

[mercygate]

Maybe you didn’t read my post carefully enough. I said “Peter **was not prevented **from falling into error”.

But he did not TEACH error. He was chided for failing to observe his own teaching IN A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE.

Infallibility applies only NEGATIVELY in matters of faith and morals. I.e., it means that the Pope will never promulgate error as doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

What exactly did Paul entrust to Timothy?

The Sacred Traditions, of course!

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 only a problem for persons such as yourself, who cannot discern spiritual things, ja4. Persons who understand these matters can see clearly that the Church is not “based on fallible me” but on the Divine Head, who is Christ. Because He is the Head, the Church is infallible. Just the same as God was able to produce inspired inerrant writings through fallible men,He is able to make the Church pure even though there are fallible men involved. You appear to have trust issues, not just with God, but with other people.

The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, who is God, that is why the Church is infallible. You have so much focus on the behavior of errant men that you cannot see God in the Church!

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.

Well, we see it differently, ja4. What would happen if you just made a decision to accept that other people who claim to be Christians also believe differently than you? What would happen if you were to just “Let Go, an Let God”? Do you think that God is not able to save Catholics from themselves without your help?

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.

The doctrine of the assumption is not based on the lack of bones. However, it was the search for her bones that sparked the earliest writings about it that we have. It would not surpise me to learn that others were assumed into heaven. Don’t you wonder what happened to all those folks who resurrected when He died? Did He leave them to die again, or did He take them with HIm when He Ascended?

You have said before that when you use that royal “we”, talking about “we need”, that you are speaking of “true Christians - bible Christians”. That being the case, if there are no eyewitness accounts in the NT, then what difference would it make to you if 500 people saw her? “It is not in the Bible”. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that you, and none of the “we” you represent are going to get your needs met here. Have you considered going elsewhere to find someone who can meet them?

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.

Ok, so we see it differently. Since we are each entitled to interpret scripture, why do you find it so hard to allow us to interpret according to our theology?

 

[justasking4]

This is a very “Guttenberg” point of view. There was a LOT of fidelity in the transmission of information in the first through fifth centuries. And remember, it was not until the 4th Century that it was SAFE for Christians to write things down and to keep them in one place. Verbal transmission was much more accurate then than we of the print age can match. It wasn’t like the “telephone game.”

The major problem with verbal transmissions is that things evenutally get corrupted whereas written documents do not suffer as much corruption over the centuries as in the case of the NT. Secondly, once the eyewitnesses die you have no more checks in regards to accuracy of the verbal transmission.
Today we don’t even rely on any verbal transmissions of the apostles.

 

[BHTech]

Peter was not prevented from falling into error. If that were the case Paul would not have rebuked him in Galatians 2

Peter was not teaching about Faith and Morals here in Galatians 2 as defined by the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Your argument is invalid here.

Blessings

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