SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[BHTech]

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.

Therefore somethings we have to take on faith.

Blessings

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

 

[JRKH]

1. Jesus taught orally. He never wrote a book and He never Promised a Book.
2. Jesus gave us a Church.
3. Jesus gave Authority to That Church through the Apostles and their successors, guided by the Holy Spirit.
4. In the first centuries it was a united, Catholic (universal) church spread by oral teachings and letters.
5. None of the Apostles (except possibly John) wrote books, or (so far as we know) promised us a definitive Book.
6. By 300 AD there were more than 250 documents all claiming apostolic authority, and there was STILL NO BIBLE other than the Jewish scriptures.
7. The Christian Church (read:Catholic, read:Universal) leaders meaning the Bishops under the auspices of the successor of Peter, gathered, reviewed, and assebled 27 books and letters out of more than 250 to be included in the NT canon of the Christian Bible which would also include the Old Testement Books.
8. Since the Church had been founded by Christ using apostolic and oral methods (read Traditions) the successors of the Apostles, when defining the NT never intended the Bible to be used seperate from the Church or tradition.
9. The Bible is therefore a foundational document of a living Church whose full teachings and Authority stretch back, unbroken to Jesus Christ Himself.
10. The Catholic Church has maintained, defended and taught from the Bible for 1600 years.
11. It was people who broke from the Church who have tried to seperate the Bible from it’s roots which are in the Catholic Church.

Conclusion: The Bible IS a Catholic Book, compiled, interpreted, taught, defended, preserved, and promulgated for some 1600 years.
To try to seperate the Bible from The Church and Sacred Tradition is a recipe for disaster.

Peace
James

 

[justasking4]

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.

Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings. We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” which is a false teaching.

 

[Thing]

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

I know what you said.
The Catholic Church depends on reformers within the Church, e.g. St Francis.
But what the Church teaches as Truth, Dogma, is protected by Jesus, as you proved to yourself when you said Jesus corrects St. Peter, and He then tells the Apostles He will always be with them. Tell me what is the point of Jesus promising always to be with them and then allowing them to abandon Truth…Him…

 

[mercygate]

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.

This is a quibble. The FACT is that people WERE much better equipped to manage information without having it in writing in those days.

I think of a great example modern times of Samuel Slater who, in 1790 memorized the entire layout of a British spinning mill in minute detail and carried it in his head to Providence, RI, where he built it and changed the course of the nation.

 

[wanner47]

justasking4 - why do you find it acceptable for Protestant churches to change their teachings (for example, on contraception), but not, as you allege, the Catholic Church?

 

[Lampo]

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.

You don’t give the Holy Spirit enough credit in providing 100% accuracy in verbal transmission of Traditions within the Church. I believe God when He promised to guide His Church into all truth. I believe God that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church. You don’t believe His Church teaches all truth, correct? Therefore, if it doesn’t teach all truth, then you must think the Church teaches lies. Who is the father of lies? Satan. Where does Satan reside? Hell. If the Church teaches lies, then that means the gates of Hell prevailed against it. God said this will not happen and it hasn’t.

 

[mercygate]

Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings. We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” which is a false teaching.

Only a detractor could see this passage the way you do. Peter was not preaching that Jesus had not risen from the dead. The matter in hand was kosher observance, which, though already resolved with the leadership of Peter himself, was still a hot-button topic in Jerusalem and among the still-observant Jewish Church.

 

[BHTech]

Let me ask you a question justasking4. Let’s for the moment assume that everyone here on this thread with the exception of yourself was wrong. Peter teaching was fallible, Mary was not assumed, Mary is not in Rev. 12, the Catholic church teachings and Doctrines have changed, etc, etc.

What then is the correct teachings of Jesus Christ? Is it a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible?

Blessings

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

 

[elvisman]

Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings. We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” which is a false teaching.

WRONG.
Peter was not “teaching” anything. He was behaving wrongly - NOT teaching wrongly - just as you are wrongly reading into this passage something that is not there.

 

[savedsinner]

Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings. We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” which is a false teaching.

NO !!! it was not false teaching !!
it was hypocrisy, it was his actions of not eating with the Jews, it was about his behavior.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, I think it was a poor way of conceptualizing it. The story generated at the death of Mary. The fact that it was not recorded until later does not change the facts. The NT scriptures were inspired the moment they were written. The fact that the canon was not defined until the fourth century does not change the facts.

Jesus’ nature was hypostatic from teh moment of his conception. The fact that the council did not define this until the fourth century does not change the facts. Same with the Trinity, and the observance of the Sabbath on Sunday.

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?

This is true, of course. It is clear that the Didache and the Apostles creed were accepted, but you do not accept them today. Fortunately, having everyone believe it is not a criteria for Truth. Truth comes from the revelation of God, and it is still true whether the majority believe it or not.

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

I doubt they even had such a word, since it comes from the Latin, and most of them spoke Greek. However, they did have the concept of “Peter has spoken, the issue is closed”.

What is this doctrine based on?

Celibacy is not a doctrine, it is a discipline. It is based on Jesus’ teaching that some persons become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, and Paul’s teaching that those who are celibate are not encumbered with the cares of this world, and are able to give their full attention to the things of God. The Catholic Church prefers to choose clergy from among those who are so called.

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?

How is this relevant, since you don’t accept them anyway?

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.

Jesus did promise that the Church would be protected. This is what He means by “the Gates of Hell will not prevail”. He did not promise that people would not be led astray, though. To the extent that the individuals in the Holy Church fail to hold fast to the teachings, they can speed quickly through the gates of hell.

Factions reveal who are those that cling to the Apostolic Teaching, and who does not. “there must be factions…,” so that, the body of Christ may be tested, thereby making evident those who are true and faithful to God’s word as taught through the prophets and apostles, and those who are not (cf 1 Thess 2:4; 2 Cor 2:9).

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.

I think you are confusing the errant behavior of certain small minded individuals in the Church with the Apostolic Teaching of the Church. They are two different things.

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

If this were true, there would be perfect unity in the Church. There would be no denominations or schisms at all!

Where is contraception taught in the scritpures?

I think that is off topic in this thread.

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.

Oh, I think that is EXACTLLY what you are trying to say, in every way you can think of, and probably some that were just given to you! What is puzzling is, why is this so important to you. Since you believe you are right, why should it disturb you if other people believe differently? This is what is known as intolerance.

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.

Clearly this is not the case, or there would not be so much early evidence of the believe in the assumption.

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

No, not really. Jesus is the bridegroom of the Church, and He encouraged marriage.

 

[justasking4]

Let me ask you a question justasking4. Let’s for the moment assume that everyone here on this thread with the exception of yourself was wrong. Peter teaching was fallible, Mary was not assumed, Mary is not in Rev. 12, the Catholic church teachings and Doctrines have changed, etc, etc.

What then is the correct teachings of Jesus Christ? Is it a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible?

Blessings

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

There are a number of ways to answer this. One is:
Does the Bible teach that all that is necessary for salvation and to mature in Christ? I believe that it does.

Secondly, it depends what you mean by “literal” interpretation. When interpretting the Scriptures there are a number of things that must be kept in mind to arrive at the correct interpretation. One is the context, intent of the author and figures of speech. These and a few other things can for the most part help us come to an understanding what the Scriptures say.

 

[mercygate]

He did promise to be with them and guide them. We see this in Acts. However He did not promise they could not err.

Are you referring to Pentecost here?

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.

The citation on the gates of Hell is understood by the Church as the promise of indefectibility (of which papal infallibility is a subsidiary teaching). Briefly stated, “indefectibility” means that the Church, as Christ founded it, will last until His Second Coming “to the close of the age”] and that the Universal Church, as a divine institution, cannot change its essential internal and external character. Being “guided into all the truth” does mean that the Church will not teach error.

JA – none of your jumbled collection of examples of “error” and “evil” fit into the definition of indefectibility/infallibility as understood by the Church. A serious inquiry into this matter requires adopting the language and standards the Church uses when defining these things. Applying external definitions, or even the definitions of common usage, simply cannot address these complex matters.

Still it is no wonder that people look at the Catholic Church with such jaundice. Our sins are bad enough without the added confusion of failure to understand the teachings of the Church AS THEY ARE TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH.

The Church has been fighting heresy and the enemies of God – some of them inside her own walls – for 2000 years. It stands to reason that some of her teachings might be confusing when all one has to go by is a book, and when one rejects the matrix from which “the book” emerged and in which it speaks in its full vigor.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings. We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” which is a false teaching.

elvisman
WRONG.
Peter was not “teaching” anything. He was behaving wrongly - NOT teaching wrongly - just as you are wrongly reading into this passage something that is not there.

On what basis was Paul rebuking Peter for about “how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews”? What was Peter telling these Gentiles specifically that Paul rebuked him?
If you read further on you will see that it had something to do with the Law and perhaps having to keep that Law as the Jews had sought and failed to do.

 

[grandfather]

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.

Jesus in scripture guarantees that the doctrines of His Church that He founded as proclaimed by those He ordained will be true. That is undeniable. It clearly says this. The teachings are true or His promise you find in your scripture is false. If what we teach and believe is false then His teaching as found in scripture is false. The Church has never changed any dogma. Understanding of truth can grow. We can understand things better today that we did yesterday. An example is in the early centuries we did not have the definitions of the Trinity all Christians now hold. Jesus came, taught, died and ascended. We sat around astonished and wondered who was that guy? Some said He was God. Some said He was a created being.

Now we have word formulas. He was fully God and fully man. He is the second person of the Trinity, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, etc. These things were believed in the earliest years, but not explicated in these words. The development of these formulas or definitions do not change or contradict what the early Church believed, but do a better job explicating what was believed. The formal definitions were not new in the sense that they were their in essence always. If the Church had taught Jesus was God-man and then the Jehovah’s witnesses came along and are right then Christ’s promises are false. If the Church says after believing X about Y that really X was wrong and Z is true, then it the Church changes doctrine, by contradicting what it once said is true. There is no new revelation, but there is doctrinal development, greater theological understanding.

 

[BHTech]

There are a number of ways to answer this. One is: Does the Bible teach that all that is necessary for salvation and to mature in Christ? I believe that it does.

Ok, lets look at your response. First I asked a question and you respond with a question. Fair enough, but where does the Bible teach and I quote you “all that is necessary for salvation”? Please don’t quote Timothy as that argument is stale.

Secondly, it depends what you mean by “literal” interpretation.

Literal means literal-an informal absolute, exact words.

When interpretting the Scriptures there are a number of things that must be kept in mind to arrive at the correct interpretation. One is the context, intent of the author and figures of speech. These and a few other things can for the most part help us come to an understanding what the Scriptures say.

Agreed. There are 4 senses of scripture but I will accept what you have said.

My next question then to you is again assuming that the Catholic go it all wrong, who or which of the Protestant denominations got it right? Meaning they have held true to Jesus teachings?

Blessings

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

 

[elvisman]

On what basis was Paul rebuking Peter for about “how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews”? What was Peter telling these Gentiles specifically that Paul rebuked him?
If you read further on you will see that it had something to do with the Law and perhaps having to keep that Law as the Jews had sought and failed to do.

Peter wasn’t telling them anything. The people were acting as Peter was and doing what Peter did by example.
Verse 13 and 14 read:
***And the rest of the Jews ***(also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
**Paul was asking Peter how he could expect the Gentiles to live like Jews while he himself was living like a Gentile. The “Law” he is speaking of is the Mosaic Law and all of the ritual laws therein. ****There is not even a HINT of Peter telling the people to treat the Gentiles differently. **
This is yet another Protestant invention.

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3596526]
Originally Posted by justasking4
There are a number of ways to answer this. One is: Does the Bible teach that all that is necessary for salvation and to mature in Christ? I believe that it does.

BHTech;
Ok, lets look at your response. First I asked a question and you respond with a question. Fair enough, but where does the Bible teach and I quote you “all that is necessary for salvation”? Please don’t quote Timothy as that argument is stale.

You won’t find any specific scripture that says this per se but what you find in Scripture is the means and how to be saved. For example Romans 10:9-10 tells us what a man must do to be saved i.e. salvation. If a man does this he is saved.
Or take 1 Cornthians 15:1-4 which tells us what saves us.
Secondly, the scriptures never appeal to any traditions outside the NT that has the power to save.
Thirdly, in I Peter 2:2-3 it says that the scriptures are what we need to grow in respect to salavation when it says:
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

Fourthly, the Scriptures gives us instruction in how we are to live the Christian life. See for example Colossians 3 or Matthew 5-7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, it depends what you mean by “literal” interpretation.

BHTech;
Literal means literal-an informal absolute, exact words.

Not sure i follow you. Can you give me an example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When interpretting the Scriptures there are a number of things that must be kept in mind to arrive at the correct interpretation. One is the context, intent of the author and figures of speech. These and a few other things can for the most part help us come to an understanding what the Scriptures say.

BHTech;
Agreed. There are 4 senses of scripture but I will accept what you have said.

My next question then to you is again assuming that the Catholic go it all wrong, who or which of the Protestant denominations got it right? Meaning they have held true to Jesus teachings?

Any church that teaches doctrines that are grounded in the Scriptures and can be shown to be so.

Blessings

Brent

 

[justasking4]

Jesus in scripture guarantees that the doctrines of His Church that He founded as proclaimed by those He ordained will be true. That is undeniable. It clearly says this. The teachings are true or His promise you find in your scripture is false. If what we teach and believe is false then His teaching as found in scripture is false. The Church has never changed any dogma. Understanding of truth can grow. We can understand things better today that we did yesterday. An example is in the early centuries we did not have the definitions of the Trinity all Christians now hold. Jesus came, taught, died and ascended. We sat around astonished and wondered who was that guy? Some said He was God. Some said He was a created being.

Now we have word formulas. He was fully God and fully man. He is the second person of the Trinity, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, etc. These things were believed in the earliest years, but not explicated in these words. The development of these formulas or definitions do not change or contradict what the early Church believed, but do a better job explicating what was believed. The formal definitions were not new in the sense that they were their in essence always. If the Church had taught Jesus was God-man and then the Jehovah’s witnesses came along and are right then Christ’s promises are false. If the Church says after believing X about Y that really X was wrong and Z is true, then it the Church changes doctrine, by contradicting what it once said is true. There is no new revelation, but there is doctrinal development, greater theological understanding.

Where did the apostles teach that the church was to develop its doctrines over time?