SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[sodak]

That is a matter of debate.

Only in your mind. It is a historical fact.

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

Wrong again. You need to read the forum rules, this is a Catholic forum. We expect a certain amount of civil discourse. Being rude and insulting to our Church can and will get you booted off.

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

You probably mean Catholicism. The Roman rite is one of 23, IIRC. It doesn’t try to “portray” itself as anything, it follows the will of the Holy Spirit.

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

Try using the search function. People tend to get tired of answering the same question 100 times. Especially when it’s specious.

Which of course is a myth.

That just won you a trip to the moderators.

Common reply when Roman Catholics are not able to present a legitimate argument from facts.
Wrong again. He’s been answered many times, and will not acknowledge that. You need to do some looking around before making such comments.

The fact is, Rome has developed it’s definition of “Tradition” into one that is totally foreign to that of the early church, or even the medieval church, having revised the definition several times since the council of Trent, into the new, revised version of “soli ekklesia, soli roma via viva voce”, or, whatever Rome says it is and can change it at any time.
I see no definite examples, as usual. Such what, for instance?

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
That is a matter of debate.

Only in your mind. It is a historical fact.

Wrong again.

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

Wrong again. You need to read the forum rules, this is a Catholic forum. We expect a certain amount of civil discourse. Being rude and insulting to our Church can and will get you booted off.

The above reply of mine was not “rude or insulting” of your religion at all. It is a refutation.

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

You probably mean Catholicism. The Roman rite is one of 23, IIRC. It doesn’t try to “portray” itself as anything, it follows the will of the Holy Spirit.

No, it’s Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics are always trying to portray your religion as one where everyone is in agreement on everything, and monolithic when there is plenty of divisions and strife within Roman Catholicism, exampled by all the Roman Catholics who protested during the pope’s visit to the US recently.

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

Which of course is a myth.

Roman papal supremacy was the invention of Dark Age Rome, and was not Apostolic in origin nor ever supported by the early church fathers.

Actually the opposite is true.

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

I see no definite examples, as usual. Such what, for instance?

The council of Trent claimed that Roman Catholic dogmas are in accordance with “the unanimous consent of the fathers”, that so called “oral tradition” Rome claims is equal to Scripture.

The early chuch followed the principle of universality when it came to teaching/Tradition accepted by the church, ie-a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all).

That principle has been totally abdandoned by Rome in a practical and formal sense, and eventually replaced with the novel definition of “Tradition” being whatever Rome says it is, regardless of any historical, universal belief in the church.

This is due to the fact that so much of Rome’s teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment.The Patristic scholar, Boniface Ramsey, for example, in his work, “Beginning to Read the Fathers”, (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6., candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. Newman says so thusly:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.----An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

So, due to the lack of evidence and support for so many of Rome’s dogmas since the Dark Ages from the early church fathers, Rome was left with no other option but to redefine what constitutes, “Tradition”, to “soli ekklesia, soli roma via viva voce”, after all, as Rome has said since Vatican I, whoever listens to Rome is listening to Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

That is a matter of debate.

Would you like to do that here, or start another thread?
I will admit that some who call themselves Catholic are not Christians.

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

Is this related to the Tradition of the Catholic Church? Are you under some kind of misapprehension that Catholic Tradition is “false gospel”? If no, then what exactly is this “false gospel”?

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

Perhaps I have not seen the portrait…
Are you asserting that there is not unity in the Roman Rite?

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

Because ja4 likes to shotgun us periodically with his jack chick list. I did not mean to cause you any offense.

Then you should not have raised the topic.

I did not raise the topic of interpretations. However, if it relates to the topic, I will discuss it here, and if not we can make a new thread. I do think it is a valid one.

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

Perhaps you can point me to an example, so that I can understand what you mean. I did not know there were talking points, but maybe I should study them! I do admit to excusing ja4 from serious consideration. I have established that he is not here to learn, and that his username is disingenuous.

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

They might be relevant coming from another source, but he has been answered on these repeatedly for the last year and a half, and is not here to find answers to questions, but to convert us all into “bible christians”. I agree that the points he raises are indeed relevant to the Catholic doctrines, dogmas, and practices, and that all of these have a basis in Sacred Tradition.

Which of course is a myth.

Do you believe the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter is a myth?

The the subject should not have been brought up.

If you believe that Catholic doctrine is always changing, I think it is certainly a subject that should be brought up. How will your misunderstanding get corrected? Actually, that is what we are here to do (well, most of us, anyhow). I am just not sure it belongs on this thread.

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

Well, be fair, Iguanas. At least first try searching the posts of ja4. I think you will find that he has been given legitimate arguements from facts on many threads, from many members, for many months. I admit, though, I have realized that it is just a wast of time in his case. He is intractibly hard hearted.

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

This is probably the most salient point to this topic. What is puzzling is that this practice seems to bother you, for some reason. Is that the case, or did I misunderstand you?

I am curious why you think the modern understanding of Tradition is foreign to the early church. Do you think they did not have traditions?

The above reply of mine was not “rude or insulting” of your religion at all. It is a refutation.

Yes, calling Catholicism a “false gospel” is considered rude here. If you are genuinely interested in debate or discussion, it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with the forum rules. In spite of your anti-Roman bitterness and bigotry, perhaps you will be able to find a way to express yourself in a way that will not be censored?

It will be difficult for you to make a “refutation” of something that you don’t appear to understand.

No, it’s Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics are always trying to portray your religion as one where everyone is in agreement on everything, and monolithic when there is plenty of divisions and strife within Roman Catholicism, exampled by all the Roman Catholics who protested during the pope’s visit to the US recently.

The unity is in the doctrine, and adherance to the doctrine. All who are united in the Truth are in communion. Those who are not are not really Catholic. They are Protestant, they just don’t realize it.

Roman papal supremacy was the invention of Dark Age Rome, and was not Apostolic in origin nor ever supported by the early church fathers.

I agree. In fact, I think the notion of “supremacy” stems from the modern fallen mind of man, a mind that does not understand Jesus’ ideas about leadership. Jesus was clear that they were to wash one another’s feet.

Actually the opposite is true.

At least we are in agreement about something! The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.

 

[guanophore]

The council of Trent claimed that Roman Catholic dogmas are in accordance with “the unanimous consent of the fathers”, that so called “oral tradition” Rome claims is equal to Scripture.

The early chuch followed the principle of universality when it came to teaching/Tradition accepted by the church, ie-a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all).

That principle has been totally abdandoned by Rome in a practical and formal sense, and eventually replaced with the novel definition of “Tradition” being whatever Rome says it is, regardless of any historical, universal belief in the church.

This is due to the fact that so much of Rome’s teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment.The Patristic scholar, Boniface Ramsey, for example, in his work, “Beginning to Read the Fathers”, (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6., candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. Newman says so thusly:

So, due to the lack of evidence and support for so many of Rome’s dogmas since the Dark Ages from the early church fathers, Rome was left with no other option but to redefine what constitutes, “Tradition”, to “soli ekklesia, soli roma via viva voce”, after all, as Rome has said since Vatican I, whoever listens to Rome is listening to Jesus.

Now we are finally onto the real topic of the thread. So, are you saying that the problem is with the way Tradition is defined? I think the Orthodox would agree.

 

[BHTech]

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

That which he has reveal to you. I agree.

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

He performed miracles and even when asked by others.

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

Why is Jesus teachings on the Lord supper absurd as you imply? A resurrection which you have never seen but take it as granted that it did happen, but you doubt the Lord when he says to eat his flesh and blood? As a follow up question doesn’t it follow that an authoritative body is needed to interpret the scriptures?

Who do I have to be?

A learned scholar.

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

Most rational adults can’t even take care of themselves at times and common sense is a rare commodity these days and you expect them to qualify evidence? Muslims have had “the evidence” for 2000 years and still they reject it, instead prefering Mohammed. So to have countless millions.

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

.

Your last sentence is awkward and unclear. Please clarify.

 

[natsclem]

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).

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.

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

The dogma of assumption is open as to the possibility of either statement that Mary in perfect union with her son suffered bodily death or that she on account of her being preserved from original sin did not suffer bodily death but a mere falling asleep in transition to heavenly assumption.

In that case, i would rather believe in the last one. it is consistent with the doctrine of original sin and the promise of Jesus that anyone who keeps His word would not taste death (John 8:51). Mary kept and treasured His words (Luke 2:51). One of the effects of original sin is bodily death. If she was preserved from all the stains of original sin, she cannot die.

Do not say that as Catholics we do know certainly that she was subject to the laws of death. That nullifies the Original Sin, the dogmatic definition of Assumption, the Scripture, and simple logic.

The death of her son was not natural but inflicted. His death is under His power not the other way around. It was by His will that He suffered what humankind, on account of its disobedience, should suffer so that by doing so He might bring humankind to life.

 

[guanophore]

Why is Jesus teachings on the Lord supper absurd as you imply? A resurrection which you have never seen but take it as granted that it did happen, but you doubt the Lord when he says to eat his flesh and blood?

This teaching is folly to all those who lack faith. For ja4, he is like the Jews who were constantly asking for “proof” and “evidence” and “facts”. Such persons are unable to trust completely in Divine Revelation, because it seems to contradict the senses. Since ja4 relies only on his senses, he cannot perceive these types of miracles.

" Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor 1:20-25

The Catholic Church is a stumbling block for ja4 for this reason. He is unable to access the Divine Mysteries because he can rely only upon the senses, yet he is unable to shake off the dust of his feet, and move on in peace.

 

[BHTech]

The dogma of assumption is open as to the possibility of either statement that Mary in perfect union with her son suffered bodily death or that she on account of her being preserved from original sin did not suffer bodily death but a mere falling asleep in transition to heavenly assumption.

In that case, i would rather believe in the last one. it is consistent with the doctrine of original sin and the promise of Jesus that anyone who keeps His word would not taste death (John 8:51). Mary kept and treasured His words (Luke 2:51). One of the effects of original sin is bodily death. If she was preserved from all the stains of original sin, she cannot die.

Do not say that as Catholics we do know certainly that she was subject to the laws of death. That nullifies the Original Sin, the dogmatic definition of Assumption, the Scripture, and simple logic.

The death of her son was not natural but inflicted. His death is under His power not the other way around. It was by His will that He suffered what humankind, on account of its disobedience, should suffer so that by doing so He might bring humankind to life.

Friend I think you are nit picking. I am simply reiterating what Dr. Ludwick Ott said in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and his logic is as follows: Because Jesus died and I agree that it was inflicted upon him for our salvation, so too is the possibility that Mary could die. I am not claiming she did physically die, we don’t know, but simply she would not have been above the laws of physical death. I like you am inclined to believe in a falling asleep in transition to heavenly assumption.

If you have further issues with this, I suggest you take it up with Dr. Ott.

Blessings

Brent

 

[JoeyWarren]

If you have further issues with this, I suggest you take it up with Dr. Ott.

Blessings

Brent

Issues? You are the one that takes Dr Ott at face value without reading his entire book, but only taking bits and pieces out of it like Satan did with Scripture at the Temptation.

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

Originally Posted by Saint_Iguanas
That is a matter of debate.

Whatever suits your fancy.

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

Is this related to the Tradition of the Catholic Church?

Yes it is. Here’s why, because the Reformers and those of us who are the successors of the Reformers, who are the True successors of Peter, were and are carrying on the True Apostolic Tradition.

Are you under some kind of misapprehension that Catholic Tradition is “false gospel”?

There is no misapprehension.

If no, then what exactly is this “false gospel”?

First, answer the following, paying particular attention to the bolded parts.

UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’…** Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.**

fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Is “Unam Sanctum” an ex cathedra instrument, and therefore, according to Roman Catholic theory, infallible dogma?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[guanophore]

Yes it is. Here’s why, because the Reformers and those of us who are the successors of the Reformers, who are the True successors of Peter, were and are carrying on the True Apostolic Tradition.

How do you know this? I mean, since you don’t have the signs of the Church founded by Christ, and built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets? It seems that you have rejected 1500 years of your family history

There is no misapprehension.

Can you please explain how the Catholicism is a “false gospel”?

First, answer the following, paying particular attention to the bolded parts.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Is “Unam Sanctum” an ex cathedra instrument, and therefore, according to Roman Catholic theory, infallible dogma?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

No, it is not considered ex cathedra, however it does represent the consistent teaching of the Church. Is there something in it that you find disagreeable? Do you disagree with the Roman Pontiff?

 

[BHTech]

Yes it is. Here’s why, because the Reformers and those of us who are the successors of the Reformers, who are the True successors of Peter, were and are carrying on the True Apostolic Tradition.

Can you please explain how you are the “True successors of Peter”? Thank you.

Blessings

 

[Thing]

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

Quote:

Is this related to the Tradition of the Catholic Church?

Yes it is. Here’s why, because the Reformers and those of us who are the successors of the Reformers, who are the True successors of Peter, were and are carrying on the True Apostolic Tradition.

Do you believe what Martin Luther believed - about the Real Presence, the Virgin Mary, etc. etc.
Did Luther teach, as you say the reformers taught, ‘the True Gospel as taught and handed down by Christ and the Apostles’, and do you still believe that gospel?

Is confusing to me - all the changes…

 

[JoeyWarren]

[ vbmenu_register(“postmenu_3630002”, true);
Banned
Saint_Iguanas http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=86468)I guess he will not be answering anymore questions under that name.

 

[kadesh]

on the topic of infant baptism you say that you need to accept Christ and repent. True but Jesus called especially the children to him and said he who is like a child dependent on his father shall inherit my kingdom, secondly an infant is born with original sin but no other sin there for no need for repentance.

 

[JoeyWarren]

JustAsking4, where are you? You’ve been gone for 10 days now…