S
susanlo
Guest
Which traditions are the core traditions? Is belief in transubstantiation and belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception a core tradition?
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
How funny the moderator’s here. Your subject matter appears to be off topic. But I would be happy to entertain your subjects , so long as the moderators do not cut you off
I would answer your question in the affirmative, Yes . Both Transubstantiation and Mary’s Immaculate Conception are both divine revelations testified by both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Transubstantiation defends the Christian faith in a time when, human knowledge was teaching the world that God does not exist and does not enter human existence. Transubstantiation defeated such non-sense. Proof of this, the Catholic Church is still here as Jesus promised.
Immaculate Conception defended the Christian faith in a time when, human knowledge rejected that God does not exist and God never intervenes with the human race. The Immaculate Conception dealt a mortal blow to such human, man made wind of doctrines. Proof, the walls of Communism came tumbling down.
Any Questions?
S
susanlo
Guest
I guess the thread gravitated from other sources that are God-inspired (Tradition). Where and when did the Traditions originate. Were they always present in Christianity or did they develop over time like the “Happy Birthday” song mentioned previously.How funny the moderator’s here. Your subject matter appears to be off topic. But I would be happy to entertain your subjects , so long as the moderators do not cut you off
I would answer your question in the affirmative, Yes . Both Transubstantiation and Mary’s Immaculate Conception are both divine revelations testified by both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Any Questions?
A
Abu
Guest
False again, as the argument is SPIRAL. So you join the “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.” [Iconoclast, William James].
**This is clearly explained by Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, p 125-127.
**
“**What we really have is a spiral argument. **
- On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded.
- Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”
**
“As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
‘The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having travelled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.’ ”[p 126].
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Abu.,
You know a spiral being looked at from above still looks ‘circular’.
So the inspired bible does not tell us of an infallible church ? The church does not declare the bible as inspired ? So nowhere does Writ say she is 'inspired"?
Biblical history from the Orthodox or Protestant point of view has a different infallible church than yours. It is a spiral argument.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Abu,
The spiral argument is not very linear either. You start with the bible, then the infallible church, then inspired Writ ? I thought you start with oral gospel, then the church came from that. Then came putting the oral to Writ, for and by the church.
As far as the Augustine quote, not sure . I mean for sure Peter spoke with authority on Pentecost Sunday. I am not sure the 3 thousand converted because of the authority of Peter as much as the power of his message and conviction of the Holy Spirit (unless that is saying the same thing but the authority is conditional). For sure the church preached the same message to Augustine also and he converted. Of course the church is to preach with authority and “move” people to convert.
Blessings
M
mattp0625
Guest
The Church existed before the synods of Carthage and Hippo
The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. (Acts 11)
Ignatius of Antioch was the third bishop of Antioch during the first century. He also wrote of the real presence of the Eucharist and authority of the magisterium.
That’s approximately concurrent with the completion of the NT and three centuries before a bible was compiled at the synods.
The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. (Acts 11)
Ignatius of Antioch was the third bishop of Antioch during the first century. He also wrote of the real presence of the Eucharist and authority of the magisterium.
That’s approximately concurrent with the completion of the NT and three centuries before a bible was compiled at the synods.
A
Abu
Guest
Your continued prevarication and confusion rests on not accepting the institution by Christ of His one and only Catholic Church, when He emphatically declared:
You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]
Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).
It is only to His Catholic Church that God the Son gave His power to teach the fullness of His Truths until the end of time.
All others pick and choose to suit their feelings and/or their mistaken beliefs.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Abu ,
For sure I do not accept all the CC, but I assure you I am not confused about it, nor hide from anything, as He has so graced me.
Amen. I accept that just not all the CC says about it.
That scripture deals with moral faults, not doctrinal differences.
It would be quite sectarian to insist on Roman Catholic, and not also Orthodox Catholic, even Protestant Catholic.
Our desire and need for legitimacy lends to say that about “others”.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi matt,
It is not denied that the oral came first, the church came before Writ .Yet Writ has supremacy thereafter,within and thru the church.
“The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind.” (Augustine Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 11:5)
I would propose SS or even "prima sciptura’’ became and still is “tradition”.
Blessings
A
Abu
Guest
The confusion and selfism is plainly evident – one religion for him is as good as another!
Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).
That warning is after Jesus issues this warning:
“It is not those who say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ who will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of My Father in heaven (Mt 7:21).
As Christ has established His Church to teach infallibly on morals and on faith, benhur’s error above is stark.
As Dom Bernard Orchard comments on Mt 18:17:
“Only in the last resort must the matter be brought to official notice – this is for the sake of the individual and the community… His ‘Church’ appears as a compact, defined body with powers to exclude the recalcitrant from its society. After such a sentence the sinner stands outside the Society as the pagans and the Jewish tax gatherers are beyond the pale of the Synagogue.”
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953, p 884].
It is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth. Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).
So those who place themselves above Christ’s Church, with their manoeuvrings, are exposed and condemned.
M
mattp0625
Guest
I don’t see how that can be. The church came first, wrote the documents, interpreted them, and determined the criteria for inspiration.
When Luther wrote the five solas 1,200 years later, it’s clear he was attempting to deny the authority of the magisterium.
Just because Augustine had a high view of scripture does not mean he agreed with the purpose or concept of sola scriptura which was originated a millennium later.
Augustine is inappropriately used to support Calvinism in a similar manner.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Matt,
We both somewhat agree here yet we see differently. Augustine is clear that all, even the magisterium, is subject to that same Writ. Just because the church "received’’ Writ from God does not make her authority equal to it. I mean as an example you and I are to receive Christ ,even the Holy Spirit, yet we are not above being subject to them . Mary received the Incarnation, yet she did not put herself equal to the Gift, to that which she nurtured, preserved, and gave to the world. So to the church received Writ but is not above it nor equal to it. There is a clear “distinction”.
Writ is Writ irregardless of anything and infallibly so. A magisterium pronouncement is always conditionally inerrant.
No. It is very clear he challenged the magisteium to be “scriptural”.
Fair enough. Do not say then that Augustine would have sided with Trent on all things either. Augustine was most certainly “prima scriptura” for the basis of Church authority .In fact,all CC doctrine is said to be either explicit or implicit in Writ , and certainly not contradictory in any fashion.
Furthermost, if Luther was "extreme’’, it was only to balance, offset, the other deveopled “extreme”, of "Tradition’’ being as infallible as Writ.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Abu,
I am just as much an absolutist as you. You confuse the issue by scripturally inferring dissenters as “heathen and publican”. Your own Lumen Gentia, your own 2nd Vatican Council says we are “brethren” and have the graces of God, even salvation. That is not relativism. One is not a heathen because he or she (another Church) proclaims different absolute truths say on the pope, or patriarchs, or on Marionism, or supremacy of Writ authority for the Church.
It is also stark that you proclaim you are of Peter and is superior to those who are of “Paul” . You portray your church to really be unconditionally equal to the Word of God, and not because she has been inerrant, but because she can only be so. Must be nice that all the warnings of not being so are for the O’s and P’s.
OK
Agree, yet scripture is to be "prima’ in this , for us so far removed from the apostles timewise. Our tradition is that Writ becomes the standard.
And I tell you you can not discern an equally devout Baptist from a Lutheran from a Catholic from a Orthodox etc on any given Monday morning at the office water cooler, or in the marketplace etc…
Amen. So too this, do not place yourself above Writ.
"“The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind.” (Augustine Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 11:5)
Yes follow the church with this caveat,
“It is well, that he who is learned the judgements of the Lord,* as many as have been written*, should walk in them.” Barnabus #21
Blessings
M
mattp0625
Guest
So Luther challenged the magisterium to be scriptural according to … His own interpretations of scripture?
Sola scriptura. Sola fide. The pope is the antichrist. Rather vulgar wood carvings of the pope.
This does not sound like a man who wants a magisterium. It’s s man making his own rules.
Either way, the magisterium was there from the very beginning in Antioch. One cannot have sola scriptura and an authoritative magisterium that predates scripture.
A
Abu
Guest
As absolute means unquestionable, such a position against Christ’s own Church starkly reveals the depth of error.
What a travesty of truth regarding St Peter’s primacy of position.
Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).
As Christ Himself wrote nothing of Sacred Scripture but gave us His Catholic Church to rule on what is Sacred Scripture and what is not – She who gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God – the above erroneous supposition is what has resulted in so many errors of belief and practice through merely personal and selfist interpretations.
.
**“Our tradition is that Writ becomes the standard”. **On the contrary, the error is starkly revealed by the same St Paul who taught:
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).
In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”
1 Cor 1:10: “I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”
“We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1Jn 4:6).
“the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth.” [1Tim 3:15].
Thus the Christ did not establish or encourage the welter of opinions that some individuals, including benhur, have conjured up to suit their own feelings, accepting and/or promoting, error.
B
benhur
Guest
Well it was more a call to scriptural reasoning rather than resting on previous reasoning’s based more on tradition.
I see it that Luther was saying , “Ok we all know what is the current practice,doctrine. Now just what was the scriptural basis for it ? How did past popes or councils come to such decrees, what was ther scriptural reasoning?”
So while one may criticize Luther for thinking “differently” , others could criticize the current status quo magisterium for resting on past laurels, past thinkers, past theologians and having blind faith that they by nature had it right, and who are we in the present to question our predecessors. Luther may have had his opinion, but was he not asking them to reiterate past scriptural thinking on the matter? Did his judges even know the scriptural reasoning for the practices Luther questioned? Did it even really matter to them?
I think others have noted the straw man argument there. That would be like OT saints questioning Moses seat, for after all, God’s (unwritten) Word was plentiful in authority before that.
You are equating equality of today’s magisterium to the founding twelve apostles. It is like saying Pope Francis rivals, equals a would be resurrected/transported Peter on a matter, unconditionally.
All I am saying is that the first church, and even Peter, was subject to his own Writ, as we, including Pope Francis, are today.
M
mattp0625
Guest
What I do know is that Luther created his OWN doctrines. The five solas were not doctrines before he lived.
Using Augustine out of context to prove sola scriptura (as do the Calvinists for predestination) does not bring Luther closer to the apostles. It shows a lack of basis.
Pope Francis is much closer to the apostles than Luther. They hold the same dogmas and traditions as did Pope Benedict and Pope JP2, etc.
Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle and the third Bishop of Antioch where the “disciples were first called Christians”. He was likely ordained by Peter. He wrote about loyalty to the bishop, the real presence of the Eucharist, the Catholic church, and the error of schism. That sounds much more like Pope Francis than Luther.
Peter met Jesus and was given authority by Jesus. Moses was given authority by God the Father. Luther was given authority by Luther.
B
benhur
Guest
Absolute has nothing to do with questioning or not questioning, to free will or not…
Yes.
Yes but why ? And after 14 years of ministry , 14 years.
Again straw man. Trust me, if Paul were here now telling me to believe your words I would hoped to be graced to comply.
Of course oral came first . Has nothing to do with Writ becoming "prima’ once it is written.
Don’t forget about fables also.
That is correct .He is not the author of confusion. I am not confused, as you are not either. We deem ourselves to be at least "scriptural’.
Blessings
- Status