Too many laws

[mayra_hart]

for evangelicals and reformers alike,there are no objective criteria sufficient for faith. this is most obvious when we discuss the canon. evangelicals have no good, objective explanation for accepting the canon they do accept. catholics did not change the canon of the early church or the deposit of faith to make them fit preconceived ideas. the fact that the reformers did is one of the saddest chapters in christerdom. thank you mr david currie for this quoted.

 

[JPrejean]

Maybe I am a bit too cynical. As a Bell Labs engineer, I spent over a year with several groups of lawyers negotiating an intellectual property exchange agreement between two corporations: Lucent Technologies and Mentor Graphics. I was astounded at all the convoluted ways we could get sued if those contracts weren’t perfectly scrutinized.

I’m the guy that drafts some of those contracts, so I know exactly what you mean. I was thinking more of societal obligations rather than contractual obligations, which are at least nominally voluntary.

On the subject at hand, though, I believe the Bible says (ask any Protestant the chapter and verse) that we all have sinned and fall short of the grace of God. I don’t think it’s unrealistic or un-Biblical to believe that it is impossible for any human to obey all the rules of the Church; if it were possible I wouldn’t think the Church would impose a mandatory once-per-year minimum on going to confession.

Oh, sure, no one every said that you were damned for every sin. The Council of Orange goes farther to say that we can’t even avoid falling into mortal sin indefinitely without the grace of God. But that’s usually more a matter of moral or natural law than canon law. Canon law really isn’t all that onerous for the laity. The once-a-year requirement for confession doesn’t strike me as a statement that everybody mortally sins every year (God’s grace could certainly prevent it), but rather a prophylactic measure to prevent people from carelessly letting serious matters slide.

Oh, and thanks for sticking up for me earlier. You were right; I wasn’t trying to get away with anything, at least not at that particular moment

No problemo. People get a little over-cautious because so many Catholics take such a lax attitude toward their faith.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

Apologia100:

The problem with formalists is that they don’t know exactly what they are talking about. They just accept words because they are said by the leaders… The problem with liberals is that they think they know what they are talking about, instead of listening to established authority, them make themselves the authority.l

So you accept being a formalist like the Pharisees… mm… Whatever… But I don’t accept being called a liberal. So what you write here doesn’t concern me. Let’s see if there is a liberal here. Maybe he will have to say something about this. As for us, Christians, we know what GOD IS TALKING ABOUT, and we listen to the Authority.

Apologia100:

My friend, do you know what is Tradition? Yes, its the passing down of teaching from one generation to another by oral comunication.

Yes, how simple… The Church Fathers didn’t see it so simple. If the Lord permits, I’ll write something about this later.

Apologia100:

Do you know that there is an eastern tradition that differs in many points from the western?

I am sure there are, but since Jesus gave the keys to Peter, any Tradition held by someone in schism to Papal authority should be consider spurious.

“We are true,because we say we are true…”

Apologia100:

Do you know that the teachings of the Church Fathers are part of tradition, and that some of them taught heresies ( like Tertullian and Origen )?

Because Tertullian and Origen embraced heretical positions towards the end of their lives, they are not considered Church Fathers, but early Christian writers. And just because part of their life was spend in heresy doesn’t contaminate those writings that were created during the orthodox part of their lives.

We’ll see if this is true when we talk about this, if God wills.

Apologia100:

Which tradition is THE Tradition?

That which is supported by the Ordinary Magisterium and the Pope.

Again… “we are true,because we say we are true…”

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

(Continue)

Apologia100:

My friend, Tradition is judged by the rule of Scripture! If anyone ( including what you call “Tradition” ) says anything opposite to the Scripture, then it is wrong!

Since Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two halves of the same deposit of faith, Tradition can never conflict with Scripture, because they are both draw from the same divine wellspring.

Since Tradition is contradicting sometimes even itself, so… Just look to the Orthodox tradition, and compare it to the Catholic tradition…

Apologia100:

Even the APOSTLE Paul says:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” ( Galatians 1:8-9 ) I agree!

“‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’” ( Malachi 1:6 )

They ask how they have despised His Name, and yet they despise His Name… Saying that you agree is not enough. You must accept.

Apologia100:

So the Word of God is the Rule.

Right, and the Word includes the written Word (Scripture), the spoken Word (Tradition), and the guardian of the Word (Magisterium). Don’t forget the Proclaimer of the Word (Church).

Are you sure there is nothing else? What about the tradition of the Orthodox Church that they say is THE Tradition?..

N.B.: I’ll write about the Bible and Tradition in another reply,if the Lord permits.

In Love,

Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

ByzCath:

As a Byzantine Catholic I follow and know much about Eastern Tradition.

I think that Yaqubos is mistaken. While Eastern Traditions may express things in a different manner, it teaches the same as Western Tradition.

Now when we get down to dicipline, it may be different but that is ok.

Yes, eastern CATHOLIC tradition doesn’t differ very much from western CATHOLIC tradition… Exactly…

Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

JimG:

Note that when Paul wrote this, there was as yet no Scripture! Paul doesn’t make reference to scripture, but rather enjoins people to hold fast to what he had preached to them, and what they had received through his preaching. Preaching is oral tradition.

We will talk about this circular way of thinking later, if He permits. The problem with me is that I don’t have much access to internet, so I’ll have to write later.
By the way: don’t you consider the Old Testament as Scripture?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

I just have a little comment about the following:
beng3000:

Something to ponder is:

1. Jesus prayed to Father that the “cup” may pass. It did not pass.
2. Jesus prayed so that His folowers maybe one. We have a schism with the Orthodox (only Orthodox can be considered., not Protestant).

1. Jesus didn’t pray that the cup pass, but He prayed that the cup pass IF IT IS THE WILL OF GOD.
   And by the way, God saved Him from death, but according to His Will:

“In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.” ( Hebrews 5:7 )

RESURRECTION is the answer! There is no salvation from death unless THROUGH death!

1. Jesus prayed that HIS DISCIPLES be one, not human institutions. So His prayer was answered, and is still being answered, until the day He will come and take His bride and NOT His brideS…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

Now let’s come to the discussion about the Holy Bible and the Tradition. I couldn’t write before because of lack of time and space.

1. Even if the apostles teach something contrary to the Bible
   ( According to Galatians 1:8-9 )
   The letter to Galatians at least was written when these lines were written to the Galatians. And there was the whole Old Testament! Those who talk about an unwritten New Testament, they don’t know what is the Word of God, and what does it mean that the Word of God is consistent with Itself!
   As for those who want to dismiss the authority of the Bible by replacing it by a human authority, they just have a circular thinking because there is a lack of faith in them. They don’t believe God, but they want to believe humans. They say: the New Testament was not written, and Paul is talking about preaching and not the Bible. You ask them: and which of their preaching will be a rule to judge them when they preach other thing? They answer: what they preached before ( or an answer like this ). You ask them: what did they preach before? They answer: the Tradition. You ask: and how do you know which of their preaching is the Tradition? They answer: that which our Church accepts. You ask: and how do you know that YOUR church has the right Tradition, and not another church ( the Orthodox church for example )? They answer: because we read in the Bible that Peter is the Pope! You ask: and how do you know that this is the Bible? They say: because the Pope says this…
   A circular thinking! Why? Because of lack in faith!
   It is interesting to notice that this Tradition they talk about didn’t tell them that there are heretical teachings like the immaculate conception and the Purgatory until very late centuries. The whole Church didn’t believe such heretical teachings before! And they say it is Tradition!
   In fact, all what we need to believe is in the Bible. We can’t know which tradition is THE Tradition unless we compare it to the teaching of the Bible. In Galatians, Paul is talking about what they ( the apostles ) preached as Word of God, CONSISTENT with the teachings of the Prophets. And if they or even an angel preach anything contrary to that Word of God as whole, he is to be accursed. All what the apostles preached as Word of God is in the Bible, to assure that no one will invent heretical teachings like those that I mentioned before.

About the Tradition in the next reply, if the Lord permits…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

In Peace I greet you, and I write about the so called Tradition by His Grace.

The Tradition
As I said before, Tertullian and Origen followed heretical teachings. Tertullian followed Montanism. Origen taught heretical teachings, and the Church didn’t make any reaction against him until the 6th century, while he was dead around 254!! It seems that the so called Tradition didn’t exist in that time to call Origen as heretical!!!
By the way, Origen taught those things all the time, and Tertullian is considered as one of the most important theologians of the Latin Church! Tertullian is called “the father of Latin theology”. If they made clear mistakes in some doctrines, they may have done many other mistakes in other doctrines, too. After all, the so called Tradition doesn’t exist without the teachings of such Fathers.
This Tradition about which formalists talk doesn’t exist at all out of the biblical teaching.

Just let me give you an example about one Christian doctrine, and the many different understandings of the different Fathers! And you will see how the so called Tradition doesn’t exist out of the Bible. All the Fathers tried to understand God FROM THE BIBLE!
The example I will give is related to the Trinity ( In the next reply ).

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

So let’s see the differents understandings of some Fathers about the Trinity Doctrine :

**Justin Martyr ( dead 165 ): ** for Justin the answer to the following questions is not plain: How the Logos and the Spirit are related to God the Father? Is the Logos an eternally distinct divine person or only a power in God that became a divine person shortly before creation?
There wasn’t any Tradition to help Justin answer these questions! He tried to understand them according to the biblical teaching.
In addition, Justin ranks the Son as in “the second place” and the Spirit in “the third rank” after God the Father.

**Irenaeus ( end of the second century ): ** for him both the Son and the Spirit are fully divine.
Why didn’t Justin just accept what Irenaeus said? Why did they both try to understand the Truth from the Bible?

**Tertullian ( third century ): ** he used the Latin terms substantia ( substance ) and persona ( person ). He was the first to use the Latin trinitas ( Trinity ). “Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled” ( doesn’t this remind you of a sentence in the Necene Creed? ). Tertullian’s framework has helped shape the Western church’s understanding of the Trinity to the present time. In the year 207, Tertullian joined the heresy of Montanus ( Montanism )!!

**Origen ( dead around 254 ): ** the most influential theologian in the East. He sees the union of Father and Son as a union of love and action. He also describes the Son and the Father as *homousios * ( greek, meaning “of the same substance” ). Does this not also remind you of Nicaea?… Origen says also that one cannot say of the Son, “There was [a time] when he was not”. Again, of what does this slogan remind you? HOWEVER, the statements of Origen about the Holy Spirit are unclear. As there was no such imaginary thing as the so called Tradition, Origen didn’t understand exactly the relation between the Father and both the Son and the Spirit… He occasionally says that the Son and the Spirit are excelled by the Father, and that the Spirit is “inferior” to the Son. While saying that Father and Son are of the same substance, Origen says also that the Son is a creature of the Father. He describes the Son as a “secondary God” to whom prayer should not be directed, since he is not absolute goodness and truth but only reflects the image of the Father’s goodness and truth!!!
As there wasn’t any so called Tradition about all this, it was only in 553 ( after almost 300 years!!! ) that the Church made a reaction to all these false teachings! Origen’s theology was condemned as heretical at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, after the Church had worked out its doctrine more fully!

And many other examples that I can’t mention all because of lack of time and space! And all this just about ONE doctrine! And they talk about Tradition, as if a tradition can pass from one generation to another without passing by fallible humans like those Fathers…

As for us, Christians, we contend earnestly “for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” ( Jude 1:3 ) To do this, we first believe that this faith was handed down to us ONCE FOR ALL, and that it has not developed through the time, suddenly and from time to time including heretical teachings.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[JimG]

AlanFromWichita:

if it were possible I wouldn’t think the Church would impose a mandatory once-per-year minimum on going to confession.Alan

Just to clarify, the requirement is to go to communion at least once a year during the Easter season. If one has mortal sins to confess, that would also require going to confession first, of course.

 

[JimG]

YAQUBOS:

By the way: don’t you consider the Old Testament as Scripture?

Yes, you are right, the Old Testament scriptures were in existence when Paul wrote. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. I was speaking of the New Testament scriptures. The point is that the preaching came before the writing. The scriptures were identified and gathered by the Church over a period of time. Throughout this period, the gospel was still being preached.

Also note that the binding of every writing of the canon into a single book–the Bible-- is a modern invention. It would take quite a collection of scrolls for those before the age of printing to possess a complete Bible. Every church congregation probably did not have a complete set. But they did possess the Teaching that was handed down from the Apostles.

 

[JimG]

Here is a test to see if the Bible alone is sufficient to pass on the Faith.

Instead of proselytizing, carry a truck full of bibles. Hand them out, but do not say a word! Because if you speak any words, unless you are simply reading from the Bible, you are simply speaking from your own tradition. (In fact, if you selectively decide which passages to read aloud, you are also making this decision on the basis of your own tradition.)

Let those to whom you have handed out the bibles read them and come to their own understandings.

Later, you can ask what they have learned. Compare to see if they have all learned the same doctrines.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

JimG:

Yes, you are right, the Old Testament scriptures were in existence when Paul wrote. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. I was speaking of the New Testament scriptures. The point is that the preaching came before the writing. The scriptures were identified and gathered by the Church over a period of time. Throughout this period, the gospel was still being preached.

Also note that the binding of every writing of the canon into a single book–the Bible-- is a modern invention. It would take quite a collection of scrolls for those before the age of printing to possess a complete Bible. Every church congregation probably did not have a complete set. But they did possess the Teaching that was handed down from the Apostles.

The Bible is Bible even if it is not in one book.
The Church didn’t decide which books are the New Testament, but She accepted the Holy Scripture and declaired which books are not Scripture according to rules concluded from the Books that She was SURE are the Bible.

Was the Teaching in one book???

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[beng]

YAQUBOS:

Peace!

I just have a little comment about the following:

1. Jesus didn’t pray that the cup pass, but He prayed that the cup pass IF IT IS THE WILL OF GOD

I’ll give you that.

1. Jesus prayed that HIS DISCIPLES be one, not human institutions. So His prayer was answered, and is still being answered, until the day He will come and take His bride and NOT His brideS…

Wrong. The Catholic and Orthodox are in schism. Both have VALID apiscopal sucession. Episcopes/Bishops are the sucessor of the Apostles, to which Jesus addressed in His prayer. There’s still no unity betweeen Catholic and Orthodox.

And human institution? It’s institution founded by GOD. It’s a DIVINE institution.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace!

beng:

And human institution? It’s institution founded by GOD. It’s a DIVINE institution.

Only the Church is divine institution, but philosophies are not.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[francisca]

beng:

And human institution? It’s institution founded by GOD. It’s a DIVINE institution.

But when humans chopped “The Institution founded by God” into pieces, they added human definitions that separate. That’s why separation creates errors. Separation creates religions plus their human interests.

On the contrary, the Spirit unites us into one Body. The Spirit speaks the Truth as IT IS. Those who seek the Truth will find IT. But those who bind themselves to “human” religion will never see IT, or at least will find obstacles to see IT as IT REALLY IS.

To bind oneself to a religion means to limit God in order to serve ones own interest/ a group of people without any attitude of “searching the Truth”.

Not that I oppose religion. I myself is roman catholic. But I don’t limit my horizon when I read the Bible. I read it and receive it as “the word of God” and believe it simply.

 

[JPrejean]

After all, the so called Tradition doesn’t exist without the teachings of such Fathers.

Actually the heretical teachings of Origen and Tertullian were always considered to be heterodox by the Church at large, and those two aren’t typically numbered among the Fathers of the Church for that reason. The fact that they weren’t formally condemned for heresy until later doesn’t mean that their teachings were accepted in the meantime. The lofty titles that you cite (the Father of Latin theology and the Father of Eastern theology) certainly aren’t recognized within the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. That’s not to say that their writings contain nothing of value, but they aren’t considered reliable sources of doctrine.

Justin Martyr is a good example of how difficult it is to formulate a doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture. If you believe in sola scriptura, it’s hard to explain how he couldn’t come up with the proper formalism from Scripture alone, given how well he knew the Scriptures.

 

[francisca]

AlanFromWichita:

When we ask for clarification, we typically get an answer that is so technical I am more confused after I hear an answer than before.

Exactly.

Because understanding comes from believing, not from technical definitions. The law can’t save us after all. The law only makes us sin conscious. But it can’t stop us from sinning. Only God can save us from sinning and therefore from the punishments of the Law.

Paul wrote that those who tries to observe the law end up breaking the law. On the contrary, those who believe, end up fulfilling the law (stop sinning).

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;

Just believe simply, then we don’t need to understand canon law. But when we sin, surely canon law will judge us.

 

[francisca]

flick427:

If I see a bishop doing something how and what can I use in the defense of the church to say “you are wrong” and there is no interpreteation involved?

The law can’t do this, the law is passive. Interpretation is always involved. This is where God’s Supremacy has to come in control. Men who understand and BELIEVE in God’s LOVE shall control the law.

In any case, intepretation is always needed. It depends on “the men” and what they believe.

God bless.