Tradition is a necessary part of Christianity

[RyanBlack]

Excuse me for jumping in here but I just wanted to point something out. You got my attention with “…is the Catholic Church the only church with God gifted teachers?”…

Here’s the thing…Before the reformation the Church was One. If Luther had not thrown the baby out with the bath, it would quite possibly still be One. All those endowed with the gift of teaching would all the teaching One Truth. We would all be One as the Son and the Father are One. This is Jesus’ prayer [John 17].

Just an observation.

The good news is that I believe that Jesus always gets His prayers answered. I pray, too, for the day we are all One again. Then we can stop spending our energy arguing our differences and use the time to praise Him!

I think I’ll start a new thread on that…

Actually, no. Have you ever heard of the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East? Christianity immediately prior to the Reformation was not limited to Western and Central Europe, and it was not limited to those under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Javl]

If I would except something as true because you or your church says so, I’d expect nothing less from you. That’s why the Bible interpreted by the Holy Spirit MUST be the final authority not any church. If a tradition can not be substanciated by the Bible, or worse, contradicted by the Bible, we should take great care not to make it a ‘Thus says God’ for the unsubstanciated traditions and not even practice something that is contradicted by the Bible.

Then by your statement ( above ) you reject the Church founded by Jesus along with His promises and all teachings?

All Christians, IMO, have traditions that fall in line with Biblical teachings and some that can’t be substantiated by the Bible and maybe we even have some that are wrong by Biblical standards. God protect us from the last category!!

There is a big difference between Holy Tradition and the tradition of man. Paul said to hold on to the Traditions ( Holy ) he gave us while man ( Martin Luther ) has come up with the tradition of “sola scriptura” ( one among many ). The Catholic Church does not and cannot come up with any traditions other than those given by Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JonNC]

There is a big difference between Holy Tradition and the tradition of man. Paul said to hold on to the Traditions ( Holy ) he gave us while man ( Martin Luther ) has come up with the tradition of “sola scriptura” ( one among many ). The Catholic Church does not and cannot come up with any traditions other than those given by Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl,
Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that I generally agree with marian doctrines.

When, where, and how did Jesus, or St. Paul or the other Apostles give to the Catholic Church the dogmatic statement that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven? Further, when, where, and how did they convey that the assumption must be believed in order to be saved?

On papal infallibility ex cathedra, same question.

Jon

 

[Javl]

Javl,
Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that I generally agree with marian doctrines.

When, where, and how did Jesus, or St. Paul or the other Apostles give to the Catholic Church the dogmatic statement that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven? Further, when, where, and how did they convey that the assumption must be believed in order to be saved?

On papal infallibility ex cathedra, same question.

Jon

We concede that Jesus, the Apostles, and St. Paul did not give a dogmatic statement to the Church that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven. But, the Church does have the authority given it by Jesus to make belief in it a Dogma and a matter of salvation.

Going back to Mary’s death and burial, there’s no proof or documentation that it occured. Yet there is evidence, documented and otherwise, of the deaths of everyone that has been listed in the NT. Why wasn’t Mary’s? Tradition holds that she was assumed bodily into Heaven at the moment of, or just prior to, her death. This belief has been held since the beginning. Before the Church can make any such profound announcement as the Assumption, deep serious research ( which can take years ), along with much prayer to the Holy Spirit, is performed. Anyway can you think of a better way to Honor Jesus than to Honor His Mother?

As for papal infallibility ( ex cathedra ), this also is under the authority of Jesus. Here is a link to a lecture given by Dr. Scot Hahn on the subject. Dr. Hahn is an ex-Presbyterian Minister who is now a Catholic Theologian and is a Professor at the Catholic University in Steubenville, Ohio. If you wish, we can discuss the subject of papal infallibility further.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Dokimas]

Then by your statement ( above ) you reject the Church founded by Jesus along with His promises and all teachings?

Wow! How’d you come up with that one? I disagree with some of your understandings, that’s all.

There is a big difference between Holy Tradition and the tradition of man. Paul said to hold on to the Traditions ( Holy ) he gave us while man ( Martin Luther ) has come up with the tradition of “sola scriptura” ( one among many ). The Catholic Church does not and cannot come up with any traditions other than those given by Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Thank you for the time you spent giving your opinion.

 

[Javl]

Wow! How’d you come up with that one? I disagree with some of your understandings, that’s all.

It is not only my understanding but basic fact. You reject Jesus’ teachings and promises by your statement about the Church. The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus and has His full authority to bind and to loose. Therefore, it alone has the authority to interpret scripture ( guided by the Holy Spirit of course ) and to make pronouncements.The Catholic Church then is the only and final authority on the interpretation of scripture.

Thank you for the time you spent giving your opinion.

It is not my opinion but that of the one true Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Little_Mary]

It is not only my understanding but basic fact. You reject Jesus’ teachings and promises by your statement about the Church. The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus and has His full authority to bind and to loose. Therefore, it alone has the authority to interpret scripture ( guided by the Holy Spirit of course ) and to make pronouncements.The Catholic Church then is the only and final authority on the interpretation of scripture.

It is not my opinion but that of the one true Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I’ll go one further, it is not at all the opinion of the one true Church, it is the **responsibility **of the one true Church, as given to it by Jesus Christ.

 

[JonNC]

=Javl;7556171]We concede that Jesus, the Apostles, and St. Paul did not give a dogmatic statement to the Church that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven. But, the Church does have the authority given it by Jesus to make belief in it a Dogma and a matter of salvation.

What, then is the basis for the belief? How is that belief tied to salvation. What is the salvific nature? What is its Christology?

Going back to Mary’s death and burial, there’s no proof or documentation that it occured. Yet there is evidence, documented and otherwise, of the deaths of everyone that has been listed in the NT. Why wasn’t Mary’s? Tradition holds that she was assumed bodily into Heaven at the moment of, or just prior to, her death. This belief has been held since the beginning.

As I said at the beginning of my last post, I generally agree with the belief.

Before the Church can make any such profound announcement as the Assumption, deep serious research ( which can take years ), along with much prayer to the Holy Spirit, is performed. Anyway can you think of a better way to Honor Jesus than to Honor His Mother?

Belief in it is fine, I share it, in part because it is a belief, at least in a general sense, thathas been shared through the history of the Church, but since, as you state well, there is no evidence, other than implicit, how can the conscience of the believer be bound to it to the point of salvation?

As for papal infallibility ( ex cathedra ), this also is under the authority of Jesus.

again, where does that asuthority come from? what is the source, and why is it not mentioned in the early councils, and why does the east not accept it.

This is the point of sola scriptura. For me, at least, without some basis in scripture or even Tradition, it has the effect of dividing the Church.

Here is a link to a lecture given by Dr. Scot Hahn on the subject. Dr. Hahn is an ex-Presbyterian Minister who is now a Catholic Theologian and is a Professor at the Catholic University in Steubenville, Ohio. If you wish, we can discuss the subject of papal infallibility further.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

I’ll take a look.

Jon

 

[Javl]

What, then is the basis for the belief? How is that belief tied to salvation. What is the salvific nature? What is its Christology?

As I said at the beginning of my last post, I generally agree with the belief.

Belief in it is fine, I share it, in part because it is a belief, at least in a general sense, thathas been shared through the history of the Church, but since, as you state well, there is no evidence, other than implicit, how can the conscience of the believer be bound to it to the point of salvation?

Since answering your questions would entail much writing, I am taking the easy ( coward’s ) way out. The following link to the writings of the ECF should answer your questions.

newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

again, where does that asuthority come from? what is the source, and why is it not mentioned in the early councils, and why does the east not accept it.

The authority comes direct from Jesus when He established His Church. Since all authority was given to Him, He has the right to share or pass on any and all of this authority. Therefore, He gave Peter, the head of the Church the authority to bind and to loose. This is the ultimate in authority among the people of those days.

As for the Eastern Churches, it was basically accepted up to the time of the “Great Schism” ( ca 1000 AD ) which was caused by Michael Cerularius. Although all claim religious reasons for the split my opinion is that it was caused more by politics than religion. The Eastern Churches claimed that the Western Church was too controlling and kept putting its nose in private disputes.

This is the point of sola scriptura. For me, at least, without some basis in scripture or even Tradition, it has the effect of dividing the Church.

Yes, “sola scriptura” has splintered the Church with over 30,000 denominations, each going its own way. Please read the following on SS.

thecatholictreasurechest.com/sorigin.htm

I’ll take a look.

Jon

Please do. It’s quite informative. Shalom haMeshiach

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JonNC]

=Javl;7559037]Since answering your questions would entail much writing, I am taking the easy ( coward’s ) way out. The following link to the writings of the ECF should answer your questions.

newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

lol. Its not the coward’s way. Hard to be a coward on this forum.

The authority comes direct from Jesus when He established His Church. Since all authority was given to Him, He has the right to share or pass on any and all of this authority. Therefore, He gave Peter, the head of the Church the authority to bind and to loose. This is the ultimate in authority among the people of those days.

But authority is not license, claiming that the pope and Magisterium have the power to declare dogma without a source for that dogma.

As for the Eastern Churches, it was basically accepted up to the time of the “Great Schism” ( ca 1000 AD ) which was caused by Michael Cerularius. Although all claim religious reasons for the split my opinion is that it was caused more by politics than religion. The Eastern Churches claimed that the Western Church was too controlling and kept putting its nose in private disputes.

That’s not what I read from our Orthodox brothers and sisters who regularly post here. I’ll let them speak for themselves, but Ithink they would say that “putting their nose in” has to do with jurisdiction, which Nicea canon 6 speaks to.

Yes, “sola scriptura” has splintered the Church with over 30,000 denominations, each going its own way. Please read the following on SS.

No. Sola scriptura is only a practice, when properly understood. Poor hermeneutics has led to the spreading of denominationalism, along with human sin. But the divisions of the Church have roots far deeper in schism.

Jon

 

[Javl]

lol. Its not the coward’s way. Hard to be a coward on this forum.

But authority is not license, claiming that the pope and Magisterium have the power to declare dogma without a source for that dogma.

All Catholic tenets, doctrines, and dogmas have a source in the scriptures and in Holy Tradition. The Catholic Church cannot formulate anything out of thin air. There must be a source.

That’s not what I read from our Orthodox brothers and sisters who regularly post here. I’ll let them speak for themselves, but Ithink they would say that “putting their nose in” has to do with jurisdiction, which Nicea canon 6 speaks to.

Of course our Orthodox brothers and sisters will say something different and I don’t blame them. There’s been too much finger pointing and “passing the buck” these past years. We all have the same Father but we squabble like rival siblings. But, after much study and prayer, I lean towards Rome having total jurisdiction. This is also the thought of a majority ( if not all ) of the ECF.

No. Sola scriptura is only a practice, when properly understood. Poor hermeneutics has led to the spreading of denominationalism, along with human sin. But the divisions of the Church have roots far deeper in schism.

Jon

Practice or not, if you look at it without bias, sola scriptura is basically the cause.

Shalom haMeshiach

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JonNC]

=Javl;7563079]All Catholic tenets, doctrines, and dogmas have a source in the scriptures and in Holy Tradition. The Catholic Church cannot formulate anything out of thin air. There must be a source.

OK. Some specifics. A Tradition or scriptural source for papal universal jurisdiction.

Of course our Orthodox brothers and sisters will say something different and I don’t blame them. There’s been too much finger pointing and “passing the buck” these past years. We all have the same Father but we squabble like rival siblings. But, after much study and prayer, I lean towards Rome having total jurisdiction. This is also the thought of a majority ( if not all ) of the ECF.

Well of course you do. You are Catholic. But more than that, you should! And I respect you for it. And I will too, when the Orthodox do. You see, that would be the test, at east for me, that it has support of the early Church and Tradition, not to mention the Holy Spirit.

Can you name an ECF that articulates universal jurisdiction the way that Rome now, today, portrays it?

Practice or not, if you look at it without bias, sola scriptura is basically the cause.

Are there those who defend heterodox based on sola scriptura? Sure. They are still wrong. For example, rejection of the real and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I agree. Notice the posters are all catholic. Hmm… no defense of SS?

Exactly! I always ask SS advocates:

Tell me what Bible did Abraham use,if SS is the sole and final authority?

 

[Nicea325]

Can you name an ECF that articulates universal jurisdiction the way that Rome now, today, portrays it?

Blessings Jon!

My friend, simply because universal jurisdiction was not articulated as elaborate as today,does not mean it did not exist or was a later invention. Can anyone give me one Apostle who articulates and defines the Trinity like the Council of Nicaea in 325 or 381? All doctrines take time to understand, explain and define. It is called doctrinal development. It is not like baking a cake where we get the results rather quickly.

God Bless my friend.

 

[Nicea325]

You are the one saying that you ‘hope you’re in tune with Him’. That appears to be depending on yourself. What Church authority are you subject too Dokimas? What Church are you a member of?

I gave you the scriptures that show God set the offices in the Church. There were appointed teachers and offices, with authority. They used that God given authority to make selections of others to serve. There was a process. People did not chose themselves. Remember Simon, who tried to purchase the power to lay hands and give the Holy Spirit?

It’s one thing to say we’re wrong then make ‘resounding’ statements without explanation of how you are subject to your prelates…

Exactly! However,what many people fail to understand is that Jesus did not pick the best man for the office, he picked the best office (bishopric) for the man…

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon!

My friend, simply because universal jurisdiction was not articulated as elaborate as today,does not mean it did not exist or was a later invention. Can anyone give me one Apostle who articulates and defines the Trinity like the Council of Nicaea in 325 or 381? All doctrines take time to understand, explain and define. It is called doctrinal development. It is not like baking a cake where we get the results rather quickly.

God Bless my friend.

And His blessings also with you.

I get that. Here is the difference for me. Both of those councils you mention were truly ecumenical councils. Both east and west, as one Church involved. But the east does not seem to interpret the meaning of papal jurisdication or papal primacy in the same way. So, clearly, there is a difference of opinion regarding Tradition in this area. And since Tradition has not yet resolved this, it seems we must turn to scripture for resolution, at least until Tradition does in time. Therefore, my comment, when Orthodoxy accepts the Roman view, or the two come to terms, then I will absolutely accept the resolution, as it will be a clear movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jon,

Freudian slip? the test will be at “east” for you?

 

[Nicea325]

And His blessings also with you.

:tiphat:

I get that. Here is the difference for me. Both of those councils you mention were truly ecumenical councils. Both east and west, as one Church involved.

Amen!

But the east does not seem to interpret the meaning of papal jurisdication or papal primacy in the same way.

Actually not all Easterners prior to the big break up viewed it as today. It is almost natural for us to think of the current eastern view and believe that was the case always.Not necessarily true.There is plenty of words from Eastern bishops who clearly repeat what many Western bishops had to say about the Primacy of Rome and the Bishop.

Put it this way. There will always be people who will accept papal primacy and some will never will, hence the same applied in the past. We must also remember and take into consideration the reasons why the West and East have different meanings and views. Culture,language,geography,politics, and different understanding of eccelesial issues.

So, clearly, there is a difference of opinion regarding Tradition in this area. And since Tradition has not yet resolved this, it seems we must turn to scripture for resolution, at least until Tradition does in time. Therefore, my comment, when Orthodoxy accepts the Roman view, or the two come to terms, then I will absolutely accept the resolution, as it will be a clear movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church.

May I ask,how will scripture resolve the issue or curve it?

Blessings Jon, always a pleasure.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Freudian slip? the test will be at “east” for you?

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;7566207]
Actually not all Easterners prior to the big break up viewed it as today. It is almost natural for us to think of the current eastern view and believe that was the case always.Not necessarily true.There is plenty of words from Eastern bishops who clearly repeat what many Western bishops had to say about the Primacy of Rome and the Bishop.

I guess it depends on one’s view of “primacy”.

Put it this way. There will always be people who will accept papal primacy and some will never will, hence the same applied in the past. We must also remember and take into consideration the reasons why the West and East have different meanings and views. Culture,language,geography,politics, and different understanding of eccelesial issues.

And political events, as well.
I guess it depends on what those people (bishops) that oversee the OC’s determine. Somewhere I remember seeing a quote from then Cr. Ratzinger to the effect that Rome could not expect Orthodoxy to accept the extent of development of papal authority than what it was in the early Church. I may have the words wrong, but I think that was the gist.

May I ask,how will scripture resolve the issue or curve it?

Early on in Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, the (Lutheran) reformers cite a number of scriptural verses, then proceed to citing the Council of Nicaea, and some of the ECF’s It is quite lengthy, and frankly has some polemics that I see no value in in today’s relationship between our communions. If you can ignore the polemics, it speaks to the issue from a scriptural view. See paragraphs 7 - 20.
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Blessings Jon, always a pleasure.

It is a pleasure for me, as well, as our meetings are always charitable, enlightening, and our goals, I believe are the same - unity.

Jon