Where to begin?

[Solus_Christus]

Or you do not recognize it properly. Question:

Is St. Alphonsus de Liguori authorized to teach formally on behalf of the Catholic Church?

Or is he only expressing his own personal devotion in flowery language that is probably unfamiliar to modern ears?

“In 1871, he was declared a Doctor of the Church.” Source: Catholic Encyclopedia from the New Advent website.

 

[Solus_Christus]

You’re aware that Paul preached these things first, and then later dictated them to a scribe or scribes who often signed their own names to them in addition to Paul’s signatures?

Sometimes, but not exclusively: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.” (1 Corinthians 16:21)

 

[Solus_Christus]

Does your wife have to interpret the menu for you? Or simply read what it says?

However, if there are instructions about how to order your food, in what order you need to do things, where to sit, when to pay, etc…well, she might interpret those instructions one way while you interpret them another.

So, I guess the moral of the story is that Catholics call Protestants whenever they have purchased anything where “some assembly is required.” And, since, the meaning of words is so mysterious to Catholics, there is no point in carrying on this conversation since you have no one to interpret to you the true meaning of what I am telling you. By the way, why do you argue with me when you cannot even understand what I am telling you?

And, if the Bible were as perspicuous as you claim it to be, we would not have some Protestant denominations baptizing infants and ordaining women while others reject these things.

Why don’t you guys all interpret the clear word of God the same?

Your consistent complaint is that I do not understand infallibilty. It seems now I can complain because you do not understand what is in-view when the perspicuity of Scripture is mentioned. Does the Bible provide detailed instructions as to the proper mode of baptism? If not, then this detail is an area where there is liberty. As for those denominations ordaining women, I have no interest in defending those who directly violate God’s word. These denominations would fall into the theological liberalism camp I discussed further. While they may call themselves Protestants, they have no real regard for the Word of God and see it as a book of myths and fables, allegory and allusion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Question: Why did Jesus call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” and say that by their traditions they had nullified the Word of God?

Nope…not gonna play that game. Jesus told his followers that they must do what the Pharisees commanded because they sit on Moses’ seat as LEGITIMATE rulers. Period. End of Story.

Nothing taught by the Catholic Church nullifies the true meaning of the Word of God, but the Church may not teach according to your own interpretation of that Word.

Now to be fair, Protestants rightly condemn “traditions of men” as Jesus does in this passage, but they fail to acknowledge that not all tradition is “of men.” Particularly, they fail to distinguish between Tradition (doctrine) and tradition (discipline or custom).

All of the following are from the biased NIV (more on the bias below):

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2 Timothy 1:13

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:2

And the things you have **heard **me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

1 Peter 1:23-25

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

Peter declares that the message already preached to the Church throughout the provinces is the “living and enduring word of God”. Peter’s letter (scripture) witnesses to the Apostles’ preaching (Tradition).

NIV Avoids Positive References to “Tradition”

Here are a few Greek words and their English equivalents:

paradosis - tradition
didaskalia - teaching
didachi i - teaching doctrine

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “tradition”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a negative light.

Matthew 15:1-5
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the **tradition paradosis] **of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis]? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis].”

Mark 7:1-13
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition paradosis] of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition paradosis] of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions paradosis] of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions paradosis]! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition paradosis] that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Galatians 1:14
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the tradition paradosis] of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition paradosis] and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “teaching”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a positive light.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teaching paradosis], just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching paradosis] you received from us.

Doesn’t it seem curious that the NIV renders the word *“paradosis” *correctly as “tradition” in the ten places where the “tradition” of the Pharisees was condemned but incorrectly translates it as “teaching” in the three places where the “tradition” of the Apostles was extolled?

This is especially puzzling since the correct Greek word for “teaching doctrine” is “didachi i” while the word for “teaching” is “didaskalia i”? To put it plainly, if the New Testament authors had wanted to say “teaching”, they would have written “didachi i” or possibly “didaskalia i”. However, each of the scriptures listed above actually contain the word, *“paradosis”. *The NIV translators had to go out of their way to render this word incorrectly in three separate verses! Why would they do that?

Could it be that the anti-Catholic bias of the translators and publishers of the NIV could not allow them to render the word “paradosis” properly as “tradition” wherever it was portrayed positively because this translation would weaken the arguments of those who get a lot of mileage out of falsely claiming that Catholicism contains little but worthless “traditions of men”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The RCC’s (re)interpretation of the passage shows that James was an inept bishop since he missed a key opportunity to instruct the Judaizers in the fundamentals of the faith.

James instructed his own flock by his words and his actions. He accepted Peter’s decision, and obviously, so did everyone else since we hear no more about this dispute, do we? Seems to me that James did just fine.

And who knows? James may have been trying to convince the Judaizers of the truth for a long time. Makes sense, right?

After all, in this thread, truth is being explained repeatedly, but some obviously reject it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

At most parishes, only those who subscribe to transubstantiation are invited to partake of the eucharist. It appears your parish is more syncretistic. Either way, an anathema (actually many anathemas) were pronounced against Protestants at the Council of Trent, and formally excommunicated by the Pope. Has that excommunication been recinded? I haven’t read about anything like that in USA Today.

Invited?

You mean, does the priest say to the congregation, “Would all of those who fully understand and accept the doctrine of transubstantiation please come forward to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ”?

No, he does not say that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To the contrary:

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 - “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

1 Thessalonians 4:15 - “For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

In the end, however, whether Paul understood this is neither here nor there. The Holy Spirit, which prompted Paul, certainly knew how these epistles would be used, and therefore ensured that they would be of benefit to the entire Church for all ages to come.

Great verses. However, they do not prove that Paul was conscious of writing scripture.

Passing along something that you received in prayer is one thing; writing inspired scripture is something else.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And in admitting “I think it proves just the opposite” you unwittingly demonstrate more than mere opinion regarding why we cannot rely on Scripture alone.
Two well-intentioned, intelligent people are easily capable of reaching OPPOSITE opinions, that is fact. And if that is a fact and there is not some means for determining who is correct, then including those verses in Scripture is useless.

If I’m unwitting, then by definition I am not an intelligent person, but thanks for giving me the benefit of a doubt.

What I am unwittingly wondering now, is why there were all of those (apparently) stupid church councils where well-intentioned and intelligent people laid out their arguments. If they were incapable of determining who was correct from Scripture, then they ought to have dispensed with the councils and availed themselves of the Pope’s infallible teaching on the matter. And please don’t tell me that I do not understand infallibility, because this is precisely the insinuation here (to wit: since we cannot know the truth from Scripture alone we must needs have available to us an infallible interpreter and teacher).

In general??? Even if you remove the “in general” you cannot substantiate such a claim from Scripture, though you recognize the need for it to be true. This conflict - that it must be true for your theological system to make any sense and the fact that it is not actually stated in Scripture - leaves your objectivity compromised in assessing the reasonableness of what Scripture actually says.

Clever, but as I mentioned to Randy, nothing stands or falls on whether Paul recognized he was writing Scripture. Ultimately the Holy Spirit, who prompted Paul, knew Paul was writing Scripture.

You have no idea, though, and that fact is vastly more important than your speculations.

Please read the Scripture reference.

There is a HUGE silence regarding the alleged transition from a living oral (and written) tradition to a purely written tradition (aka sola scriptura). No one ever bothers to say, “The age of oral tradition has ended, we are now a faith of the Bible alone”.

Question: In Clement’s letter, why does he instruct his readers to look to Scripture (to wit: “Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”) rather than appeal to both Scripture and Tradition?

It never happens, and the deafening silence of every generation of Christianity for 1500 years is an overwhelming veto of your thoughts regarding what Paul did and didnt know and why he did or didnt write things down.

Yes, what a precarious position I am in (even though nothing I believe really stands or falls upon what Paul did or didn’t know about his own writing). So much better is your position, resting on hearsay as it does.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“In 1871, he was declared a Doctor of the Church.” Source: Catholic Encyclopedia from the New Advent website.

Great.

Not what I asked, but whatever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sometimes, but not exclusively: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.” (1 Corinthians 16:21)

Picking nits, are we? Paul added his own greeting after dictating the letter to someone else. Sometimes.

Believe it or not, Solus, some Catholics are as knowledgable about scripture as you are.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, I guess the moral of the story is that Catholics call Protestants whenever they have purchased anything where “some assembly is required.” And, since, the meaning of words is so mysterious to Catholics, there is no point in carrying on this conversation since you have no one to interpret to you the true meaning of what I am telling you. By the way, why do you argue with me when you cannot even understand what I am telling you?

You’re right. I can’t hold a candle to you. :bowdown2:

We’re done after this post.

Your consistent complaint is that I do not understand infallibilty. It seems now I can complain because you do not understand what is in-view when the perspicuity of Scripture is mentioned. Does the Bible provide detailed instructions as to the proper mode of baptism? If not, then this detail is an area where there is liberty.

Not if Tradition fills in a missing piece.

As for those denominations ordaining women, I have no interest in defending those who directly violate God’s word. These denominations would fall into the theological liberalism camp I discussed further. While they may call themselves Protestants, they have no real regard for the Word of God and see it as a book of myths and fables, allegory and allusion.

Gee, are the Methodists without real regard for the Word of God?

“Today, over half of all American Protestant denominations ordain women” (Sociology by Beth B. Hess, Elizabeth Warren Markson, Peter J. Stein ).

You may have the last word.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Regardless of your affilitation, you are being taught along lines of thought that define your faith community. That is the “tradition” that you accept whether you admit it or not.

I will gladly admit that there is some form of tradition in the church I attend, but the key difference is that the tradition is never placed on the same level as God’s Holy Word, as if it needed support from men. God’s Word stands alone and everything else is subordinate to that Word.

Yes and no. You think that until you begin to disagree with your pastor or elders. Then, you move to a different church or start your own. Don’t deny it, brother. I’m a convert. I know the truth of which I speak.

It is becoming very clear to me why you are so cynical about Sola Scriptura. Yes, this is a blight on Protestant churches, and one I will not defend when it involves, in the words of Clement, “things which do not pertain to salvation.” Arbitrary splits or splits spawning from trivial quibbles cannot be pleasing to God. And while the RCC might like to believe they are above all of this themselves, in its arrogance it ignores (or rather excuses) the Great Schism, the Papal Schism, and the existence of those who call themselves Old Catholics.

Let me get this straight…are you saying that you are a member of a denomination that does NOT allow you to interpret the scriptures for yourself? You ARE required to toe the party line, so to speak? And you claim that you are not bound by “tradition”?

Woo boy.

What I am saying is common sense, but I understand in this context I need to spell it out. When I read the Bible, I am not free to make it say whatever I want. It matters little to me what my particular denomination says, because it is God who will utlimately judge me if I misappropriate His Word (as a former Protestant I am surprised you do not understand this). Theological liberalism, however, teaches quite the opposite (though using more subtle words). In this respect, the mainline denominations who subscribe to theological liberalism are in direct opposition to Evangelical denominations. Evangelicals (whether they all succeed or not) at least acknowledge that it is encumbent upon the reader of Scripture to “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”

 

[Solus_Christus]

Church split?

Disfellowshipping?

My dad, God bless his Methodist heart, told his pastor after church one Sunday, “It’s your job to tell me what you think the Bible says, and it’s my job to decide if I believe you.”

That, my friends, is not what God intended for His Church.

Dr. Freud: Tell me about your father…

 

[Solus_Christus]

You’re right. I can’t hold a candle to you. :bowdown2:

Good grief Randy, where’s your sense of humor. It seems I need to use more emoticons

 

[fbl9]

If James’s authority were supreme, what was the point of going to Jerusalem in the first place?
BTW no answer was recieved for the source of the miracles at Lourdes and Fatima.
If asking for Mother Mary’s intercession is idoltry that leaves the only source to be Satan. This is no idle charge to be making for God will not look favorably on one whom claims these works are that of Satan when they are God’s works.

 

[TrueLight]

Randy,

This is a great thread. I have only read a few pages, but I think it is a great apologetics tool, so I have bookmarked it for later reading.

You are like a bulldozer.

Protestant converts like you are especially well suited for evangelization because you can meet a Protestant on his or her own turf. You are absolutely very well instructed in the faith.

I don’t know how you approach protestants in real life, but I will say that in this thread you tend to use multiple postings one after another, so that the person debating with you has to respond to multiple posts all at once. It can be a bit overwhelming. So Solus Christus, you have done a great job, not being toppled over, LOL.

Randy, hopefully in real life, your approach is a bit more err… gentle.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

This is a great thread. I have only read a few pages, but I think it is a great apologetics tool.

Frankly, I don’t think you need any help. You are like a bulldozer. I

You are absolutely very well instructed in the faith. I don’t know how you approach protestants in real life, but I will say that in this thread you tend to use multiple postings one after another, so that the person debating with you has to respond to multiple posts all at once. It can be a bit overwhelming.

So hopefully in real life, your approach is a bit more gentle.

Solus Christus, great job as well.

Thanks…I think.

 

[TrueLight]

Thanks…I think.

I revised my post a little.

Solus Christus, you would make a great convert! See, you even went ahead and got a Latin user name, ha ha.

 

[Lampo]

As for those denominations ordaining women, I have no interest in defending those who directly violate God’s word.

Would they agree with you that they are violating God’s word? Do they also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting scripture just like you? Where do you take your differences? Is this the way God left us to interpret Scripture? With no real authority?

While they may call themselves Protestants, they have no real regard for the Word of God and see it as a book of myths and fables, allegory and allusion.

According to you. Which one of you is right?