Which Church is Right?

[jphilapy]

jphilapy http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_341093”, true);
Regular Member
jph, I have read your posts and the link. IMHO you have given the Roman Catholic Church and the Othodox Church a politely written slap in the face. You seem to try to say that “they” can’t both be right, but then by insinuation you say both are wrong. Do you realize that you are taking on 2000 years of Tradition, Scripture and the Magesterium? Don’t you think they knew/know what they are doing?

Exporter, the logic works this way, they can’t both be right, but they both CAN be wrong. Either both are wrong or one is right. Based on the evidence I would say that both are wrong. However I am reading through the catechism and the “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating as well as exploring sites and having discussions. So yes I am making an attempt to make an informed descision. Now all this stuff about how “tradition can’t be wrong”?? Yes it can. It was wrong in Jesus and the apostles day and it can be wrong today. Just because the apostles had a tradition that is no indication that tradition is of any evidence. As a matter of fact both Jesus and the Apostles appealed to things other than traditions to validate their claims. The jews always appealed to tradition.

Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

So I don’t see tradition as evidence of truth.

Jeff

 

[clmowry]

jphilapy:

Exporter, the logic works this way, they can’t both be right, but they both CAN be wrong. Either both are wrong or one is right. Based on the evidence I would say that both are wrong. However I am reading through the catechism and the “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating as well as exploring sites and having discussions. So yes I am making an attempt to make an informed descision. Now all this stuff about how “tradition can’t be wrong”?? Yes it can. It was wrong in Jesus and the apostles day and it can be wrong today. Just because the apostles had a tradition that is no indication that tradition is of any evidence. As a matter of fact both Jesus and the Apostles appealed to things other than traditions to validate their claims. The jews always appealed to tradition.

Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

So I don’t see tradition as evidence of truth.

Jeff

The Apostles passed on nothing but tradition.

What was the discipleship you are preaching if not the tradition that the Apostles obtained from Christ.

You’ve simply decided that this is THE tradition that is of the most value and have chosen to, apparently, disregard the others.

Chuck

 

[jphilapy]

clmowry:

The Apostles passed on nothing but tradition.

What was the discipleship you are preaching if not the tradition that the Apostles obtained from Christ.

What is it that the apostles and Jesus appealed to as proof that their authority was from God?

Jeff

 

[clmowry]

jphilapy:

What is it that the apostles and Jesus appealed to as proof that their authority was from God?

Jeff

Initially, the signs and miracles performed by Christ (and latter the Apostles) as evidence of the fact that He fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish scripture (tradition.)

Chuck

 

[jphilapy]

clmowry:

Initially, the signs and miracles performed by Christ (and latter the Apostles) as evidence of the fact that He fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish scripture (tradition.)

Chuck

Show me the verse of scripture where the apostles used tradition to validate that they were teaching the truth? Paul makes arguments to validate that what he was teaching was the truth but he makes them based on how he acted and the effect that His ministry had on those he taught and discipled as well as on the witness of the Spirit. But I am interested to see what you are referring to.

Regarding your statment that the scriptures = tradition. The jews may have maintained the scriptures, but their traditions were by no means in line with the scriptures.

And when Jesus said:
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Don’t you think he was distinguishing between scripture and tradition? What did he mean by the word of God? Where were they supposed to find this word of God at if traditions were wrong? How were the jews expected to test their traditions?

 

[mark_a]

prodromos:

There are three icons still in existance that were painted by the hand of St Luke the Evangelist.
John.

Could you post some info about this?

 

[clmowry]

jphilapy:

Show me the verse of scripture where the apostles used tradition to validate that they were teaching the truth? Paul makes arguments to validate that what he was teaching was the truth but he makes them based on how he acted and the effect that His ministry had on those he taught and discipled as well as on the witness of the Spirit. But I am interested to see what you are referring to.

This probably isn’t the best example, just the first one I came across while flipping through the pages of my bible. There are many many many others I’m sure. Much of the Gospel was seems to have the expressed purpose of demonstrating that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Jewish Messiah.

i.e. The passages on the Virgin Birth, the blind seeing, the lame walking, the deaf hearing, all those aspects of the suffering servant etc.

Acts 13:22-23

22 After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’ 23“From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.

jphilapy:

Regarding your statment that the scriptures = tradition. The jews may have maintained the scriptures, but their traditions were by no means in line with the scriptures.

And when Jesus said:

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Don’t you think he was distinguishing between scripture and tradition? What did he mean by the word of God? Where were they supposed to find this word of God at if traditions were wrong? How were the jews expected to test their traditions?

It is clear, at least to me, that Christ is not here teaching that all “traditions were wrong”, but that any action (tradition or otherwise) that invalidates or violates the word of God is wrong.

That is no tradition cannot contradict scripture. (A belief which the Church would strongly support I think.)

Scripture IS Tradition that has been written down. It differs from other traditions that have been written down, only in that it is (and has been defined by the Church as) inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the inerrant Word of God.

Jewish traditions survived for hundreds of years before being recorded into what is now called scripture. The traditions of the New Testament took sometime to be consolidated into a book as well.

Christ participated in many traditional Jewish events, does that make Him wrong?

Chuck

 

[jphilapy]

clmowry:

Christ participated in many traditional Jewish events, does that make Him wrong?

I am not saying that traditions are wrong. I am saying that they are not sufficent evidence. The question asked to me was how can I argue against 2000 years of tradition. Well the same way Jesus did. I don’t believe the longevity of a tradition proves it is valid today any more than the longevity of the traditions Jesus spoke of. Also the Eastern Orthodox appeals to traditons as well, but they say that the Roman Catholic church is wrong, and the Roman Catholic church says they are wrong. So you see. If tradtion is valid evidence then I have to accept that both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic are correct. But they both cannot be correct. Why? Because the RC says papacy is scriptural and the EO says papacy is not scriptural. So they both have 2000 years of traditions which disagree on some of the most important points of the RCs teaching.

I think when you came into this discussion you must of missed what the original point was. You are thinking that I am saying traditions are wrong, and that is probably because that is a reply from most people who disagree with the RC. Just saying tradition is not evidence.

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

Ithe RC says papacy is scriptural and the EO says papacy is not scriptural. So they both have 2000 years of traditions which disagree on some of the most important points of the RCs teaching.
Jeff

Jeff, I considered Orthodoxy on my journey into the Church. Although some Orthodox accept a loose view of the primacy of Peter, many reject the authority of Peter with the same arguments used by Protestants, including the argument that the “rock” on which Jesus builds his Church is not Peter but “faith” (in complete rejection of the grammar of that passage).

For me, the clincher was Matthew 16:18. My journey had already taken me from Fundamentalism into the Episcopal Church, which believes in Apostolic Succession. So when I considered that passage of Scripture, the words popped into my head: “If you have Apostolic Succession (like the Orthodox) and Peter is not in your house of bishops, you are rejecting the centerpiece.”

I see you are still struggling with “traditions” as if they contradict Christ. The traditions Jesus condemns are those which elevate some pious practice ABOVE the great commandments (in this case to honor one’s parents). That is quite a different thing from a tradition that helps you live the commandments. It is different from a tradition which has developed in order to transmit the essence of the commandments.

 

[jbuttrey]

So I don’t see tradition as evidence of truth.

Jeff
I think the modern Teaching Magisterium or Tradition of the RC church goes a long way to prove they are more conformed to truth than any other church.

I came to the RC church because I believe their tradition of opposing artificial birth control was true when most protestants and EO have mainly lost this truth. I believe that this teaching will save marriages and other churches then don’t have all the tools to save marriages. Now this I propose is truth proven because it sets us free to have marriages that will work.

Now you can back up the tradition of opposing birth control from biblical evidence but I don’t believe you can defend birth control pills from scripture logically. Now in the RC church’s teaching of doing Gods will in practising conception we have a true tradition that grows out of scripture and reinforces it. So those churches minimizing artificial birth control are actually opposing scripture and their traditions can only be from man.

John