Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Brother in Christ:

It looks like the others have provided ample material directly answering your question - I won’t do more of the same. I would like to respectfully and humbly submit that your question is not well posed (but I understand the protestant tendency):

Catholics don’t believe in the Church (Roman or Greek) *because *it is necessary. We don’t look at Holy Scripture and the Christian environment and say “see… it must be so” (while we certainly believe that the evidence is there and that proofs are useful). It is the other way around. The Catholic (Roman and Greek) Church exists and therefore we believe. The Scriptures came out of the Church and the two are united. The Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was institued by Christ and “ratified” (for lack of a better word) by the Holy Spirt at Pentacost (the birth of the Church). I think a better question would be, did Christ found a Church (and of course you know my position on that). I am not a cradle Catholic, but was baptized into the Church as an adult. After I became what you might call a born-again Christian, I almost left the Catholic Church, but couldn’t decide which protestant church to join. This dilemna forced me to do a whole lot of research. The most important issue for me was how did the New Testament Canon come to be (I had accepted the Bible as the flawless Word of God and I was so fascinated by it, that I became driven to find out how it came to be). The process that God used to bring together that Canon was amazing and could only have been acomplished by a Church Christ founded. Here is a great (but very long) book on how the New and Old Testament Canons came to be booksforcatholics.com/listings/l0041.html

In Christ our King,
Sean.

p.s.: The two (somewhat annoying I’m sure - sorry) references to Greek are meant to tempt you to look beyond the unfortunate rhetoric between protestants and “Roman” Catholics in the west. You can avoid all the last 500 years of western nonsense by looking into the Eastern or Greek Catholic (or Orthodox Churches). The key point is that lay people were never meant to get involved in all these silly arguments, but rather we were supposed to trust the Holy Spirit and Apostolic Authority and live the Christian life in prayer and the seven Sacraments (in the midst of prosperity or suffering). If you look at the following to sites you’ll get a glimpse of what I mean:

ec-patr.gr/athp/index.php?lang=en
or
greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm
 
40.png
Philthy:
Hi guys - only slightly sorry to butt in!

What happens with these disagreements over objective truth based on differing interpretations of Scripture? They get relegated to the category of “non-essential” and technically, for Protestants, disagreeing on a non-essential isn’t really a disagreement.
Click to expand...
How can any difference be considered “non-essential” when it results in a split, with one chuch branching off from another?
 
Michaelp,

I know you think you have a strong argument when it comes to the Magesterium, but it simply isn’t so. The link you provided merely illustrates that people differ in “their” opinions. There have been many excellent presentations that show the consistency of Church teaching on salvation and how it is to be properly understood in terms of those outside the Church. Most people that dissent will naturally have their reasons and their own understandings. That really doesn’t matter. Any Catholic that wants to dissent from the clear teaching of the Magesterium, and it is clear on this issue, is already “protestant” at least in some sense of the word.

Opinions on what Church teaching “is” or “should be” are simply “opinions.” The Church is clear on the meaning of “no salvation outside the Church” and anyone that complains about how the Church teaches on the subject is placing their opinion above the position and authority of the Magesterium. This in no way indicates that the Magesterium is hard to interpret or understand. I find your argument to be nothing more than a “red herring.”
 
40.png
michaelp:
Not to enflame anyone :o but it looks like the Magisterium is not only interpreted but is difficult to interpret. See here and view expecially post #8.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44707

Michael
Click to expand...
Oh, for cat’s sake! Are you back on this kick again, Michael?

We interpret DATA. Whether we are historians, scientists, or theologians, what we interpret is DATA.

The Magisterium is not data – it is the Church’s authority to teach. It is therefore outside the realm of things that are interpreted.

How many times do you have to be reminded of this?

Now, if INDIVIDUAL Catholics are not well-versed in the Church’s teachings, that does NOT mean there is a difference of interpretation within the Church – the Church has spoken, they just haven’t got the word.

Now, do me a favor – drop this dishonest pretense about the Magisterium. Okay?
 
Yessir, all we need here is another Evangelical to try to stir up an argument about THE HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. Yes we need those guys for it sharpens our understanding and faith.

If I went to an Evangelical site I dont think I would be treated so well. Last Summer I was BANNED from a Protestant site (Forum) for simply askin a question. Michaelp you have been treated very well so far. But we are only tolerating you. You don’t bring anything to the feast. But you try to take, dont you?
 
40.png
Exporter:
Yessir, all we need here is another Evangelical to try to stir up an argument about THE HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. Yes we need those guys for it sharpens our understanding and faith.

If I went to an Evangelical site I dont think I would be treated so well. Last Summer I was BANNED from a Protestant site (Forum) for simply askin a question. Michaelp you have been treated very well so far. But we are only tolerating you. You don’t bring anything to the feast. But you try to take, dont you?
Click to expand...
I’d welcome people like Pastor Michael if they’d just debate honestly. But they don’t – they keep dragging up the same old claptrap, over and over, hoping that someone will fall for it.

I wonder if it ever occurs to them if they need these sleezy tricks to prove their beliefs, it reflects on those beliefs?
 
michaelp said:
If the institution of the RCC is needed to interpret the Scripture so that there will be unity in the Church, and the traditions that have been handed down have done this, why is it that no one can agree on the interpretation of Tradition? On this website alone there are thousands of different opinions on how to interpret the counsels (especially Vatican II).

In reality, doesn’t the Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition just move the problem up one level? Do we we need another institution to preside over the interpretation of Tradition? If so, who? This is one of the many problems I have with the RCCs understanding of Tradition–it is just as hard to interpret as Scripture.

I am not asking this to be difficult. I know that you must have thought this through, so I really do look forward to hearing your response.

I pray God’s richest blessings upon you all.

Michael
Click to expand...
Here are my thoughts - and I beleive we covered this together over a year ago, but I could be wrong.

Scripture, which is fixed and static, often speaks in ambiguous, descriptive terminology leaving the possibility of interpretive error from cultural ignorance and language dynamics. Having individuals “interpret” such language by reason alone does not and has not resulted in any unified practical theology.
In contrast, the Church, through the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit, speaks in affirmative, clear language which is culturally sensitive using the language as it is used by its listeners. The Church - being active and dynamic - can also interact with it’s faithful in addressing points of confusion as they arise.
So there are 2 fundamental differences in the ability to communicate the faith between “sola scriptura” and a Magisterium: The inherent ambiguities of the language used in Scripture and the inability of Scripture to specifically address those ambiguities as they arise in clear, definitive terms. The magisterium performs these tasks in a way Scripture simply cannot.

Practical examples:

**Should I baptize my infant? **
Scripture: “unless you are born of water and Spirit you shall not inheret the kingdom of God” (Ambiguous, descriptive)
Magisterium: YES you should. (Affirmative)

Can a Christian lose his salvation?
Scripture: You were saved, you are saved and you will be saved. Only those who endure to the end will be saved.

Magisterium: Yes you can, through unrepentant sin.

Is artificial contraception a sin?
Scripture: Onan spilled his seed, God was so offended he killed Onan.
Magisterium: YES it is.

These are three simple examples, but we could go on and on with almost every single question of the faith and find that the Magisterium is considerably clearer. Please notice that some issues are not fully revealed regarding the faith and that the Magisterium functions to supply greater understanding in time, without contradicting what has been revealed currently. Most of the issues that remain ambiguous from Church councils are not terribly significant IMHO. Regardless, though, they will be worked out in time and do not present any significant obstacle to the practicing faithful.
 
This is a very long dead thread…over 2 years dead at that! Why in the world would anyone want to bring this up again?
 
Church_Militant said:
This is a very long dead thread…over 2 years dead at that! Why in the world would anyone want to bring this up again?
Click to expand...
I’ve been housecleaning on my subscribed threads list and I thought this was an interesting thread.

It’s not dead yet. Just sleeping. :heaven: Also there are a lot of new posters…
 
Ani_Ibi said:
I’ve been housecleaning on my subscribed threads list and I thought this was an interesting thread.
Click to expand...
It’s not dead yet. Just sleeping. :heaven: Also there are a lot of new posters…Meh…🤷
 
Church_Militant said:
Meh…🤷
Click to expand...
Evangelicals have traditions too.

Some argue that the panoply of Evangelical scholars should interpret those traditions and that the layperson should be ‘insulated’. Some argue that traditions are fair game for anyone notwithstanding whether or not they have MTh’s. Some argue only for Sola Scriptura, to the exclusion of all traditions.

Every once in a while I make another attempt to see if Sola Scriptura can exist separate from traditions, magisteria, priesthoods or any combination of these under these names or other names.

:angel1:
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Evangelicals have traditions too.

Some argue that the panoply of Evangelical scholars should interpret those traditions and that the layperson should be ‘insulated’. Some argue that traditions are fair game for anyone notwithstanding whether or not they have MTh’s. Some argue only for Sola Scriptura, to the exclusion of all traditions.

Every once in a while I make another attempt to see if Sola Scriptura can exist separate from traditions, magisteria, priesthoods or any combination of these under these names or other names.

:angel1:
Click to expand...
Evangelicals have traditions but they don’t have Tradition. It’s one thing to say, “This is traditional with us. We’ve been doing it all week.”

It is another thing entirely to say, “The Apostles taught us to do this.”
 
Church_Militant said:
This is a very long dead thread…over 2 years dead at that! Why in the world would anyone want to bring this up again?
Click to expand...
I knew we had covered this one before! I overlooked the post dates when I jumped back in - itll be interesting to see how much my anwer changed in 2 years…

Phil
 
Philthy said:
I knew we had covered this one before! I overlooked the post dates when I jumped back in - itll be interesting to see how much my anwer changed in 2 years… Phil
Click to expand...
I thought your answer this time was great. It was very clear and useful.

To be perfectly honest, when I resurrected this thread I did not look at the OP. But the reason I resurrected it was that the title reminded me some things that C Michael Patton and Dan Wallace have been writing on their blog lately.

I was wondering if I should post Pastor Mike’s latest writing, not realizing that the OP was Pastor Mike! D-0h! In any case, it would be interesting to see if his answer has changed.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Evangelicals have traditions too…
Click to expand...
Every once in a while I make another attempt to see if Sola Scriptura can exist separate from traditions, magisteria, priesthoods or any combination of these under these names or other names. :angel1:

Here is a ‘quiet’ tradition to which the OP has allied himself:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition

And a challenge to Patton on that tradition:

A Challenge to Michael Patton of Pen and Parchment
Protestants have a fallible interpretation of a fallible canon of infallible books
Click to expand...
, the exact contents of which are also up for grabs…
In composing the sacred books, God chose men, and while employed by Him, they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
Click to expand...
[T]he books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
What source do I quote from to describe how evangelicals read Scripture?
Click to expand...
The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. That’s right, a Catholic document known in Latin as Dei verbum…

Evangelicals affirm that the norming of tradition by Scripture is not actuated in practice like it should be by the Catholic magisterium.

But evangelicals also know that the loci of teaching authority which function among [Evangelicals] do not actuate in practice the norming of faith and life by Scripture like they should either…

My challenge to Michael Patton: explain why the above quoted statements of Dei verbum are not edifying to you as a believer.

continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top