Why won't non-Catholic Christians recite the Holy Rosary?

[Cinette]

To say the Apostles taught from tradition is not correct. Some were witness to Christ, others like Paul were visited by Christ. They preached what they witnessed, not tradition. Their written word represents that witness.

**For once you are right Sola! But I didn’t say tridition, I said Tridition.

I am going to pray for you Sola.

Cheers, and have a good day

:doh2: **

 

[Cinette]

**For once you are right Sola! But I didn’t say tridition, I said Tridition.

I am going to pray for you Sola.

Cheers, and have a good day

:doh2: **

Hey, I am not awake yet! First of all we usually go to gym at 4.45 in the morning and today we left at 5.45 instead so had to turn back.

Then we had to get ready for Mass and also collect bread for St Vincent de Paul Soup Kitchen tonight…and…and…and…now I can’t spell.

I mean Tradition of course!

You guessed right - we are in the southern hemisphere of course!

:yawn: :whacky: uch:

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well, from your perspective, it guaranteed you being a Christian today.

Why do you acknowledge the Catholic Church on the issue of the canonization of the NT books? Do you concede that the Church had the divine authority to do so?

This is no different that the role of the Jewish people in the economy of salvation. They brought the word forward, but for them we would have had no prophets, no law, indeed even Christ was born of their blood.

However, all of this and God only reserved for Himself 7,000 who did not bow to baal. So relying on the fact that God used the Roman Empire as a vehicle to proclaim His name throughout the earth is a failing argument. Indeed God did use the empire in such a way, just as He used the Jewish people this way.

 

[sola_scriptura]

They absolutely didn’t write down all that they witnessed, though - remember John saying the world couldn’t hold enough books to do so? So similarly they can’t have possibly written down all that they preached and taught either - I mean how many of the Apostles left no written record at all? Are the Apostles who didn’t just totally superfluous? Of course not, otherwise the 11 wouldn’t have felt the need to replace Judas.

My point is they did not contradict what they did write down.

Answer me this: Origen observed that if Mary did not sin then Jesus did not die for her sins, which he suggested could not be “if all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” (Romans 3:23). How do you respond?

Origen did think that she became holy, however, he did not think that she was born sinless (or without the stain of original sin).

Other early church fathers, however, took an opposing view. For instance Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Ephraem the Syrian. However, I believe Origen had the better view regarding Mary.

If we are to have a poetic typology between Mary and Eve how about – with Eve a fallen angel leads an unfallen woman into unrighteousness, while with Mary an unfallen angel leads a fallen woman into righteousness.

 

[ChristianRoots]

In sum I agree with your premise, but probably not on what constitutes Apostolic tradition. Certainly, in the first instance we cannot imagine that the Apostles would contradict their own words; so certainly our best evidence of what is Apostolic tradition is scripture itself.

Not really. You see Scripture itself is a form of Apostolic tradition. As I stated earlier, Scripture never mentions which books should be part of the New Testament and which ones should not. Apostolic tradition decided that for us. So why do you accept the NT as God’s Word then? Why are you not questioning this Apostolic tradition not found in Scripture?? This is what I do not get.

If you reject Apostolic tradition “not found in Scripture,” you must also reject the Bible also. Otherwise, your actions will be deemed hypocritical.

The problem isn’t with the earliest doctrines of the first Christian communities and churches. It is the claim that doctrines created centuries after the death of our Lord constitute Apostolic tradition, which I find problematic – particularly since so many of them seem to do injury to the message of Scripture.

Doctrines were not created “centuries” after the death of our Lord. Perhaps you are confusing Catholic doctrine with Catholic practices? The latter have nothing to do with doctrine and can change from time to time, i.e. priestly celibacy. Doctrine can never change and will never contradict Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. However, doctrine over time can be understood better, i.e. development of doctrine…Just because a mustard tree with its branches and leaves looks nothing like the mustard seed from which it sprung forth from does not mean it is different from the seed, rather they remain one and the same.

The passages I cited do send a clear message – which is that the word of God may not be contradicted by the traditions of men. Certainly not all traditions do injury to the revelations of our Lord; and those are not my concern. It is the ones that do to which I object. Certainly the RCC is not alone in error – but neither are they free from error.

Do you think the traditions mentioned in 2Thes. 2:15 contradict Isaiah’s verse?

 

[ChristianRoots]

This is no different that the role of the Jewish people in the economy of salvation. They brought the word forward, but for them we would have had no prophets, no law, indeed even Christ was born of their blood.

The Catholic Church never rejected Christ. That is the difference. On what grounds do you then reject the Catholic Church?

However, all of this and God only reserved for Himself 7,000 who did not bow to baal. So relying on the fact that God used the Roman Empire as a vehicle to proclaim His name throughout the earth is a failing argument. Indeed God did use the empire in such a way, just as He used the Jewish people this way.

Are you equating the early Catholic Church with the Roman Empire? I never said that God used the Roman Empire as a vehicle to proclaim His name. He used the Catholic Church, which is a **DISTINCT **vehicle from the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire per se was evil.

It seems to me you need to go back to scholarly sources to learn the TRUTH and not rely on your latent anti-Catholicism which was TAUGHT to you by uneducated and unsophisticated people.

Your post is utterly baseless, without merit, and in direct contraditction to both Scripture and history. Perhaps your nomenclature should be changed from sola scriptura (which is fraudulent in the first place) to sola-anti-Catholico.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Has the Catholic church ever produced some kind of list of Sacred Traditions? Has it ever defined what Sacred Tradition is? If so what is the definition?

Click on the link below.

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[Good_Fella]

Answer me this: Origen observed that if Mary did not sin then Jesus did not die for her sins, which he suggested could not be “if all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” (Romans 3:23). How do you respond?

Origen did think that she became holy, however, he did not think that she was born sinless (or without the stain of original sin).

If we are to have a poetic typology between Mary and Eve how about – with Eve a fallen angel leads an unfallen woman into unrighteousness, while with Mary an unfallen angel leads a fallen woman into righteousness.

I’m afraid your “poetic typology” contravenes Holy Scripture. Luke does not record that the angel Gabriel channelled God’s grace to her upon his appearance. As soon as the angel arrives, he greets Mary as one who has already been graced and has found favour with God.

And coming to her he said, “Hail, full of grace.” The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.”
Luke 1, 30

It is true that Origen never taught that Mary was holy from the beginning of her life, but that’s because he was speaking in the Greek context of sanctification. In accord with the Alexandrian tradition he spoke of Mary as one who progressed in virtue and holiness. However, he still believed Mary was all-holy (“the immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one”) and she was holy before the Annunciation. We should keep in mind that in the East at the time of Origen the concepts of original sin and grace had not yet fully developed and been defined. It isn’t until the fourth century, with the arrival of Athanasius, and after the Council of Nicea, that we find more explicit teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Mary wouldn’t have been immaculately conceived preserved free from the stain of ‘original sin’, and thereupon redeemed, without the merits of Christ’s Passion. All have sinned, and Mary was implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve; but only one human creature was chosen to be the Mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and she had to be fashioned pure and unblemished like the sacred ark of the Old Covenant.

Do you think that God intended Adam and Eve to sin? Why must Mary necessarily be a sinner? Is it only so that Christ should die for her? I notice your Calvinism rising to the surface. You picture an omnipotent God who lacks wisdom.

PAX
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;4070900]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Has the Catholic church ever produced some kind of list of Sacred Traditions? Has it ever defined what Sacred Tradition is? If so what is the definition?

Click on the link below.

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Thanks for the link. There are some serious problems with this. One in particular stands out at the beginning of the article that says–“In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December,…”

If you read the scholarship on this issue today i’m not aware of any that support the idea that Jesus was born on Dec 25. If this is the case then this alone would show that Traditions can be wrong whatever they are.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I’m afraid your “poetic typology” contravenes Holy Scripture. Luke does not record that the angel Gabriel channelled God’s grace to her upon his appearance. As soon as the angel arrives, he greets Mary as one who has already been graced and has found favour with God.

And neither does the poetic treatment of this typology given to us by Irenaeus.

And coming to her he said, “Hail, full of grace.” The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.”
Luke 1, 30

It is true that Origen never taught that Mary was holy from the beginning of her life, but that’s because he was speaking in the Greek context of sanctification. In accord with the Alexandrian tradition he spoke of Mary as one who progressed in virtue and holiness. However, he still believed Mary was all-holy (“the immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one”) and she was holy before the Annunciation. We should keep in mind that in the East at the time of Origen the concepts of original sin and grace had not yet fully developed and been defined. It isn’t until the fourth century, with the arrival of Athanasius, and after the Council of Nicea, that we find more explicit teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Not that I am a huge Origen fan – however, can you provide a quote from his to show what you say is true? It doesn’t seem that he speculated on when exactly Mary was given this holiness?

The bottom line is Origen disagreed with Irenaeus; no amount of gymnastics can refute this fact.

Mary wouldn’t have been immaculately conceived preserved free from the stain of ‘original sin’, and thereupon redeemed, without the merits of Christ’s Passion. All have sinned, and Mary was implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve; but only one human creature was chosen to be the Mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and she had to be fashioned pure and unblemished like the sacred ark of the Old Covenant.

Do you think that God intended Adam and Eve to sin? Why must Mary necessarily be a sinner? Is it only so that Christ should die for her? I notice your Calvinism rising to the surface. You picture an omnipotent God who lacks wisdom.

PAX
Good Fella

An omnipotent God who lacks wisdom? Hardly, for Calvin God is not only all powerful but all knowing in every sense. Few have attributed the level of power or wisdom to God that Calvin did. Most think human history and creation was a series of random events, we have utter and complete free will, and God sits back as a spectator while we do as we please.

With regard to Adam & Eve, I do believe the fall of man was a divine decree, not a cosmic accident. Nothing happens without the will of God concerned.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The Catholic Church never rejected Christ. That is the difference. On what grounds do you then reject the Catholic Church?

Are you equating the early Catholic Church with the Roman Empire? I never said that God used the Roman Empire as a vehicle to proclaim His name. He used the Catholic Church, which is a **DISTINCT **vehicle from the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire per se was evil.

It seems to me you need to go back to scholarly sources to learn the TRUTH and not rely on your latent anti-Catholicism which was TAUGHT to you by uneducated and unsophisticated people.

Your post is utterly baseless, without merit, and in direct contraditction to both Scripture and history. Perhaps your nomenclature should be changed from sola scriptura (which is fraudulent in the first place) to sola-anti-Catholico.

I wouldn’t describe the Roman Empire as anymore evil that the heathens that surrounded them, like the pagan Greeks or barbarians. They were simply the greatest empire that ever existed in history – because of that many think they were the greatest evil in history. Roman history is second only to American history as my favorite (and a very close second at that).

 

[Ronald_E]

Thanks for the link. There are some serious problems with this. One in particular stands out at the beginning of the article that says–“In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December,…”

If you read the scholarship on this issue today i’m not aware of any that support the idea that Jesus was born on Dec 25. If this is the case then this alone would show that Traditions can be wrong whatever they are.

I am going to work. I want to give you a quick answer about this tradition statement. It is with the small “t”. That means that it is not a dogmatic truth. It need not be a point of separation.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Thanks for the link. There are some serious problems with this. One in particular stands out at the beginning of the article that says–“In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December,…”

If you read the scholarship on this issue today i’m not aware of any that support the idea that Jesus was born on Dec 25. If this is the case then this alone would show that Traditions can be wrong whatever they are.

The birth of Jesus on December 25 is tradition with a small “t.” It is not tradition with a big “T” (Sacred Tradition), hence it is not doctrinal.

 

[ChristianRoots]

I wouldn’t describe the Roman Empire as anymore evil that the heathens that surrounded them, like the pagan Greeks or barbarians. They were simply the greatest empire that ever existed in history – because of that many think they were the greatest evil in history. Roman history is second only to American history as my favorite (and a very close second at that).

Do you think the Roman Empire corrupted the Catholic Church in the first couple of centuries after Jesus’ Death and Resurrection?

 

[justasking4]

The birth of Jesus on December 25 is tradition with a small “t.” It is not tradition with a big “T” (Sacred Tradition), hence it is not doctrinal.

Is it true though? Do Catholics believe traditions or accept traditions (small “t”) if they are have no reason to think they are true?

 

[ChristianRoots]

I wouldn’t describe the Roman Empire as anymore evil that the heathens that surrounded them, like the pagan Greeks or barbarians.QUOTE]

The Roman Empire martyred Christians on a grand scale and in heinous ways. No other group of heathens, like the pagan Greeks, etc. did this.

You **should **consider the Roman Empire more evil than the heathens that surrounded them.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Do you think the Roman Empire corrupted the Catholic Church in the first couple of centuries after Jesus’ Death and Resurrection?

I’m not one to speculate on such things?

Let’s face it the Roman rulers weren’t religious at all (they probably even thought the pagan religion of their own population was baloney, at least some of them anyway). So even pagan isn’t exactly a fair characteristic of the Roman ruler – words like conquerer, pragmatist, and ruthless do a better job of describing the Roman greats. Certainly nothing would surprise me coming from such a collection of men, however, whether or how they might of influenced Christianity is speculation and nothing else.

Certainly the early Christian community in and around Rome was committed, how could they not be with men like Nero nailing them to crosses. So I would dare not besmirch their good names. If there was corruption in doctrine by Roman rulers it did not come from them – so much I’m sure of.

Who knows whether good men like Ignatius or Clement could have capitulated to the Romans. I simply look at doctrine and test it against the word of God.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Is it true though? Do Catholics believe traditions or accept traditions (small “t”) if they are have no reason to think they are true?

Yes, Catholics believe in traditions such as the Lord’s birthday on December 25th, but they are not necessarily true or false since Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are silent on this issue.

Because Sacred Scripture and Tradition are silent on this issue, however, Jesus’ birthdate cannot be doctrinal. Yet, there was a very good reason why December 25th was chosen as Jesus’ birthdate.

Scripture doesn’t mention a birthdate for Jesus, yet we know He had to have been born on a specific date. **Do you think its annual celebration was prohibited because Scripture does not mention the exact date of Jesus’ birth? **

 

[ChristianRoots]

I’m not one to speculate on such things?

Let’s face it the Roman rulers weren’t religious at all (they probably even thought the pagan religion of their own population was baloney, at least some of them anyway). So even pagan isn’t exactly a fair characteristic of the Roman ruler – words like conquerer, pragmatist, and ruthless do a better job of describing the Roman greats. Certainly nothing would surprise me coming from such a collection of men, however, whether or how they might of influenced Christianity is speculation and nothing else.

Certainly the early Christian community in and around Rome was committed, how could they not be with men like Nero nailing them to crosses. So I would dare not besmirch their good names. If there was corruption in doctrine by Roman rulers it did not come from them – so much I’m sure of.

Who knows whether good men like Ignatius or Clement could have capitulated to the Romans. I simply look at doctrine and test it against the word of God.

I find it odd how you casually assume uncertainity whether or not Ignatius or Clement would have capitulated to the Romans.

Would YOU have capitulated to the Romans if you were facing one of their great persecutions?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I find it odd how you casually assume uncertainity whether or not Ignatius or Clement would have capitulated to the Romans.

Would YOU have capitulated to the Romans if you were facing one of their great persecutions?

I was responding to your question & I hold no opinion regarding this (nor is it something I stay up at night thinking about). I now see you posed this question I suppose to bait me into a conversation about it – well sorry to disappoint but none will be had. I won’t argue a position I have no opinion on.

The only reasons I mentioned Ignatius and Clement (particularly Clement) is because there’s some language in his writings that Rome uses to justify its authority (I actually never read Clements epistle but this is what I read from other sources).

It seems to me that if someone were to argue this Roman influence theory they would have to begin by asserting Roman politicians swayed Clement (and perhaps Ignatius), since frankly as far as can be told from his writings Polycarp never shared the view of a church centered at Rome (much less a Papacy). I have read Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians and he does discuss church governance. This alleged divergence in views might be used as circumstantial evidence supporting this Roman influence theory. I frankly can’t see any other use for it – but I just don’t care enough about this to research it?

Again I’m not one for wild historical or theological speculation. I’m very comfortable loving all people regardless of their denomination. I simply like to discuss theology with other Christians mostly to learn but also to share – and this line of speculation is pointless.

Again, maybe you might think this Roman influence theory might be the only reason why one is not Catholic … well it’s not.

Maybe someone else would enjoy speculating about Roman folly – but not me? I like Roman history but I’m glad it’s history and not modern reality.