You can't have it both ways.

[joe370]

Rightly, Schaick, Gtrenewed, can you imagine how utterly shocked Paul would have been if he had been told that his epistles, and the writings of Peter and John and the others would one day be tied up together and elevated to the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, and eventually placed in each man’s hand as an easy and infallible guide for each and every fallible Christian to interpret, totally independent of the living and teaching authority of the church, forever guided by the infallible HS? Think about it! No one would have been more shocked at the idea of his letters usurping the place of the authoritative teacher — the Church, than Paul who said, “'How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent?”

The idea that the twelve apostles sat down together in some room, pens in hand, and wrote off at a sitting, (or got together at a later date to compile and bind their collective works into one volume, which, in their minds, would one day be called the New Testament and the Christians final authority) - with the idea of issuing this volume to each and every Christian, independent of the church founded by Jesus, of which they were the first Pastors/teachers, is just plain silly, not to mention an impossibility due to so many factors, but this is what every sola scriptura advocate must espouse if they want to sell the notion that SS was taught and promulgated by even the apostles themselves, for if it was not taught by the apostles then it is nothing more than a man-made tradition which would violate Sola Scriptura.

What are your thoughts?

 

[schaick]

I, as a Christian, have to disagree with you shaick.

There are many non-Christians who use that verse to tell us, "See! Even your Scriptures say that Jesus was not divine. It very clearly says in your book that “all have sinned”.

Now, Catholics can answer that one quite confidently because we understand that it’s* not* “literally all have sinned in the eyes of God.”

But, admittedly, you would be stuck when confronted with a non-Christian who wants to argue with you that Jesus was not God, just a good teacher, right?

No all humans, Jesus was something more.

 

[Dokimas]

That is a very uneducated opinion about the CC. There is nothing in our teaching that requires “blind obedience”.

Fides quaarens intellectum. *
*
Fides et ratio.

Here’s why it seems blind:

You believe sacred tradion is as inspired as the Bible. Correct? Then you follow it even though you my disagree with what it teaches – or you won’t allow yourself to question it at all. Correct?

You believe the Magisterium (I hope I spelled that correctly - no disrespect intended) is as inspired as the Bible. Then you follow it even though you my disagree with what it teaches – or you won’t allow yourself to question it at all. Correct?

 

[Dokimas]

You see it this way, but obviously other Christians of sincere faith see it differently.

Agreed. I don’t go around telling them that they are in the wrong church or have heretical beliefs.

[SIGN]If scripture were “enough”, then it would say this of itself, and Jesus would not have gone to the trouble to establish a Church, and train the Apostles to administer it. [/SIGN]

I believe Paul disagrees with you.

2Ti 3:15 “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

There are many reasons Jesus started His church. The Bible is full of the teaching that we need each other to help support each other in correct life practices; we were NOT created to be alone. We are created in God’s image and there seems to be a degree of ‘fellowship’ withing the GodHead. When one stubbles, others are there to pick them up, etc.

You see this in scripture because you read it through the lenses of the doctrine you have already received. Others, who reject the teachings of the Apostles on Trinity, understand it differently.

Correct. That doesn’t make what I believe incorrect. My presuppositions could be correct just as they could be incorrect.

Let’s be fair and honest. Your statement to me could be said to you as well.

 

[Dokimas]

This is a very important point, Doki. Yes, we all have the HS, if we have been sealed by Him. Yet, our spiritual perceptions and abilities are indeed hampered by self, sin, levels of learning and levels of understanding. To prevent distortion, God gave the HS to the Church …

The church IS people. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter and Helper for people. People, people, people.

 

[Dokimas]

This is why it is so important to recognize that Jesus identifies Himself entirely with His Holy Bride, the Church. She is infallible because He is her Head, and the Holy Spirit is her Soul.

Agreed. Where we ‘part ways’ in what Jesus meant by ‘My church’.

 

[schaick]

Hey Shaick…

Again, please, don’t give me your interpretation and call it good, for this does not settle the dispute for those, who’s interpretation, disagrees with yours or mine. If interpreting the bible is not rocket science, as you have suggested, then please, using sola scriptura, settle the dispute regarding the correct interpretation and application of - This is my body versus, this is a symbol of my body, once and for all? If you cannot, then sola scriptura is ineffectual as the Christians final authority.

A necessary corollary of the practice of sola scriptura is the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the holy bible. If I am wrong then please correct me, and illustrate exactly what is the necessary corollary of the practice of sola scriptura?

Regarding SS, each individual has the final prerogative to decide for him/herself what the correct interpretation of a given passage, (eg this is a symbol of my body) - of scripture means, irrespective of what anyone else says. If anyone can authoritatively dictate to another, (such as the leadership of a particular church) - the meaning of a certain teaching found in the bible, then scripture would not be his/her sole authority, logically speaking. Something one else would have binding authority, negating the bible alone as the Christians only authority, altogether. Therefore, according to the practice of sola scriptura, any role an authoritative body, bible commentaries, or anyone or anything else outside the sphere of Sola scriptura, that may influence theology in a persons life, is nothing more than an attempt to nudge or suggest an accurate interpretation or to provide evidence to the another as he/she makes his/her own authoritative decision, as you have so aptly demonstrated. Each individual Christian is therefore, put in the position of being his own theologian.

No single person or group of people are the final authroities in interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture is the only final authority. Any interpretation must be backed up with Bible verse and can not contradict any part of the Bible Old or New Testament.

Bible interpretes scripture.

With that said, how is the world to know objectively, with certainty, the truth regarding any one doctrine, such as the Eucharist, when, as you say, * “trying to pry out of my friend” *

 

[memo42]

Rightlydivide or any other SS advocate, let’s assume that you are right and I am wrong. Let’s assume that the inspired word of God (bible alone) - is the sole source of truth and the Christians only authority regarding faith and morals, and everything and anything outside the purview of sacred scripture is extraneous at best.

With that said, surely God left the world with an inspired interpreter for His inspired word.

Can you please identify the inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God?

The Holy Spirit acting through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[schaick]

The RCC doctrine goes beyond real presence. Transubstantiation includes many extra things including that only an RCC priest can perform this at a specific time with specific wording.

Once transubstantiated the wafer continues to be Jesus and thus can be worshipped.

Schaik, is this what you believe Scripture shows? I believe that is why some just go with symbolic.

It is the power of the Holy Spirit that consecrates the Eucharist not the Priest.

No we are told to consume, not worship the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The visual man-made bread and wine remans present so it is way too close to idol worship.

I understand it is not idol worship in the Catholic mind but Catholics are doing themselves an injustice by some of their actions.

The bread and fruit of the vine remain the same. The Body and Blood of Christ is in, under and with the bread and fruit of the vine.

Real Presence can be supported in Scripture if it ends with the bread and wine consummed by the believer. Paul said the bread we eat and the wine we drink is the body and blood of Jesus. They are received in faith by wisdom revealed in Scripture. I can remain true to Scripture and receive the real presence of Jesus in communion.

Yes, Real Presence is absolutely supported by Scripture.

What I believe to be different applications [what we don’t know for certain] of that one interpretation:

is whether the Body and Blood is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ,
or the human flesh and blood of Christ,
or the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ,
or all of the above

 

[schaick]

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote? Or do you really believe that all of God’s Word is confined to the Scriptures?

All of Catholic Teaching is based on God’s Word. It was deposited by Jesus, and by the HS through the Apostles once for all to the Church. That Church then reproduced some of God’s Word in writing, and three centuries later, closed the canon of the Bible, based upon that same Word of God alive and well in the Church.

You see, Catholics believe that God is able to preserve His Word, no matter where He places it - in the Church, or in the Scriptures.

I agree, it is not rocket science. One can easily understand the Scriptures if they are read within their context, which is the Catholic Church.

And would that include understanding it according to the faith of those who wrote it? They were Catholics, writing to other Catholics about Catholicism.

Absolutely. We believe that the public revelation of God about Himself was completed at the death of the last Apostle. At that time, the complete deposit of faith was committed once for all to the Church.

Before the canon was closed in 382, over 400 written works were examined by the Church in the light of Sacred Tradition. Of those, 27 were included in the NT.

The written Word is the only Word that we have that we can verify.

Did you read my other post about what tradition is as mentoned in Scripture:

*Blue Letter Bible: the word and how it is used:
Here is the page that shows all the times that word is used in the Bible.

blueletterbible.org/lang/…gs=G3862&t=KJV

g3862 παράδοσις paradosis

1. giving up, giving over
   a) the act of giving up
   b) the surrender of cities
2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
   a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
   b) of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Notice that there was a gap of hundeds of years from the time the Bible was written until the time the Catholic Church took up some it’s more recent traditions, the Mary dogmas, Pope infallibility, indulgences, even that there is a Sacred Tradition, etc… *

The early Church knew and used what Gospel writtings before they were placed into canon. It is because of their use by all the early Church that they were placed into canon
a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
b) of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Notice that there was a gap of hundeds of years from the time the Bible was written until the time the Catholic Church took up some it’s more recent traditions, the Mary dogmas, Pope infallibility, indulgences, even that there is a Sacred Tradition, etc…

The** early Church Jesus built** knew and used Gospel writings before they were placed into canon by the Catholic Church. It is because of their use by all the early Church that they were placed into canon

 

[schaick]

Just as this is important to each and every isolated, autonomous PC, it is important to the isolated autonomous CC.

Could you please give me the name of the churches that existed prior to the CC? For example, I can give you the name of each and every church, post protestant reformation, and who founded it, and when, so please do the same regarding each and every church that preceded the CC and provide the name of the person that founded it, and when that person founded it? Thanks.

The Church Jesus built has morphed into what we have today multiple denomintaions with the Catholic Church being just one more denomination.

To the CC, the PC’s have diluted the Gospel and shifted the focus away from being Jesus centered by introducing other doctrines not confirmed by Scripture. This tactic gets us nowhere fast.

Interesting statement- shifting away from Jesus is exactly what Christians believe the Catholic Church has done.

Quite the contrary. Paul, in Hebrews, tells us to obey and submit to the authority of the church leadership: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

…

A very intersting study is the way binding and loosing was used by the Jews, what exactly it means.

In effect GOD/Jesus gave the authority to the disciples to bind and loose what GOD has already bound and loosed.

No authority figure can allow anything that God has not already allowed- idol worship for example. The reverse- if GOD has allowed something- man can not say it is not allowed.

 

[guanophore]

The only part of us not saved in this life is our flesh. Since we are spirit, soul, and body; our spirit is born again, saved, our soul is saved but needs renewing, but our flesh contains sin and must die to be renewed at the resurrection or changed if we are alive when Jesus returns.

This statement represents several significant departures from the Apostolic faith. One is that being born again equates to salvation, which it does not. The second is that the soul contains as much sin (if not more) as the body. Both the body and soul suffer from the sin nature.

Third, there is no reason that the body must die in order to be changed. Jesus made this clear with the taking up into heaven of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.

This is taught by Paul, by Peter, by John in their letters. Which apostles do you refer to?

No, this is not taught by the Apostles. It seems to you like it is, because you are suffering from a deficient perception of the Apostolic faith. One must ignore 2000 years of Apostolic Teaching, as well as many of the Scriptures, to hold to such a view.

The Jehovah’s witnesses think the Scripture Teaches that Jesus is not God, also. They see it this way because they read the scriptures through their doctrinal lens, which denies some of the facts.

 

[guanophore]

Both are intended to have someone take action. A command generally is short and to the point without much communication. An exhortation is generally a more in depth communication urging some action. I see Paul’s use of the verses before as qualifying as more in depth and therefore I see it as an exhortation.

Ok, for the sake of the discussion, I will stipulate to the difference as you have defined it. So, does this mean the Apostle is exhorting the believers to engage in an activity that he considers optional?

Is the Word of God delivered to the Church by word of mouth less valuable than what was written?

What strikes you from my simple statement is that I believe it is optional? Paul is urging them as a father urges a child; rather than as a general commanding troops. I guess I pointed this out to highlight the fact that Scripture study is not just picking out a verse to throw at someone but embracing the context.

The context is the Catholic Church, which produced the Scriptures. The Catholic Church has followed this apostolic command (or exhortation if you will) to preserve the Word of God both by word of mouth, and in writing. We don’t believe the Apostle would exhort the Church to hold fast the the traditions if they were merely human customs.

Where is sacred tradition found today? Where is tradition found today?

The same place it has always been found since God placed it there, in the Catholic Church.

I would like to read sacred tradition like I can read the Scriptures. Where do I find it?

A good summary is in the catechism of the catholic church, which you can find online. However, sacred tradition is a lifestyle (in the NT called The Way) which encompasses a particulare world view. It is the lens through which we understand the Scriptures. It is very difficult to reduce Sacred Tradition to words. It contains the Teachings of the Apostles that were not committted to the NT, such as Liturgy and prayers.

 

[guanophore]

Here's why it seems blind:

You believe sacred tradion is as inspired as the Bible. Correct? Then you follow it even though you my disagree with what it teaches – or you won’t allow yourself to question it at all. Correct?

Yes, the Sacred Tradition and the Scripture are both the Word of God, and since they come frome the HS, are both inspired and inerrant.

Questioning needs to be understood as the difference between Zechariah’s questioning of Gabriel as compared to Mary’s. Mary recieved the angelic message with faith, though she did not understand how He was going to make it happen. Ol’ Zachy did not, and questioned the angel from a framework of doubt, not faith.

In the same way, we approach that we don;t understand, whether in Scripture, or Sacred Tradition, as the Word of God. Therefore, if we don’t understand it, or have trouble accepting it, it is because of our lack, or fault, not fault in the Message. Our faith seeks undertstanding, as we strive to be obedient to that which may not make sense to our limited minds. Just as Abraham went forth to seek God’s will, not knowing what would happen, we are on the journey in a state of unknowing obedience.

You believe the Magisterium (I hope I spelled that correctly - no disrespect intended) is as inspired as the Bible.

Good for you, Doki! I don’t think you would have spelled that correctly when you first arrived here.

But no, while the Magesterium stands in the shoes of the Apostles, that does not make them infallible. The Teaching of the church, which God preserved through them, is infallible. This does not make them impeccable.

What we believe is that God is able to preserve His Word where He puts it. We believe He is stronger than the failings of men,a nd that He can even speak through the mouth of a donkey.

Then you follow it even though you my disagree with what it teaches – or you won’t allow yourself to question it at all. Correct?

Well, most American Catholics respond to the teaching of the Church like "Ol Zachy, with disobedient doubt. They disagree, and reject that it is the Word of God. Most of them don’t even pursue their questions to find out why they disagree, and they persist in ignorance. For example, most American Catholics that use birth control think that the Church is “behind the times” and have never read the Papal Theology of the Body, explaining why the Church believes and teaches as she does.

The proper approach to questions is to assume that the Scriptures and the Teaching of the Church are correct, since they originate from the HS, and that it is my understanding or heart of rebellion that needs to change to adapt to them. Ol’ Zachy did this, and nine months later, his “tongue was loosened”. This is how faith seeks understanding.

There are two kinds of questions. One is seeking information, which is how Mary questioned Gabriel. The other “questioning” (the one I think you may be referring) is really an act of rebellion and disobedience. It is not really seeking understanding, but rather, saying “I don’t like that” or “I don’t want that”. In Zack’s case, it was a way of saying “you can’t do that - we are too old!”.

 

[guanophore]

Agreed. I don’t go around telling them that they are in the wrong church or have heretical beliefs.

It is a sign of your humility that you realize that you are not infallible.

The Catholic Church, however, was given the gift of infallibility in order to protect the flock from error and heresy. Peter was given the sacred duty to feed and care for the flock, and Jesus has ensured that it would be pure food by protecting His Word where He placed it in the Church. It is the duty of the Church to identify error and heresy, and teach this to the faithful, so they will not be led astray. To many, this seems arrogant.

[SIGN]If scripture were “enough”, then it would say this of itself, and Jesus would not have gone to the trouble to establish a Church, and train the Apostles to administer it. [/SIGN]

I believe Paul disagrees with you.

2Ti 3:15 “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

No, Paul is the one who wrote of the authority present in the Apostolic succession, and wrote about the necessity of the Church founded by Christ. It is he who identified that Scripture is profitable in the hands of those gifted and authorized by God to build up the saints in the Church.

Besides, Paul here is referring to the Septuagint. There is not a Christian alive today that would claim they can live an authentic Christian life without the NT (it had not been written yet).

The Scriptures do lead us to Christ. Jesus founded a Church to show us how to live in Him after we have come.

There are many reasons Jesus started His church. The Bible is full of the teaching that we need each other to help support each other in correct life practices; we were NOT created to be alone. We are created in God’s image and there seems to be a degree of ‘fellowship’ withing the GodHead. When one stubbles, others are there to pick them up, etc.

Yes, but who decides which one has stumbled and needs picked up, since both parties have sincerely read the same scripture, and come to opposite conclusions? What you are proposing is that Jesus left His Bride in a condition where she could not know the Truth.

Correct.  That doesn't make what I believe incorrect.  My presuppositions could be correct just as they could be incorrect.

Whenever any of us start with pre-suppositions that are a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught, then we will arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

Let’s be fair and honest. Your statement to me could be said to you as well.

Exactly! (I was hoping you would notice that ). Catholics (those who are true to the faith, that is) read scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition, so that we can understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it.

 

[guanophore]

The church IS people. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter and Helper for people. People, people, people.

Yes, the Church contains people, but if that is the only definition of “Church”, then it is grossly deficient. The Church has "Christ as her Head, and the HS as her Soul. It is these divine elements that preserve her from error, not the fallible people who are joined to her. You seem to be suggesting that, since the Church has people in it, that it is capable of error, but this is not the case. People err, but the divine elements of the Church prevent error in the Church. I think it is difficult, due to many centuries of deficient understanding of the nature of the Church, for many of my separated brethren to be able to perceive the Bride as a separated entity, to which fallible men can be joined, and separated from…

Agreed. Where we ‘part ways’ in what Jesus meant by ‘My church’.

Yes. Your spiritual ancestors had to jettison the Apostolic Teaching on the nature of the Church, in order to justify their separation from those Jesus appointed in authority over it. This rejection has been persisting for 500 years, and is part of the cause of the splintering of the Body.

 

[guanophore]

No single person or group of people are the final authroities in interpretation of Scripture.

This is a man made tradition that comes out of the Reformation. It denies the authority appointed by Christ to shepherd the Church. On the contrary, the Apostles were clear that Jesus had given them the authority to interpret the Scriptures, and they passed this on to their successors, the Bishops. The bishops during the Reformation in Europe were corrupt individuals, and in order to separate themselves from the corruption, the Reformers invented this concept so that they could support altering the Apostolic doctrines.

Scripture is the only final authority. Any interpretation must be backed up with Bible verse and can not contradict any part of the Bible Old or New Testament.

This is another succinct summary of the man made tradition that nullifies the commandments of God.

On the contrary, the Scripture cannot be a “final authority” since authority is something that is exercised by persons, not books, however Holy. The exercise of final authority requires acts of the will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. These characteristics beling to persons, not writings. This is why SS has splintered the Church. The Reformers attempted to squash scripture into a role it was never intented to play, and it the process, inadvertantly made THEMSELVES the final authorities.

Bible interpretes scripture.

Certainly I would stipulate that Scripture sheds light on how other Scripture is to be interepreted. But again, interpretation is an activity that is conducted by persons, not writings.

No if in fact what you are calling an interpretation is simply an application, then **we are all much closer to being that one true Church that Jesus built. **

The Apostles taught that we were all to be of the SAME MIND. That means, interpretations and applications must all be consistent with the ONE FAITH that was held and taught by the Apostles. Obviously, someone has departed from that, since we all hold contradicitory beliefs.

We know that our interpretation is correct because we have evidence from Bible verses to back it up.

Yes, of course! Those who have justified that Jesus is not God, that there is no Trinity, that slavery and the subjugation of women is from God, etc, etc. Anyone can find and use evidence from “Bible verses to back it up”.

Does my friend?  I can't see it in any Bible verses- are we missing something?  We have to ask.  Is my friends arguement for symbolic only supported by **any** Bible verse?

It is difficult to see things when one has blinders on. Anti-Catholic blinders can be amazingly effective in preventing one from seeing the doctrines of Catholicism in scripture.

Yes, as I said, I think Bible verses can be produced that will support just about anything.

Most important point:

If we can be shown by my friend that there is a Biblical support for the symbolic only then that action is no longer an interpretation but an application of the one interpretation.

Well, if you wish to entertain this fantasy in your world, that is your perogative, of course. The writers of the NT had a meaning in mind when the Scripture was penned. If you wish to depart from the faith they embraced, you are free to do so.

I will continue to pray for you, and commend your soul to God.

 

[guanophore]

It is the power of the Holy Spirit that consecrates the Eucharist not the Priest.

The two are not separated from one another. Jesus commanded them “do this” (make this sacrifice). The HS works through people to accomplish the infallible acts of God.

No **we are told to consume**, not worship the Real Presence in the Eucharist.  The visual man-made bread and wine remans present so it is way too close to idol worship.

I could see how it would seem this way to a person who did not really accept the words of Jesus. If it is not really His Body and Blood, and really only bread and wine, then it is, of course, idol worship.

I understand it is not idol worship in the Catholic mind but Catholics are doing themselves an injustice by some of their actions.

I agree with you here. I think the majority of American Catholics receive the Body and Blood in an unworthy manner, bringing condemnation upon themselves. It hink that is why the Church is so sick today.

The bread and fruit of the vine remain the same. The Body and Blood of Christ is in, under and with the bread and fruit of the vine.

This is not what the Apostles believed and taught. They believed it became the Body and Blood. In fact, what you are saying here constitutes one of the earliest heresies in the Church.

What I believe to be different applications [what we don’t know for certain] of that one interpretation:

is whether the Body and Blood is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ,
or the human flesh and blood of Christ,
or the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ,
or all of the above

But Catholics do know for certain, since we have followed the Apostolic command to preserve the Traditions.

 

[Dokimas]

It is a sign of your humility that you realize that you are not infallible.

Forgive me for correcting you so soon in your post but it’s not humility just reality.

The Catholic Church, however, was given the gift of infallibility in order to protect the flock from error and heresy. Peter was given the sacred duty to feed and care for the flock, and Jesus has ensured that it would be pure food by protecting His Word where He placed it in the Church. It is the duty of the Church to identify error and heresy, and teach this to the faithful, so they will not be led astray. To many, this seems arrogant.

It’s not the truth that is arrogant, it’s how truth is shared. That being said, I’m not convinced that all you believe is 100% accurate (teachings of the CC).

No, Paul is the one who wrote of the authority present in the Apostolic succession, and wrote about the necessity of the Church founded by Christ. It is he who identified that Scripture is profitable in the hands of those gifted and authorized by God to build up the saints in the Church.

The church is necessary. That’s not my point. The Scripture is profitable and need to be in the ‘hands’ of gifted people. That’s not at issue here, IMO. The ‘job’ of God’s authorized teachers is to build up all saints (true believers). Again, not the issue of my comment.

Besides, Paul here is referring to the Septuagint. There is not a Christian alive today that would claim they can live an authentic Christian life without the NT (it had not been written yet).

Unless you’re saying the NT is less inspired than the OT, then your point makes no sense, IMO.

The Scriptures do lead us to Christ. Jesus founded a Church to show us how to live in Him after we have come.

Then what’s your problem with the original statement?

Yes, but who decides which one has stumbled and needs picked up, since both parties have sincerely read the same scripture, and come to opposite conclusions? What you are proposing is that Jesus left His Bride in a condition where she could not know the Truth.

This doesn’t make sense to me.

Whenever any of us start with pre-suppositions that are a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught, then we will arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

And there’s no chance that some of the teachings of the CC is different than the truths of the 1st century apostles. Correct? Quite an understanding.

Exactly! (I was hoping you would notice that ). Catholics (those who are true to the faith, that is) read scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition, so that we can understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it.

So ‘your’ ST is equal with the Bible? Interesting.

 

[guanophore]

 **The written Word is the only Word that we have that we can verify.**

This statement sums up well the mind of the Reformers, when they rejected the Word of God that had been deposited in the church. They thought that the corruption of the clerics whose lives were a disgrace nullified the Word of God of which they had been given custody. Unfortunately, they did not realize that, though men are always in need of Reform, the doctrine of the Apostles cannot be “reformed” without departing from it.

Did you read my other post about what tradition is as mentoned in Scripture:

*Blue Letter Bible: the word and how it is used:
Here is the page that shows all the times that word is used in the Bible.

blueletterbible.org/lang/…gs=G3862&t=KJV*

g3862 παράδοσις paradosis

1. giving up, giving over
   a) the act of giving up
   b) the surrender of cities
2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
   a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
   b) of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Notice that there was a gap of hundeds of years from the time the Bible was written until the time the Catholic Church took up some it’s more recent traditions, the Mary dogmas, Pope infallibility, indulgences, even that there is a Sacred Tradition, etc…

The paradosis, shaick, is what the HS preserves infallible in the Church. Notice how there were many centuries between when the NT books were written and the Bible was formed in 382 AD? The passage of time is of no concern to the HS, who transcends time and space. The Scriptures were inspired when they were written, just as the Sacred Tradition was the Word of God when it was committed once for all tot he saints. These are not “recent traditions” as you presume. They are truths that have been passed down to the Church from the Apostles. As all doctrine, it does not need to be dogmatized or proclaimed (defined) unless and until there were heresies. For example, the Church gave Mary the title Theotokos centruries after Jesus’ birth. This was not a “recent tradition” but she was Theotokos from the moment of His conception in her. The Church declared this dogma centuries later to fight heresies.

This is the case for all the proclamations of the church. She defines and pronounces that which the Church has always believed, so that there will be clarity about what belongs to the Apostolic Faith, and what is heresy.

The early Church knew and used what Gospel writtings before they were placed into canon. It is because of their use by all the early Church that they were placed into canon

Exactly, just like infallibility and the Marian doctrines were true before they were defined by the Church. For example, the Trinity was always the Trinity, before the Church came up with the word now used to describe it.