Posted on 11/01/2009 3:53:11 AM PST by GonzoII
I’m careful.
“It will be readily understood that in some circumstances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightened piety.”
This is the seed argument...it was there as a seed, unseen or barely noticed, but grew into a tree that made it so obvious it became dogma - “an extraordinary infallible statement published by a pope or an ecumenical council concerning a matter of faith or morals, the belief in which the Catholic Church requires of all Christians” (Wiki)
According to Catholic teaching, I’m required, if Christian, to accept something that was not taught by the Apostles. “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God” - so, how far ahead do you have to get before you cease to be a true church?
The Catholic Church has pretty much stopped pretending that its tradition is one passed down from the Apostles. That was Cardinal Newman’s contribution:
“I have already spoken on this subject, and from a very different point of view from that which I am taking at present:—
“Prophets or Doctors are the interpreters of the revelation; they unfold and define its mysteries, they illuminate its documents, they harmonize its contents, they apply its promises. Their teaching is a vast system, not to be comprised in a few sentences, not to be embodied in one code or treatise, but consisting of a certain body of Truth, pervading the Church like an atmosphere, irregular in its shape from its very profusion and exuberance; at times separate only in idea from Episcopal Tradition, yet at times melting away into legend and fable; partly written, partly unwritten, partly the interpretation, partly the supplement of Scripture, partly preserved in intellectual expressions, partly latent in the spirit and temper of Christians; poured to and fro in closets and upon the housetops, in liturgies, in controversial works, in obscure fragments, in sermons, in popular prejudices, in local {77} customs. This I call Prophetical Tradition, existing primarily in the bosom of the Church itself, and recorded in such measure as Providence has determined in the writings of eminent men. Keep that which is committed to thy charge, is St. Paul’s injunction to Timothy; and for this reason, because from its vastness and indefiniteness it is especially exposed to corruption, if the Church fails in vigilance. This is that body of teaching which is offered to all Christians even at the present day, though in various forms and measures of truth, in different parts of Christendom, partly being a comment, partly an addition upon the articles of the Creed.” [Note 6]
If this be true, certainly some rule is necessary for arranging and authenticating these various expressions and results of Christian doctrine. No one will maintain that all points of belief are of equal importance. “There are what may be called minor points, which we may hold to be true without imposing them as necessary;” “there are greater truths and lesser truths, points which it is necessary, and points which it is pious to believe.” [Note 7] The simple question is, How are we to discriminate the greater from the less, the true from the false.”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter2.html#section2
Au contrair, we disagree.
If you look to Protestantism and what it has lost without Holy Tradition you find the Real Presence, the Holy Eucharist, the Communion of Saints along with, often, accurate Christology.
If you wish to judge the cost and benefit of Holy Tradition, I think these costs in its absence are immeasurable.
I think your list of what one loses without ‘Sacred Tradition’ is a bit brief, but I thank you for agreeing that they are not found in scripture, unless read in to it.
It wasn’t a complete list, though it has immense implications for Christianity. If you add “God” as taught by Calvin, well, quantity is overwhelmed by quality.
The Communion of Saints and the Real Presence are in scripture. They are an example of very important things lost by Protestantism - an example of how scripture alone does not work.
I would suggest the interpreter has never been infallible as is shown in scripture. Peter, James and others were rebuked by Paul for being led astray. Paul and Barnabas got into an argument and so they parted company for a time. Apollos was teaching a "different" gospel, one that wasn't bad but wasn't quite correct. Paul didn't want anything to do with Mark but had a change of heart.
People are fallible as is illustrated by the different interpretation of the gospel. The Corinthians held some strange pagan beliefs mixed with their Christianity. The Galatians held to a strict form of Judaism and were condemned for it. Even within the early second and third century eastern and western church there arose fundamental doctrinal differences.
People are fallible as well as their interpretation. The only thing that has ever remained constant are the scripture. We trust in God to guide our steps to that true and correct path. He leads us besides still waters-not us.
Where you believe God guides through impersonal committees, I believe God guides us individually. Yet isn't this inconsistent with God appearing before saints, directing them to do miracles that have been recognized by the Church over the centuries? Why wouldn't He just speak through the Church cardinals?
No, dear Alex, it doesn’t hurt. It further refutes the “Catholics don’t read the Bible” because it shows that our Church leaders are encouraging us to read it. Not just encouraging us, but exhorting us. Another myth about Catholics blown: people claim our Church doesn’t want us to know the Bible.
That is another falsehood.
Our Church has studied the Bible more deeply and longer than any other Church. The wealth of that study and knowledge (thousands of years worth!) is ours for the asking. That’s pretty thrilling.
I too, a Catholic, have read all of Leviticus and Numbers several times also. I doubt many Christians read them more than once or twice. Once you’ve read them, you’ve learned what’s important about them in terms of God’s relationship with His Chosen People. There’s no need to read them over and over like other parts of the Bible. Catholic Bibles include them, of course. I said throw them out of the statistics since many Christians rarely read them, Catholic or not.
Catholics have not thrown ANY of the Bible away, unlike some other denominations. Our Bible is complete. This was my point: Catholics probably are studying as much of the Bible as many other Christians. Most Christians focus quite a bit of the their study on the New Testament, and a nominal Catholic will hear 40.8% of the New Testament and 3.7% of the Old Testament just by attending weekly Mass.
My statement stands: Catholics read the Bible and anyone who says otherwise is promoting a falsehood.
I assert that Catholics not only read the Bible, but we have two thousand years of scholarly and saintly study of the Bible at our disposal. We are The beneficiaries of Aquinas, Augustine, and all the Doctors of the Church. All that knowledge of the Bible is available to us— and many of us make use of it daily!
Of course, I understand that some people would rather have the Bible explained to them by Billy Bob who got religion a couple of years ago and is full of zeal. More power to Billy Bob and the people who want to study the Bible using his methods.
But Billy Bob and his followers have no right to criticize Catholics. We love the Bible, Christ, and the Church as much as they do.
“It’s that Meal that’s at the center of it and the main reason we go.”
So right,GonzoII! Christ never told His apostles to spend x amount of time studying scripture, but He did tell them to celebrate that sacrificial meal!
I’m glad Catholics have everything in the proper perspective! The Eucharist is the key.
Yes, that's the mental block isn't it? That this is some form of novelty. You will find nothing in Scripture or in any of the apostolic writings which contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and you will find significant evidence to support it.
Firstly, the angel's salutation to Mary recorded in Luke's Gospel as "full of grace" is one such example, the term "full of grace" being understood to mean a unique, supernatural state of soul. The writings of Justin, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem among others of the early Church fathers all developed this theme and it has been addressed by many other saints of the Church down through the centuries.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God” - so, how far ahead do you have to get before you cease to be a true church?
The Catholic Church being built on the Rock, Peter and being the recipient of those promises given to Peter will never cease to be a true Church for it is the Mystical Body of Christ.
As always, these discussions inevitably founder on the issue of authority and the promises Christ made to His Church to keep it free from error.
Those promises do not apply to individuals of course, hence the quote you supplied refers to "anyone". Individuals have and continue to apostatize. The authority of the Church gives it the power to "bind and loose" as Christ promised Peter.
As for "how far ahead do you have to get before you cease to be a true Church", well there is only one true Church. "There is one God, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians).
Ergo all Churches bar one are in error to some degree.
However, Scripture was written by these same "fallible men" and yet we say "Scripture is infallible". When Paul, John, Matthew, Peter et al., were writing the works which came to be included in the New Testament, their "fallibility" must have put on hold so to speak, as the Holy Spirit inspired them, right?
We could also say the same thing about the process by which the Canon of Scripture came to be assembled in the early Church, couldn't we? It was all accomplished by "fallible men". Yet we say it's "infallible"
So could we not say that in regard to Scripture, God's providence has allowed fallible men to provide us with an infallible work.
My question therefore is this; why should that gift of "infallibility" extend only to the writing and assembly of Scripture and not to its interpretation and transmission?
Nothing to contradict it except the verses saying all had sinned...
You also need to study the full of grace passage a bit harder...it means God had given her grace at some point (no idea how long is conveyed) and it still existed at the time the angel spoke. It did NOT in any way suggest she was always without sin, just as the same grammar in the previous verses didn’t indicate she had always been betrothed to Joseph!
The error of Catholics in reading about the church in the NT is to assume ‘church’ refers to the ecclesiastical structure that is the Catholic Church. That is why Thomas More was upset with Tyndale’s better translation of ‘congregation’ - it robbed Rome of authority. That is also why King James ordered it not to be used in the KJV - to protect the Anglican Church, which in turn protected his throne.
However, the NT church had congregations with deacons and elders. The Apostles, by their office, held a unique role over ANY congregation, and also in writing scripture.
Read Exodus 28-29 to see how God ordained the Aaronical Priesthood. Why be so specific about Aaron, and give nothing specific to Peter?
|
www.catholicnewsagency.com
Thirty-first Week in Ordinary Time
November 3, 2009
Psalter: Week III
Color: Green
Saints:
Daily Readings:
|
The Church has actually been studying this passage very hard for 2,000 years. There's no need for me to study anything "harder". It's not a personal thing. This is the collective wisdom of saints, Popes, theologians and doctors of the Church. That's why tradition trumps some guy in a suit who's done a "course" on Scripture.
Dismiss it at your peril.
The error of Catholics in reading about the church in the NT is to assume ‘church’ refers to the ecclesiastical structure that is the Catholic Church.
The "church in the NT" is the Catholic Church in its infancy. The term "catholic" was first used by Ignatius of Antioch when referring to the growing church. It goes back a long way.
The early church fathers viewed the scriptures as being divinely influenced. So much so they sorted the inspired word of God from those writings they deemed was not inspired, giving us the Bible. They knew what was true and what wasn't. The construction of the Bible was simply to do it now before time corrupted the work of God. Not surprisingly, the fathers never included their own works as inspired by God.
It is interesting that if anything in Church history should be considered infallible it would be the creeds of the Church. They draw on scripture but often do not contain scripture, to explain doctrinal positions of the Church. Therefore, if anything would be considered infallible in Church writings, I would think it would be the creeds.
However, some of the very earliest creeds, which were approved by the Church and handed down, seems to have holes in them. For example, the Nicene Creed is often argued between the Catholics and Orthodox about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or from the Father and Son. Catholics would have to say that the Nicene Creed is infallible but where does that leave the Orthodox? Is the Church about to say the Orthodox's interpretation is wrong? Are they willing to scrap the Nicene Creed?
If infallibility extends to interpretation in the early church, there is no evidence of it. In fact, quite the contrary. From the writings of the early fathers, in most cases they seem to draw their arguments directly from scripture. Everything else, was always viewed as suspect.
Check the charts below. By doing "nothing to practice his faith except attending Sunday and Daily Mass (and the few Holy Days), in two years' time (after which the reading cycle ends), a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 13.5% of the Old Testament (3378 verses), and in three years' time (after which the reading cycle ends) a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 71.5% of the New Testament (5689 verses). That all adds up to a total of 9067 out of 33001 verses mentioned in the chart, i.e. only 27.5% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by a daily-Mass-attending Catholic.Check the charts below, taken from the article itself. By doing "nothing to practice his faith except attending Sunday weekly Mass (and the few Holy Days), in two years' time (after which the reading cycle ends), a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 3.7% of the Old Testament (932 verses), and in three years' time (after which the reading cycle ends) a Mass-attending Catholic will hear 40.8% of the New Testament (3247 verses). That all adds up to a total of 4179 out of 33001 verses mentioned in the chart, i.e. only 12.7% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by a weekly-Mass-attending Catholic...
Obviously Protestants view Scripture differently than Roman Catholics who are taught they first must learn what Scripture means from the magisterium before reading it themselves.
It would then take a devout Catholic approx. 21.5 years to make it thru the bible...Not too bad considering...
It becomes clear that the fixed and reliably constant message of grace from the Scriptures was an unwelcome obstacle the Catholic Church could not tolerate. The manufacture of “Tradition eclipsing Scripture” was inevitable to facilitate morphing as the wind blows at headquarters.
Why would a Catholic argue against homosexuality, abortion or pedophilia? They can only say, “For now...” If Rome adopts these views, they would be compelled to embrace them as the new “living message”. Line up sheeple. Tragic.
What have you been smoking...!!
Exactly. I get told here all the time that they read the OT and Revelation plus all the rest. NOT.
Amen, Mr. Rogers. Where were your children from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.