Skip to comments.Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say)
Posted on 12/17/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
In the history of Roman Catholic dogma, one can trace an evolution in the theory of tradition. There were two fundamental patristic principles which governed the early Church's approach to dogma. The first was sola Scriptura in which the fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient. It was materially sufficient in that it was the only source of doctrine and truth and the ultimate authority in all doctrinal controversies. It was necessary that every teaching of the Church as it related to doctrine be proven from Scripture. Thomas Aquinas articulated this patristic view when he stated that canonical Scripture alone is the rule of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei). (1) Additionally, they taught that the essential truths of Scripture were perspicuous, that is, that they were clearly revealed in Scripture, so that, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone an individual could come to an understanding of the fundamental truths of salvation.
The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase 'the unanimous consent of the fathers.' This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers' doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (2) In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome's teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:
Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.(3)
At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachingsthe theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.(4)
The obvious problem with Newman's analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome's definition of development and Vincent's are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:
But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.(5)
First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent's criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, 'Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?'(6) Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.
But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.
In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.
From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome's teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as 'living tradition.' This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome's magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.(7)
This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living traditionwhatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce-whatever we say. Another illustration of this reality relates to the teaching of the Assumption of Mary from the French Roman Catholic historian, Joussard:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought-as some theologians still do today under one form or another-to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.(8)
The editors of the book which references these statements from Joussard offer the following editorial comments:
A word of caution is not impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the historian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical tradition on Mary's corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The conclusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be touched. The historian's mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition.(9)
The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition? Such a view is the complete antithesis of the teaching of Vincent of Lerins and the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. This is an apt illustration of the concept of living tradition. This new perspective on tradition is also well expressed by Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar. In light of the lack of historical support for a number of the Roman Catholic dogmas, Congar sets forth this new approach of living tradition:
In every age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. From the time when the patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact the Church's belief Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.(10)
Congar affirms that unanimous consent is the classical position in Roman theology. But he honestly admits that for all practical purposes it is nonexistent. It is a claim that has been asserted for centuries but lacking in actual documentary validation. As Congar says: 'In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare.' And he uses the fundamental passage for all of Rome's authority as an example, that being the rock passage of Matthew 16 in which he candidly admits that the present day Roman/papal interpretation of that passage contradicts that of the patristic age. But, according to Congar, the problem is really not a problem because it can be circumvented by a different understanding of consensus. The Fathers must be interpreted in light of present day teaching. Congar says: 'The Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life.' And by the Church and its life, he means the Church as it is today. He says: 'It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.' In other words, what matters is what the Church teaches now. That is the criterion of truth and Tradition because the Church is living and Tradition is living. He continues:
This instance shows too that we may not, at the doctrinal as distinct from the purely historical level, take the witnesses of Tradition in a purely material sense: they are to be weighed and valued. The plain material fact of agreement or disagreement, however extensive, does not allow us to speak of a consensus Patrum at the properly dogmatic level, for the authors studied in theology are only "Fathers" in the theological sense if they have in some way begotten the Church which follows them. Now, it may be, that the seed which will be most fruitful in the future is not the most clearly so at present, and that the lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance. Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room or a judgment made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.(11)
Note carefully the last two sentences of that paragraph. Congar postulates that in the future the Church could be teaching doctrines which are completely unheard of today and which will therefore not be able to be documented historically. As he puts it: 'The lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance.' Historical documentation must leave room for judgment that is not restricted to documentary evidence alone but transcends the historical record in light of the present day Church's faith. In other words, the truth of ecclesiastical history must be viewed through the lens of whatever the faith of the Church is at the present moment.
This in effect cuts the Church off from any kind of continuity as far as real documentation is concerned or accountability. It allows the Church to conveniently disregard the witness of history and Scripture in favor of a dynamic evolving teaching authority. History in effect becomes irrelevant and all talk of the unanimous consent of the fathers merely a relic of history. This brings us to the place where one's faith is placed blindly in the institution of the Church. Again, in reality Rome has abandoned the argument from history is arguing for the viva voce (living voice) of the contemporary teaching office of the Church (magisterium), which amounts to the essence of a carte blanche for whatever proves to be the current, prevailing sentiments of Rome. Never was this more blatantly admitted and expressed than it was by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892) who was one of the leading proponents for the definition of papal rule and infallibility at Vatican I. His words are the expression of sola ecclesia with a vengeance:
But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. . . . The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour (emphasis mine). (12)
So, in effect, the new teaching of tradition in Rome is no longer that of continuity with the past but living tradition, or viva voce - whatever we say. Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history. That blind submission is not too strong an allegation is seen from the official Roman teaching on saving faith. What Rome requires is what is technically referred to a dogmatic faith. This is faith which submits completely to whatever the Church of Rome officially defines as dogma and to refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation, for unless a Roman Catholic has dogmatic faith, he or she does not have saving faith. Rome's view is based on the presupposition that the Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible. She cannot err. But the presupposition is faulty. Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that she can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible. Her gospel is a repudiation of the biblical gospel.
This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisteriumthe embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.
(1) It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and others of this kind, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is his meaning when he says 'we know his testimony is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed. P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., Editio V revisa (Romae: Marietti E ditori Ltd., 1952) n. 2656, p. 488. Latin Text: Notandum autem, quod cum multi scriberent de catholica veritate, haec est differentia, quia illi, qui scripserunt canonicam Scripturam, sicut Evangelistic et Apostoli, et alii huiusmodi, ita constanter eam asserunt quod nihil dubitandum relinquunt. Et ideo dicit Et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius; Gal. I, 9: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit. Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei. Alii autem sic edisserunt de veritate, quod nolunt sibi credi nisi in his quae ver dicunt.
(2) Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicece and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series II, Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 2.4-6.
(3) Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.
(4) John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27. (5) Nicece and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series II, Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 23.54.
(6) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, Chapter XXIV.62.
(7) Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
(8) Joussard, L'Assomption coropelle, pp. 115-116. Cited by Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154.
(9) Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154.
(10) Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.
(11) Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.
(12) Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
This explains the false doctrine that has entered Rome’s teachings
The RCC needs to get with the program.
The apostolic traditions were codified in writing in the New Testament.
After that, there can be no valid additions.
End of story.
I lived in their “traditions” for a looong time.
This explains where things like the assumption come from... and the sheeple all BAAAAAAAA
“The first was sola Scriptura in which the fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient.”
Are you arguing that the magisterium has the ultimate authority to define the doctrine of the Church? If not, why would it matter which fathers?
Also, I’ll bite. Let’s see some patristic citations.
“If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!” The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith”
So what constitutes ‘canonical scripture’ according to St. Aquinas?
First, you have no objective standard by which to judge the truth or falsity of anyone's teachings. All you have is your personal interpretation of the Scriptures, which were given to you by means of the Church.
Second, the article hinges on the assumption that the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the Church - is a concept newly invented with John Henry Cardinal Newman, and that prior to his writings the Church believed that the only authentic teaching was based on patristic consensus.
This was not and has never been the case, as Paul himself clearly taught: the Church is "the pillar and ground of truth."
It is the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that authenticates the canon and approves the doctrine of the Fathers and Doctors, not the reverse.
Webster is arguing that the pre-Newman Church was effectively "Protestantism plus the Fathers" - which is a nonstarter as a position.
*It's true because we said so*?
That's a nice little set up.
Yea its all that unbiblical papal "infallibility "
Oh please. Not another big-me-little-you anti-Catholic thread. The Church is surrounded by wolves because she IS the Church. (That’s one of the reasons how I know I’m in the right place.)
The Church has known treachery and betrayal, jealousy and slander since the beginning. God the Father dealt with it in Heaven, thus, the fallen angels; Jesus had Judas, and the Church shall be tested with betrayal from the inside and the out, until He comes.
It is our lot to walk the Via Delerosa, every single step, as Christ suffered so shall we, on our way to the Cross encumbered by the sniping and worse.
God, help me stand. Saint Michael, defend us in battle.
That's a nice little set up.
Well; it's no WONDER that MORMONism is able to so easily entrap the followers of Rome; for they've already been pre-conditioned.
Historically the church always said that tradition came from the early church fathers that knew ot were taught by the apostles.... now it is from "whoever"
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.
- Augustine (354430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10
I rest my case!
“early church fathers that knew ot were taught by the apostles”
Did this apply to Thomas Aquinas? No? Then why is his opinion at all relevant?
You can’t get there from here. :)
'The Lutheran pastor and scholar, Charles Dickson, notes that the feast [of the Assumption] celebrated by the Church on August 15, dates from the forth century, when numerous festivals honoring our Lady were common practice. The history of Church feasts demonstrates that these celebrations grew from beliefs that existed long before the feasts themselves were formally inaugurated. Interestingly enough, the sixteenth-century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, included this feast on a list of liturgical celebrations that should, in his words, be observed among Evangelical Catholics as a sign of continuity and order.' - http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/assume.pdf
'the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:
How did an angel get to be a "saint"?
BTW Michael's assignment is to protect Israel, not Rome
Dan 10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.Dan 12:1"Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Where in the New Testament does it say which books should be included in the New Testament and which should be excluded?
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Churchwhich is, of course, quite a different thing."
"These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics adore statues; because they put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God; because they say indulgence is a permission to commit sin; because the Pope is a Fascist; because the Church is the defender of Capitalism. If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do."
"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates."
"My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness." - Archbishop Fulton Sheen
These anti-Catholic threads are posted for the benefit of the posters.Most are driven to continually assuage their guilt over leaving the Church. Although they deny it, it is a wound that does not heal so the posts continue unabated. In truth they do nothing but drive Catholics closer to their Church. All we can do is pray for them and ignore the insults.
Peace be with you
You may want to rethink Luthers thoughts on the assumption
He uses similar argumentation of Stravinskas and Cole, but with a twist: Luther must have held a lifelong belief in the Assumption because he never denied it. In my earlier post, I traced the popular notion that Luther simply affirmed the Assumption, even though never pronouncing on it clearly, and that this notion comes from a mis-reading of a footnote by Max Thurian. His argument is only slightly different but just as weak. I pointed out this faulty method of argumentation in part one, via this quote:
“But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ.” Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.
And it also explains how the faith was carried from then till now. It, the RCC, has not always been as apostate as it is now. They now try to retrofit and its not working with those who truly want to find truth.
Thanks for posting this RnMomof7
Could you supply a link to that letter?
My research shows St. John of Damascene in the 8th Century was the 1st to propose that
But that is not the RCC. Just because the RCC tries to usurp the title does not make it so.
Really.... lets see some proof of the teachings of the EARLY church fathers on the assumption and papal infallibility..?? How about on Peter being the pope.. lets see something from the 1st 50 years after Christ
It never ceases to surprise me how some allegedly former Catholics are so incredibly ignorant of Catholic teaching. It border upon the obtuse.
Saint is synonymous with holy (sanctus). Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans all refer to him as Saint Michael the Archangel and also simply as Saint Michael.
Peace be with you.
You may want to rethink Luthers thoughts on the assumption
He uses similar argumentation of Stravinskas and Cole, but with a twist: Luther must have held a lifelong belief in the Assumption because he never denied it. In my earlier post, I traced the popular notion that Luther simply affirmed the Assumption, even though never pronouncing on it clearly, and that this notion comes from a mis-reading of a footnote by Max Thurian. His argument is only slightly different but just as weak. I pointed out this faulty method of argumentation in part one
Nothing in your replay appears to address the text I posted.
Sorry, I can't. You could contact the Web site's editor.
Do they light candles and incense in front of statues? Do they face a statue and ask for blessings? Do they put statues in front of their homes, on their car dash for protection?
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
2Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
>>because they put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;<<
Lets take the prayer of Prayer of Pope Pius XII. [http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/qt/Honor_Immacula.htm]
Ill use just the bolded excerpts from the prayer.
we cast ourselves into your arms
1 Peter 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (When did we need to replace God with Mary?)
confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (once again Catholics replacing Christ with Mary)
O crystal fountain of faith
Romans 12:3 according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith." (but Mary is the fountain of faith for Catholics)
Lily of all holiness
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. (for Catholics however, all holiness is given to Mary)
Conqueress of evil and death
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (but Catholics claim it was Mary who conquered death)
Convert the wicked
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; (Catholics have even replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary)
The NT canon is very easy to understand:
Read some conservative evangelical scholarship for explanations of this.
Bruce Metzger has a good book on this.
Michael the archangel is not a saint because he never had to be sanctified.
He never fell into sin.
Thtat’s why we don’t call him saint.
I can only assume that is a rhetorical question that you do not want an accurate answer to since the hundreds of previous times your assertions have been rebutted have fallen upon deaf ears and the answers were contained within the quote I posted. Since it is clear to me that you do not want an answer you will not get an answer. You will get my pity and prayers.
Peace be with you.
St. Michael is called a Saint by Roman and Eastern Catholics, Coptics, Anglicans, Episcopals, and Lutherans, leaving you in a very distinct minority of those who call themselves Christians. That causes me to ask who exactly is "we"?
Peace be with you.
From the article I linked to
But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ." Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.
If we followed this method of argument, we could prove Luther believed in Santa or Bigfoot, simply because no evidence exists to prove he did not I think it's important to keep in mind, it seems Catholic apologists do not have any positive evidence to offer that Luther actually believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary. The closest they get is the 1522 quote, and this quote never affirms Mary's Bodily Assumption.
We can at least give this apologist credit for noting Luther's later disdain for the Feast of the Assumption. Catholic historian Thomas OMeara points out:
In 1544 the Assumption is abandoned as a feast; the Ascension of Christ alone is recognized: 'The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother about how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. (The Pope takes away veneration due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like in all things to the Son.)' "
Actually Id like to see scripture that show that Peter ever served in Rome. There is absolutely no record of Peter having ever been in Rome.
In the analogy we have three persons, lets call them John, Jim and Theo. John and Jim represent all men John represent those will go to heaven, which in this analogy is represented by going to the concert, of which a ticket, representing salvation, is required. Jim represents those who do not go to heaven while Theo represents God.
John and Jim are not aware of the concert they even cannot afford to buy ticket no matter how hard they work. Theo decided to send free ticket to John. John found the ticket inside his mail box it made him interested in the concert and therefore he goes to the concert. Jim did not receive free ticket he cannot go to the concert and remains unaware of the concert.
Protestants and Bible only Christians who follow Calvinism or Reformed theology are monergists.
John and Jim are not aware of the concert they even cannot afford to buy ticket no matter how hard they work. Theo took the initiative he offered free tickets to both John and Jim. John said he wanted to go to the concert and accepted the offer. Jim, on the other hand, said he is not interested in the concert and declined the offer.
Catholics, Protestants and Bible only Christians who follow Arminianism are synergists
John and Jim are aware of the concert but they cannot afford to buy ticket no matter how hard they work. John decided he wanted to go to the concert. Realizing he will never be able to buy the ticket, he contacted Theo for help Theo gave him free ticket. Jim, on the other hand, is not interested to go to concert and does not bother to contact Theo.
John and Jim are aware of the concert and they can afford to buy ticket, though they must work hard. John decided he wanted to go to the concert he has been working hard for it. Optionally he can ask Theo for help if he does Theo will give him money a gift from him (not a loan) and it can cover partial cost of the ticket. Jim, on the other hand, is not interested to go to concert and does not bother to do anything.
Pelagian and semi-Pelagian were condemned at Council of Orange in 529 AD.
St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle
Be our protection against the wickedness
and snares of the devil;
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
Cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl through the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Which apostle wrote Hebrews?
"Saints are not freaks or exceptions. They are the standard operating model for human beings. In fact, in the biblical sense of the word, all believers are saints. "Sanctity" means holiness. All men, women and children, born or unborn, beautiful or ugly, straight or gay, are holy, for they bear the image of God.
Saints are not the opposite of sinners. There are no opposites of sinners in this world. There are only saved sinners and unsaved sinners. Thus holy does not mean "sinless" but "set-apart:" called out of the world to the destiny of eternal ecstasy with God.
The road to sainthood begins at the grass-roots. Ordinary Christians, perhaps in a parish or a religious community, recognize that someone of extraordinary holiness has lived among them. The memory of that person inspires them. The story of his or her life is told, perhaps in a book. People pray to the person, asking intercession for some favor, and their prayers may be answered. Extraordinary signs, perhaps a cure from sickness, occur. A local group may be formed which seeks to make this person's life and gifts more widely known
This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about saints:
2683 The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints,share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things." Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.
A saint is one that has LIVED on this earth and is made holy by God, lived holy lives and are role models for our faith .. Angels do not fit that description
BTW i had a friend ask a Monsignor that question and his response was "thats a good question..i don't know..." Guess he must be a dumb catholic too
He will have to stop doing what God ordained Him to do... that is be the guardian of Israel
Rome is basically Semi Pelagianism....
No rhetorical question from me. God through His word in scripture clearly condemned the use of statues as idolatry.
Archangels and Guardian Angels
Angels are Awesome. But Please, Lets Have a More Biblical Understanding of the Them
Quis resistet Sancti Michaelis gladio? [on St. Michael the Archangel]
The Archangels - Michael, Gabriel and Raphael (from a homily by Pope Saint Gregory the Great)
Listst Every Catholic Should be Familiar With: The 9 Choirs of Angels
Angels bring us great help and consolation, Pope Benedict reminds
Who Is Like Unto God? (Fr. Euteneuer on Holy Michael the Archangel)
The Archangel Raphael
The Archangels and the Oceans
Explanation of the Prayer of Saint Michael [Father Robert J. Altier]
Act of Consecration to St Michael the Archangel (for the Feast of St Michael, September 29)
St. Gabriel Archangel
Feast Day of Michael,Gabriel and Raphael[Michael's Battle With The Dragon]
Saint Michael The Archangel
THE THREE ARCHANGELS: [St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael]
Feast of St. Michael the Archangel
St. Gabriel Archangel
Here is something between 1 and 50 I think...
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. Brothers, he said, listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 After this I will return
and rebuild Davids fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things[b]
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them.  [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
You'll have to ask the early church fathers this one; for THEY did all the research into which writings would be considered 'scripture'.
Question. This article repeatedly refers to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church. Why does it ignore the other 21 churches that form the One, Holy, Catholic Church?