Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say)

Monergism.com ^ | 12/17/2012 | William Webster

[RnMomof7]

This explains the false doctrine that has entered Rome’s teachings

[fishtank]

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.

Period.

End of story.

I lived in their “traditions” for a looong time.

No more.

[RnMomof7]

This explains where things like the assumption come from... and the sheeple all BAAAAAAAA

[JCBreckenridge]

“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.

[JCBreckenridge]

“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?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

ping

[wideawake]

This explains the false doctrine that has entered Rome’s teachings

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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

ping

[metmom]

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.

*It's true because we said so*?

That's a nice little set up.

[RnMomof7]

*It's true because we said so*?
That's a nice little set up.

Yea its all that unbiblical papal "infallibility "

[RitaOK]

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.

[Elsie]

*It's true because we said so*?

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.

[RnMomof7]

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?

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 (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10

[Elsie]

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.)

I rest my case!

[Elsie]

The Church has known treachery and betrayal, jealousy and slander since the beginning.

HMMmm...

[JCBreckenridge]

“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. :)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

'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:

• Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,
• the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;
• the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;
• the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);
• the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;'

- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

[RnMomof7]

God, help me stand. Saint Michael, defend us in battle.

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

"The apostolic traditions were codified in writing in the New Testament."

Where in the New Testament does it say which books should be included in the New Testament and which should be excluded?