Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

[MPaul]

In the thread "Was the Reformation a Mistake," started by Pfaffenhofen, I emphasized that to truly understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics, there has to be a foundational focus on how the Protestants uphold Scripture as the only ultimate authority, as compared to the Roman Catholic Church maintaining that Holy Tradition has divine authority at a level above Scripture. By agreement between myself and Pfaffenhofen, we will use this thread to set out how Protestants and the RCC represent these positions officially -- 1. or that is, from my side, I will do a series of posts quoting what the bible says about the bible, at times with minimal comment on what the verses mean; 2. from Pfaffenhofen's side, he will set out official statements from the RCC which assert the authority on Holy Tradition, but reliance on Catholic catechisms endorsed by the RCC is also acceptable.

The purpose of the thread is not debate in any way, but merely to set out how the authority of the positions are established and represented, and in contrast to each other. However, minimal debate on peripheral issues may be necessary -- probably on what a bible verse can mean. I think it is proper that the meaning of a bible verse can be questioned, but then, I believe there should just be the two sides presented on what the verse means, without continuing disagreement and debate. It is enough just to know, that the two sides have two ways at looking at a verse. I do not know that such perirpheral issues will arise on the meaning of verses, but it is possible.

We want to be nice, respectful, dignified in posting (no joking or degrading comments). The idea is to just have a statement of the two sides set out authoritatively, and in contrast, and then, to let the readers decide for themselves what each side should mean, without commenting in this thread. I also noted in making the proposal for this thread, that Pfaffenhofen may want to include photos of cathedrals, articles used in worship services, noble clothing (or perhaps, the clergy clothing is called "holy" clothing,) and art work, but he may not wish to take the position that such things are an indication of authority of Holy Tradition. I will also emphasize the "power" that Scripture indicates the Word of God has, as another indication of its authority, and Pfaffenhoffen may wish to do the same on how RCC statements indicates that Holy Tradition has power, (such as, for instance, the bread and wine of communion actually turning into the body and blood of Christ at a mass, or the Pope actually becoming infallible).

If anyone attempts to change the thread into a debate, I think such posts should be considered an acknowledgment that such poster believes the side he supports has been diminished by the thread and rendered to appear false. If these posts come into the thread, they should be ignored, or request should be made to have them removed.

 

[MPaul]

My first post on Scripture will actually be a little different than those that follow, as in order to quote what the bible says about the bible according to the Protestant prospective, it is most appropriate to begin by setting out the verses in the bible used by Protestants to establish what it is. These verses are also used for determining the canon, which explains why they do not endose the Apocrypha, Latin Vulgate, and Greek Septuagint as additions to Scripture. Note from the below verses, that God puts words into the prophets mouth, and later these are set down in writing. Thus, there are countless verses in the bible with the phrases, Thus saith the Lord, the Lord said, the Lord spoke, the Lord has spoken, the saying of the Lord, the Word of the Lord, just as there are many verses with it is written, all things that are written, it is written in the Prophets, it written in the Law.

At Exodus 18, after the people came out of Egypt, God instructed Moses to prepare them for a meeting with him at Mt. Sinai. However, when they gathered, smoke and fire descended on the mount and it quaked greatly. There was thunder and lightning, the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, and the people trembled. According to the account of the event at Deuteronomy 18, they asked not to hear the voice of the Lord again or to see the great fire, lest they die. In response, God agreed to give them a prophet to speak for him, and he set out criteria for how he was to be recognized -- 1. by signs and wonders; 2. a message consistent with prior prophecy; 3. the ability to predict the future correctly. The writings of the prophets were preserved in the temple. Note that by a fourth principle, set out below in the quotes, a person who merely presumes to speak for the Lord was to die, and the people did not have to heed his words or be afraid of him.

Exodus 18:10,11,16
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai... And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deuteronomy 18:15-22
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Deuteronomy 31:9
And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.
Joshua 24:26
And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God...

Note that to be a spokesman for God, one must be a Jew.
Romans 3:2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Note that Scripture upholds prophecy in general as verification it is the Word of God.
Isaiah 46:9,10
...for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[MPaul]

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mark 7:5-9
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders...He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

From time to time I will set out additional verses in the above format for consideration of what the bible says about the bible.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

In the thread "Was the Reformation a Mistake," started by Pfaffenhofen, I emphasized that to truly understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics, there has to be a foundational focus on how the Protestants uphold Scripture as the only ultimate authority, as compared to the Roman Catholic Church maintaining that Holy Tradition has divine authority at a level above Scripture. By agreement between myself and Pfaffenhofen, we will use this thread to set out how Protestants and the RCC represent these positions officially -- 1. or that is, from my side, I will do a series of posts quoting what the bible says about the bible, at times with minimal comment on what the verses mean; 2. from Pfaffenhofen's side, he will set out official statements from the RCC which assert the authority on Holy Tradition, but reliance on Catholic catechisms endorsed by the RCC is also acceptable.

The purpose of the thread is not debate in any way, but merely to set out how the authority of the positions are established and represented, and in contrast to each other. However, minimal debate on peripheral issues may be necessary -- probably on what a bible verse can mean. I think it is proper that the meaning of a bible verse can be questioned, but then, I believe there should just be the two sides presented on what the verse means, without continuing disagreement and debate. It is enough just to know, that the two sides have two ways at looking at a verse. I do not know that such perirpheral issues will arise on the meaning of verses, but it is possible.

We want to be nice, respectful, dignified in posting (no joking or degrading comments). The idea is to just have a statement of the two sides set out authoritatively, and in contrast, and then, to let the readers decide for themselves what each side should mean, without commenting in this thread. I also noted in making the proposal for this thread, that Pfaffenhofen may want to include photos of cathedrals, articles used in worship services, noble clothing (or perhaps, the clergy clothing is called "holy" clothing,) and art work, but he may not wish to take the position that such things are an indication of authority of Holy Tradition. I will also emphasize the "power" that Scripture indicates the Word of God has, as another indication of its authority, and Pfaffenhoffen may wish to do the same on how RCC statements indicates that Holy Tradition has power, (such as, for instance, the bread and wine of communion actually turning into the body and blood of Christ at a mass, or the Pope actually becoming infallible).

If anyone attempts to change the thread into a debate, I think such posts should be considered an acknowledgment that such poster believes the side he supports has been diminished by the thread and rendered to appear false. If these posts come into the thread, they should be ignored, or request should be made to have them removed.

As for my part, acknowledging that MPaul leads the way and was the person who suggested the format of the thread, I will keep myself from answering any of MPaul's posts. I will deal independently with the question of Tradition as I see it.

Moreover, i consider that anybody may come and intervene. I will not answer anybody nor I consider any of the other members' positions but MPaul's.

From MPaul's suggestions on my posts, I must advise that will be very, very far away from what is suggested. It is not that I do not consider them nice suggestions but they do not go into what I find important. This is not an answer to MPaul's suggestions simply a forewarning to say that from me it will be expected something very different.

I am fast in answering. But here, MAYBE, I do not know, I will be slower to think better.

Let's go. May God bless this Thread.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Speaking about Tradition.

It is strange for me to speak about Tradition. In fact, in the RCC we do not speak about Tradition. Not even about Holy Tradition, I have never heard the word “Holy” connected to Tradition.

You may be born, grow up and die as a Catholic without ever hearing talk about Tradition. I realized that this was an issue when talking to Protestant Brothers. I thought why and I noticed that this is not a problem between Catholics and Eastern Churches and not with Old Catholics they opted out since the Council Vatican I) and not with the Society S. Pius X, the Traditionalists, who call the Catholics not traditional enough (they opted out since the Council Vatican II).

Meditating why the Protestant make an issue out of it and contrast it with Scripture, I imagined that (I am thinking aloud) that it was for the Reformation issues. The Church needed reform, the Protestant thinkers did now like what they were seeing and thought that the Church should purify. And if what they were seeing was not correct, where were they going to gather the ground for the foundation of a more pure a solid church: to the past, to the Scriptures that would reveal the True Christ.
I am trying to think as a Protestant. I do not know whether I succeeded. But I am trying just to find the origin of this antithesis between Tradition and Scripture.

So, I am speaking about Tradition, though I do not like to talk about it, for to me it means very little. Why does it mean little? It means little because there is a “corpus” that is perpetual in the RCC but there are things that are changing all the time. For instance, language. First, the language of the Eucharist was greek, then latin, then every language in the planet. The vests have changed enormously and will be changing more as Catholicism becomes more implanted in the various cultures. I will call these variable Tradition.

So, things change. But there are other things that are immutable. I will call this core Tradition.

First thing first, so I am referring to Core Tradition first.

And among the first, the first of all is obedience and connection to the Pope. In the Gospel, we find countless times when Jesus affirms the Primacy of Peter, the rock on top of which the Church will be built. 2000 years later, the succession of Popes shows us that the word of Jesus is reality and not mere promise. There is no Institution on Earth that has lasted so much as the Papacy: no empire, no country, no structure as such. And, moreover, having survived, heresies, attacks, martyrdom (in the first 3 centuries), corruption, sins, divisions (once, there were 3 Popes !!!), crisis without end. This structure cannot be human. We do not see any human structure with this strength.

Papacy must be divine.

to be continued-tbc.............ad maiorem dei gloriam– to the greatest glory of God

 

[MPaul]

Pfaffenhofen,

I'm not sure what you are saying. First, it seems you are saying that you prefer that "Holy Tradition" should be called "Core Tradition." Second, it seems you are saying that there are no official and authoritative statements from the Roman Catholic Church on what "Core Tradition" is and how it must be held above Scripture, but it can only be represented as an argument, and thus, you cannot follow the precise format I suggested. Please confirm my restatement of your initial posting, or clarify.

 

[MPaul]

Ok, here are two more verses from the bible on what the bible is. I'll post more later, as there are a lot of them. When I read the verses on what the bible says about the bible, it makes me love the Word of God even more. It's very wonderful.

Psalm 12:6,7:
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[MPaul]

Some more stuff on the power of the Word of God.

Isaiah 55:11:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Romans 10:14,15
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!


Any time I try to post in this thread, I lose my internet connection, and I have to struggle and struggle to reconnect and get the post through. If someone would pray for that not to happen, I would appreciate it. Anything else I do on the internet works just fine.

More verses to come later.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Pfaffenhofen,

I'm not sure what you are saying. First, it seems you are saying that you prefer that "Holy Tradition" should be called "Core Tradition." Second, it seems you are saying that there are no official and authoritative statements from the Roman Catholic Church on what "Core Tradition" is and how it must be held above Scripture, but it can only be represented as an argument, and thus, you cannot follow the precise format I suggested. Please confirm my restatement of your initial posting, or clarify.

Sincerely, I do not know what you are saying.

First, I am not saying that Holy Tradition be called "Core Tradition". What I said and it is there is that this is a problem that arose with Reformation. I say that for us it does not make much sense unless it is seen against the light of Reformation. Now, I distinguish between 2 types of Tradition: one that changes and another that does not change. One, I called it "variable" or changeable" Tradition, and the other, that does not change, I called "Core Tradition". That is what I understand of it.

Of course, Tradition is higher in value than Scripture, no doubt about it. I had no time to prove it.

What I posted is my understanding of Tradition and this post is just mere introduction.

See if this pleases you, if you want to go on, if you want to change or if you just want to give up on the Thread.

For me, anything it OK.

 

[MPaul]

OK, I really do not know what you are getting at -- but let's go on.

However, I would guess that the official statements on the authority and power of tradition should come from like the Vatican Council, 1871, or Vatican II, 1968, or even the Council of Trent, just after the Reformation, 1545-63. Hmmm... but are these written in Latin, or in what language? Maybe, there are statements put out by the Church's Magisterium that have official status.

But I tell you what I think -- in English the official RCC statement of beliefs I always see is Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has a Latin copyright, 1994, by Libreria Editrice Vaticana. I think the full title of this work is Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum on the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Paragraph 11 states -- "This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the esssental and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium."

I think paragraphs 880 to 896 are a representation of the authority of Holy Tradition in a nutshell - this section deals with, among other things, how the pope is the Vicar of Christ and infallible. Perhaps, you would like to consider quoting these paragraphs to represent the Catholic position. Or if you like, I could post it -- but it would be a lot of typing, but it is probably on line somewhere, and it could be copied and pasted.

At any rate -- just making a suggestion, and trying to clarify what I was originally getting at.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

OK, I really do not know what you are getting at -- but let's go on.

However, I would guess that the official statements on the authority and power of tradition should come from like the Vatican Council, 1871, or Vatican II, 1968, or even the Council of Trent, just after the Reformation, 1545-63. Hmmm... but are these written in Latin, or in what language? Maybe, there are statements put out by the Church's Magisterium that have official status.

But I tell you what I think -- in English the official RCC statement of beliefs I always see is Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has a Latin copyright, 1994, by Libreria Editrice Vaticana. I think the full title of this work is Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum on the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Paragraph 11 states -- "This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the esssental and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium."

I think paragraphs 880 to 896 are a representation of the authority of Holy Tradition in a nutshell - this section deals with, among other things, how the pope is the Vicar of Christ and infallible. Perhaps, you would like to consider quoting these paragraphs to represent the Catholic position. Or if you like, I could post it -- but it would be a lot of typing, but it is probably on line somewhere, and it could be copied and pasted.

At any rate -- just making a suggestion, and trying to clarify what I was originally getting at.

I know all you quoted. That is the basics.

Nevertheless, as I told you, I never or rarely quote. I told you that some are much better than I to quote. But I rarely quote. I digest what the RCC says and say it my own way. I think through my mind and say what I think it is the Church's position. I think as a Catholic.

I know all the positions of Vatican I and Vatican II, the Catechism of the Church. But besides that many thinkers as St. Augustin, St. Jerome, St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Theresa of Infant Jesus, St. Ignatius of Loyola and other Doctors of the Church.

The Tradition comes from 30 aD, from the times Jesus entered public life. All that comes from then, it is our Tradition.

But we are entering into what is the main object of the tread, are not we?

What is our decision: shall we go on? shall we change? shall we stop?

At your orders.

 

[MPaul]

I know all you quoted. That is the basics.

Nevertheless, as I told you, I never or rarely quote. I told you that some are much better than I to quote. But I rarely quote. I digest what the RCC says and say it my own way. I think through my mind and say what I think it is the Church's position. I think as a Catholic.

I know all the positions of Vatican I and Vatican II, the Catechism of the Church. But besides that many thinkers as St. Augustin, St. Jerome, St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Theresa of Infant Jesus, St. Ignatius of Loyola and other Doctors of the Church.

The Tradition comes from 30 aD, from the times Jesus entered public life. All that comes from then, it is our Tradition.

But we are entering into what is the main object of the tread, are not we?

What is our decision: shall we go on? shall we change? shall we stop?

At your orders.

So it seems that you are saying that you will not set out official Roman Catholic Church statements on the authority of Holy Tradition, but you will set out your version of it. It is the same as saying you do not want a comparison of how the bible represents the authority and power of the Word of God to how the RCC represents the authority and power of tradition. Then, it appears you are saying, you want to change the thread into a form of debate. How the RCC represents by official statement the power and authority of tradition in itself is simply not adequate for comparison with the Word of God.

The bible represents the Word of God as authority. The RCC represents Holy Tradition as authority. However, your version of Catholic tradition is not an official statement of authority. What I was getting at was -- setting in contrast how the bible states the Word of God as authority to how the RCC states tradition as authority. If you have to change the latter to your personal version of what it means, then you are advocating and debating. You are not comfortable with letting it stand alone for what it is. You do not want it seen that way.

OK -- in that case I will continue to post on what the bible says about the bible, but I will ask someone else to come in and post official church statements by the RCC on the authority of tradition, without advocacy or debate.

I do not believe that what I requested should be considered by Catholics to be difficult at all. It is a simple matter for me to copy and paste what the bible says about the bible. It should be a simple matter to copy and paste what the RCC officially says about the authority of tradition. But is it that you would prefer that a direct comparison should not be made -- and that Catholic positions need lawyer type explanations, not being able to stand on their own?

 

[MPaul]

Psalm 119 has a great deal to say about the Word of God, and below are quotes of relevant verses. Actually, it might be better to just set out the entire Psalm, as when it does not refer to God's Word, it refers to God's Law, which is contained in his Word, but to keep the post short, I will note only verses on the Word.

Verse 9 - Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
11 - Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
25 - My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word.
28 - My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word.
38 - Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.
41-43 - Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word. So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word. And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments.
46 - I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed
65 - Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O LORD, according unto thy word.
74 - They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I have hoped in thy word.
89 - For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
103 - How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
105 - Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
107 - I am afflicted very much: quicken me, O LORD, according unto thy word.
116 - Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope.
130 - The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
133 - Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.
140 - Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
154 - Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word.
160 - Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
170 - Let my supplication come before thee: deliver me according to thy word.

More to come.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

So it seems that you are saying that you will not set out official Roman Catholic Church statements on the authority of Holy Tradition, but you will set out your version of it. It is the same as saying you do not want a comparison of how the bible represents the authority and power of the Word of God to how the RCC represents the authority and power of tradition. Then, it appears you are saying, you want to change the thread into a form of debate. How the RCC represents by official statement the power and authority of tradition in itself is simply not adequate for comparison with the Word of God.

The bible represents the Word of God as authority. The RCC represents Holy Tradition as authority. However, your version of Catholic tradition is not an official statement of authority. What I was getting at was -- setting in contrast how the bible states the Word of God as authority to how the RCC states tradition as authority. If you have to change the latter to your personal version of what it means, then you are advocating and debating. You are not comfortable with letting it stand alone for what it is. You do not want it seen that way.

OK -- in that case I will continue to post on what the bible says about the bible, but I will ask someone else to come in and post official church statements by the RCC on the authority of tradition, without advocacy or debate.

I do not believe that what I requested should be considered by Catholics to be difficult at all. It is a simple matter for me to copy and paste what the bible says about the bible. It should be a simple matter to copy and paste what the RCC officially says about the authority of tradition. But is it that you would prefer that a direct comparison should not be made -- and that Catholic positions need lawyer type explanations, not being able to stand on their own?

Invite whom you want. No problem for me.
Simply you are not interpreting well what I said.
What I say about the position of the Church is the official position of the Church.
Quotes out of context are not a position of anything.
This is the doctrine of the Church

"Jesus Said: "I am the Son of God" "

This is not the doctrine of the Church:

Jesus said that He is the Son of God

Why? Because it is not a quote. You are kidding no?
It is surprising that you Protestant say that each one must interpret the Bible and you quote.
And you say that we abide by the Dogma and Tradition and I think by my own head. Funny, no?

In short, I have no time to say more. I simply state that:
I DID NOT SAY THIS

So it seems that you are saying that you will not set out official Roman Catholic Church statements on the authority of Holy Tradition, but you will set out your version of it. It is the same as saying you do not want a comparison of how the bible represents the authority and power of the Word of God to how the RCC represents the authority and power of tradition. Then, it appears you are saying, you want to change the thread into a form of debate. How the RCC represents by official statement the power and authority of tradition in itself is simply not adequate for comparison with the Word of God.

I DID NOT SAY THIS

The bible represents the Word of God as authority. The RCC represents Holy Tradition as authority. However, your version of Catholic tradition is not an official statement of authority. What I was getting at was -- setting in contrast how the bible states the Word of God as authority to how the RCC states tradition as authority. If you have to change the latter to your personal version of what it means, then you are advocating and debating. You are not comfortable with letting it stand alone for what it is. You do not want it seen that way.

Sorry, I understand that you want COPY+PASTE without thinking. That would be easy, I could post 1000 links of 1000 pages each that you would never be able to read.
Funny, you said that you did not want debate and i was prepared to that. But you ended up debating.
Another thing: I do not admit that anybody tells me how to put forward the doctrine of the RCC, moreover being a Protestant. I did not put forward MY VERSION of the doctrine (that is a Protestant way of thinking).
We, Catholics, obey the Pope but we think by our own heads. I did not say the doctrine of MY PFAFFEHOFFEN CHURCH but the doctrine of the RCCChurch.
No, sorry, I do not do that nor I find any interest on quoting.
I agree with you, better find another person.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OK, I will chime in here...
All Christians revere the Bible and consider it to be an authoritative text. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and is free from error.
What seems to be at odds between Protestants and Catholics is the way we interpret Scripture. The first place we differ is the place of Scripture in the structures of authority. While classical Protestantism asserts that "Scripture Alone" is the authority for Christians, and that the individual believer is competent, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to interpret the meaning of the Bible, Catholics hold that the New Testament establishes certain institutions to guide us in the interpretation of Scripture. They are Tradition and the Church.

Catholics freely acknowledge that we live within an interpretive community, and we measure our interpretations against those of the saints and holy ones throughout the history of the church, and against the authoritative body established by Christ-we call the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.

Protestants als operate within an interpretive community. What you cite as the 'plain sense' of any particular passage is actually dependent on the tradition of interpretation that you inherited within your denomination. Within Protestant communities, traditions arise and are taken for granted. For example, where does it say in the Bible, that we must accept Jesus Christ into our heart as our personal Lord and Savior? It doesn't, and yet many Protestants say we must. By the way, Catholics do, too, though many don't realize it. We accept Jesus into our hearts as our personal Lord and Savior every time the priest lifts up the host and says "This is the Lamb of God who takes a way the sins of the world" and the entire congregations exclaims "Amen"!
There are others such as altar calls and the Sinner's prayer, which are not Biblical as well.
We do not disparage how you worship in any way.

I can stand with you, my brothers, and affirm the authority of the Bible, but it's not self-interpreting, and it's not self-authenticating.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Psalm 119 has a great deal to say about the Word of God, and below are quotes of relevant verses. Actually, it might be better to just set out the entire Psalm, as when it does not refer to God's Word, it refers to God's Law, which is contained in his Word, but to keep the post short, I will note only verses on the Word.

Verse 9 - Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
11 - Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
25 - My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word.
28 - My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word.
38 - Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.
41-43 - Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word. So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word. And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments.
46 - I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed
65 - Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O LORD, according unto thy word.
74 - They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I have hoped in thy word.
89 - For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
103 - How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
105 - Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
107 - I am afflicted very much: quicken me, O LORD, according unto thy word.
116 - Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope.
130 - The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
133 - Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.
140 - Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
154 - Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word.
160 - Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
170 - Let my supplication come before thee: deliver me according to thy word.

More to come.

Just dropping a line before I go. There was 2 Protestant Miracles: I have studied 5 years of Philosophy and 4 years of Theology and I am a lawyer !!! How many years did you study religion?
Another Protestant Miracle: Any bishop would accept me as a priest if I wanted to be a priest YET I do not know the catholic official doctrine of the Church.
WaW...
God Bless You.

 

[Clearly]

Root of Jesse :

I think you are absolutely correct in your very profound observation that applies equally to all of us when you said :

“Protestants also operate within an interpretive community. What you cite as the 'plain sense' of any particular passage is actually dependent on the tradition of interpretation that you inherited within your denomination. Within Protestant communities, traditions arise and are taken for granted.” post # 15


Though the tendency to self deception regarding this principle is strong, still, we ALL “operate within an interpretive community” and interpret texts based upon our varying biases (or “traditions&#8221 which we initially inherit from our parents and social cultures. The common initial tendency is to justify and firm up early "inherited" biases rather than to explore data and come to our own convictions.

Your observation also explains why I do not think that true “sola scriptura” even exists since no one can BE “sola scriptura”. In making personal sense of a text, we all place an interpretation ONTO the text. AND, No one can place an interpretation upon a text without filtering that interpretation through one’s own personal biases ; one’s own personal characteristics and ones personal data sets. Just as Luther changes the text to conform to his interpretations, we all tend to interpret the text to conform to our own interpretations.

Once we admit to ourselves that we interpret, then the next uncomfortable discovery is that our personal interpretations often have no advantage over other interpretations, especially those of early Christians. For example, though Mpaul quotes scriptures and places her interpretations upon texts, we have no reason to believe that her modern interpretations are better than how the earliest Christians (who believe differently than she) interpreted those same scriptures.

The Catholics also grasp onto tradition as an interpretive stance. However, the rub is that they often inherit traditions that are different than the earliest judao-christians held and lack other early traditions entirely. Yes, they still have some form of the post-mortal traditions where spirits go to improve, but they entirely lack the pre-mortal traditions without which mortality cannot make sense in the same way it did to early judao-christian traditions.

I think your statement was entirely profound Root of Jesse.

Clearly
eivifulr

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse :

I think you are absolutely correct in your very profound observation that applies equally to all of us when you said :

“Protestants also operate within an interpretive community. What you cite as the 'plain sense' of any particular passage is actually dependent on the tradition of interpretation that you inherited within your denomination. Within Protestant communities, traditions arise and are taken for granted.” post # 15


Though the tendency to self deception regarding this principle is strong, still, we ALL “operate within an interpretive community” and interpret texts based upon our varying biases (or “traditions”) which we initially inherit from our parents and social cultures. The common initial tendency is to justify and firm up early biases rather than to explore data and come to our own convictions.

Your observation also explains why I do not think that true “sola scriptura” even exists since no one can BE “sola scriptura”. In making personal sense of a text, we place an interpretation ONTO the text. AND, No one can place an interpretation upon a text without filtering that interpretation through one’s own personal biases ; one’s own personal characteristics and ones personal data sets. Just as Luther changes the text to conform to his interpretations, we all tend to interpret the text to conform to our own interpretations.

Once we admit to ourselves that we interpret, then the next uncomfortable discovery is that our personal interpretations often have no advantage over other interpretations, especially those of early Christians. For example, though Mpaul quotes scriptures and places her interpretations upon texts, we have no reason to believe that her modern interpretations are better than how the earliest Christians (who believe differently than she) interpreted those same scriptures.

The Catholics also grasp onto tradition as an interpretive stance. However, the rub is that they often inherit traditions that are different than the earliest judao-christians held and lack other early traditions entirely. Yes, they still have some form of the post-mortal traditions where spirits go to improve, but they entirely lack the pre-mortal traditions without which mortality cannot make sense in the same way it did to early judao-christian traditions.

I think your statement was entirely profound Root of Jesse.

Clearly
eivifulr

Thank you. What traditions do you think we have that are different from those the earliest Christians held? And what do you find as missing? And what are pre-mortal traditions? Please explain?

 

[Clearly]

Root of Jesse asked in post # 18 “Thank you. What traditions do you think we have that are different from those the earliest Christians held? And what do you find as missing? And what are pre-mortal traditions? Please explain? “


The Roman Catholic claim of following “tradition” has only minimal advantage over a hypothetical “sola scriptura” since both principles are abused in the creation of theology. For example : The Roman congregation creates new traditions which did not exist in early Judao-Christianity; has also altered authentic early traditions which did exist in early Judao-Christian religions (admittedly, other christianities may have lost such traditions altogether); and they have also abandoned some authentic early christian traditions altogether. Thus, when one says they follow “tradition”, the claim has no strength if the “tradition” is an incorrect or altered tradition.

1) The Creation of new and unauthentic Christian traditions by the Roman Congregation :

We’ve discussed the creation of a tradition of popes claiming “apostolic powers”. This tradition seems to have been created as a lever for supremacy as the early roman congregation vied for pre-eminence among other congregations.


2) Alterations of authentic early Judao-Christian tradition by the Roman Congregation :

We’ve already discussed the changes in the eucharist and in the practice of baptism by the roman congregations.

A good example of subtle changes in early tradition by romans which is almost lost to other christianities is the doctrine of a place to which the spirits of the dead go for a preparation of sorts (purgatory). Though the roman congregation kept some of the doctrinal subtleties (i.e. a place of preparation and learning and change), they’ve lost many details of this world and it’s tradition as a place where all spirits went before resurrection. To the roman congregations credit, some christianities have abandoned or lost this doctrine altogether though restorationists (e.g. the LDS) also still possess this doctrine.

3) Early Judao-Christian traditions which have been lost or abandoned by the Roman Congregation :
An important loss to Roman theology are the early doctrines concerning the pre-mortal existence of spirits of men and occurrences prior to creation are largely abandoned by the roman congregation. The importance of such doctrines to the early Judao-Christians is that almost all of the important questions and answers regarding God’s purposes and the nature of mortality are defined during this time period.

For examples : The early traditions regarding the “war” in heaven, the nature of and origin of evil; lucifer’s fall from heaven and his motives for his rebellion and ill will toward adam and eve and their children; the reason for the early Christian concern with morality and repentance; the expected fall of man and the redemption of mankind in a morally improved state, and other profound questions of religion all have their origin and explanation within this time period.

Without a correct understanding of such principles, subsequent speculations spin off in different directions than they do in the early context of pre-mortal existence. Thus, even subsequent speculations arising from restorational theologies who retain these traditions will tend to evolve along more correct lines than christian theologies who have no knowledge of these important time periods.


Clearly
eiactwih

 

[Clearly]

Root of Jesse : I was considering which among examples of doctrinal innovations were important and considered another roman innovation that I think is important due to the religious harm it causes to the more authentic doctrines of the earliest christianity. That is : the damnation of infants to a form of hell who simply died without baptism or infants who do not "accept jesus".

I think many counterfeit religious theories and practices created by theologians and religionists may have little negative impact on christianities who adopt them. However, whether the roman congregation created or if they simply adopted the belief from another congregation, I believe the later adoption of the doctrine of damnation of the innocent infant is another example of a doctrinal innovation which causes religious confusion and harm to the christian cause.

When individuals investigating christianity, confront the inherent injustice in such doctrines, they may dismiss christianity entirely due to such simple and singular errors in doctrine rather than spend time seeking authentic christian doctrines which are more just.

Clearly

twtztztb