The place of Sacred Tradition in the first Church Council.

[ozso]

Have you seen Gone with the Wind? Clark Gable gave the appropriate answer to your comment; it went something like "Frankly, my darling, I do not give a ..." of course you are not "my darling" but the sentiment is about right. I do not care if you are or are not the one and only person to complain the way you do in your posts.

Are you altering the topic of this thread to personal dumping?

 

[ozso]

Well, Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah didn't he! So stop pretending that the saints are incommunicado.

That's a perfect example of pure eisegesis.

 

[Clare73]

The council that The Acts of the Apostles chapter fifteen documents may be summarised thus:

1. A lie, a heresy in fact, was spread by some from Jerusalem in the city of Antioch, the heresy was "a Christian must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved"
2. This heresy was opposed by the Christians in Antioch, many of whom were Gentiles and likely not circumcised.
3. Paul and Barnabus were sent to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles of Christ about this matter.

4. A council was called, the matter was debated for some time then saint Peter spoke and related his experience with evangelisation among the gentiles, he offered this as revelation from God (part of the deposit of Sacred Tradition)

What Paul learned in heaven (2 Co 12:1-4, 7-9), just as what Jesus learned in heaven (Jn 3:13), is not "tradition," it is the divinely revealed word of God, as are the rest of Paul's writings.

1. and as conclusive evidence that circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses was not required for salvation.
2. Saint James, who was bishop of Jerusalem, took up the matter raised by saint Pater and concluded that a letter dismissing the heresy be circulated among the churches. especially the one in Antioch.
3. The letter was written and carried back to Antioch.

Saint James did quote an Old Testament passage as supportive of Saint Peter's presentation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you altering the topic of this thread to personal dumping?

If you would stop referring to your complaints as the zeitgeist of the world then we can proceed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's a perfect example of pure eisegesis.

What!!?? Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't talk with Moses and Elijah? You know it is right there in the text.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What Paul learned in heaven (2 Co 12:1-4, 7-9), just as what Jesus learned in heaven (Jn 3:13), is not "tradition," it is the divinely revealed word of God, as are the rest of Paul's writings.

Well, since my comment related to saint Peter, I do not know why you brought up saint Paul.

 

[Clare73]

Well, since my comment related to saint Peter, I do not know why you brought up saint Paul.

Peter's, as well as Paul's, revelations from God are not tradition, they are the word of God with the authority of God, not man.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Peter's, as well as Paul's, revelations from God are not tradition, they are the word of God with the authority of God, not man.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the bible is holy scripture. I do wish you'd learn the difference.

Saint Peter's account in the Jerusalem council is holy tradition.

 

[Clare73]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the bible is holy scripture. I do wish you'd learn the difference.

Are you serious?

What is the "word of God" being referred to in, for example,
Jn 10:35, Ac 12:24, 1 Th 2:13, 2 Tim 2:9, 1 Pe 1:23, 1 Jn 2:14, etc., etc., etc.?

This is not Xeno.

Saint Peter's account in the Jerusalem council is holy tradition.

That account in the word of God written (Scripture) is the word of God, as in those listed above.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What is the "word of God" referred to, for example, in
Jn 10:35, Ac 12:24, 1 Th 2:13, 2 Tim 2:9, 1 Pe 1:23, 1 Jn 2:14, etc., etc., etc.?

You should know better, the "word of God" was given by God when he spoke to the ancients. This is not a reference to scripture because the passage (a Psalm) wasn't written when the ten commandments were given at Mount Sinai.

 

[Clare73]

You should know better, the "word of God" was given by God when he spoke to the ancients. This is not a reference to scripture because the passage (a Psalm) wasn't written when the ten commandments were given at Mount Sinai.

I'm suspect there there must be a cogent thought in there somewhere. . .

Xeno, help!

 

[The Liturgist]

Catholocism argues that Catholic tradition is a greater authority than scripture. Therefore the magisterium went ahead and instituted unscriptural practices centuries after scripture was written.

The lion's share of which was the institution of venerating/worshiping (the two words are interchangeable) Mary. Venerating/worshiping shrines of human remains. Praying to / communicating with the dead. Bowing to statues and icons.

Almost everything you said about the Roman Catholic Church in this post is false. If you must criticize a denomination, you should criticize them for their actual failings, rather than on the basis of falsehoods or popular polemical distortions.

Likewise, I will say for the record that the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites, the Eastern Orthodox are not idolaters, the Waldensians were not credobaptists or sabbatarians, there was no persecuted sect in antiquity that is the ancestor of the Landmark Baptists or Adventists (or even remotely resembles them in practice), and the Anglicans and Lutherans are the largest and second largest Protestant denominations, with theology that closely resembles that of the Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic churches.

Indeed most Christians don’t attack the faith of other Christians on internet fora. I would rather have interesting discussions about theology, which I have been able to engage in with a variety of members.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you serious?

What is the "word of God" referred to, for example, in
Jn 10:35, Ac 12:24, 1 Th 2:13, 2 Tim 2:9, 1 Pe 1:23, 1 Jn 2:14, etc., etc., etc.?

Jesus Christ, who we know is the Word because of John 1:1-18.

Scripture is the Word in a secondary sense (one should not call it the Word of the Word, because Jesus Christ, the Word, is God, so words about Him or of Him are words of God), because all of it testifies about Him, even the Old Testament* and thus it represents our primary means of accessing His teachings when read and with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church we confess in the creed, however one defines it (most Evangelicals and Fundamentalists either go for an invisible church or a local church ecclesiology, but Anglicans, the largest Protestant denomination, often follow a branch ecclesiology, while Lutherans, except for Pietists, liberals and crypto-Calvinists tend to follow an ecclesiology centered around orthodox worship as defined by Martin Luther, which was a pretty good summary of how traditional churches work, one of the many reasons why I have developed such a good friendship with LCMS and LCC members like @MarkRohfrietsch).

However all scriptural references I have seen that refer to the Word have a Christological interpretation, especially including John 10:35. But one can apply them to Scripture insofar as Scripture depicts Christ, like an icon, and in Christ God is revealed to us. However, Scripture is not uncreated or a divine person who became incarnate for our salvation.

The problem is that people elevate Scripture to being our supreme authority, when that station resides with Christ - Scripture records His life and works and prophecies of it, and the exposition of His Gospel by the Apostles, as well as eschatological prophecy, but it can be mistranslated, misinterpreted by ecclesiastical authorities and misunderstood by the laity, which is why it should always be read, whether privately or in divine worship, together with the Church (however one defines the Church) rather than apart from it.

This is clearly illustrated by the New Testament’s emphasis on the authority of the Apostolic Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Galatians 1:8-9, which was recognized by the Sola Scriptura of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley, all of whom, even Calvin, paid attention to tradition and Patristics, but not by the Nuda Scriptura approach we see associated with fundamentalism.

*See Luke ch. 24

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Almost everything you said about the Roman Catholic Church in this post is false. If you must criticize a denomination, you should criticize them for their actual failings, rather than on the basis of falsehoods or popular polemical distortions.

Likewise, I will say for the record that the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites, the Eastern Orthodox are not idolaters, the Waldensians were not credobaptists or sabbatarians, there was no persecuted sect in antiquity that is the ancestor of the Landmark Baptists or Adventists (or even remotely resembles them in practice), and the Anglicans and Lutherans are the largest and second largest Protestant denominations, with theology that closely resembles that of the Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic churches.

Indeed most Christians don’t attack the faith of other Christians on internet fora. I would rather have interesting discussions about theology, which I have been able to engage in with a variety of members.

I agree, nearly every word is untrue, it astounds me that a single post can carry so much misinformation.

 

[ozso]

Almost everything you said about the Roman Catholic Church in this post is false. If you must criticize a denomination, you should criticize them for their actual failings, rather than on the basis of falsehoods or popular polemical distortions.

How about pointing out what's in error instead of just making a blanket derogatory laden statement?

When it comes to tradition vs scripture, I've been told, by Catholics, that scripture is the cart and tradition is the horse that drives it.

Also if all the facets of Mariology, venerating/worshiping shrines of human remains, praying to / communicating with the dead, bowing to statues and icons were instituted before scripture was written, or shortly thereafter, how about giving some dates on those? I don't mean the mere mention of something in someone's writings, but rather the time they became an official practice. And if they were instituted as an official practice by party other than the church magisterium, what party was that?

 

[ozso]

Jesus Christ, who we know is the Word because of John 1:1-18.

Scripture is the Word in a secondary sense (one should not call it the Word of the Word, because Jesus Christ, the Word, is God, so words about Him or of Him are words of God), because all of it testifies about Him, even the Old Testament* and thus it represents our primary means of accessing His teachings when read and with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church we confess in the creed, however one defines it (most Evangelicals and Fundamentalists either go for an invisible church or a local church ecclesiology, but Anglicans, the largest Protestant denomination, often follow a branch ecclesiology, while Lutherans, except for Pietists, liberals and crypto-Calvinists tend to follow an ecclesiology centered around orthodox worship as defined by Martin Luther, which was a pretty good summary of how traditional churches work, one of the many reasons why I have developed such a good friendship with LCMS and LCC members like @MarkRohfrietsch).

However all scriptural references I have seen that refer to the Word have a Christological interpretation, especially including John 10:35. But one can apply them to Scripture insofar as Scripture depicts Christ, like an icon, and in Christ God is revealed to us. However, Scripture is not uncreated or a divine person who became incarnate for our salvation.

The problem is that people elevate Scripture to being our supreme authority, when that station resides with Christ - Scripture records His life and works and prophecies of it, and the exposition of His Gospel by the Apostles, as well as eschatological prophecy, but it can be mistranslated, misinterpreted by ecclesiastical authorities and misunderstood by the laity, which is why it should always be read, whether privately or in divine worship, together with the Church (however one defines the Church) rather than apart from it.

This is clearly illustrated by the New Testament’s emphasis on the authority of the Apostolic Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Galatians 1:8-9, which was recognized by the Sola Scriptura of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley, all of whom, even Calvin, paid attention to tradition and Patristics, but not by the Nuda Scriptura approach we see associated with fundamentalism.

*See Luke ch. 24

So is the term "word of God" found in Jn 10:35, Ac 12:24, 1 Th 2:13, 2 Tim 2:9, 1 Pe 1:23, 1 Jn 2:14 etc a mistranslation? Should the translations calling scripture the "word of God" be changed to some other term?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How about pointing out what's in error instead of just making a blanket derogatory laden statement?

When it comes to tradition vs scripture, I've been told, by Catholics, that scripture is the cart and tradition is the horse that drives it.

Also if all the facets of Mariology, venerating/worshiping shrines of human remains, praying to / communicating with the dead, bowing to statues and icons were instituted before scripture was written, or shortly thereafter, how about giving some dates on those? I don't mean the mere mention of something in someone's writings, but rather the time they became an official practice. And if they were instituted as an official practice by party other than the church magisterium, what party was that?

Catholocism argues that Catholic tradition is a greater authority than scripture. Therefore the magisterium went ahead and instituted unscriptural practices centuries after scripture was written.

The lion's share of which was the institution of venerating/worshiping (the two words are interchangeable) Mary. Venerating/worshiping shrines of human remains. Praying to / communicating with the dead. Bowing to statues and icons.

Okay,
"Catholocism argues that Catholic tradition is a greater authority than scripture." No, the Catholic Church does not do this.
"Therefore the magisterium went ahead and instituted unscriptural practices centuries after scripture was written.". No, that never happened. Your story is untrue.
"The lion's share of which was the institution of venerating/worshiping (the two words are interchangeable) Mary. Venerating/worshiping shrines of human remains." No, that's untrue. There are four Marian dogmas. And venerate does not mean worship, that's why they are spelled differently.

 

[ozso]

To anyone who wants to give an answer:

When did praying to Mary become auniversal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

When did Mary Queen of Heaven become a universal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

When did Mary the Emaculant Conception, formed without sin, become a universal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

When did praying to saints become a universal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

When did shines and the veneration of human remains (namely skulls and bones)
become a universal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

When did bowing aka genuflecting to statues and icons become a universal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

I will look up each of these questions and write down the answers I found later on.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When did Mary Queen of Heaven become a universal church teaching? Who instituted it? And what scripture dictates it?

Before the end of the first century; Saint John the divine; Revelation 11:19-12:2

I shall let others deal with the other questions or if they do not then I may come back to this.

 

[The Liturgist]

So is the term "word of God" found in Jn 10:35, Ac 12:24, 1 Th 2:13, 2 Tim 2:9, 1 Pe 1:23, 1 Jn 2:14 etc a mistranslation? Should the translations calling scripture the "word of God" be changed to some other term?

No, its not a mistranslation. According to John 1:1-18 it refers to Jesus Christ, who is therefore Only Begotten Son and Word of God. It secondarily can refer to scripture insofar as Jesus Christ is both the Word of God and makes God known, and all Scripture as we learn at the end of Luke (in which it revealed that all the books of what we call the Old Testament were about Him, and clearly all the books of the New Testament are about Him) makes Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who is also God known, it would therefore be incorrect to speak of the Bible as “the Word of the Word”, so therefore we can instead say this phrased whenever it is used has a primary Christological meaning but can also, in a secondary sense, refer to the Scriptures.

Only where the word “Scripture” is used by itself do we know that the Bible is referring to itself specifically, and most consciously to the Old Testament, but these verses can also be applied to the New since the Church has made those books part of the Canon of Scripture (indeed, after much initial controversy, the New Testament canon has become one of the few things we all agree upon.