Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1. Married
2. Paul calls it tradition, this one happens to be also recorded in the Scripture
3. Catholic women do not keep their heads covered in accordance with tradition, even though if is unanimous in the church for almost 1900 years.
You do not keep t the traditions of the fathers.
They don't? I've seen plenty of mantillas. I reckon it could be a cultural thing. Do you think that wearing head coverings for women is a commandment from God that must be obeyed?
1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord. (1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262)
Can. 61. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:
1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2. other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for;
3. any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code;
4. other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code. (1983 Code of Canon Law)
I reckon that you don't think it is a commandment
Actually, tradition is unaminous and the Scripture is clear. I take it literally. Now, why doesn't the RCC if they used to? Based upon what tradition do they abrogate tradition?
Ancient opinion might be unanimous, culture too, but is it a commandment from God that you intend to obey and ask your wife to obey?
Yes, both of us do. And you still have not answered my question. Based upon what tradition did the RCC abrogate tradition?
The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church tells me and I believe her testimony about them.
Josiah said:Why does the RCC so passionately reject this practice?
Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually.
From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."
Since it itself declares that it itself individually and exclusively is unaccountable and that whatever it itself exclusively and currently says is just to be swallowed because it itself individually and currently is saying it, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) has simply been denied (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to the unmitigated power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively). THIS is why Catholics will never engage in the issue but rather run to defend this unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like POWER that the RCC claims for itself exclusively that "trumps" the issue of truth and accountability, they claim.
The Church does not tell me that it is a commandment to be obeyed in my diocese. It can't be what you appear to be claiming it to be.
And this is the problem of Catholicism and why I cannot in good conscience be a Catholic.
I say I do not believe in prayers to Mary, the dead, etcetera, because I cannot find them in the Bible.
The Catholic responds, "You do not understand tradition, we have inherited and preserved tradition. If you are apart from the Church which preserves all of Apostolic tradition, you cannot be saved."
So, then I say, from the tradition of your own Church, you now abrogate that same tradition.
The response is, well, because you are not Catholic, it doesn't matter you can find Catholics saying something else was tradition for 1900 years. It is what the Catholic Church says NOW is tradition.
Sorry, that ain't tradition.
God bless,
Craig
Of course you won't accept holy tradition
Of course you won't accept holy tradition because you want to bend it to your will and define it for yourself and that it not its nature.
Holy tradition is public revelation from God safeguarded by the church of God which is the pillar and ground of the truth. It is not subject to the whim of individuals who want it to mean this or that for the sake of an argument in GT.
Of course you won't accept holy tradition because you want to bend it to your will and define it for yourself and that it not its nature. .
Something I've noticed is this ethereal "Tradition" that cannot be defined, cannot be proved, and cannot be enumerated, is given a higher authority than the plain words of scripture by a man (or group of men) who claim infallibility without a shred of evidence, and we are all supposed to ignore the scriptures and their plain words telling us to test the teachings of those in authority above us, "because they said so."
That is indeed what we've been told by members of the unreformed churches...and on many occasions. As has been noted before, "Tradition" does not even adhere to its own rules since, in practice, it's whatever idea from history the church chooses to dogmatize. However, "Tradition" is not supposed to be this legend but not that legend, or what Ignatius said but no other Early Church Father is known to have agreed with, etc. And to make things worse, what "Tradition" dictates for the RCC is not what "Tradition" tells the EO or the other Catholic Churches...yet it's supposed to be drawn from the same history!Something I've noticed is this ethereal "Tradition" that cannot be defined, cannot be proved, and cannot be enumerated, is given a higher authority than the plain words of scripture by a man (or group of men) who claim infallibility without a shred of evidence, and we are all supposed to ignore the scriptures and their plain words telling us to test the teachings of those in authority above us, "because they said so."
(emphasis mine)
That couldn't be any more false. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches the relationship of Sacred Tradition to the Sacred Scriptures. Where do you get your information on the Catholic Church?
abacabba, you asked in your post # 252; " what's the present day teaching of the Catholic Church on head coverings, even though the Scripture is explicit...... "
Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing. (1 Pet. 3:3)
Women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire. . . (1 Tim. 2:9)
Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her headit is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. (1 Cor. 11:5-6)
It seemed reasonable for the participants to conclude that women who recognize solely the authority of Scripture are morally prohibited from braiding their hair, wearing jewelry, and wearing fine clothing.
Why not also ask us Catholic's this question: " are women allowed to speak in our church?"
I will point out that, as a Catholic, I recognize that it is sometimes necessary to look beyond Scripture for an understanding of such passages.
Authority Delineates Discipline...
Other examples could be cited, but the point is clear: Scripture itself is not always sufficient to distinguish between authentic Christian doctrine and authoritatively imposed discipline.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?