B
barryatlake
Guest
abacabb3, please show me where " women must cover their heads " a Church Doctrine.
Upvote
0
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.
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God..."
This is the subtle, backhand way of saying scripture is lacking something that "oral tradition" contains.
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Copied from :
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Transmission of Divine Revelation
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God..."
This is the subtle, backhand way of saying scripture is lacking something that "oral tradition" contains.
...
Yet, you ultimately cannot defend it from scrutiny, so on what basis should I accept it when I know there is a history of usurpers and false claimants?
I showed plainly from Scripture and the writings of the Roman Catholic greats that they are all against modern practice. That's not my opinion where I am bending stuff to make it fit my supposed self-conceived notions. It is demonstrable fact.
RCC has abandoned tradition and you cannot prove otherwise. You have not even tried.
I don't know. I only need look at how the sola scripturist's multiple interpretations of four little words such as 'this is my body' to validate the need of Sacred Tradition to uphold and guard the Sacred Scriptures.
Do you also believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is literally a Door?
How about a Light bulb?
Maybe He is an actual lamb, like the animal type?
None of those things are taken literally in the physical sense (of course they are literal in the spiritual and figurative sense), although when it comes to Him being the bread of life, that must be physical?
I realize that it is most likely pointless to discuss these things although maybe there's a possibility that someone might have a light go off in their mind..
Not literally of course.
Do you also believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is literally a Door? How about a Light bulb? Maybe He is an actual lamb, like the animal type?
None of those things are taken literally in the physical sense (of course they are literal in the spiritual and figurative sense), although when it comes to Him being the bread of life, that must be physical?
I realize that it is most likely pointless to discuss these things although maybe there's a possibility that someone might have a light go off in their mind..
Not literally of course.
You know what? I didn't ask what was the sola scripturist argument against the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I was merely pointing out the difficulty the sola scripturist has in explaining the differences in belief and practice of four simple words from the bible, "this is my body".es.
So, knowing the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist was tossed out by the sola scripturists by say..........1577, using the scriptures as their only rule, can you see today how the sola scripturists have totally messed this one up?
Your argument isn't with me, it's with your fellow sola scripturists.
Yes. He is the good shepherd too.
No. Electric lights were unheard of at that time.
Yes, he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
All of them, door, shepherd, light of the world, lamb of God are taken literally and all are true. He is the truth from which these other things take their meaning as types of Christ. Thus water, food, manna, as well as door, shepherd, light, and lamb all exist in this world as types of Christ.
Is it discussion you're seeking?
Now, there's the rub.
Blame the EOC.......they started it.So, how about it sola scripturists, did you redefine every Christian doctrine formulated before 1577, or did you accept in part what you received from the Catholic Church?
.The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions.
But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.............
The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal.
The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's
I'm just sharing my opinion on the matter as are you. That's the best we can do.
And so as I mentioned, I find it inconsistent that Jesus is literally and physically bread to you, yet He is not also physically a Door, or a lamb as in an animal, or a Light..
Why is one thing literal and physical and the others are not.
To me personally, it's a huge insult to God to think that men are turning the King of kings and Lord of lords into a piece of bread which they eat and then pass out of their body.
Tell any other King that you'd like them to become bread so that you can eat them.
My .02
Except this isn't a thread about Catholicism, this is a thread about sola scriptura.
I only need look at how the sola scripturist's multiple interpretations of four little words such as 'this is my body' to validate the need of Sacred Tradition to uphold and guard the Sacred Scriptures.
So, how about those simple four words and how sola scripturists have run with them? And how does that mesh with the idea that sola scriptura brings accountablity?
You're the one who said;
That's why I asked about the inconsistency with everything else that Jesus is said to be, like the true Light, the Door, or the Lamb of God.
I like to think that I read the book of John consistently and don't make a mistake of thinking that He is physically a door with a doorknob or a lamb as in an animal, or that He is a physical lightbulb.
I would imagine that most of you don't actually believe that Jesus is a door with a doorknob or a lamb as in an animal and yet you insist the LORD of glory is bread that is eaten and passed through the body of men.
That's great. But again, this isn't a thread about Catholicism, this is a thread about sola scriptura. So, how about it? Explain for me why your not presenting yourself for communion in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
abacabb3, please show me where " women must cover their heads " a Church Doctrine.
It was Canon Law until 1983 and it was the universal practice of the church until the 1960s. Please show me where the church taught against the practice and when that was. Why did the church universally teach it at one point and then reject it, when it is a tradition of the Church?
What makes it not 'holy tradition" when Paul himself calls it "tradition" right next to the Lord's Supper and when the whole early church continued the practice?The "tradition" in your posts is about women wearing head coverings and that is not holy tradition taught by the church. One ought not to defend something that does not exist.
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?