Defining sola scriptura.

[MoreCoffee]

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?

 

[abacabb3]

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 used to be universally commanded according to Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine.

They did not consider it cultural. When is the earliest mention of it being cultural?

2. Paul specifically considers head coverings and the Lord's Supper "traditions" in 1 Corinthians 11.

Why is it "cultural" if it is specifically called "tradition"?

3. Why can the modern Catholic Church contradict what used to be the universal practice of the church across continents and people groups over centuries?

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)

This has been aborgated by later Canon law:

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)

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon that you don't think it is a commandment

 

[abacabb3]

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?

 

[MoreCoffee]

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?

 

[abacabb3]

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?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, both of us do. And you still have not answered my question. Based upon what tradition did the RCC abrogate tradition?

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.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church tells me and I believe her testimony about them.

Very contrary to Catholicism; quite the antithesis of the RCC....


A Catholic entirely, wholly, completely IGNORES the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (as does the RC Denomination). WHAT MAKES THEM CATHOLIC is that they swallow whole whatever the singular, exclusive, unique, particular, individual RC Denomination currently says BECAUSE it itself individually and currently is saying it and because it itself alone tells them to do that. Doing it is what makes them Catholics. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination for it itself # 87. The one, holy, catholic church has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it - it is to be completely and entirely ignored - the RCC is the only one the RCC sees and the only one all others are to see, obey, submit to, and what alone can tell them what to swallow.

And this IS the reason for the passionate PROTEST of this practice:

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.

.

 

[abacabb3]

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

 

[MoreCoffee]

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 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.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Of course you won't accept holy tradition

Catholics don't accept "tradition" or the authority of the "one, holy, catholic church." By definition, they swallow whole whatever their singular denomination currently tells them cuz IT does. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination for it itself # 87.


But you are simply confirming the point raised as to why the RC Denomination SO passionately protests this practice. See my past post here.


Originally Posted by Josiah

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.



​

.

 

[abacabb3]

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.

How do you know that? I want to bend myself to the will of tradition, not the other way around, or why would I bother reading it?

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.

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.

 

[Albion]

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. .

I see that there's frustration here, but I'm always sorry when I see intelligent posters turn to impugning the motives of the other person.

 

[tadoflamb]

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?

 

[Albion]

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!

 

[Rick Otto]

(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?

Do only read and trust the victor's account of a battle to discern what the truth about it might be?

 

[Rick Otto]

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

 

[Rick Otto]

"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.
Mystery is employed to keep this something indefinable, as well as other vague notions like "ex cathedra" to keep the faithful corralled and safe from predators on group cohesion like truth and comprehension.

I discovered early on, that even though I couldn't afford to go to movies, I could enjoy what the critics would write about them. I knew in grade school I was part Native American and that I wasn't getting the whole story in American History class. It was supposed to be something to be ashamed of in my father's family, but none of his brothers or sisters were, but was still a sore point especially with the ones who were darker. My sister and I thought it was cool, and I even asked grandma about it when I was about 5 or 6yrs old, and she babysat me one afternoon. Nobody in my family was "radicalizing" me.

So myth making and mongering are old hat, to me.
My first nightmare was about the clash of cultures I live.
I've been sorting out chaos for a long time.

 

[barryatlake]

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 head—it 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. They are morally obliged to wear a veil when praying—or else shave their heads.


Why not also ask us Catholic's this question: " are women allowed to speak in our church?"

As the following passages quote:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:33-35)

In every place the men should pray . . . Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:8,11-12)

To them Scripture seemed clear enough: Women are to keep silent in church. This, naturally, led to discussion of other biblical "teachings" about women:

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. The cases cited were not really doctrines at all, but rather disciplines, which could (and would) later be changed. But looking outside Scripture for an explanation requires the recognition of such authorities as Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching, neither of which were welcome in their church.

Authority Delineates Discipline

A similar problem arises when one considers the dictates of the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Barnabas, having been confronted in Antioch with an argument between Jewish converts and Gentile converts about whether the Gentiles must observe certain Jewish laws (especially concerning circumcision), went to Jerusalem to discuss the matter with the other apostles. The council concluded with the following statement in a letter: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well" (Acts 15:28-29).

Here we have what seems to be the apostles teaching, at a Church council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that it is immoral, among other things, to consume blood or to eat the meat of an animal which has been strangled. Yet, how many Christians are cautious enough to be certain that their food does not contain blood or that the animal they are consuming was not killed by strangulation? Doesn’t their Bible teach that they should?

They have unknowingly subscribed to the idea that the apostles imposed these requirements as disciplines which could later be changed.

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. Quite simply, the Bible is not the single-source answer to all questions concerning the Christian faith. One must look also to Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching. One must look to the Catholic Church.

 

[abacabb3]

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 head—it 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.

What's wrong with that? Further, have you read the comments of the Early Church Fathers on that issue? I have. They are in agreement with the literal renderings.

So, your attempted argumentum ad absurdum does not really work, because you would actually be denouncing what is demonstrably the early tradition of the Church.

Why not also ask us Catholic's this question: " are women allowed to speak in our church?"

I presume you are talking about 1 Cor 14:34 (or something, I'm going by memory.) Didn't you notice that I am not pulling one verse out of thin air, but rather showing how it has been traditionally interpreted? So, unless you have a serious point to make about women keeping silent in church and how tradition as interpreted it, I really don't have to respond to that.

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.

Which I clearly did by invoking Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Augustine, and etcetera. I even quoted Canon Law from 1917.

What did the Catholic Church learn new in 1983 that for 1900 years, that same Church on good authority held the opposite position?

Authority Delineates Discipline...

THe whole discussion here is irelevant to the historical fact that in order to attend Mass, Church Law and tradition backing it up, backed up by the Scripture, required female head covering for 1900 years.

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.

And, apparently 1900 years of recorded and documented tradition, on top of the Scripture, is not sufficient to distinguish between authentic doctrine and inauthentic. And if that is the case, then on what authority can I accept any tradition? The tradition behind head covering was for all intents and purposes rock-solid.