Foundation of the Church

[VOW]

Originally posted by Catchup
The way I see it you can't just jump around from literal to figurative...making the Bible say what suits you.

ABSOLUTELY!

That's where SACRED TRADITION comes into play! You see what the Early Church fathers had to say about that topic, see what THEY were teaching the congregation. Find out how the APOSTLES taught that topic!

That way, you don't make the Bible say what suits YOU, you make it say what the Apostles MEANT it to say!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Stephen]

>You see what the Early Church fathers had to say<

But did they agree with the apostles?

Stephen

 

[VOW]

To Stephen:

But did they agree with the apostles?

By definition, Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles.

And before you haul out the "what proof do you have" speech, it's been pointed out before, if you believe in Sacred Scripture, then you necessarily believe in Sacred Tradition, whether or not you choose to accept it.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[kern]

Is the oral teaching of the Apostles things that they were taught by Jesus, or is it new stuff that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach? Or both?

-Chris (I suspect the former but I want to make sure)

 

[Stephen]

>By definition, Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles.<

But is that what the Early Church fathers taught?

Stephen

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Stephen
&gt;By definition, Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles.&lt;

But is that what the Early Church fathers taught?

Well, Sacred Tradition says so... I guess that's a bit circular, but it's certainly consistent.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Stephen
&gt;By definition, Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles.&lt;

But is that what the Early Church fathers taught?

Stephen

You can use this same sort of circular questioning on the Bible. As usual, it comes down to a matter of faith. You can't prove that the sacred tradition is divinely inspired, the same way you can't prove the Bible is divinely inspired.

-Chris

 

[VOW]

To Kern:

Sacred Tradition is what the Apostles taught, what they knew about Jesus's teachings. Some of it, I'm sure, is what John spoke of, when he mentioned that all of Jesus's words had not been written down.

The Apostles' teachings are also from their UNDERSTANDING of what Jesus taught. Remember, they are depicted as QUITE confused during much of Jesus's ministry. Jesus saw this confusion, which is why He promised them the Advocate. On the Pentecost, when the Apostles were INFUSED with the Holy Spirit, it ALL MADE SENSE.

That is why Scripture and Tradition go together. It's a matter of getting ALL the pieces of the Puzzle, and seeing the entire picture.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[VOW]

To Stephen:

But is that what the Early Church fathers taught?

By definition, Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of the Apostles, passed to the Early Church fathers. They taught it, as well as wrote it down.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Stephen]

>Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of the Apostles, passed to the Early Church fathers.<

Did the apostles write that?

Stephen

 

[VOW]

To Stephen:

Did the apostles write that?

Actually, yeah, Paul did.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Stephen]

>Paul did<

What did he write?

Stephen

 

[cheezit]

I am a little confused about something. (But what else is new? )

Catholics have repeatedly talked about Sacred Tradition and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. When asked, they say that they do not believe that they are the "only true" church. And Sacred Tradition and the writings of the Early Church Fathers go together with Scripture.

My questions are simple. If all of the above is true as has been said in various posts here on these forums, how come the Catholic Church is the only Church that ever got all of these traditions and writings? If everything was meant for ALL Christians, then why wasn't it given to ALL of us, not just the Catholic Church?

I think that the answer will probably be something along the lines that the Catholic Church was the first church and that somewhere along the line, "other" churches sprang up and discredited these traditions and writings. If this is the case, what was the reasoning behind discrediting them?

 

[VOW]

To Cheezit:

You need to take that up with Martin Luther. He's the one who junked Tradition, because he didn't agree with it. I think he called it "Popish fop where they bray like donkeys" or some such lovely saying.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[VOW]

To Stephen:

What did he write?

Go look for it. I'll wait.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[cheezit]

Originally posted by VOW
To Cheezit:

You need to take that up with Martin Luther. He's the one who junked Tradition...

That didn't really answer the questions, but if the only religion was Catholic at the time, his arguments must have been fairly convincing. Or it just seems to me that he would have been "silenced".

 

[VOW]

To Cheezit:

Martin Luther was an extremely charismatic fellow, and he had quite a few followers (I guess you could call them "groupies".) They provided a layer of insulation around him, and also egged him on to continue with his campaign against Catholicism.

If I got the story straight (yo, Wols?), the leadership in Rome INVITED Luther to come try to straighten out the relationship between him and the Church. His "groupies" convinced him he was much more intelligent and inspired, and should continue on his separate way.

Luther is the one who coined the "Sola Fide" thinking, and "Sola Scriptura" position. He maintained that an individual who is filled with the Holy Spirit could read the Bible unaided with any other information or teaching, and come to the correct interpretation.

However, I think Wolseley said that years after Luther "liberated" the Bible to folks, he saw the chaos that had occurred, and was somewhat rued by the mess he started. However, the cat was OUT of the bag by then, and it WASN'T going back in.

Perhaps Wolseley can direct us to some impartial websites with the history of Luther.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by VOW

Luther is the one who coined the &quot;Sola Fide&quot; thinking, and &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; position. He maintained that an individual who is filled with the Holy Spirit could read the Bible unaided with any other information or teaching, and come to the correct interpretation.

He was entirely right. What he failed to mention was that, sometimes, you come to the *wrong* interpretation, too.

 

[VOW]

To Seebs:

What he failed to mention was that, sometimes, you come to the *wrong* interpretation, too.

Oh yeah. And I think he regretted that teaching as soon as he saw just how many "wrong" interpretations were floating around.

And today, you'll find that when Catholics explain Scripture, they preface everything with, "Now, the Church teaches..." If others agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, no problem. The fist-fights (especially here on Christian Forums) begin when they DISAGREE.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

An excellent, secular, non-Catholic history of the Reformation Era which has quite a bit to say about Luther, Calvin, Pope Alexander VI, and other figures of the period is William Manchester's A World Lit Only By Fire (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co., 1992).

An average secular college text that deals with Luther is Jonathan Zophy's A Short History of Renaissance and Reformation Europe (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996).

An excellent Catholic history of Luther is Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1925).