- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
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.
Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura
- Thread starter MPaul
- Start date
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
This is still in effect today. In fact, I, myself, went through the process.
This is still in effect today. In fact, I myself went through just this practice.
This is, in fact, not true. Our theology is based, exactly, on the apostles and prophets.
Regarding the Jews, do you know how they handle it? The do not allow Isaiah 56 to ever be read in the synagog.
The final quote is not scriptural. And from scholarly examination, it is clearly a code for the persecution of the Church by Nero, and the belief that Nero was an Antichrist.
Upvote
0
Clearly in post 80 said:
The Jewish tendency to avoid admitting the loss of prophets and revelation, does not excuse Christians from doing the very same thing. We should avoid the hypocrisy of condemning Jews since Christians are also guilty of the same unwillingness to admit the significance of the loss of prophets and revelation; AND, we do it for exactly the same reasons as the Jews did.
We see the very same patterns of deflection, denial and deferral of admissions among Christians as well as among the Jews.
1) We deflect attention away from uncomfortable data : For example : When faced with the uncomfortable point that “ The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians. The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). “, rather than considering the consequences of this point, you simply criticize the jews for not considering the consequences.
2) We frankly deny uncomfortable data : For example : when confronted by discomforting data demonstrating doctrinal innovations; doctrinal changes; and doctrinal losses of important early traditions by the roman congregation, you simply claim : “There have been no changes in Catholic doctrine or dogma.”.
And, this denial comes in the very face of data demonstrating the opposite had actually occurred.
This claim that ones doctrines and texts are unchanged over the millennia is NOT merely a “roman catholic” phenomenon, but tends to affect most Christians. Even Islamists often fall back onto the claim that the Holy Qu’ran text is absolutely unchanged over centuries. ALL of us tend to engage in such denial to avoid the moral dilemma of having to realize we might have error in our beliefs.
3) We also tend to offer an irrelevant point in exchange for a relevant one as a type of deflection. For example, we’ve already demonstrated the inability of the Roman Congregation to teach it’s members the earliest Christian traditions they abandoned long ago and due to changes in the early doctrines they did retain in some form. When I point out that the earliest Christians were required to be taught the early form of these doctrines, before baptism, you claim : “This is still in effect today. In fact, I, myself, went through the process. #82.
You in fact, did NOT go through the process of learning the same traditions as the earliest Christians were taught, (e.g. creation from matter, pre-creation existence of spirits, etc.) which you already admitted that you do NOT believe in. Instead, you were taught a different set of traditions than the earliest Christian traditions.
Deferring and deflecting by attempting to bury this contradiction in another point so as not to be noticed is simply another deflection.
Root of Jesse, I am not trying to single you out, I’ve already pointed out that other educated forum catholics have also pointed out that they do not know and were not taught such early traditions by the roman congregation.
For example : “[FONT="]We’ve also discussed early Christian traditions that were abandoned by the Roman Congregation. These are traditions existing in detailed form in early Judao-Christianity, but which were abandoned by the Roman Congregation over the years. As the Roman Congregation severed the doctrinal links which bound them to early Judao-Christian understanding of Gods purposes, of creation and it’s form, of his plan for the pre-existent spirits of mankind; of the nature of the “fall of man” as well as the nature of man himself; the nature of evil and the fall / origin and motives of Lucifer, etc, they were left unable to neither understand nor to give detailed explanation to questions that were relatively simple principles in early judao-christianity. The summation of one educated roman Catholic formum members’ “ answer to three very, very, simple principles was “[/FONT][FONT="]I don’t know[/FONT][FONT="]”. The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT][FONT="]” Clearly in # 76[/FONT]
[FONT="]You have already admitted that you were not taught[/FONT][FONT="], nor believe in these same early traditions, nor is the modern Roman congregation able to teach these early traditions in the same detail and context as the early Judao-Christians did.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I pointed out that the different roman doctrines and different roman practices means a different Christianity.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
In the context of the Sola Scriptura vs Holy Tradition and their relationship to the creation of doctrine or the understanding of the earliest Judao-christian doctrines : [/FONT][FONT="]Your claim that your interpretations are based on your reading of the apostles and prophets is no different and no more valid than a hypothetical "sola scripturists" attempt to base their different doctrines and practices “on the apostles and prophets”. Whether one bases their interpretations on “erroneous sola scriptura” or “erroneous traditions”, still such interpretations based on error will contain errors.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Clearly
[/FONT][FONT="]eieiacseti[/FONT]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Actually, I'm waiting for you to show me some early-held belief that the Catholic Church no longer teaches or adheres to which is doctrinal in nature, meaning it must be believed in order to be a Catholic in good standing.
I don't consider you singling me out, but everything you say that we've pushed aside, I say we still believe.
I don't consider you singling me out, but everything you say that we've pushed aside, I say we still believe.
Upvote
0
Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are not opposites, rather both are the Word of God. Holy Scripture is the Word of Jesus Christ writed down by the apostles. Holy Tradition is the Word of Jesus Christ preached by the apostles but written down by men other then the apostles. Because they are both the Word of God there are no conflicts between what is taught in Holy Scripture and what is taught in Holy Tradition. The unity of the Catholic Church comes from interpreting Holy Scripture in the context of Holy Tradition. The great diversity among Protestant denominations is due primarily to their personal interpretations Holy Scripture without the context of Holy Tradition.
Please note that the Catholic Church has many many traditions that have nothing to do with Holy Tradition. For example, celibacy among the priesthood of the Latin Rite is a tradition, but it is not Holy Tradition, thus it can be changed. On the other hand, that only men may be ordained into the priesthood is based upon Holy Tradition, thus it is dogma and cannot be changed by any one, including Popes.
For a good understanding of Holy Tradition I highly suggest a book written in 1928: Tradition and the Church by George Agius.
Ran
Upvote
0
Root of Jesse :
The Historical issue is not what a modern roman catholic “must believe” to be in “good standing”. The claim you made that I disagreed with was your intimation that no early authentic tradition was lost to the early roman congregation as they evolved into the church that later became the roman catholic church. I think it was a simple “overstatement” meant to be a bit of a brag (the type that any of us might make without thinking of the consequences…
, however since you resisted correction, we have continued on this point so as to give readers of the thread sufficient information to see whether they believe the claim is true or not.
We have already discussed in detail the differences between roman Catholic traditions and the original Christianity and their traditions. We discussed entirely new doctrines the roman catholic church originated (such as their claim to apostolic authority for the obscure bishop Linus); we discussed authentic doctrines that underwent modification by the later roman catholic church (such as purgatory, which is certainly based on an authentic early Christian tradition); and lastly we discussed early traditions and Christian doctrines which were lost or abandoned by the later roman catholic church and which they are no longer believe or are unable to teach in significant detail to their membership (such as pre-creation existence of mans’ spirit; issues underlying the origin of evil; the war in heaven; Lucifers’ fall, etc).
For example :
After the death of the apostles and the prophets, The theology created by the Roman Congregation (and all other congregations) shifted from theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles to a theology created by theologians. This shift to “man made religion” attempted to simulate authentic religion (which involved revelation between God and mankind rather than logic and reason of theologians).
This is NOT to fault them since ALL of us speculate and reason concerning what we believe.
However, the theologians creating much of the roman congregations doctrine, speculated and reasoned in ways that created different doctrines and different traditions than they might have created had they maintained the early context of pre-mortal existence and other early traditions.
Clearly
eitwneseis
The Historical issue is not what a modern roman catholic “must believe” to be in “good standing”. The claim you made that I disagreed with was your intimation that no early authentic tradition was lost to the early roman congregation as they evolved into the church that later became the roman catholic church. I think it was a simple “overstatement” meant to be a bit of a brag (the type that any of us might make without thinking of the consequences…
, however since you resisted correction, we have continued on this point so as to give readers of the thread sufficient information to see whether they believe the claim is true or not.We have already discussed in detail the differences between roman Catholic traditions and the original Christianity and their traditions. We discussed entirely new doctrines the roman catholic church originated (such as their claim to apostolic authority for the obscure bishop Linus); we discussed authentic doctrines that underwent modification by the later roman catholic church (such as purgatory, which is certainly based on an authentic early Christian tradition); and lastly we discussed early traditions and Christian doctrines which were lost or abandoned by the later roman catholic church and which they are no longer believe or are unable to teach in significant detail to their membership (such as pre-creation existence of mans’ spirit; issues underlying the origin of evil; the war in heaven; Lucifers’ fall, etc).
For example :
After the death of the apostles and the prophets, The theology created by the Roman Congregation (and all other congregations) shifted from theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles to a theology created by theologians. This shift to “man made religion” attempted to simulate authentic religion (which involved revelation between God and mankind rather than logic and reason of theologians).
This is NOT to fault them since ALL of us speculate and reason concerning what we believe.
However, the theologians creating much of the roman congregations doctrine, speculated and reasoned in ways that created different doctrines and different traditions than they might have created had they maintained the early context of pre-mortal existence and other early traditions.
Clearly
eitwneseis
Upvote
0
After the death of the apostles the Catholic Church maintained what the apostles taught about Jesus Christ in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition from that time until today in an unbroken line of authority. The Catholic Church was able to do this because Jesus Christ said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).
Implying that the Catholic Church was little more than a "Roman Congregation" borders on being silly. The Catholic Church is the universal church created by Jesus Christ upon the rock of St. Peter.
Ran
Upvote
0
1) Ranpleasant repeated the claim “After the death of the apostles the Catholic Church maintained what the apostles taught about Jesus Christ in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition from that time until today in an unbroken line of authority. “ post 89
Historically, the roman congregation did what all other early congregations did (and still do). Without prophets and apostles to declare and explain doctrines, the roman congregation was left to decide for themselves how to interpret the gospel and to develop their own interpretation of the gospel. Historically, the bishop of the roman congregation had no more authority than the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch or any other congregation nor is there any period-appropriate evidence that Peter gave any apostolic authority to Linus or any roman bishop.
2) Regarding the claim that the roman catholic church maintained apostolic teachings, Ranpleasant said “The Catholic Church was able to do this because Jesus Christ said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).
Historically, the roman catholic church did NOT maintain early Judao-Christian doctrines and early traditions unchanged, and, historically, they did not obtain nor maintain apostolic authority. Thus, you might consider some other interpretation than one where jesus was speaking of a roman congregation that did not even exist at that time. We have already discussed the various innovations of, changes in, and loss of doctrines experienced by the evolving roman congregation.
3) Ranpleasant said “ Implying that the Catholic Church was little more than a "Roman Congregation" borders on being silly. “
Ranpleasant, this is a historical thread. The roman congregation, in the early stages, WAS a roman congregation. I understand that you feel it is a great organization nowadays, and It certainly did evolve and change, and became an organization that grew in numbers and in its later and larger form, wielded tremendous theological influence over millennia.
But in the days immediately after the apostles died, the roman congregation was simply a congregation among other congregations, nor was it the first Congregation of christians, nor was it pre-eminent in the earliest stages of the christian movement.
Clearly
eidrdrsion
Historically, the roman congregation did what all other early congregations did (and still do). Without prophets and apostles to declare and explain doctrines, the roman congregation was left to decide for themselves how to interpret the gospel and to develop their own interpretation of the gospel. Historically, the bishop of the roman congregation had no more authority than the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch or any other congregation nor is there any period-appropriate evidence that Peter gave any apostolic authority to Linus or any roman bishop.
2) Regarding the claim that the roman catholic church maintained apostolic teachings, Ranpleasant said “The Catholic Church was able to do this because Jesus Christ said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).
Historically, the roman catholic church did NOT maintain early Judao-Christian doctrines and early traditions unchanged, and, historically, they did not obtain nor maintain apostolic authority. Thus, you might consider some other interpretation than one where jesus was speaking of a roman congregation that did not even exist at that time. We have already discussed the various innovations of, changes in, and loss of doctrines experienced by the evolving roman congregation.
3) Ranpleasant said “ Implying that the Catholic Church was little more than a "Roman Congregation" borders on being silly. “
Ranpleasant, this is a historical thread. The roman congregation, in the early stages, WAS a roman congregation. I understand that you feel it is a great organization nowadays, and It certainly did evolve and change, and became an organization that grew in numbers and in its later and larger form, wielded tremendous theological influence over millennia.
But in the days immediately after the apostles died, the roman congregation was simply a congregation among other congregations, nor was it the first Congregation of christians, nor was it pre-eminent in the earliest stages of the christian movement.
Clearly
eidrdrsion
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost (though I didn't have time to read your entire post-maybe tomorrow). They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden. For example, most people have no idea why priests kiss the altar when they process for Mass. But a little digging would show them. It's no secret, it's just that the faith is very rich. If you take the time, there's so much to know, but if you don't want to or don't have the time, you can still have enough to get you to heaven.
Upvote
0
POST ONE OF TWO
Root of Jesse said : “I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost… They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden.” (pg 10 post #91)
I think all readers realize what you are trying to convince us of. I am simply demonstrating to all other readers that the roman congregation started new traditions not held by the earliest Christians; that they have changed some of the authentic doctrines they inherited from the earliest Christian traditions and and that the roman congregation lost and abandoned many of the early traditions held by early Judao-Christianity.
It makes no sense to claim that such traditions are not “lost”, but rather they are “hidden” to the Catholic Hierarchy; that they are hidden so deeply that no catholic knows about such traditions; that they are no longer able to teach the earliest traditions in any significant depth or clarity anymore; hidden so deeply that they no longer believe in them. These ARE the very characteristics of information that is “lost” and “abandoned”.
You claim that your traditions assist your interpretations of biblical text, yet you do not have the earliest nor the most correct traditions of early Judao-Christian traditions.
If you remember, To demonstrate this historical fact, I asked for a comparison of three modern roman catholic traditions to compare for similarity; for quantity and quality of data concerning these traditions saying :
Concerning tradition #1, The depth of your catholic tradition regarding pre-creation condition of the souls of men is summed up in the only reference you could muster : [FONT="]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you" (Root of Jesse in post #32). That was it; the sum total of the roman catholic description of this early christian tradition.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I asked you in post 41 (page 5)
In post 45 (page 5) you quoted my offer for more time and said “I’m sure.” As you were unable to offer anything else.
If you are still unable to find ANYTHING else, but rather now theorize that such traditions are hidden, so deeply that even a diligent roman catholic cannot find the information after a significant search; then they are “hidden” so deeply that they are in all normal sense, abandoned by and no longer taught to the general membership in any detail and context so as to useable nowadays to help you interpret sacred texts.
Compare your single sentence describing the depth of the roman catholic knowledge with just an OVER VIEW from early Judao-Christian traditions :
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Root of Jesse said : “I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost… They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden.” (pg 10 post #91)
I think all readers realize what you are trying to convince us of. I am simply demonstrating to all other readers that the roman congregation started new traditions not held by the earliest Christians; that they have changed some of the authentic doctrines they inherited from the earliest Christian traditions and and that the roman congregation lost and abandoned many of the early traditions held by early Judao-Christianity.
It makes no sense to claim that such traditions are not “lost”, but rather they are “hidden” to the Catholic Hierarchy; that they are hidden so deeply that no catholic knows about such traditions; that they are no longer able to teach the earliest traditions in any significant depth or clarity anymore; hidden so deeply that they no longer believe in them. These ARE the very characteristics of information that is “lost” and “abandoned”.
You claim that your traditions assist your interpretations of biblical text, yet you do not have the earliest nor the most correct traditions of early Judao-Christian traditions.
If you remember, To demonstrate this historical fact, I asked for a comparison of three modern roman catholic traditions to compare for similarity; for quantity and quality of data concerning these traditions saying :
Concerning tradition #1, The depth of your catholic tradition regarding pre-creation condition of the souls of men is summed up in the only reference you could muster : [FONT="]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you" (Root of Jesse in post #32). That was it; the sum total of the roman catholic description of this early christian tradition.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I asked you in post 41 (page 5)
You were still unable to come up with any more of a description of catholic tradition on this point. I felt that I should give you more time since you were probably scrambling to find ANYTHING from catholic sources on the subject. And this is why I asked you AGAIN in post 44 (of page 5)
[/FONT]- Meanwhile, are you sure you don’t want to add more data regarding Catholic doctrine regarding the origin of mans spirit and it’s characteristics; the purpose of creation and concerning the origin of Lucifer and his motives? (since I plan to post on those later today…
In post 45 (page 5) you quoted my offer for more time and said “I’m sure.” As you were unable to offer anything else.
If you are still unable to find ANYTHING else, but rather now theorize that such traditions are hidden, so deeply that even a diligent roman catholic cannot find the information after a significant search; then they are “hidden” so deeply that they are in all normal sense, abandoned by and no longer taught to the general membership in any detail and context so as to useable nowadays to help you interpret sacred texts.
Compare your single sentence describing the depth of the roman catholic knowledge with just an OVER VIEW from early Judao-Christian traditions :
[FONT="] Many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian sacred Texts, relate the expansive doctrine of the pre-mortal realm and the nature of spirits there and God’s purposes for creation.[/FONT][FONT="] The theme of pre-creation and what happened there is written into the early sacred texts, their hymns contain the doctrine; virtually ALL of the ascension literature contains the doctrine, the war in heaven texts certainly contain the doctrine; the earliest liturgies contain the doctrine; the midrashic texts contain the doctrine, the Jewish Haggadah contains the doctrine, the Zohar contains it; the testament literature is full of it. One simply cannot READ the earliest sacred Judao-Christian texts without reference to this early Christian doctrine. This vast early literature is part of the context for early christians and illuminates their understanding of biblical texts that reference this pre-creation time period and what happened there. I’ll offer some examples.
Enoch, in his vision of pre-creation heaven, relates seeing the spirits that have populated and will populate the earth during it’s existence : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT="]”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1st Enoch 40:1) [/FONT]
[FONT="]The great scribe Enoch is commanded by the angel to : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT="]“... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5) [/FONT]
[FONT="]In his vision the angel bids Enoch, “Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created.” After seeing various pre-existent souls, the ancient midrashic explanation is given us by himself. Enoch, regarding these many souls says : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT="]“the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the souls of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the souls which I have made” refers to the souls of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” (3rd Enoch 43:1-3) [/FONT]
[FONT="]The vast ascension literature, describes the pre-creation realm of spirits. Abraham, in his ascension Vision describes the unnumbered spirits he sees, many of whom are waiting to come into mortality. The angel says to Abraham : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT="]“Look now beneath your feet at the firmament and understand the creation that was depicted of old (i.e. planned). Among other things Abraham says “I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal.”... He asks : “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?” 2 And he said to me, “This is my will with regard to what is in the council and it became good before my face (i.e. according to his plan).. “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously...and through you. some (who have been) prepared for being put in order (slav” restoration”
[FONT="]The doctrine of pre-mortal existence of the spirits within men permeates the biblical text as well. A knowledge of this simple principle explains and underlies many of the quotes in many other texts as well. In the Old testament it was said : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (ecclesiates 12:7). This principle is mirrored in multiple other early Judao Christian texts as well : When God the Father commands the son to “Go, take the soul of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5).[/FONT]
[FONT="]
When the Son finally DOES take the Soul of the Mortal Sedrach, he simply takes it back to God “where it came from”. God’s statement to the prophet Sedrach is simply a rephrase of what God said in Old Testament Ecclesiastes 12:7...” and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” This principle is repeated in this same ancient usage in many of the ancient sacred texts from the earliest periods.
“Jesus said, “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return.” (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS v 49)[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4)
The Early Christian usage of Ecclesiates 12:7 was used in this same way by the Apostle Peter as he explained to Clement that "This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light." (Recognitions)[/FONT]
[FONT="]
In this same ancient context, the question God asked Job; “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?”; was NOT simply rhetorical, but it was a REMINDER :
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)
In this early Judao-Christian context, Job KNEW the answer when God asked where Job was when God laid the foundations of the earth “and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. The texts are explicit that the spirits were taught regarding God’s plan to send the spirits of men to earth. They knew they would undergo a fall of Adam and Of the need for a Redeemer. The savior describes this period of time to the ancient Prophet Seth when sons of God shouted for Joy. The redeemer said regarding this time period before creation in a assembly of jubilant spirits : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT="]“And I said these things to the whole multitude of the multitudinous assembly of the rejoicing Majesty. The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits.” (The second treatise of the Great Seth) [/FONT]
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Upvote
0
POST TWO OF TWO
[FONT="]Root of Jesse, If you remember the three example major traditions which I suggested we compare between early Judao-Christian tradition and what became the Roman Catholic traditions; we have already touched on lightly the roman catholic churches’ loss of the doctrine of pre-creation existence of the spirit of man; it’s origin[/FONT] from it’s consciousness to birth and what determines the moral and mental characteristics a spirit is born with (though the Roman tradition did not even HAVE data regarding determinations of characteristics men are born with…. We only touched on the difference between early Christian tradition and the different Roman Catholic tradition regarding the relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden (I might remind you that roman catholic tradition differs and lacks the coherent logic of early Christian traditions in these areas as well). We did not really even touch on the differences between and lack of early traditions by the roman congregation regarding the origin of “evil” in the form of satan. I asked you on page 3, post #30 the following :
Lets continue on to compare the depth and quality of modern roman catholic tradition on this issue with the Early Judao-christian tradition on the origin of evil in Lucifer and the circumstances surrounding the “war in heaven” and his fall from heaven and the source of his enemity with Adam and the rest of us.
This will be yet another chance for you to make your claim.
Describe the roman catholic tradition in this regard in the best depth you can. Why don’t you research the catholic tradition and describe what the roman catholic church teaches it’s members? Please, take your time rather than to respond with a simple sentence but give us the best depth and data you are able to gather. (Unless of course, there is only a simple sentence of data on this tradition to be had).
Clearly
eiviviviiv
[FONT="]Root of Jesse, If you remember the three example major traditions which I suggested we compare between early Judao-Christian tradition and what became the Roman Catholic traditions; we have already touched on lightly the roman catholic churches’ loss of the doctrine of pre-creation existence of the spirit of man; it’s origin[/FONT] from it’s consciousness to birth and what determines the moral and mental characteristics a spirit is born with (though the Roman tradition did not even HAVE data regarding determinations of characteristics men are born with…
. We only touched on the difference between early Christian tradition and the different Roman Catholic tradition regarding the relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden (I might remind you that roman catholic tradition differs and lacks the coherent logic of early Christian traditions in these areas as well). We did not really even touch on the differences between and lack of early traditions by the roman congregation regarding the origin of “evil” in the form of satan. I asked you on page 3, post #30 the following :
Lets continue on to compare the depth and quality of modern roman catholic tradition on this issue with the Early Judao-christian tradition on the origin of evil in Lucifer and the circumstances surrounding the “war in heaven” and his fall from heaven and the source of his enemity with Adam and the rest of us.
This will be yet another chance for you to make your claim.
Describe the roman catholic tradition in this regard in the best depth you can. Why don’t you research the catholic tradition and describe what the roman catholic church teaches it’s members? Please, take your time rather than to respond with a simple sentence but give us the best depth and data you are able to gather. (Unless of course, there is only a simple sentence of data on this tradition to be had).
Clearly
eiviviviiv
Upvote
0
You are misunderstanding what is Holy Tradition. One of the best description of Holy Tradition was given in 1928 by Monsignor George Agius in his book Tradition and the Church. On page 1 Monsignor Agius wrote:
The proper source of Revelation is the word of God, which is both written and unwritten. The written is contained in Scripture; the unwritten in Tradition.
When we speak of the unwritten word of God, we do not mean that it has never been written, but that it was never written by the man to whom God revealed it. It was committed to writing afterwards by his disciples or by others who heard it from his lips.
It is clear from the above description that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority since they are both the Word of God. But according to 1st Timothy 3:15 both are subordinate to the authority of the Catholic Church since the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth".When we speak of the unwritten word of God, we do not mean that it has never been written, but that it was never written by the man to whom God revealed it. It was committed to writing afterwards by his disciples or by others who heard it from his lips.
Some Protestants have spent a lot of time in this thread trying to prove that the Holy Tradition maintain by the Catholic Church has changed. A more important issue to me is since they follow Scripture Alone how do they justify not following Holy Tradition since the Bible clearly says to do so? Also, since they don't follow Holy Tradition how do they justify believing in the Holy Trinity since the concept is not fully explain in Holy Scripture?
Ran
Last edited:
Upvote
0
1) Regarding the relative value of Scripture versus Tradition in interpretation of texts.
ranpleasant said : “It is clear from the above description that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority…” (pg 10 #94)
Ranpleasant, if Mpaul, (and the rest of us...), seem confused about this specific claim you are making, I think we are to be excused for our confusion since the prior roman catholic claim was that tradition was superior to scripture (rather then being “equal”. The Roman Catholic Pfaffenhofen taught us that in the Catholic view, “Tradition is higher in value than Scripture, no doubt about it.” (in post #9) Thus we may have been operating on a different assumption regarding an "official" roman catholic doctrine on this subject
Is there any consensus among the Forum roman Catholics as to what is the official correct roman Catholic doctrine on this point? Perhaps quotes from an official roman catholic source or text?
2) Regarding the modern theory of a “three is one” model of the Godhead :
Ranpleasant said : “ Also, since they don't follow Holy Tradition how do they justify believing in the Holy Trinity since the concept is not fully explain in Holy Scripture? “ (pg 10 #94)
Ranpleasant, I believe that you are correct on both points :
1)That the Catholic model of the trinity (which the protestants inherited) is not “fully explained” in scripture and is NOT necessarily the most obvious model one a person might take away from reading of the New Testament for the first time without some prior coaching. The older the early Judao-Christian texts are, the more the ancient model of a "trinity" seems to diverge from the modern model of a "trinity".
2) I believe that you are also correct in your intimation that protestants simply inherited their theory of the Godhead from the Catholic model, who, in turn, had inherited their model from the logic and reasoning of theologians.
The theologian Origen reminds us that in this early stage of development of the Christian movement, many basic and important Christian doctrines and traditions had not yet taken shape. For example, Origen reminds us that, in his day, the Christian movement had not yet decided whether God the Father had a material body or not. This and many other important traditions were still in the early stages of development by the theologians as they reasoned out the various theories and finally decided what they would teach as the “orthodoxy” of that period.
This interesting point shows the degree to which protestants and catholics inherited many of their traditions from the same early theologians. I am completely unconvinced that a hypothetical and unbiased “native” who read the New Testament for the first time, would envision the same relationship between the three members of the Christian trinity early theologians theorized (and which both the Catholics and the protestants have inherited).
Clearly
eivineviib
ranpleasant said : “It is clear from the above description that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority…” (pg 10 #94)
Ranpleasant, if Mpaul, (and the rest of us...), seem confused about this specific claim you are making, I think we are to be excused for our confusion since the prior roman catholic claim was that tradition was superior to scripture (rather then being “equal”
. The Roman Catholic Pfaffenhofen taught us that in the Catholic view, “Tradition is higher in value than Scripture, no doubt about it.” (in post #9) Thus we may have been operating on a different assumption regarding an "official" roman catholic doctrine on this subjectIs there any consensus among the Forum roman Catholics as to what is the official correct roman Catholic doctrine on this point? Perhaps quotes from an official roman catholic source or text?
2) Regarding the modern theory of a “three is one” model of the Godhead :
Ranpleasant said : “ Also, since they don't follow Holy Tradition how do they justify believing in the Holy Trinity since the concept is not fully explain in Holy Scripture? “ (pg 10 #94)
Ranpleasant, I believe that you are correct on both points :
1)That the Catholic model of the trinity (which the protestants inherited) is not “fully explained” in scripture and is NOT necessarily the most obvious model one a person might take away from reading of the New Testament for the first time without some prior coaching. The older the early Judao-Christian texts are, the more the ancient model of a "trinity" seems to diverge from the modern model of a "trinity".
2) I believe that you are also correct in your intimation that protestants simply inherited their theory of the Godhead from the Catholic model, who, in turn, had inherited their model from the logic and reasoning of theologians.
The theologian Origen reminds us that in this early stage of development of the Christian movement, many basic and important Christian doctrines and traditions had not yet taken shape. For example, Origen reminds us that, in his day, the Christian movement had not yet decided whether God the Father had a material body or not. This and many other important traditions were still in the early stages of development by the theologians as they reasoned out the various theories and finally decided what they would teach as the “orthodoxy” of that period.
This interesting point shows the degree to which protestants and catholics inherited many of their traditions from the same early theologians. I am completely unconvinced that a hypothetical and unbiased “native” who read the New Testament for the first time, would envision the same relationship between the three members of the Christian trinity early theologians theorized (and which both the Catholics and the protestants have inherited).
Clearly
eivineviib
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Name some new traditions started by the roman congregation that were not held by the earliest Christians. Name some which have changed. Name some which have been lost or abandoned. Then demonstrate how they are core Christian beliefs that should be held if we are to be saved.
Regarding what I said "Before you were in the womb, I knew you.", this is not the depth of my knowledge, it is a summary. I don't have the time, nor the care to demonstrate how this refutes what you claim above.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Please note that Holy Tradition is the Word of God, it does not change, it affects the whole Church, and no one in the Catholic Church has ever had the authority to change it. The dogma of the Catholic Church is part of Holy Tradition. That aboration is evil is rooted in Holy Tradition, this is dogma, no Pope will ever have the authority to change this. The sacraments are supported by both Holy Scripture and by Holy Tradition, thus teachings on sacraments can never be changed because no one will ever have the authority to change it. As I often point out to some of my more liberal Catholic friends, God does not change to mind to meet the sinful wants of men.
On the other hand there are many many traditions within the Catholic Church that are not part of Holy Tradition. These tradition often affect only a part of the Church. For example, the ban on priest marrying affects only the Latin Rite of the Church. A married men can be ordained as a priest in all of the other rites of the Catholic Church but they cannot marry once ordained. All Popes have had the authority to remove this ban. The clothing, music, etc., are all just traditions.
Ran
Upvote
0
“ Regarding what I said "Before you were in the womb, I knew you.", this is not the depth of my knowledge, it is a summary. I don't have the time, nor the care to demonstrate how this refutes what you claim above.”Root of Jesse pg 10, #96
1) Root of Jesse :
I hope I have not come across as disrespectful in any way since that is NOT the way I feel regarding roman catholicism, nor do I feel that way about any other honest religious view.
However, you continue to make HISTORICAL claims without taking sufficient responsibility to allow us to examine your theories. It is almost five weeks since I asked for the information that you say you have “no time” to give, yet you’ve spent considerable time and significant energy on many, many posts which continue to make multiple unsupported and erroneous Historical claims of superior theology, or superior interpretations over other Christianities.
Of course you must expect someone, at some point, to ask you to support a claim with data. If it is really true that you don’t “care” to give us information or to allow your theories to be examined, some posters may view this as undeserved arrogance and hypocrisy, especially if you demand from others, the very types of data which you have been unwilling or unable to give. It was the tenor of pride and superiority as much as the error in your historical claims that caught my attention on this subject.
2) Regarding your claim that you “have more data”, but for some unknown reason, will not or cannot give it to us.
The point is that the roman catholic data doesn't exist to support your claim. It is not simply YOUR inability to offer data that is obvious, but not a single other roman catholic has been able to step in with even another bit of data; not a single sentence from any of them. ( I even had to offer the catechism that referenced the creation of the spirit). The roman Catholic Pfaffenhofen has seemed the most honorable and honest of all (to his wonderful credit) since he has at least admitted that he doesn’t know regarding this doctrine. And this honest and straightforward admission is from a (self-described) educated, greek-speaking, lawyer, priesthood-able, roman catholic.
It is already CLEAR that you do not have data we are asking for.
The roman Catholics do not HAVE the same set of traditions and data as the earliest Judao-Christians had. Much knowledge has been abandoned by and LOST to the roman congregation and the roman Catholics cannot teach them as a belief in any depth or clarity even comparable to the early Judao-Christians.
The point has already BEEN made.
We are trying to examine your claim that the Catholic Church is “untouched in its teaching for 2000 years” and your second claim that it is the retention of ancient tradition which makes Catholic interpretation of scripture superior to “sola scriptura”. While erroneous “sola scriptura” has demonstrated itself unworkable for interpretation, the reliance on an erroneous tradition has no advantage for correct interpretation of texts. Thus, catholic interpretations cannot BE held to be somehow superior than opposing interpretations if they are based on erroneous data, or lack of data.
3) ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DOCTRINES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONGREGATION ABANDONED OR LOST
We’re still discussing the fact that the Roman Congregation has abandoned and lost early traditions regarding evil and lucifer as an example of a very basic tradition which the roman congregation is unable to teach in clarity and context as the early Judao-Christians were able to do.
If Root of Jesse is unable to offer the Roman Catholic teaching on this subject in any depth, then ANY OTHER CATHOLIC WHO BELIEVES THEY HAVE THE SAME DOCTRINE AND DEPTH AS EARLY JUDAO-CHRISITANS HAD ARE WELCOME TO OFFER THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS regarding these points so as to allow us to compare the roman catholic doctrine with the early Judao-Christian doctrine. (The doctrine of good - evil is one of the most basic of all religious doctrines.)
Below is the third of three comparisons I offered to make with Root of Jesse back on page #3, post #30 :
Clearly
eifusifufutwoi
p.s. No Root of Jesse, I am not particularly "gnostic" though I do have a historians interest in the gnostics.
1) Root of Jesse :
I hope I have not come across as disrespectful in any way since that is NOT the way I feel regarding roman catholicism, nor do I feel that way about any other honest religious view.
However, you continue to make HISTORICAL claims without taking sufficient responsibility to allow us to examine your theories. It is almost five weeks since I asked for the information that you say you have “no time” to give, yet you’ve spent considerable time and significant energy on many, many posts which continue to make multiple unsupported and erroneous Historical claims of superior theology, or superior interpretations over other Christianities.
Of course you must expect someone, at some point, to ask you to support a claim with data. If it is really true that you don’t “care” to give us information or to allow your theories to be examined, some posters may view this as undeserved arrogance and hypocrisy, especially if you demand from others, the very types of data which you have been unwilling or unable to give. It was the tenor of pride and superiority as much as the error in your historical claims that caught my attention on this subject.
2) Regarding your claim that you “have more data”, but for some unknown reason, will not or cannot give it to us.
The point is that the roman catholic data doesn't exist to support your claim. It is not simply YOUR inability to offer data that is obvious, but not a single other roman catholic has been able to step in with even another bit of data; not a single sentence from any of them. ( I even had to offer the catechism that referenced the creation of the spirit). The roman Catholic Pfaffenhofen has seemed the most honorable and honest of all (to his wonderful credit) since he has at least admitted that he doesn’t know regarding this doctrine. And this honest and straightforward admission is from a (self-described) educated, greek-speaking, lawyer, priesthood-able, roman catholic.
It is already CLEAR that you do not have data we are asking for.
The roman Catholics do not HAVE the same set of traditions and data as the earliest Judao-Christians had. Much knowledge has been abandoned by and LOST to the roman congregation and the roman Catholics cannot teach them as a belief in any depth or clarity even comparable to the early Judao-Christians.
The point has already BEEN made.
We are trying to examine your claim that the Catholic Church is “untouched in its teaching for 2000 years” and your second claim that it is the retention of ancient tradition which makes Catholic interpretation of scripture superior to “sola scriptura”. While erroneous “sola scriptura” has demonstrated itself unworkable for interpretation, the reliance on an erroneous tradition has no advantage for correct interpretation of texts. Thus, catholic interpretations cannot BE held to be somehow superior than opposing interpretations if they are based on erroneous data, or lack of data.
3) ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DOCTRINES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONGREGATION ABANDONED OR LOST
We’re still discussing the fact that the Roman Congregation has abandoned and lost early traditions regarding evil and lucifer as an example of a very basic tradition which the roman congregation is unable to teach in clarity and context as the early Judao-Christians were able to do.
If Root of Jesse is unable to offer the Roman Catholic teaching on this subject in any depth, then ANY OTHER CATHOLIC WHO BELIEVES THEY HAVE THE SAME DOCTRINE AND DEPTH AS EARLY JUDAO-CHRISITANS HAD ARE WELCOME TO OFFER THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS regarding these points so as to allow us to compare the roman catholic doctrine with the early Judao-Christian doctrine. (The doctrine of good - evil is one of the most basic of all religious doctrines.)
Below is the third of three comparisons I offered to make with Root of Jesse back on page #3, post #30 :
I had already repeated the request to compare the roman congregations doctrine multiple times.
I certainly respect roman catholic scholarship (the catholic Migne is a GIANT in my estimation), but it is clear historically, that the later roman catholicism is a different Christianity in doctrine and practice than the earliest Christianity. It is not the same.
Clearly
eifusifufutwoi
p.s. No Root of Jesse, I am not particularly "gnostic" though I do have a historians interest in the gnostics.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Clearly, do you hold a job? How many hours do you work? Do you have a family? How much of your time do you spend on them? Do you worship/pray/study? How much? These three things, not in that order, but the order of God/Family/Work all come before posting on this, or any forum. I work 50 hours a week, spend half that interacting with family, and much of the rest of my waking hours worshipping God, and learning more about him.
I have no need to show off my knowledge of my faith to anyone. The best way I can do that is by living it. I don't find you insulting, or anything else, I just don't have the time to make long posts which demand lots of attention, and try to refute them point by point.
I don't care what the gnostic gospels/writings say. They are not held to be good Catholic teaching. FWIW, Arianism was also very popular in early Christianity, but it's a heresy, so why would I read anything about their beliefs? Same with the Gnostics. Just because some early people claimed to be Christian and wrote things doesn't mean that they had orthodox beliefs. So, if you're saying, according the works like the Gospel of Thomas (which is not accepted by Cathlics), something was believed that we no longer hold to be true, then so what? Why should a Christian try to follow any of the Mosaic law? When we believe that Jesus fulfilled the law, we shouldn't. I appreciate your studies, but I have a life to live. Maybe, if my wife passes, I would have more time to read and study, but I give it at least an hour a day, and sometimes find that too much. I hope you understand.
I have no need to show off my knowledge of my faith to anyone. The best way I can do that is by living it. I don't find you insulting, or anything else, I just don't have the time to make long posts which demand lots of attention, and try to refute them point by point.
I don't care what the gnostic gospels/writings say. They are not held to be good Catholic teaching. FWIW, Arianism was also very popular in early Christianity, but it's a heresy, so why would I read anything about their beliefs? Same with the Gnostics. Just because some early people claimed to be Christian and wrote things doesn't mean that they had orthodox beliefs. So, if you're saying, according the works like the Gospel of Thomas (which is not accepted by Cathlics), something was believed that we no longer hold to be true, then so what? Why should a Christian try to follow any of the Mosaic law? When we believe that Jesus fulfilled the law, we shouldn't. I appreciate your studies, but I have a life to live. Maybe, if my wife passes, I would have more time to read and study, but I give it at least an hour a day, and sometimes find that too much. I hope you understand.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
