Question?????

[bbbbbbb]

Incorrect.

Tradition is "accountable" to history. Tradition pulls from the Councils, the ECFs, the canon, the decrees of bishops. In fact, that's what it IS. Tradition is accountable to what came before it. All beliefs have a basis in the Councils and history, and eventually all the way back to the beginning of Christianity.

I'm not even going to comment on the misrepresentation of the Real Presence, because you should know the teachings on it at this point. It's an essence change, not a substance change.

The difficulty with an accountability to history is whether or not that history exists within or outside of the Tradition. If, for example, my Tradition excludes some of the writings of certain ECFs, on what basis are they excluded while some are included? History, in and of itself, is not the basis for such a determination if, in fact, history has retained all of those writings. History is merely and objective means of retaining records and artifacts. Oral history is much slipperier because it can be manifpulated much easier than material history.

The reality is that the RCC uses history as part of its Tradition, but not as an objective element outside of its Tradition, to determine the Truth it believes. For example, the Catholic history of events such as the Spanish Inquisition is markedly different that other histories of that event. The Catholic Church declares that its version alone is accurate and all other versions are not. Any objective historian would question that position, but the faithful Catholic must accept it with complete docility.

As for transubstantiation, the historic fact is that for centuries the teaching of the Catholic Church was that of an actual change of substance. Hence, there are authenticated relics pruported to contain actual human flesh and human blood which were transformed from bread and wine.

This view of transubstantiation has been readically modified by the Catholic Church to its present view. In time, the position may change yet again to a Zwinglian view. How? By the sole authority of the Catholic Church to declare and define truth for its members.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The difficulty with an accountability to history is whether or not that history exists within or outside of the Tradition. If, for example, my Tradition excludes some of the writings of certain ECFs, on what basis are they excluded while some are included? History, in and of itself, is not the basis for such a determination if, in fact, history has retained all of those writings. History is merely and objective means of retaining records and artifacts. Oral history is much slipperier because it can be manifpulated much easier than material history.

The Ecumenical Councils are the ultimate determining factor. And luckily enough, those decrees were written down.

The reality is that the RCC uses history as part of its Tradition, but not as an objective element outside of its Tradition, to determine the Truth it believes. For example, the Catholic history of events such as the Spanish Inquisition is markedly different that other histories of that event. The Catholic Church declares that its version alone is accurate and all other versions are not.

Cite it.

Any objective historian would question that position, but the faithful Catholic must accept it with complete docility.

Cite it. And no, CCC #85 is not what I'm after. The Catholic Church doesn't try to control the intellect of its members. To apply CCC #85 in this situation would be a complete mis-application of it. That's for doctrinal teachings, not versions of history.

As for transubstantiation, the historic fact is that for centuries the teaching of the Catholic Church was that of an actual change of substance. Hence, there are authenticated relics pruported to contain actual human flesh and human blood which were transformed from bread and wine.

Those are Eucharistic miracles. Miracles, being miracles, are exceptions to the rule and are special signs. The teaching, which is the norm, is that the Real Presence does not result in these types of transformation. But, that's only the norm. Miracles are not the norm.

This view of transubstantiation has been readically modified by the Catholic Church to its present view. In time, the position may change yet again to a Zwinglian view. How? By the sole authority of the Catholic Church to declare and define truth for its members.

It has always been the same. It was clarified at Trent to be specifically defined as an Aristotelian substance change, but no one has ever believed that the bread and wine turned into the accidents of human flesh or human blood. It retains the accidents of bread and wine.

Unless you can produce something that specifically says the Eucharist becomes human flesh and human blood in both substance and accidents, you have nothing to stand on.

As a clarification, I should have said substance when I said essence and said accidents when I said substance in my previous post. I need to brush up on my Aristotle a bit apparently.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Ecumenical Councils are the ultimate determining factor. And luckily enough, those decrees were written down.

Generally. The last ended around 800 AD, I believe. And NONE of the distinctives of your denomination were embraced by ANY of them - making RCC Tradition .... nonexistent. And there would be no original sin, no Supreme and Infallible Roman Pope, no Transubstantiation, no Assumption of Mary, no Immaculate Conception of Mary, well... nothing RCC at all.

But earlier, you list FAR, FAR more than just the Ecumenical Councils - you wrote of RCC meetings, snippets from RCC fathers as chosen by the RCC and interpreted by the RCC, RCC bishops, the RCC pope and RCC interpretations of the Tradition of the RCC.

but the faithful Catholic must accept it with complete docility.

Cite it. And no, CCC #85 is not what I'm after.

CCC # 85 is the RCC insisting that there is ONE interpreter of Scripture in the heart of the RCC and the Tradition of the RCC - itself.

CCC # 87 is the RCC insisting that all just embrace whatever it says "with docilicity" as unto God because itself alone says that when itself alone speaks, Jesus is. In the words of one of my Catholic teachers, "Josiah - would you ask if God is right, then why ask if the Catholic Church is?" Or in the words of The Handbook of The Catholic Faith, page 151, "The Catholic is freed from the typical Protestant issue of 'is it true' and instead accepts with docility whatever the Church tells him, knowing that when the Church speaks, Jesus speaks."

It has always been the same. It was clarified at Trent to be specifically defined as an Aristotelian substance change, but no one has ever believed that the bread and wine

Wrong. It is a UNIQUE RCC Tradition. Ruled by the RCC alone to be correct because the unique RCC teaching seems confirmed by the self same RCC tradition: self looked in the mirror at SELF and determine that self looks like self.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Divergence within the one Tradition of the Church occurs via schism.

Show us the Tradition and then we can determine who/what is interpreting it and how so.

But that's your problem, isn't it? There is no "one Tradition" for you to cite. It doesn't exist. Now, I get it - you want to say that we have a countless number of "interpretations" of a non-existent phantom rather than saying a countless number of Traditions, but I think the distinction moot - especially since it's impossible to interpret a phantom. We can disagree on the interpretation of Romans 3:24 because that's an objective, knowable reality, but it's impossible to disagree on the interpretation of the silence on the Moon of Endor. We can only interpret a known reality.

All of them interpret the same wellspring of unchanging information.

We can disagree on what the WORD "is" means in the Consecration, but we all know and agree the word is "is." THAT's hermeneutics. But we cannot disagree on the interpretation of something that doesn't exist. Or perhaps "exists" in 50,000 different imaginary ways in 50,000 different denominations. I simply don't "buy" that there is one tradition (that can't be determined - it's a phantom) and there are various interpretations of it. There are various Traditions. The RCC calls its distinctives Tradition. The OOC calls such Tradition. The EOC calls such Tradition. And it isn't the same, not even at the very highest and important and binding level possible: DOGMA. EACH of you (and the LDS) looks to Tradition as IT alone "writes" it with invisible ink - and says, "I agree with me."





.

 

[wayseer]

So you don't believe in the infallibility of Scripture either?

Another heresy.

 

[mark46]

Many here deny what the Church of 800 did agree on, before the schisms and additions. I agree with you that the RCC distinctives did not exist in 800. Nor were there the Lutheran, EO or OO distinctives. While there were divergent theological opinions, in 800 there seemed to be a Church much more unified in so many ways, compared to today's churches. I would go so far as to say that RCC, EO, OO, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists jointly confess the beliefs of the Church in 800.

The issues between many of us are the additions and changes after 800.

HOWEVER, for many others, the doctrines of 800 are unacceptable. The visible Church is unacceptable. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is unacceptable. The Church's liturgy is unacceptable. The place of Mary is unacceptable. For them, it is not the schism that was the tragedy. For them, the problems started from the beginning, at the formation of the visible Church. For them, it is not Jesus giving us his teachings through the apostles. For them, it is God giving us his teachings through the self-authenticating bible that speaks clearly to us today without interpretation.

We often criricize the RCC for the additions. And we should! However, we must also understand the gifts of the Church of the first 800 years to us. It is the EO/OO/RCC that gave us the canon, the Creed, the clarifications against the heretics, the liturgy, the Eucharist and so much more that Jesus passed on to the Early Church that He established.

So, I do indeed agree, the question is whether we wish to base our pilgrim walk on the 1st century bible alone (wherever one might get such a document). Or rather should we base our walk on Jesus as He has spoken to us through Scripture, Tradition, Reason and our own Experience?

Generally. The last ended around 800 AD, I believe. And NONE of the distinctives of your denomination were embraced by ANY of them - making RCC Tradition .... nonexistent. And there would be no original sin, no Supreme and Infallible Roman Pope, no Transubstantiation, no Assumption of Mary, no Immaculate Conception of Mary, well... nothing RCC at all.

.

 

[Standing Up]

On what Authority or source does the RCC base its argument/claim of infallibility or possession of authority for the RCC? In other words to where would you direct someone who asks from where does this authority come? Where is it established?

Today, they attempt to base it on this:

Jn. 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The problem, obviously, is that historically it doesn't make sense. After all RC disagrees with EO and OO and P, while all of them also disagree amongst themselves over things like canon, tradition, councils, and doctrine. Wasn't the Spirit of truth guiding them, keeping in mind we were at one time all one, big happy Body?

In turn, therefore, we can ask where that began to happen? When did Rome 'fall away' from the Spirit of truth? But why did men continue to submit?

A little Roman history would answer those questions.

 

[wayseer]

The problem, obviously, is that historically it doesn't make sense.

Historically, it does make sense.

When did Rome 'fall away' from the Spirit of truth?

What makes you think there has been any 'falling away'? Maybe you don't like what is happening but perhaps the Holy Spirit is just as active now as it ever was in the past. Perhaps we are closer to that 'truth' today than in the past.

 

[Standing Up]

Historically, it does make sense.



What makes you think there has been any 'falling away'? Maybe you don't like what is happening but perhaps the Holy Spirit is just as active now as it ever was in the past. Perhaps we are closer to that 'truth' today than in the past.

The Spirit is active today.

The point is to base a claim of inerrancy on a passage of scripture when in fact there are competing claims to truth. So, the answer to the OP is to look elsewhere.

 

[nestoj]

So you don't believe in the infallibility of Scripture either?

How can it be infallible or fallible? It's God inspired writing, but its interpretation is always in the eye of the beholder. And a beholder is always fallible unless the beholder is God himself or something protected from fallibility by God. Simple observation of scripture interpretations points us to conclude that not all who read the scripture are insulated from fallibility by God. Thus, we cannot rely on scripture to provide infallibility of interpretation on its own, but we also cannot infuse the concepts of fallibility/infallibility onto scripture.

 

[Noxot]

How can it be infallible or fallible? It's God inspired writing, but its interpretation is always in the eye of the beholder. And a beholder is always fallible unless the beholder is God himself or something protected from fallibility by God. Simple observation of scripture interpretations points us to conclude that not all who read the scripture are insulated from fallibility by God. Thus, we cannot rely on scripture to provide infallibility of interpretation on its own, but we also cannot infuse the concepts of fallibility/infallibility onto scripture.

why can't we? is the Word of God subjective or objective truth?

 

[nestoj]

why can't we? is the Word of God subjective or objective truth?

Are all understandings of the word of God true?

 

[Noxot]

Are all understandings of the word of God true?

no they are not.

but if heretics exist then does that make us not able to trust the Word of God?

it would be insane to do away with the good just because evil slanders it. right?

besides, there is a great falling away. and a famine for truth. even the elect would be deceived if it were possible.

 

[nestoj]

no they are not.

but if heretics exist then does that make us not able to trust the Word of God?

it would be insane to do away with the good just because evil slanders it. right?

besides, there is a great falling away. and a famine for truth. even the elect would be deceived if it were possible.

Sure you can trust the Bible. But that's a different thing from fallibility/infallibility of a personal understanding. Bible is a book. It's an inspired word of God in a form of a book, thus - someone must read and interpret the Bible in order to have a profit from it. As a consequence, that someone, will interpret it correctly or incorrectly. Hence, as a general conclusion, interpretation of a Bible is not infallible. Yet, one still must interpret it and accept a risk. That's all. It has nothing to do with trusting the word of God, it has everything to do with trusting one self. I mean - sure, it can sit on my shelf and be absolutely true...but in order for us to have any use for it we need to read it, and that's the natural framework - discussing the infallibility of a understanding of the scripture.