Tradition - why not?

[ZiSunka]

Just as politics and power-plays are a factor in the teachings of todays churches and church leaders, even Baptist ones.

True, which is why we have to be conscientious to constantly go back to the Bible and compare what we are doing and teaching to what Christ did and taught. Otherwise we are doomed to become a body of followers of someone other than Christ!

 

[Man with Thorn]

True, which is why we have to be conscientious to constantly go back to the Bible and compare what we are doing and teaching to what Christ did and taught. Otherwise we are doomed to become a body of followers of someone other than Christ!

And God's people said

 

[Crazy Liz]

My point was that most of the items you listed as 'traditions' (eg: sacraments, praying to Mary, etc) did not evolve as a tradition - the Pope in his role as 'God's ultimate authority on earth' issued an edict on these things and as a result they became part of the Catholic liturgy/doctrine.

Sort of. these edicts did not come out of the blue. Before popes issued edicts on matters like this, they were already largely accepted by Catholics.
The edict, then, was intended to make an official record that it had been adopted.

I feel it is important to make this distinction, as a tradition is something which is there, but is not a material part of our faith, but a doctrine is - for example, in the protestant church, infant baptism & adolescent confirmation is a tradition - it's something that was done firstly because of logistics (shortage of ministers to conduct baptisms in the early days of the protestant churches), and secondly because, well, it's always been done that way. In the Catholic church, infant baptism is tied in with the Catholic doctrine of Limbo and original sin which is an 'edict' stating that if an unbaptised infant dies, it cannot get into heaven, as it is still under 'original sin', yet it has not committed any 'venial sin ' (being an innocent baby), therefor it cannot go to Hades, so it goes to 'Limbo', a sort of 'halfway house', not Hades, but not Heaven.

When you say "because," do you mean the historical cause or the present rationale? Infant baptism was practiced long before either Limbo or the Western concept of original sin were developed as doctrines. In fact, each of these doctrines developed as a rationale to explain the practice of infant baptism, which was already widespread. Augustine was responsible for much of this doctrinal development.

 

[Man with Thorn]

Sort of. these edicts did not come out of the blue. Before popes issued edicts on matters like this, they were already largely accepted by Catholics.
The edict, then, was intended to make an official record that it had been adopted.

When you say "because," do you mean the historical cause or the present rationale? Infant baptism was practiced long before either Limbo or the Western concept of original sin were developed as doctrines. In fact, each of these doctrines developed as a rationale to explain the practice of infant baptism, which was already widespread. Augustine was responsible for much of this doctrinal development.

Without entering into a semantic debate about the detailed sources of Catholic doctrine, yes Liz, you are right, there are doctrines which started as traditions.

But I still stand by my original point - that there is a difference between a tradition in a church, which can be very simply changed by adopting a different standpoint or attitude (such as 'no clapping or drums in church'), and doctrine, which you need to either accept and submit to in discipleship, or find another church if you cannnot (such as whether Mary ascended into Heaven like Jesus - this is not a mere tradition, this is a pillar of the Catholic doctrine)

 

[Monica02]

(such as whether Mary ascended into Heaven like Jesus - this is not a mere tradition, this is a pillar of the Catholic doctrine)

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was assumed (not ascended) into heaven. Jesus ascended to heaven by his own power. Mary was assumed into heaven by the power of God.

 

[ZiSunka]

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was assumed (not ascended) into heaven. Jesus ascended to heaven by his own power. Mary was assumed into heaven by the power of God.

Whatever word, it is an essential teaching of Catholicism that Mary went to heaven without dying, yes? And this teaching comes from a source other than the Bible, yes?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Whatever word, it is an essential teaching of Catholicism that Mary went to heaven without dying, yes? And this teaching comes from a source other than the Bible, yes?

The Assumption of Mary supposedly happened after her death.

Catholic Encyclopedia : The Feast of the Assumption

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

 

[SumTinWong]

Actually the Catholic church has no formal stance on whether she died or not. They say she could have but do not know. The Orthodox say she did die.

From http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp:
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

 

[ZiSunka]

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Interesting conclusion. I can think of about half a dozen more plausible explanations.

The way we were taught in CCD, Mary was taken up in front of all the apostles before she died. Eastern churches, of which I was a part, rejected the writings of Jersome on the subject, and ascerted that Mary was assumed without having first died because the idea of the mother of God lying in a grave was abhorent to them. Yet testimony on the subject didn't exist at all until the sixth century. All works on the subject, except Jerome's dated from centuries after the event. All before that was in the form of oral tradition. That's the trouble with using tradition as a basis for faith--who's tradition do you use? The one that says Mary was assumed into heaven after her death or before?

I believe the tradition comes from the key sentence above, that the idea of the mother of Christ being left to decay in a grave was abhorent and so the idea of her being taken up into heaven came into being.

 

[Sweet Pea]

The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory Col.2:8; Gal.1:14. Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. The first time is is mentioned is by Jesus in Mt. 15:2-3 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.
He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.

Another time he was asked about eating bread before washing their hands. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” And He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” They had a choice but instead defaulted to their own rules that they thought was biblical.


There are other instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself. An example of this is in Jn.10:22 with the feast of dedication (Chanukah). Jesus did not refute this because it was a actual historical event. Yet if the leaders had made it mandatory it would have received a different reaction from Jesus. They are teaching that these were handed down from the Apostles (some of which are found from Scripture) and are commands and even necessary for ones spiritual life. <FONT size=2>Paul explains in Gal 1:14 “And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul understood the differences of what tradition was and what was Scripture is.



Upon only 3 verses that have the word “tradition” in the Scriptures, Catholicism’s entire practice for traditions being of equal status with scripture are founded on these. Despite the fact that the same Scripture that mentions the word tradition makes it clear from both Jesus and the apostles writings that they are to be our source of life. So lets look at this Scriptures carefully and see what they say and what they do not say.



Cor.11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”

Finish reading here...Source: http://www.letusreason.org/RC13.htm

 

[Man with Thorn]

I believe the tradition comes from the key sentence above, that the idea of the mother of Christ being left to decay in a grave was abhorent and so the idea of her being taken up into heaven came into being.

You are right Lambslove, and there is a further spin to what you have highlighted:

Again, without getting into detailed semantics, about where, when or how, the fundemental doctrinal principle is that Mary is physically in Heaven. Another doctrine related to Mary is that she died a virgin. Add these to the fact that the Catholic church has a 'Mary's equivalent' of the 'Our Father' prayer, namely the 'Hail Mary', the fact that she is referred to as 'Holy Mary, the Mother of God', and a fundamental Catholic prayer ritual, namely the Holy Rosary, is focussed on Mary and endlessly repeating the Hail Mary (remember what I said about ''brain-washing'' - how else do you get a body of believers to acccept and embrace a doctrine that is so blatantly unscriptural?), makes it seem very apparent to me that the Catholic Church was determined to establish a female 'godhead' who is at the very least on a par with Jesus, but actually, is 'God's queen' as it were, all without a shred of Scriptural validity.

Now, let me ask this - has anyone considered what role the fact that Roman/Italians society (and many other pagan societies which were 'Catholicised' ) were/are strongly matriarchal in nature played in the progressive deification of Mary?

What I am getting to in a rather roundabout way is that sometimes the traditions which we need to guard against don't start in the church at all - they come from socio-political factors which initially appear to have no relation to what we preach and practise in our churches....

I can think of a few of these 'social traditions' which were preventing the Jews from being obedient to God, and which were highlighted and rejected by Jesus. Can anybody think of examples of this in the church today?

 

[SumTinWong]

Another doctrine related to Mary is that she died a virgin.

As a matter of fact Martin Luther, and John Calvin thought the same. It is a recent belief that she did not. By the way in case you were not paying attention they (the Catholic church) have not formally decalred if Mary died or not. Many in the church do believe she did.

Add these to the fact that the Catholic church has a 'Mary's equivalent' of the 'Our Father' prayer, namely the 'Hail Mary',

Okay stop it. The Hail Mary is in no way the same as the Our Father, and it is not intended to be so. If you have proof to the contrary than state it, otherwise just stop spreading the falacies. The part of the hail Mary that I would disgree with the most is the full of Grace statement. It is based on a misguided translation that was trying to make the text say something it did not. Mary was highly favored by God, not full of grace and she is not a distributor of any grace.

From the Catholic Catechism:
"Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the Person of Christ manifested in His mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first "magnifies" the Lord for the "great things" He did for His lowly servant and through her for all human beings. The second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused."

Now if you want to argue about whether she is our mother or the mother of us all I am on your side as she is most certainly not. The other part that i would argue with is that Mary would pray for us now or at the time of our death. I do not think it is either likely or probable that she does either.

the fact that she is referred to as 'Holy Mary, the Mother of God',

I call her the mother of God, and I am not a Catholic. Jesus is God, she gave birth to Him, what does that make her? The mother of God. Does that make her superior to God? In no way, and it does not make her a deity. Now if you want to talk true falacies in the Catholic church we can talk about such titles as the queen of heaven and earth, and medatrix of all graces which in my opinion are the true fables being taught today in the church, and cannot be be backed by any reasoning or scripture.

and a fundamental Catholic prayer ritual, namely the Holy Rosary, is focussed on Mary and endlessly repeating the Hail Mary

I don't agree with this either. But I don't have to do it, and neither do Catholics. It is a voluntary not mandatory thing.

(remember what I said about ''brain-washing'' - how else do you get a body of believers to acccept and embrace a doctrine that is so blatantly unscriptural?),

You mean like sola scriptura? Sola scriptura is not biblical nor can it be established that until recently in the last few hundred years that it was a doctrine to be considered. Come off it, do you honestly believe that the Catholic church has brain washed over one billion people? I don't agree with more than a tenth of the Catholic churches theological arguements but even I am not foolish enough to believe that they have scrambled the brains of their parishoners on purpose.

makes it seem very apparent to me that the Catholic Church was determined to establish a female 'godhead' who is at the very least on a par with Jesus, but actually, is 'God's queen' as it were, all without a shred of Scriptural validity.

Find me a Catholic tract or book or even a snipet of text from a legitimate Catholic source saying what you just said and I will agree with you. If not, then I expect you to retract that statement.

Now, let me ask this - has anyone considered what role the fact that Roman/Italians society (and many other pagan societies which were 'Catholicised' ) were/are strongly matriarchal in nature played in the progressive deification of Mary?

Was that a slur against Italians or just Catholic Italians? You seem to forget that long before there was a church of Rome many of these same thoughts and ideas were taught, in the middle east, and in the Greek nations. So your theory falls flat. Many of the same things that The Roman Catholics believe are believed in the Eastern Orthodox churches which existed way before them.

What I am getting to in a rather roundabout way is that sometimes the traditions which we need to guard against don't start in the church at all - they come from socio-political factors which initially appear to have no relation to what we preach and practise in our churches....

If that was roundabout I would hate to see a full frontal from you. Anyway, I agree that some traditions can and do start from socio-political factors but you have yet to prove that is the case in the Catholic church.

I can think of a few of these 'social traditions' which were preventing the Jews from being obedient to God, and which were highlighted and rejected by Jesus. Can anybody think of examples of this in the church today?

Yeah. In the Baptist church you must go through classes sometimes upwards of ten weeks to join a church and be baptized. Line that up with the eunich from the NT. I don't remember that verse and chapter.

 

[ZiSunka]

Actually Bud, I just finished reading a very fascinating book about Luther, and one of the doctrines that he struggled with was whether or not Mary was a lifelong virgin. The Bible clearly states that Christ had brothers and sisters, and Christian philosophers were studying the concept of her eternal virginhood and found that the eariest church writings didn't claim that she was a virgin for life. The concept was considered heresy by the Eastern churches because that would mean that James, the writer of the book by the same name, would have been a liar when he called himself the brother of Christ. Because there was scriptural evidence that she had borne non-diety children, they declared that belief that Mary and Joseph never "got together" was heretical. The ascertion that she continued to be a virgin all her life goes back to the abhorence of the idea that the womb that birthed God could defile itself and bear human children. Purely traditional, not at all accepted by the earilest Eastern church fathers. An important thing to keep in mind is that there were two sometimes opposing leaderships of the Church, one at Rome, but also one at Jerusalem. What was accepted by Rome was often considered heretical by Jerusalem.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Actually Bud, I just finished reading a very fascinating book about Luther, and one of the doctrines that he struggled with was whether or not Mary was a lifelong virgin. The Bible clearly states that Christ had brothers and sisters, and Christian philosophers were studying the concept of her eternal virginhood and found that the eariest church writings didn't claim that she was a virgin for life. The concept was considered heresy by the Eastern churches because that would mean that James, the writer of the book by the same name, would have been a liar when he called himself the brother of Christ. Because there was scriptural evidence that she had borne non-diety children, they declared that belief that Mary and Joseph never "got together" was heretical. The ascertion that she continued to be a virgin all her life goes back to the abhorence of the idea that the womb that birthed God could defile itself and bear human children. Purely traditional, not at all accepted by the earilest Eastern church fathers. An important thing to keep in mind is that there were two sometimes opposing leaderships of the Church, one at Rome, but also one at Jerusalem. What was accepted by Rome was often considered heretical by Jerusalem.

Where did you get this information, LL? It is quite different from the research I have done. I am quite interested in looking at historical sources I have missed on this topic.

What I have read previously indicates the earliest tradition about the brothers of Jesus is that they are Joseph's children by a previous marriage. Probably they were already adults by the time Jesus was born. This one makes perfect sense. It does not contradict either the scriptures or tradition, and was believed by the church at a time when people could have come forward with actual facts to refute it, if it were untrue.

I realize this is not conclusive, but of all the theories, it is the most defensible.

 

[ZiSunka]

You have to stop going to catholic.com for all your information Liz.

I recommend university libraries for a more complete look at the beliefs of the earliest Christians. University of Dayton, though a catholic college, has a surprisingly good library of the evolution of Christian philosophy over the centuries. Don't just concentrate on the teachings of Rome, but remember to look into the Christian center of Jerusalem, too. Most people in America today are of the mistaken belief that there was only one Church and it was centered and headed in Rome, but from the resurrection of Christ to about the 3rd century, Jerusalem was the center of Christianity.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You have to stop going to catholic.com for all your information Liz.

I recommend university libraries for a more complete look at the beliefs of the earliest Christians. University of Dayton, though a catholic college, has a surprisingly good library of the evolution of Christian philosophy over the centuries. Don't just concentrate on the teachings of Rome, but remember to look into the Christian center of Jerusalem, too. Most people in America today are of the mistaken belief that there was only one Church and it was centered and headed in Rome, but from the resurrection of Christ to about the 3rd century, Jerusalem was the center of Christianity.

I've never even heard of catholic.com. I didn't get most of my information from Catholic sources. I got it from reading the early church fathers and other ancient literature. I tend to prefer the Greek Fathers over the Latin Fathers, so I do tend to favor sources closer to Jerusalem than to Rome. Also Antioch and other Christian centers in the Near East. (BTW, Jerusalem was not the center of Christianity after 70 AD. It really wasn't even one of the major centers after that date. There were several others, though, besides Rome. Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria and several other Eastern cities were centers of Christianity between 70-300, as well as Rome.)

I do make trips to the library often. I have two excellent theological libraries at my disposal. I just wanted to know whether you could give me some pointers to save me some time finding the specific information you are referring to. Specifically, I'd like some help locating this particular piece of inforamtion:

Christian philosophers were studying the concept of her eternal virginhood and found that the eariest church writings didn't claim that she was a virgin for life. The concept was considered heresy by the Eastern churches because that would mean that James, the writer of the book by the same name, would have been a liar when he called himself the brother of Christ.

From all my reading, the Eastern churches believed James to be Joseph's son by a previous marriage. Since you have found different information in the Dayton library, I'd just appreciate a reference or some other clues that would save me some time in researching this. If you could take a few minutes to be more specific and save me several hours, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks, LL!

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Hi, everybody!

I just want to make some clarifications about what Orthodoxy teaches. I can't speak for Catholicism, as I have never been Catholic, and there are many areas that we disagree on.

Orthodoxy teaches that Mary was the Theotokos - Mother of God - as a necessary defense of the Deity of Jesus Christ - that He was FULLY GOD as well as fully man. This title "Theotokos" was defined in one of the early Councils to combat the heretical ideas about Jesus' nature.

Orthodoxy also teaches that she was indeed ever-Virgin, that she was set apart for a holy purpose, and Joseph knew this [Joseph was an older widower - and yes, we believe Jesus's "brothers" including James, to have been Joseph's children by his first marriage - who was basically chosen to be Mary's protector] and so never had marital relations with her, because she had borne God the Son through the power of God the Holy Spirit. We also believe that many verses in the OT prophesy of this.

The only Orthodox "dogma" about Mary's death is that she was assumed bodily into Heaven after her death. We believe that she died a normal death, but that her body was not left on earth to decay, because of her very special role in God's plan of salvation. Even our name for the Feast Day refers to her death - the Dormition of the Theotokos.

I'm not stating these thing to argue or debate in any way, I just wanted to present the Orthodox understanding of these things.

A blessed Nativity to you all!

Mary

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Personally, I think the Mary ever virgin thing as a doctrine can be done away with quite easily. The Bible doesnt go into graphic details about sexual relations with each other, however in a tactful way it does mention them. It seems that its described this way "he went into her" or "he knew her." The bible says that Joseph never knew Mary until Jesus was born.

Anyways, Crazy Liz, do you study doctrine and history daily? Are taking masters level courses or something, if so where do you study?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Anyways, Crazy Liz, do you study doctrine and history daily? Are taking masters level courses or something, if so where do you study?

Yes. I'm about 2/3 of the way through my MDiv at Fuller Theological Seminary.

 

[ZiSunka]

Let me go look it up. They were Germanic theolgoians whose names I can't remember...

Johann Tauler in his letters to Andres Einst said that he had no doubt of the virgin birth but that it was impossible to think that Mary was a virgin her entire life because St James had been the brother of Christ. At one time, the theory was that by brother, James had meant that he was a half brother to Christ, but that the earilest eastern church fathers had rejected the notion because there is no reference in the scriptures of a first marriage for Joseph or for the presence of Joseph's first family which Mary would have been left to raise (and who would have been taken on the trip to Bethlehem since everyone had to travel for the census and not just the father of the household, yet they are not mentioned as being present), and because when the theory was first proposed, some of the siblings of Christ were still alive and did not refute their full relation to Christ. Also, Tauler said, if they were Joseph's children alone, and not Mary's too, they had no claim to being siblings of Christ at all because Christ was related to Mary but not Joseph and they were related to Joseph but not Mary. The closest relationship they could claim was step-sibling, a relationship that was not recognized in Jewish culture. The terminology for such a relationship would have been "father's wife's child," not brother. When James claimed to be the brother of Christ, he could have only meant that he was born of Mary, Tauler stated.