What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

[/size]

Hey, great! If the issue were whether to ignore scripture or not, of if I was arguing that scripture has NO authority, then that would be a pertinent response.

The point (which I strongly suspect you did not miss) is that we have overwhelming and very strong support for God's Holy Word as authoritative and normative. Yes, I well know the RCC agrees on this point.


What we don't have is a single support for the EQUAL authority and normative function of the RC denomination or the Pope. Not one. Not from Jesus. Not from Peter (!), not from Paul. Not from John. Not from any apostle.

That Jesus did do is establish a Church, empower certain of its members with certain authority, and give it a mission.

So you and the LDS and a couple of other denominations claim (always with yourself as that "church").
Okay.
We all know the claims.
And if the claims are the norm for the claims as arbitrated by the one making the claims, I suspect the claims will be determined to be correct. No matter what the claim or the one making it.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[racer]

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
Here Christ Himself did not say the Church is the source, or the cause of the scandals but individual men.

Okay, if someone makes the argument that Jesus never said Peter was the Pope or Mary was not Immaculately conceived, you would argue that just because Scripture is silent on certain issue it does not mean that it is/was not true. Yet, just because Jesus failed to specify that corruption/scandal can be brought about by a group of men as well as one man, it is not a possibility?

 

[Rick Otto]

is referring to the TRUE church, not yours, not mine,
not the apostles', but Christ's church.

Easy to confuse the two, I did for years.

 

[racer]

That's because this is the great Protestant dilemma, and I think Josiah is a rare breed because he actually acknowledges it. Either you believe that you are fallible in the interpretation which you give the Scripture, or you hold that you are infallible: if you say you are fallible, then your faith is uncertain and vacillating, and, consequently, is not faith at all; but if you say you are infallible, then your absurd presumption drives you to assert, that the whole Church may err in her interpretation of Scripture, but that you individually can interpret it with infallible certainty.

Do you have a problem with directly addessing those of whom you speak?

What would be refreshing is to see a Catholic/Orthodox admit they are as guilty of self-interpretation and personal discernment as the next Christian.

 

[BrightCandle]

So, the Catholic Church "freely admits" that when "RCC tradition" "contradicts" scripture, tradition wins, huh? Sorry. I call a flag on that play. Prove it or admit you were mistaken. Failure to do so will constitute bearing false witness.

Note, the lengthly quotes below taken from the most recent edition of the Roman Catholic Catechism, which explode your view of the Catholic Tradition vs Scripture. In particular, the last paragraph in the article dealing with Catholic Tradition vs Scripture, where it states that the RCC's Magesterium have the authority to makes any changes to tradition that it deems necessary, that is how they changed the Sabbath to Sunday, it was the politically expedient thing to do when Constantine joined the RCC. Additionally, note, in the article regarding the third commandment, that plenty of Scripture is quoted to justify the keeping of the 7th day Sabbath, while in the following article regarding Sunday worship, no commandment from God is mention only tradition or Scriptures that are taken out of context to prove tradition! There is your answer my friend, it might be time to join the SDAs and start keeping the day that God made holy, instead of the the one that churchmen and pagans put their blessing on! Oh, and BTW, the SDAs have 28 Fundamental Doctrines, with the Sabbath being only one of them.



Tradition vs. Scripture-Roman Catholic Catechism

II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT-Roman Catholic Catechism

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.90

The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.91

I. The Sabbath Day-Roman Catholic Catechism

2168 The third commandment of the Decalogue recalls the holiness of the sabbath: "The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD."92

2169 In speaking of the sabbath Scripture recalls creation: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."93

2170 Scripture also reveals in the Lord's day a memorial of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt: "You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with mighty hand and outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."94

2171 God entrusted the sabbath to Israel to keep as a sign of the irrevocable covenant.95 The sabbath is for the Lord, holy and set apart for the praise of God, his work of creation, and his saving actions on behalf of Israel.

2172 God's action is the model for human action. If God "rested and was refreshed" on the seventh day, man too ought to "rest" and should let others, especially the poor, "be refreshed."96 The sabbath brings everyday work to a halt and provides a respite. It is a day of protest against the servitude of work and the worship of money.97

2173 The Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of this day.98 He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."99 With compassion, Christ declares the sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing.100 The sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God.101 "The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."102

II. The Lord's Day

This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.103

The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106

Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108

2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life.
"Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."110

"Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Epiphany,
the Ascension of Christ,
the feast of the Body and Blood of Christi,
the feast of Mary the Mother of God,
her Immaculate Conception,
her Assumption,
the feast of Saint Joseph,
the feast of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints."111

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age.112 The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another."113

Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer.... Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal.... We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."114

2179 "A parish is a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis within a particular church; the pastoral care of the parish is entrusted to a pastor as its own shepherd under the authority of the diocesan bishop."115 It is the place where all the faithful can be gathered together for the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist. the parish initiates the Christian people into the ordinary expression of the liturgical life: it gathers them together in this celebration; it teaches Christ's saving doctrine; it practices the charity of the Lord in good works and brotherly love:

You cannot pray at home as at church, where there is a great multitude, where exclamations are cried out to God as from one great heart, and where there is something more: the union of minds, the accord of souls, the bond of charity, the prayers of the priests.116

The Sunday obligation

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. the faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God's holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2183 "If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."120

A day of grace and rest from work

2184 Just as God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,"121 human life has a rhythm of work and rest. the institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.122

2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.123 Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. the faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.

The charity of truth seeks holy leisure - the necessity of charity accepts just work.124

2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life.

2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.

2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."125

 

[Montanaman]

"Explodes?" Lol. Sure, whatever. I forgot that in your sect, "My interpretation" is the same thing as "truth."

Sorry, bud, but everything you quoted above I agree with. You just don't understand it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

We DO tend to go round and round, LOL... I've been involved in these discussions since I was 10. I suspect the merry-go-round has been in motion for at least 1000 years, and probably MUCH longer.

About 600 years tops.

You must be joking, the RCC freely admits that when RCC tradition conflicts with Scriptural truth, tradition trumps truth! Case in point, Sunday worship verse Sabbath worship. The Scriptural truth of the Bible clearly points to the 7th day Sabbath as the only day set aside as holy, and yet the RCC has substituted Sunday a day that has never been made holy by God!

Dont know where this assesment came from, but the CC is VERY scriptural.
Tradition..? The Bible is but a part of the CC Tradition. How does it knock itself down by disputing its own Tradition?

Case in point...it is not that scripture and Tradition are not in agreement...it is the new interpretation against what the Tradition has ALWAYS said scripture means that is in dispute.

1. Does that rubric apply to Catholics, too? If a Catholic says, for example, "Mary was always a virgin" do they need to "prove it" or admit that they are wrong? If they cannot "prove it" it constitutes bearing false witness?


.

This is a fine example of how Tradition has always showed how scripture prooves her virginity, and yet new interpretation dismisses it.

I believe that it is the invisible church that consists of true believers. Such dwell in Christ and Christ dwells in them.

Matthew 5
14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Do you have a problem with directly addessing those of whom you speak?

What would be refreshing is to see a Catholic/Orthodox admit they are as guilty of self-interpretation and personal discernment as the next Christian.

How could they lie about themselves?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

About 600 years tops.

2006 - 1054 = 952 years.
But it all began LONG before that.

This is a fine example of how Tradition has always showed how scripture prooves her virginity, and yet new interpretation dismisses it.

I think we could agree that God's Holy Word says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the private, intimate, marital sharing of of sexuality of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. Nothing. Therefore, in is IMPOSSIBLE for Tradition to prove what Scripture says about this. It says nothing - REGARDLESS of what "Tradition" may or may not say.

This is perhaps the most signifcant "problem" in Catholic/Protestant discussions. We agree on what the Bible says - those words are agreed upon. It's all the invisible words Catholics claim are "there" but no one else sees. For Catholics, the Scriptures MUST be interpreted to agree with what the RC denomination teaches, so these teachings MUST be "there" even if in invisible words. It's those invisible words that are often the stumbling block, it's a result of Tradition having authority over Scripture so that Scripture is subject to RC teachings, God must be made to agree with the RCC. Protestants are a tad uncomfortable with this epistemology. I would hope this is understandable, even if not agreeable.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Montanaman]

Complete nonsense. Protestants have added so many "invisible words" that they're 180 degrees off of scripture on so many points. Take "faith alone" for example. What did James mean when he said that man is not justified by faith alone? Why, man is justified by only his faith, of course!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Complete nonsense. Protestants have added so many "invisible words" that they're 180 degrees off of scripture on so many points. Take "faith alone" for example. What did James mean when he said that man is not justified by faith alone? Why, man is justified by only his faith, of course!

OFF TOPIC, but just to clarify your misconception...


Sola Fide (Faith Alone)


Some comments about faith...


Faith can be a noun (in which case it applies to the subject of our faith) or as a verb (in which case it applies to the trust/reliance in that subject).

I'll address it from the standpoint of the verb since that's the use we commonly use and how it is meant in the Protestant view of Sola Fide.


"Faith" = to trust, to rely. Especially trust and reliance in something that cannot be empiracally proven. Theologically, to trust and rely on God. It's a function of our hearts and lives.




When I was a kid, I had heart surgery (long story, doesn't matter). Anyway, I was just old enough to know I could die - and what that meant. I actually was okay with that. It had very little to do with heaven (a concept not yet in my heart or head) but with 1 John 4:8, "We rely on the love of God, because God is love."

I remember meeting the surgeon in the hospital - and that he kept calling me by the wrong name (Josh, I think). I realized, he doesn't know me - much less love me or even care about me. That was powerful. And yet, Mom and Dad told me he was a good doctor and God could use him. I was okay with that... I remember being moved onto the cold, hard table with the huge light above me - although by this time I was already very sleepy - fighting that as best I could.

I didn't know anything about the surgery, I didn't know anything about this surgeon, and clearly he knew nothing about me (not even my name) - or any of the rest of the staff involved in all this. And yet, I entrusted my life. Willingly. And I sooooo remember being okay wih that. I sooooo remember thinking: no matter what, it's okay, God loves me, and all that I love. God said, "My grace is sufficient for you." It was.

While my reliance was active on my part (I placed my life in their hands), there were no "works" on my part involved. There was no "obedience" other than I laid limp and allowed to happen whatever happened...


I know how planes fly; I understand the principles involved. Still, whenever I board one of those HUGE planes, I am amazed. They are soooooo big and heavy! And inside, they are STUFFED with overweight Americans (probably more so than the engineers planned for), and under them, all their luggage - too much. It's always the same. I look at those wings and that curvature and think, "no way!" And, of course, I don't know the pilot and he doesn't know me (or care). I don't know the flight plan or the weather report. I don't know the mechanics or their reports or when this plane was last overhauled. In fact, I know NOTHING about this particular plan or crew or flight. And I realize that when a plane stops working at 40K feet, well, it means we'll all be meeting Jesus. While the ODDS of that are very small, that means little for this particular flight - this could be that 1% (or whatever). It bothers me not. I board the plane. And as it takes off, as it's going down the runway, I hope to be able to see the wings and sit (passively!! in awe of it all, and then, surprisingly soon, the wheels chirp, and the plane rises - gloriously, and Hawaii is just 5 hours away.




Faith and Knowledge certainly have a relationship, but it's not a causitive or mechanical one, but rather a relational one. See my two illustrations above.

To insist that faith is the RESULT of knowledge is to deny that those below a certain IQ or age are capable of faith and therefore of salvation. And, IMO, undermines the very nature of faith which is to rest, rely, trust.

I am well aware that I can't "prove" much of anything in my heart. Actually, I "understand" probably LESS today than I did some years ago, more aware of the questions than the answers I have, more aware of mystery. It hasn't impacted my faith at all (if anything, it's increased it).



Faith is active. Luther said, "Faith is busy and active." Faith changes us - from the inside out, and that reveals itself in genuine, not forced, things. Faith that is just some claim, words we chant, is not faith. Just chanting the right syllables is not faith.

There's two senses in which faith is to be active:

1. Faith causes us to rely, to rest, to trust. To use the airplane illustration above, another person may have the exactly same information (or LACK thereof!!!!) and yet does not board the plane. In his/her case, there is no faith. The irony is that faith, while active, is rest - and therefore passive.

2. Faith is a change in our heart and results in a change in our lives. "By their fruits you will know them." "Faith without works is dead." A good tree bears fruit. But don't press this TOO far! The "transformation" of faith is not complete (this side of heaven), we remain here always incomplete, always saint AND sinner at the same time. And while faith is constant, the opportunities are not. To insist, for example, that there must be tangible good works - helping the little old lady across the street - would be to insist that a baby cannot have faith and therefore cannot be saved. I think the thief on the cross had faith and salvation - as far as I can tell from the text, he did NOTHING after coming to faith. To make works a requirement is to proclaim he went to hell. The principle is sound, but it shouldn't be pressed too far.





Sola Fide (Faith Alone)...


"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." Acts 16:30-31


"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believe in Him will not perish but has everlasting life." John 3:16


"Everyone who believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins through His name." Acts 10:43



Sola Fide states that justification (narrow sense), is the result of Christ's works, not our works.


Sola Fide does NOT exclude OUR works from our lives as Christians, it does exclude it as the means of our justification - it rejects that OUR works - per se - justify us.




Faith and works. The concept of Sola Fide states that faith in CHRIST and CHRIST'S works justify. However, such faith is "busy and active" (Martin Luther).

Two common Protestant proverbs:
"Faith alone saves but faith is never alone."
"We are save BY faith FOR works."

OUR works is a response or expression or "working out" of God's love and gift of salvation but it's not the cause of it. Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, Hebrews 11:6, James 2:17. A good tree yields good fruit, but it's the tree being good that makes the good fruit, not the good fruit that makes the tree good. God has done something inside of us - Ephesians 2:8, and that expresses itself in tangible, living, loving ways - which is the basis of the Great Commandment.



Some thoughts about James 2:17...
Faith, by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
Some will quote this verse (totally isolated from the rest of the NT) as if it somehow undermines Sola Fide. It does not - actually, this is a part of Sola Fide. The Book of James is profounded PRACTICAL, not theological in nature, and is entirely addressing the issue of discipleship (sanctification in the broad sense) not primarily focused on justification. In James 2:14-26, by separating faith from life, James is speaking of "faith" as just a proclaimation, a word, a chant, a syllable. Protestants agree: If faith is just a word, a thought, mental assent or agreement, if it's just a word we say - that's not faith at all. This is a part of the concept of Sola Fide. Luther said about this verse: "A man is justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone."


BTW, this doctrine MUST be seen together with the othersolas of which it is part of a set: Sola Gratia, Solus Christus. The concept is embracing that this is faith IN CHRIST and is a result of God's GRACE.


I hope this helps you understand what is meant by "Sola Fide."



Sorry for this diversion from the topic necessitated by the post quoted.



Back to the topic!



Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Montanaman]

Lol. So, examples are "off topic" at this forum, but the same long snippet of text used in virtually every other thread is "on" topic.

Got it.

 

[racer]

Lol. So, examples are "off topic" at this forum, but the same long snippet of text used in virtually every other thread is "on" topic.

Got it.

I'm a little confused. Did you come here to discuss issues with us or simply to "scoff" at us . . . . ?

 

[WarriorAngel]

2006 - 1054 = 952 years.
But it all began LONG before that.

I disagree that the schism is the same as the reform.
The EO have Apostolic succession, whereas the reformed do not.
And even deny it exists.
WHY? Because...it is not in scripture in easy to understand context. But the truth of it is there.

I dont feel like pulling up the quotes though. But it has been done in GT many times now.

I think we could agree that God's Holy Word says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the private, intimate, marital sharing of of sexuality of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. Nothing.

Gee CJ, let me ask you...if you were writing about someone's virginity who was alive...would it be a scandal?
The fact anyone would discuss a living person's [albeit the Mother of God no less] sexuality would be not only improper, but very degrading. Would you not agree?

Therefore, in is IMPOSSIBLE for Tradition to prove what Scripture says about this. It says nothing - REGARDLESS of what "Tradition" may or may not say.

This is perhaps the most signifcant "problem" in Catholic/Protestant discussions. We agree on what the Bible says - those words are agreed upon. It's all the invisible words Catholics claim are "there" but no one else sees. For Catholics, the Scriptures MUST be interpreted to agree with what the RC denomination teaches, so these teachings MUST be "there" even if in invisible words. It's those invisible words that are often the stumbling block, it's a result of Tradition having authority over Scripture so that Scripture is subject to RC teachings, God must be made to agree with the RCC. Protestants are a tad uncomfortable with this epistemology. I would hope this is understandable, even if not agreeable.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

Like it has been told in here so many times.... NOT everything was written about. [NOR could it be] And St John says this...so why is that not good enough? ITS in scriptures!
Her vow and surprise at conceiving is blatantly clear. WHY Would anyone be shocked to hear they would conceive a child if they were betrothed?? Please answer!!
And again, it would have been a scandal to write about or discuss the sexuality of the Virgin.
Or rather lack thereof.

How was it that Martin luther believed in perpetual virginity...but you do not?



How is it that you see the Catholics and EO agree with one another on most points??

If we were to be making it up from the tops of our heads and proposing what we 'feel' scriptures meant, we all would be pointedly disagreeing.

Besides the Catholics using footnotes in a Universal Bible, and the catechism.... doesnt that proove anything?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Gee CJ, let me ask you...if you were writing about someone's virginity who was alive...would it be a scandal?
The fact anyone would discuss a living person's [albeit the Mother of God no less] sexuality would be not only improper, but very degrading. Would you not agree?

1. Anyone can ask questions.
Anyone can answer their own question.
It doesn't make the answer correct.
Follow?


2. Well, we might have a different ethic here, but while I'm NO prude, I just think that PRIVATE marital sex lives are private and none of my _____ business. If they aren't "doing it" I guess I'm sad about that, but it's none of my business and I hardly think we should make DOGMA out of that. Among the Jews, their sexuality was THE most private, most intimate part of their lives. I wonder (that's all!!!!!) how the Mother feels about her PRIVATE sexuality in MARRIAGE being discussed all over the place among 5th grade boys and girls in Catholic schools. I don't know. My parents don't exactly teach about their private marital sharing among the world's children. Just seems amazingly odd to me and I wonder (because of my PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother) how much pain and hurt this might cause her. BUT, all that is irrelevant to this DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Like it has been told in here so many times.... NOT everything was written about. [NOR could it be] And St John says this...so why is that not good enough? ITS in scriptures!

John wrote that not everything Jesus DID is recorded in the Gospel of St. John. It's a huge (and to ME completely incredable) leap to argue that THEREFORE Jesus taught DOGMAS which are not recorded in ANY biblical book but God forgot to include there and so told instead the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Denomination (or the LDS denomination). I just find that a huge and incrediable leap. Can you see that from my perspective?

How was it that Martin luther believed in perpetual virginity...but you do not?

Luther was a man, not a Pope.
What he personally accepted is nice but not normative.


I leave this an open question.
Unlike the RC denomination, I do not state a dogma one way or the other.
Frankly, I think it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS and has absolutely nothing to do with anything. How often Joseph and Mary "did it" is frankly none of my business. Why anyone would make DOGMA out of this just, well...

If we were to be making it up from the tops of our heads and proposing what we 'feel' scriptures meant, we all would ibe pointedly disagreeing.

Besides the Catholics usaing footnotes in a Universal Bible, and the catechism.... doesnt that proove anything?

I'm not sure what your point is here, sorry.
The fact that the RCC and the EO and the OO disagree on a number of dogmas DOES seem to undermine the self claims of each. 1054, IMHO, is a HUGE issue.



Thank you for the discussion!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Montanaman]

Unlike the RC denomination, I do not state a dogma one way or the other.

Which is why I wonder what it is you ever try to do here. You won't state that anything is TRUE--just what YOUR personal perspective is. If that's all you've got, then what's the point? See, most people want to know what the truth is one way or the other, not what people's opinions are.

Is your purpose to convince some people that the truth is THIS way rather than ANOTHER way? If not, there's no point to it. It's just so much speculation. No thanks. I want to KNOW.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Which is why I wonder what it is you ever try to do here. You won't state that anything is TRUE--just what YOUR personal perspective is. If that's all you've got, then what's the point? See, most people want to know what the truth is one way or the other, not what people's opinions are.

Is your purpose to convince some people that the truth is THIS way rather than ANOTHER way? If not, there's no point to it. It's just so much speculation. No thanks. I want to KNOW.

These discussions often twist and turn so fast (is it evasion?) that nothing gets resolved at all. Oh, well... To your new point:


Sure, to know is a worthy goal. I'm not suggesting anything different. What I'm suggesting is that just because Joseph Smith or the LDS said some things and says it is from God doesn't make it true. You seem to agree, except when it comes to the RCC. THAT'S the issue of this thread. Is truth whatever a teacher (person, congregation, denomination) says it is? How can it not be when the epistemology the RCC insists upon is embraced, where the RCC appoints itself as the "sole teaching authority" and appoints itself as the "sole interpreter" of Scripture and whatever else it chooses as authorative, and appoints itself as the "sole arbiter" for all matters which it itself chooses to arbitrate, and declares itself infallible and therefore unaccountable in all the above. See, my strong hunch is that you'd quickly rebuke Joseph Smith for such an epistemology - proclaiming it circular, self-authenticating and absurd, NOT something that would lead to truth at all, NOT something that would be a basis for KNOWING. But then when the the RC denomination is mention, everything is 180 degrees, now it's "infallible." THAT'S the topic here. Is this epistemology the RCC so strongly rebukes for others but insist is infallible for itself, is THAT the foundation for truth, or as you put it, for knowing?




Thank you for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Montanaman]

appoints itself

Get over that phrase, please. Once AGAIN, the Church didn't just arbitrarily delcare itself to be the sole authority for Christians. You may disagree with the evidence for why Catholics say the Church is authoritative, but please knock off this disengenous distortion of the Church's case. To say the Church simply declared itself to be the sole authority, as if it has no other possible reason to claim authority, is at best simply ignorance. At BEST. By now you should know better, particularly since you're so fond of pointing out how you were an honorary Catholic when you were an even younger kid.

You can cut and paste your point a billion times, but it still doesn't make it true.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/FONT]


1. Anyone can ask questions.
Anyone can answer their own question.
It doesn't make the answer correct.
Follow?


2. Well, we might have a different ethic here, but while I'm NO prude, I just think that PRIVATE marital sex lives are private and none of my _____ business. If they aren't "doing it" I guess I'm sad about that, but it's none of my business and I hardly think we should make DOGMA out of that. Among the Jews, their sexuality was THE most private, most intimate part of their lives. I wonder (that's all!!!!!) how the Mother feels about her PRIVATE sexuality in MARRIAGE being discussed all over the place among 5th grade boys and girls in Catholic schools. I don't know. My parents don't exactly teach about their private marital sharing among the world's children. Just seems amazingly odd to me and I wonder (because of my PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother) how much pain and hurt this might cause her. BUT, all that is irrelevant to this DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.



[/FONT]


John wrote that not everything Jesus DID is recorded in the Gospel of St. John. It's a huge (and to ME completely incredable) leap to argue that THEREFORE Jesus taught DOGMAS which are not recorded in ANY biblical book but God forgot to include there and so told instead the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Denomination (or the LDS denomination). I just find that a huge and incrediable leap. Can you see that from my perspective?







Luther was a man, not a Pope.
What he personally accepted is nice but not normative.


I leave this an open question.
Unlike the RC denomination, I do not state a dogma one way or the other.
Frankly, I think it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS and has absolutely nothing to do with anything. How often Joseph and Mary "did it" is frankly none of my business. Why anyone would make DOGMA out of this just, well...








I'm not sure what your point is here, sorry.
The fact that the RCC and the EO and the OO disagree on a number of dogmas DOES seem to undermine the self claims of each. 1054, IMHO, is a HUGE issue.



Thank you for the discussion!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

And yet you still avoided my question I asked you pointedly to reply to.

Her vow and surprise at conceiving is blatantly clear. WHY Would anyone be shocked to hear they would conceive a child if they were betrothed?? Please answer!!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Her vow and surprise at conceiving is blatantly clear.

"Blantantly clear?"


All we need is a single Holy Scripture that says Mary vowed to remain a virgin all her life.

Friend, it's not "blantantly clear" it's completely missing. Entirely. Totally.

WHY Would anyone be shocked to hear they would conceive a child if they were betrothed?? Please answer!!

Mary and Joseph were engaged and had not yet had sex. She might have been young and innocent, but she knew enough reproductive biology to be surprised at a sexless pregnancy. I suspect we all would be.


Why this makes it "blantantly clear" that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a normal, healthy, natural, God-pleasing, blessed sharing of their sexuality in MARRIAGE after Jesus was born is completely beyond me. There is simply NOTHING in God's Holy Word that REMOTELY confirms that they were so deprived. Nothing.



And why is it anyone's business? As I posted before, we might have a different ethic here, but while I'm NO prude, I just think that PRIVATE marital sex lives are private and none of our business. If they aren't "doing it" I guess I'm sad about that, but it's none of my business and I hardly think we should make DOGMA out of that. Among the Jews, their sexuality was THE most private, most intimate part of their lives. I wonder (that's all!!!!!) how the Holy Mother feels about her PRIVATE sexuality in MARRIAGE being discussed all over the place among 5th grade boys and girls in Catholic schools. I don't know. My parents don't exactly teach about their private marital sharing among the world's children. Just seems amazingly odd to me and I wonder (because of my PROFOUND respect for the Holy Mother) how much pain and hurt this might cause her. BUT, all that is irrelevant to this DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's DOGMA - the highest level of teaching - and such requires the highest level of substantiation. So far, NONE has been offered. Nothing at all.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.