Posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) Is there an existential difference between that Jewish Oral Tradition handed down over the centuries (or even millenia from the time of Moses until that Oral Tradition was codified) and Roman Catholic Oral Tradition passed on from Bishop to Bishop until it was later codified?
B.) If an Oral Tradition is carried from person to person over a period of time (from say 33 A.D. until 90's A.D. - around the time of John's death) and that New Testament Oral Tradition was being codified during that time period, is that codification different or greater in authority (given that it could have been subject to the Apostle John's acceptance or rejection) than Oral Tradition that is/was codified over a much larger expanse of time - say from after John's death up until the Counter Reformation?
How do we know that that Oral Tradition which emerged after John's death has any veracity or authority at all? If we say "We know that it is truthful and authoritative because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop and because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop we know that it is true," isn't that circualr reasoning?
If so, doesn't that hold true for Jewish Oral Tradition that is outside of the canon (Torah) or the canon (Genesis to Malachi) - whichever one of the two one accepts as being authoritative?
How do we know that the Oral Interpretation of the codified letter (the book of Jeremiah or Genesis for example) that may have been given much later - say hundreds of years later - carries any veracity or authority at all? Did those Jewsish authorities who interpreted those written scriptures and later codified their interpretation(s) (or had their interpretation(s) codified by others "down the road a bit") have some authority that was almost Ex Cathedra in scope or nature?
As a digression, when one speaks Ex Cathedra, do they lose Free Will? Does God take over so that that Pope cannot commit error? If so, is that equal to what the Apostle Paul said in the New Testament: "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine..."
In the end, if any Oarl Tradition is equal in veracity and authority (be it Jewish or Roman Catholic) why not - for example - place that codification in a canon and include it right alongside say Genesis to Tobit and Baruch to Revelation?
The same for Jewish Oral Tradition?
How do you KNOW?
Because the Catholic church says so? It claims it for itself?
Christ said He would build His church. He never gave a name to it and claiming that it is the Roman Catholic church retroactively with nothing to support it, is a power grab, plain and simple.
And those epistles were addressed to besides Rome were Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus, Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, and people like Timothy, Titus and Philemon.
Additionally, in the book of Revelation, there is zero mention of Rome by Jesus to John.
SO where does Rome get off claiming to be the OTC?
Why not one of the others?
It's only presumption on the part of the RCC that it's then who Jesus was referring to. Rome was only one of seven cities that Paul wrote his epistles to.
” The problem is that the way that is presented is that the *church* IS truth.
Scripture, God’s word, is truth, which the church is responsible to support or uphold as truth, which is what a pillar and foundation do for a structure.”
So, to summarize the conjectures I’ve gotten on this thread, “Christ is truth”, “the church is truth”, and “Scripture is truth”. Why don’t you guys get together and get your interpretation straight before you try to tell me how to read the verse?
God is the only certain foundation, regardless of what you interpret the “truth” to be in that verse.
Matthew 7:25 -
“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:”
2 Timothy 2:19 -
“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
1 Corinthians 3:10-11 -
“10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Ephesians 2:19-20 -
“19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
*I* never said the church is truth. That's not found anywhere in Scripture, while Jesus Himself clearly says in Scripture that both He and the word are truth.
It's not a matter of getting together and deciding what truth is.
It's a matter of going back to Scripture, the word of God, and finding out what it says truth is.
I'm not going to agree with claiming the church is truth because it's not found in Scripture.
So, Jesus is the truth, and Jesus is the foundation of the church, do we then read the verse in question to say that the church is the foundation of truth? How does that blueprint work out? Wouldn’t that make the church the foundation of Jesus, and Jesus the foundation of the church? Seems awfully circular to me.
“And you still have the problem of Holy Scripture not agreeing with your interpretation:”
Oh really? Did Scripture speak up and whisper that to you, privately?
“You err in what the Church is, to begin with. It is the body of Christ. Christ is the head.”
You’re mixing your metaphors. Yes, when the body analogy is used, Christ is the head, but when the temple analogy is used, Christ is the foundation and chief cornerstone:
1 Corinthians 3:11 -
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Ephesians 2:19-20 -
“19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
>> then it is the height of individual autocracy and interpretation. <<
Not at all! Because (1) the Papacy was ordained by Christ, (2) the powers of infallibility are so narrowly circumscribed, and (3) the pope cannot contradict Tradition, nor innovate, but can only discern what tradition has always been. (Which is not to say that he cannot enunciate it more clearly; see below.)
>> Yet “without contradiction” does not mean it is actually taught in Scripture or even that its veracity is based upon or requires weight of Scriptural substantiation, or even that the reasons or arguments upon which it may be based are infallible. <<
That’s correct; were it not for controversies over the meaning of scripture, there would be no reason for reserving the right to issue infallible proclamations about moral doctrine (which is the only kind of infallible proclamations a pope can make).
>> Yet even o the EO “opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” <<
The EO assent to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, and remained sinless for her entire lifetime; the rejection of the Immaculate Conception by the EO is primarily because it is expressed in terms of original sin, an Augustinian formulation which the EO have not assented to. Also, the EO assent to the notion of a purification in the afterlife; purgatory is simply a Latin word, and there are non-doctrinal connotations to the Latin which the EO find troublesome.
>> They added as infallible books that aforetime and during Trent were yet subject to scholarly dispute. <<
Not in the way Protestants understand them to have been disputed. The earliest Church fathers referenced them authoritatively; the disputes (including St. Jerome’s prefaces) dealt chiefly with the topic of using them to convert Jews, who accepted most of the Old Testament and therefore, it was believed, should be able to recognize the New Testament as its fulfillment, but who rejected the controverted books.
>> And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures , (Luke 24:44-45) <<
Actually, this is a great example of the varying canons: no mention is made of the Khetuvim (”scrolls”), which include what the Protestants call the “apocrypha”, but also Job, Chronicles, Esther, Ezra (-Nehemiah), Daniel, Ruth, Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Lamentations. New Testament citations of these books are exceedingly rare. Rather, Jesus refers only to “in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.” (He almost seems to be clarifying the inclusion of the Psalms, since some Jews considered them in the Khetuvim, while others considered them in the Prophets.)
>> Nor now in Christiandom, though largely the same. <<
The distinctions among Christians are relatively minor compared to among the Jews, where some Jews considered only 5 books to be scripture, while other Jews considered 22 books to be scripture (and 48 to 55, the way we now count them.
1 Peter 2:4-8 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
There is no dispute among people who believe the truth.
“Jesus is the chief cornerstone.”
Yes, which, in ancient times was the first stone laid in the foundation of a structure. It is only in modern days that it is an ornamental part of the structure itself:
“The cornerstone (or foundation stone) concept is derived from the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure.
Over time a cornerstone became a ceremonial masonry stone, or replica, set in a prominent location on the outside of a building, with an inscription on the stone indicating the construction dates of the building and the names of architect, builder and other significant individuals.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone
Now review your theology with this in mind.
The Law of First Mention Is it all those called out by YHvH ? or What was the purpose of the Ekklesia ? Was it a temporal corporation to rule on earth ? No ! Was it to have a temporal head ? No ! It was a gathering of YHvH's chosen people to hear His Word ? and learn to Fear YHvH all their days ? And to teach their children the same ? Yes. ------------- Ekklesia is from the Hebrew Qahal (kof, hey, lamed) How does YHvH define "church" i.e.Ekklesia ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia.
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?
Did the "church" exist earlier ?
Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10 NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before YHvH, your God
Also see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8 (kof => The HOLY ONE
which is haQahal The assembly (hey, kop, hey, lamed)
hey => grace, breath of G-d
lamed => teaching and learning)
In scripture it is always used to describe
those who have been assembled by YHvH.
It begins in Exodus 16:3 ( the bread from heaven )
and continues to Nehemiah 8:17 (living in Booths) NAsbU Nehemiah 8:17
The entire assembly of those who had returned from
the captivity made booths and lived in them.
The sons of Israel had indeed not done so
from the days of Joshua(Yehoshua)
the son of Nun to that day.
And there was great rejoicing.
Micah 6:8
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
How (and why) on earth did that come about.
Yes, it certainly is from a false Catholic perspective...
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,,,,the pillar and ground of the truth.”
No house or building is the pillar and ground of the truth...It is only God who is the pillar of truth....
Psa_115:15 Ye are blessed of the LORD which made heaven and earth.
You better go to the next one...That didn't work either...
Not at all! Because (1) the Papacy was ordained by Christ,
That a supreme infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome was ordained by Christ, and manifest historically is only an assertion begging the question. This is not seen Scripture despite the extrapolative attempts of Roman Catholic apologists, while even Catholic scholarship testifies against this being the reality in the early church. Do you hold that an assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for both men and writings to be established as being of God, and truth preserved? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means such is the perpetually assuredly infallible authority and interpreters of Scripture, and thus dissent from them is rebellion against God? These seems to be the basis RC arguments.
(2) the powers of infallibility are so narrowly circumscribed,
That is irrelevant in the light of the preceding. In addition, that attribution of power came from the bishops, much contested, and the range was a matter of interpretation*. What would your consider an infallible definition of the criteria/formula?
(3) the pope cannot contradict Tradition, nor innovate, but can only discern what tradition has always been.
That is effectively meaningless, as since he can only be right, and can autocratically define which tradition is Really Tradition, then of course prayer to departed saints in Heaven cannot be a contradiction, or the Assumption or papal infallibility etc., an innovation, despite the absence of actual evidence in Scripture or early history, or what the EOs say.
(Which is not to say that he cannot enunciate it more clearly; see below.)
Which means a clearly enunciated infallible decree as,
If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." “ Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
among other teachings, is later “explained” as not meaning what it most clearly sounds like, and was affirmed as, after Rome lost its unScriptural use of the sword of men.
But such means Rome declares she is unchanging and basically solves the problem of diverse interpretations, but in reality there are many variant interpretations of what Rome said in the past and present among Catholics, even as to what is infallible and what level other teachings fall under, and what and how much dissent is allowed, as well as to varying degrees, their meaning.
This would be more pronounced if Catholics were more doctrinal intensive as evangelicals overall are, and thus the most pronounced divisions with Rome are among those who the most committed to doctrine. Who are not uniform themselves. Some RCs do not believe a Baptist is representing Christ even if preaching Acts 10:36-43, and other do not believe Prots can be saved unless the repent of basic Protestant doctrines, while the more traditional RCs interpret Boniface by saying,
Thus we are left with an apologetical task brethren, to dismantle the position of the eastern hoard of schismatics, those servants of the diabolical one who claim to be the sheep of Christ but are not... — http://www.romancatholicism.net/epistle20120205.htm
>> Yet “without contradiction” does not mean it is actually taught in Scripture or even that its veracity is based upon or requires weight of Scriptural substantiation, or even that the reasons or arguments upon which it may be based are infallible. <<
That’s correct; were it not for controversies over the meaning of scripture, there would be no reason for reserving the right to issue infallible proclamations about moral doctrine (which is the only kind of infallible proclamations a pope can make).
Which amounts to declaring Truth by fiat, which you are honest to affirm, yet this perpetual infallible magisterial basis was not the what the church began by, nor how Truth was recognized nor preserved in Scripture. It is neither necessary nor promised.
EO assent to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, and remained sinless for her entire lifetime; the rejection of the Immaculate Conception by the EO is primarily because it is expressed in terms of original sin, an Augustinian formulation which the EO have not assented to.
RCs tend to minimize the differences between the EOs and RCs, and while as said, the latter tends to be less precise and doctrinally intensive, and one may find variant views on this, yet even Saint John Maximovitch, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, reposed in 1966, who is considered one of the greatest Orthodox Saints in the 20th century, stated,
We Orthodox believe that the Panagia was conceived and born in a state of sin since she is a human being just like the rest of us. Only Christ was free of sin. We do venerate the Panagia highly though. She is the holiest of all the Saints and is like a member of our families. We do believe that the Panagia committed no actual personal sins. We believe that both through God's grace and her free cooperation with God's grace - both go together- she committed no sin. We believe she overcame every temptation to sin and thus remained ever pure, even in her mind and soul. — http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/12/an-orthodox-christian-understanding-of-the-immaculate-conception/
Others:
I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to. In the Roman Catholic understanding, it seems that Mary, who according to Roman doctrine had been exempted from the guilt of original sin [the Orthodox do not accept that humans share the guilt of the first sin but, rather, only the consequences]...If Mary had been “sin-proofed,” so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior...While much that the Orthodox say of Mary “sounds” similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels. — https://oca.org/questions/saints/sinlessness-of-mary
They do hold that Mary was cleansed and never personally sinned thus All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate. In contrast to this tradition, in Scripture we see the Holy Spirit characteristically revealing notable aspects of his characters, from how many fingers one has to being sinless, thrice at least saying that of Christ, and never saying that of any other culpable soul, yet it i a cardinal doctrine. Nor did Paul teach ancient legends as tradition, but spoke the inspired word of God, which normatively written down as a result, as seen by a study of “word of God/the Lord.
Scripture never says Paul sinned after his conversion either, but unlike RCs are tend to heed the admonition “not to think of men above that which is written.” (1Cor. 4:6) Yet based upon the Catholic hermeneutic of silence and extrapolation used for Mary, she could teach that Mary lived to be 160 like Abraham, and parted the Red Sea, and Jordon, kept the sun from going down, and had 6 fingers on each hand, slew a thousand men with a jawbone of a donkey, caused a 3.5 year drought, made iron to swim, cleansed lepers, raised the dead, was supernaturally transported, and had heavenly visions, and wrote the book of Hebrews and will be one of the two witnesses in Revelation. If the “chapter and verse please” Reformation had not occurred then who knows who Rome would not have been restrained from doing, seeing as she makes humbly holy Mary into a demigoddess, though she is rather marginally written of even in the gospels.
Also, the EO assent to the notion of a purification in the afterlife; purgatory is simply a Latin word, and there are non-doctrinal connotations to the Latin which the EO find troublesome.
Though they have no formal doctrine about purgatory, and several schools of thought exist on the topic of purification after death, yet it is not simply non-doctrinal connotations to the Latin which the EO can find troublesome.
Some Eastern Orthodox sources, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, consider Purgatory to be among "inter-correlated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.” Some Orthodox believe in the "toll gate" theory by which the dead go to successive "toll gates" where they meet up with demons who test them to determine whether they have been guilty of various sins during life and/or tempt them to further sin. If they have not repented and been absolved of those sins, or if they give in to sin after death, they will be taken to Hell.- http://orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory
According to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, The moral progress of the soul, either for better or for worse, ends at the very moment of the separation of the body and soul; at that very moment the definite destiny of the soul in the everlasting life is decided. ... There is no way of repentance, no way of escape, no reincarnation and no help from the outside world. Its place is decided forever by its Creator and judge.
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that it is necessary to believe in an intermediate after-death state in which believers are perfected and brought to full divinization, a process of growth rather than of punishment, which some Orthodox have called purgatory.[71] Eastern Orthodox theology does not generally describe the situation of the dead as involving suffering or fire, although it nevertheless describes it as a "direful condition." — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory#Eastern_Orthodox
The Coptic Orthodox View on the Purgatory
1. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Atonement and Redemption. 2. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Salvation. 3. Purgatory is against the sacrament of repentance. Those departed are awaiting without worry or unrest....Our Church absolves the soul of the departed during the prayer. She absolves her from all the sins she committed while in the flesh. — http://www.suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084916893&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3
The earliest Church fathers referenced them authoritatively;
You mean some considered them fit for doctrine and church use, and others did not. Merely referencing something does not give the whole work it authority, else the pagan poets Paul quoted were authoritative.
The disputes (including St. Jerome’s prefaces) dealt chiefly with the topic of using them to convert Jews.
That Jerome and others rejected purported inspired Scripture in condescension to the Jews, versus the best case for historical establishment, is more wishful than historical. The Catholic Encyclopedia (in the face of ancient opposition) states, Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
And this dissent through centuries and right into Trent is not explained as being due to the Jews. More.
Actually, this [Lk. 24:344] is a great example of the varying canons: no mention is made of the Khetuvim, which include what the Protestants call the “apocrypha”,
Actually, i do not know where you chose this information from, or any of your their assertions, but from what i read the Ketuvim ("writings") = Hagiography included just 11 books: Psalms, Lamentations, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (known as 1 and 2 Esdras in Greek Bibles) and Chronicles.
Rather, Jesus refers only to “in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.”
And since it is generally accepted that Psalms was part of the Writings, thus this is a strong indication that the Lord held to the tripartite Palestinian canon, with is believed to be like that of Philo and Josephus (if he can be believed much). Melito included books under The Law and the Prophets” that are now understood to be part of the Writings.
The distinctions among Christians are relatively minor compared to among the Jews, where some Jews considered only 5 books to be scripture, while other Jews considered 22 books to be scripture
True, but as the abundant use of OT (24 different books) saw no recorded conflict with the Jews, then it indicates it was not a issue, at least in the gospels and Acts.
BTW, i saw your research before on the sex abuse issue and thought it was rather well done.
Let's try some easy math:
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone NOT 'devine'!
****If the “chapter and verse please” Reformation had not occurred then who knows who Rome would not have been restrained from doing, seeing as she makes humbly holy Mary into a demigoddess, though she is rather marginally written of even in the gospels.****
And once again,my original point is proven that my time answering the question is a wasteful and futile endeavor for there are some here more interested in furthering lies about what the Church holds as true and teaches.
No amount of Scripture is acceptable in such a debate for when it is given, the understanding of it is rejected.
“Chapter and verse please” is no more than a game of Whack a Mole. First Scripture is demanded and then, when given, it is struck down with the claim that the Church has twisted it or misinterpreted it or has a faulty translation.
I refuse to be your mole. I have made my point and you have proven it. Game over
Jesus knew that not everyone would be open to hearing the Church. He warned them and told them what to do in that circumstance. It seems good to me that now is the time to heed His instructions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.