Posted on 11/27/2006 6:58:00 PM PST by Ottofire
--Accusing Catholics of worshipping Mary is bearing false witness again, Ottofire.
I do not agree that saying 'Hail Mary' is anything but a prayer to her as a divine being. Just as I do not agree with the Muslim that Allah is not the God of the Bible. Is that bearing false witness? No. It is stating an opinion.
As to Mary as the New Eve, do the Catholics Venerate Eve also? Are there statues of Eve that people kneel in front of and pray to?
---But they HAD and his argument is that Scripture, the writings ARE superior to the order of tradition.
--Nobody's denying that. He's pointing out that, without Scripture, you'd have to depend on the teaching authority of the Church. It doesn't follow that you can dispense with the teaching authority of the Church because you have Scripture.
Actually you are saying that Tradition dictates what the Scripture says. That is putting the Traditions in a superior state.
And just how would we know if that someone who knew someone told someone or anyone for that matter that the See of Rome is the touchstone of orthodoxy? Where is the documentation for that?
And how did Peter and Paul and John forget to put something so important into their epistles? Perhaps this is what Irenaeus means when he uses the word "tradition" --- a tradition of forgetfulness on the part of those chosen spirit-filled apostles that left room for subsequent generations to invent doctrines, create documents and make things up as they go along.
Adam and Eve are definitely saints...in the East their feast is December 24th. Although in the East, they don't use statues, only icons, so probably not. :)
Will you admit your error or will you just switch topics and begin making additional unjustified and ahistorical accusations?
Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 4)
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Is he saying here that what gives the Church its authority is that it has the "written documents" of the apostles? That those written documents are the "tradition of the truth"? and that heresies are things that evolve over time that cannot be traced to those written documents of the apostles?
And when he uses the phrase the "course of the tradition" handed down to the Churches, he seems to be referring to the "tradition" of deferring to those "written documents" as the "deposit of apostolic authority" in the churches, not some oral teaching handed down from mouth to mouth.
Am I misreading that or is that essentially what Irenaeus is saying here? And is that which Irenaeus calls "tradition" here the same as what the RCC means by it.?
That Jesus - see Gospel of John - told Simon Barjonas he would be renamed Kepha/Cephas/Peter was of great significance.
Did you know that, prior to Peter, that name had never been used for any man...
Brother, Chip. I gave a link to many writings of the Earky Church Fathers. Take some time to read them with an open mind and don't be too quick to argue against them. The more you read the more rational will sound the claims of the Church I fear you may think is not being honest with you
That is not what Irenaeus, one of your holy fathers of your sacred tradition, says here. Don't you believe Irenaeus and what he says here?
I made my counter arguments to Campion and I do not see them refuted (see post 14). Throwing quotes at each other is not an argument. Points must be debated, not buried under old dusty words perhaps taken from context, perhaps not.
I understand that defending ones point can make you perceive that you made your point, and indeed won. I would argue that you may be not reading and understanding the opposing view, intentionally or not intentionally. I will also state that as persons of differing faiths, our diction is different. I.e. Grace does not mean the same to you as to me. This is something that always comes up in interfaith discussions.
AND you are free to switch topics whenever you want, but I would not mind further discussion.
I'd have to look a little more closely at his argument to understand the exact thrust of what he is saying. I'll try to answer your question when I have more time.
But I think it will be easier to understand his position (and certainly the RC position) by not drawing too stark a line between "tradition" and "Scripture" as if they necessarily had to be dimetrically opposed. For example, many churches have a Wednesday night Bible study...in one sense that's an extra-biblical tradition, but of course it in no way contradicts or harms the Scriptures themselves.
The way we look at it, Scripture and tradition are really both expressions of a single source of divine revelation. That the Apostles who wrote the Scripture also passed down a tradition of the faith to the presbyters and bishops they appointed. In a sense, as bornacatholic has been saying, the tradition handed down by the Apostles was what went into the NT (e.g. Mark as the scribe and disciple of Peter).
There's a quote from St. Paul "hold fast to what we have taught you, whether by letter or by spoken word." What is important there is not so much which of the two ways you got St. Paul's teaching, but that you held to it regardless. Does that make any sense?
Which part of your post 14 was not addressed? We'll see if we can rectify that. :)
sorry, should have pinged you to #70
But that is not what the RCC teaches regarding "tradition". From the Catholic Dictionary of my Catholic Bible: "Tradition: Revealed truths of faith and morals given by Christ or the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and transmitted from them to us without being written in the inspired books of the Bible".
The "tradition" of the RCC encompasses those things "without written apostolic documentation". Irenaeus in the above quotation calls "tradition" those things that have "written apostolic documentation". There is a disconnect between what he means by "tradition" and what the RCC means by the word.
There's a quote from St. Paul "hold fast to what we have taught you, whether by letter or by spoken word." What is important there is not so much which of the two ways you got St. Paul's teaching, but that you held to it regardless. Does that make any sense?
Well that brings us to what Paul means by his use of the word "tradition", which in the Greek [paradosis] means "near precept, or a precept in the proximity or vicinity", as opposed, so to speak, to "commandment" which in the Greek [entole] means "a precept in a fixed and immovable position".
Paul writes in II Thessalonians 2:15 "Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle." The traditions that he is talking about there are those that have to do with the Day of the Lord and the Man of Sin which he told them about when he was with them [verse 5], and then just got finished reinforcing by written documentation in that very letter.
The facts regarding the Day of the Lord and the Man of Sin is the "tradition" that he is referring to in his letter, which was a long-standing tradition from the prophet Daniel. Note later in the same epistle [Chapter 3:6] that he says "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition received from us.". Note "received" is past tense, and "from us" not from presbyters and bishops a hundred years from now. That which he told them when he was with them was just put into "written documentation" so that it could not be changed by oral transmission nor misunderstood nor forgotten by later generations. Does that make sense?
I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that all of tradition was written in the NT. I am saying that the NT came from the fount of tradition which the Apostles preached. Much of it was not written. Remember John 20:30-31: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name."
John says quite explicitly that not everything was written down...and that the NT was not meant to be an exhaustive account of what Jesus did, but rather a way of calling people to belief.
Paul writes in II Thessalonians 2:15 "Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle." The traditions that he is talking about there are those that have to do with the Day of the Lord and the Man of Sin which he told them about when he was with them [verse 5], and then just got finished reinforcing by written documentation in that very letter.
Thanks for the ref. I think you are unnecessarily compartmentalizing this verse though. Read all of the end of 2 Thess 2, and it's clear that statement is occuring in a generic sense of believing in Christ and not the specific sense of the prophecy:
But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.The traditions there seems to be referring to "our gospel". There's no indication he was only speaking about the prophecy.
On 3:6, of course tradition is past tense...it couldn't be any other way. We don't believe in progressive revelation, but a revelation delivered once for all, delivered orally (part of which was then written). And as to "from us" not meaning the people who came afterward, well, Irenaeus certainly didn't see it that way!
ping
I think that Irenaeus did see it that way as he writes in the following discourse posted earlier:
"On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"
The "writings of the apostles" were "the authority" according to Irenaeus here. The writings that had already been handed down [past tense] were the "tradition of the truth" and the "course of the tradition handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches", per Irenaeus. He says clearly that if there is a dispute over an important question, the churchmen should defer to the "writings of the apostles".
Look at this excerpt also:
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.He is clearly saying there is a tradition from the Apostles which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters. This cannot be talking about written Scripture, but only the Apostolic Succession.
Of course I accept what he wrote re Tradition. That is orthodox Christianity.
It seems you do not understand what he is writing because you read your ideas into what he is writing. IOW, it appears you have an idea about sola scriptura which you try to read into Irenaeus
Also, as you well know, Holy Writ itself teches Tradition
* I figured if Irenaeus didn't persuade you...:)
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.