Posted on 04/21/2008 2:16:12 AM PDT by markomalley
by seeking the essential elements of the profession of faith that Scripture and Tradition uphold and on the basis of which, then, we must come together."Talk about stacking the deck on the call for Ecumenical Honesty.
While I haven't seen the final list of the 250 Proddies in attendance, I'm sure they were not those who would see any issue with that statement.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Oh but it is. Only tradition says that it isn’t.
If we're going to speak of "honesty", then it seems to me that one has to conclude that this type of false theology has fostered widespread Christian disunity. It has negated the prayer of Jesus that "they all may be one, as you and I Father are one".
Not only in matters of faith but also in life in general, those who proudly discard the learning and wisdom of their ancestors and forefathers, are destined to fall into error. Tradition is not a millstone which hangs around our necks or something invented by man to keep us from knowing God. It is a light which illumines the path of truth and wisdom.
It is the sin of pride which leads man to think that Tradition amounts to naught and that his own personal reading of Scripture will suffice.
God’s word vs. manmade tradition.
Tell me which results from pride.
If you are going to be consistent and honest about your rejection of tradition then let us burn every commentary on Scripture. Furthermore, stop telling everyone what you think Scripture means and let everyone figure it out themselves. The truth is that Protestants are just as bound by their traditions as Catholics.
Calvinists are all for tradition.
But Scripture comes first.
The key word, of course, is "man made".
Why is the Scriptural teaching of the Church fathers and the Magisterium "man made" tradition, yet when Joe Bloggs picks up the Bible and reads it, it's not "man made". It's somehow an authentic understanding of God's word?
But I digress.
What about the fruits of this approach? Do you see no disunity?
The Reformation was quite necessary, in its day. I'm a great fan of the tradition and liturgy of the Church, and I like this Pope, but there will never be any real ecumenism until the Catholic Church agrees that its doctrines are open to question and debate. Every ecumenical effort on the part of the Church always seems end up with, "how can we get you all to come back to us and agree with everything we teach."
The Church never approaches ecumenism on equal footing, prepared to hear out Protestant issues - on theological and doctrinal issues.
But I hold out no real hope, because the Church has backed itself into a corner. It cannot throw out any of its ex-cathedra doctrine, and it cannot change or throw out any of its tradition without losing its mythical infallibility. And therefore complete inventions, like the "assumption" of Mary, can not be revisited, examined, changed, or thrown out. To do so, by the Church, would be a de-facto admission of fallibility.
And though I love so much about the Catholic Church, this Protestant will never agree to any Marian doctrines such as "immaculate conception", "assumption", etc, or that I should pray to the souls of dead human beings who are now alive with the Lord. For most Protestants, anything to do with Marianism is right out, anathema. So unless the Church is willing to agree that Marianism is a private matter and nothing within it is required for a believer who joins the Church, then ecumenism is a wasted effort.
Sola Scriptura meant something, too, and it's too bad so many Catholics and Protestants have forgotten what Luther originally said.
Because Joe Bloggs doesn’t pray to dead human beings, including elevating the mother of the Lord to the status of virtually the Fourth Person of the Trinity.
***Why is the Scriptural teaching of the Church fathers and the Magisterium “man made” tradition, yet when Joe Bloggs picks up the Bible and reads it, it’s not “man made”.***
So what if Joe reads a Bible? Don’t Catholics read the Bible?
The fallibility of "tradition" is self-evident when it comes into conflict with scripture, when it violates scripture, or when it declares something true for which there is no basis or which is self-evidently untrue.
Not in an isolated bubble with the perspective that their personal insights are a) synonymous with truth and b) carry equal or even more weight than the teaching of the Church fathers and Magisterium.
Any thoughts yet on the fruits of abandoning Tradition?
Which Protestant issues?
Methodist? Presbyterian? Anglican? Baptist?
Who actually speaks for Protestants?
Maybe you should sort out your own issues, come to some consensus and then get back to us. Aside from an opposition to Catholicism, there isn't much agreement in an ever diverging non-Catholic" world.
But I hold out no real hope, because the Church has backed itself into a corner. It cannot throw out any of its ex-cathedra doctrine, and it cannot change or throw out any of its tradition without losing its mythical infallibility. And therefore complete inventions, like the "assumption" of Mary, can not be revisited, examined, changed, or thrown out. To do so, by the Church, would be a de-facto admission of fallibility.
I can't imagine what it must be like to belong to a "church" which doesn't believe that it possesses the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What is it like to belong to a Church that is not fully convicted that some of it's teachings are not falsehood? That leads naturally to all sorts of debate, confusion and in the end, disunity.
What should be so shocking about a body of believers who believe that in matters of faith and Christian teaching that it is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit? That God is one, truth is one and the Church is one.
Anything less is just an apology for Christianity, isn't it?
Did Jesus commission the Apostles and those who follow them to go out to the whole world and teach baloney?
A Church that believes that Jesus Christ is infallible and that the Church, His Mystical Body is likewise.
What a shocker!
I don’t read it in “isolation.”
Any thoughts on the abuses in the name of tradition?
Question, how is someone who is in heaven with Christ, Dead? In theological terms, they are “more alive in Christ” than those here on earth. 2) The Catholic Church does not elevate Mary to the “4th person of the Trinity”. The Catholic Church, along with the Eastern Orthodox, more than any other Christian confession defends the Unity of God and the distinctness of the 3 persons of the Most Holy Trinity. It is many Protestant Confessions that are changing the wording used in Baptisms, Liturgy/Worship, prayer, etc with respect to the Trinity. I know where I live, the largest Presybterian Church in my home town left the Presbyterian Association that it was affiliated with due to exactly what I stated above. And you know what, the arguments used by those who want to change the doctrine of the Trinity use the “Bible” to do so as a) Trinity is not found in the Bible, 2) While Christ Commanded the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the “Sola Scripturist” state that no where else did the Scriptures state that Liturgy/worship, and prayer must have a Trinitarian perspective.
Thus, with respect to what I wrote above, it is precisely the principle of “Sola Scriptura” that is used in justifying these spits among Protestant confessions.
I am glad the Pope is being clear. Here is what the Catholic Church believes ,which if the faith of the Church before the 16th century, and thus is the faith now. The more the historic Protestant confessions move away from Apostolic Tradition, the further they are moving from Catholic unity. The lived experience of what has happened in the Protestant communities, what is going on, and what will continue to to on, points to the reality, no matter how hard it is for some of you to admit it, that most Protestant confessions will not only move further away from orthodox Apostolic Tradition (e.g. Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy), but continue to splinter among itself into more and more groups with doctrinal positions always up for the most recent interpreation that the local Pastor or group of Pastors believes is the correct way of interpreting the Bible.
Regards
Well, if Joe's real name is Rick and enough ministers like his stuff, it will end up leatherbound and in a pretty presentation box at the local "Christian" (more precisely: Baptist) bookstore, right next to the shelf with the Bibles.
But we aren't elevating manmade tradition to be equal with the Word of God, oh heavens no. Only the "Romanists" do that.
But if you don't like what the minister teaches, you'd better move to another church. Don't worry, he'll call ahead to tell them what a "troublemaker" you are.
Fact: you can fit all the Christians who don't add tradition to the Bible inside these brackets: []
Only the Traditions of Men such as Luther and Cauvin say sola scriptura is biblical. Scripture does not.
Scripture v. Calvinism
Scripture v. Lutheranism
Tell me which results from pride.
Luther was the original prideful egomaniac; Calvin followed along as the pride-crazed megalomaniac (thrown out of Geneva for trying to make himself demipope there).
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.