Posted on 04/27/2015 7:15:21 PM PDT by Salvation
Am committed to the Church, but am also critical of the Church - and see this as my duty as a Catholic and as a Christian. People were put to death by the Church hierarchy (i.e. Giordano Bruno and others) for voicing their beliefs (including astronomically proven truths) and IMHO there is absolutely no question that the Earthly Church, run by fallible human beings, is fallible.
Dogma is often not true, and is sometimes the enemy of truth. God doesn't make mistakes. All of the rest of us do, including the Church hierarchy.
The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life.
Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." "Bind them for a sign upon your hand," the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).
Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.
Sacred tradition was used in the time of Jesus. Would it not follow that the Church He founded on earth require the same accompaniment as the Law given to Moses in the above example? He was angry at the Pharisees for using the letter of the Law, without the heart of the Law. Each wanted to make a name for himself in the Sanhedrin. Some I imagine, wanted to raise themselves up to be one of those Rabbis quoted throughout the centuries. It became about them- not out of concern for their flock, for which Jesus also admonished them.
Gamaliel, teacher of Saul of Tarses, was a contributor to the written teachings- only the most expected of the Rabbis were quoted. It was not for each individual to decide, but for therm to follow Scripture as taught by the cream-of-the-crop among the Rabbis.
Take a look at the link above... Jesus Himself learned, not simply by Scripture, but tradition as well. Why would His Church be any different? Moses was spoken to directly by God, as were the Apostles with Jesus.
Yes.
Such pronouncements are made when others challenge Catholic teaching and promote heretical views. Non-Catholics like to do this with teachings regarding Mary. Therefore, these "two for sure" having to do with Mary were necessary to define in response to that heresy.
The problem I see with many Catholics is they always trot out these two pronouncements as the only infallible teachings of the Church. They could not be more wrong.
Those verses in the article in no way indicate a magisterium.
The passage in Acts says that Paul and Barnabas and others were welcomed by not only the apostles and elders, but the whole church.
And this is contrary to what many RC's tell us that only the ex-cathedra pronouncements need fall into that category.
Seems like many RC's are poorly catechized when they don't even know what their own church demands of them.
No magesterium will be there when we face our Savior one on one.
Yes.
Such pronouncements are made when others challenge Catholic teaching and promote heretical views. Non-Catholics like to do this with teachings regarding Mary. Therefore, these "two for sure" having to do with Mary were necessary to define in response to that heresy.
You're saying it took 1800 years to clarify this????
Fixed it for you.
Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Now we know that changed don't we.
Acts 22:21 "Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles."
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.
Peter was "in the early days" the one who would include the Gentiles but when the Jews rejected Christ it was Paul who was chosen.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
It was to Paul that the revelation was given.
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; as I wrote afore in few words,
NOT to Peter but to Paul. Christ sent Paul to the Gentiles, NOT Peter.
Acts 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
Because it's the "magisterium" who is misleading people and causing them to stray from the truth of scripture.
Submission of “will and intellect” to the “magisterium” and not to Christ and the Holy Spirit. That should alert any rational human being that the Catholic Church is anti Christ.
Verga's Corollary to Godwin's Law: when a prot has lost an argument they resort to the "pedophile Priest strawman."
Amen and Amen!!
It takes a lot of twisting to try to make them indicate a "magisterium" and then they fall far short.
>>The passage in Acts says that Paul and Barnabas and others were welcomed by not only the apostles and elders, but the whole church.<<
Actually it was Paul who was chosen by Christ and sent to the Gentiles. Even the passage the Catholic Church tries to use indicates that it was only "in the early days" that Peter was. Once the Jews rejected Christ Jesus sent Paul NOT Peter.
Exactly. The magisterium isn't infallible in all matters, but the laity must pretend that it is infallible. So the laity must agree to accept false teaching without question.
Weird that I can't find this attitude anywhere in the scriptures. In fact, we find the exact opposite.
Second of Revelations points to the Nicolaitanes ...
The simple message of the Gospel.
Precisely! Any teaching is to be cross checked with scripture just as Paul commended the Bereans for doing. The concept of a superior hierarchy is nicolaitan and God hates that.
Nicolaitan - from Nikos, Laos and Ton.
Nikos - "those who are dominate over the defeated".
Laos - the people or the laity.
Ton or Tan making it plural.
Nico-Laos-Tan - those who dominate over the defeated people.
The "magisterium" lords over the people but scripture clearly says they are not to.
1 Peter 5:1 "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; NOR AS BEING LORDS OVER THOSE ENTRUSTED TO YOU, but being examples to the flock"
I agree with you...and CynicalBear, about the Nicolaitanes, as to its source, however, I'm sure you meant the book of Revelation.
This leaves one to wonder if THAT was one of the handful of verses "infallibly"defined
Rome is not shy about giving herself power..
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.