Posted on 07/12/2011 6:58:08 AM PDT by marshmallow
Sorry I am not communicating well. I am trying to understand what you were saying about how the words/teaching of Jesus, once potentially passed down in ignorance, became what we would call ‘doctrines’ or ‘truths’. You used as an example ‘breaking bread’. From what I understood, this was a teaching that was passed along but not fully understood until a later date?
On this we agree. From experience I will also say that you can't have unity with those who begin from the proposition that what the Catholic Church believes must be wrong... let's go find another answer. I have friends who attended Dallas Theological Seminar and I know this to be an indirect, but clear, directive. It is palpable even here on this forum. As you say, truth is truth, regardless of the source. The Church has listened to many throughout history who have expanded Her understanding of issues. Doctrines were not changed, mind you... but understandings can evolve with revelation.
I disagree, it speaks loudly of the folly of FAULTY interpretation.
Aye, there's the rub. So, whose interpretation is faulty? Who has the authority in Protestant circles to decide? Without authority, there is no unity.
No, I wouldn't do that ... I am not blind to the impasse that exists that will not be bridged between our faiths.
Sounds like you're just agreeing to disagree already.
Again, we are talking about truth. Your subtle equivalence; that somehow "length of time" lends credibility to the truthfulness of a doctrine is particularly troubling for me.
It isn't the length of time that is significant. It is the source of the doctrine... Christ Himself. No other Church (besides the Eastern Orthodox and we're still talking with them on our disagreements) traces their orthodoxy back to the Source of Christianity Who is Christ the Lord. That is the lesson of time... not its length.
Thus the basis for the reformation.
And has this reformation led to unity as Christ desired for His Church? Or will you, in honesty, acknowledge that this split has led to tens of thousands of further divisions?
We are to walk by faith and not by sight. There are doctrines of the Church that the Church acknowledges are mysteries... even the Magisterium doesn't fully understand them. But we trust in Our Lord's providence and in the Holy Spirit promised to us as our guide and comforter for all time.
May God bless you.
I will accept this line of argument if you can show me where Paul is ever referred to as a bishop in Scripture.
This passage of Scripture is not a command to be married, rather it is a prohibition against multiple marriages.
If it is not a command to be married, then what do you make of the need, expressed a couple of verses later, to assess the man's performance in raising his own children in evaluating his fitness for the office of bishop?
Round and round we go...
Definitionally, by the Apostolic Succession, the Apostles are the first bishops and we have an unbroken lineage of their authority to today's bishops. Of course, you reject this because the Bible is not a dictionary, an encyclopedia nor a catechism on all matters and didn't mention it in words you understand.
Of course, as you said, you won't accept this because it wasn't written down 2,000 years ago among writings that even proclaim themselves to be incomplete (John 21:25). At this point, we might as well part ways. God bless you.
We have practises that have always been even though some may not have understood the why, but we have learnt it from the Apostles who learnt it from Christ
The last supper -- we celebrate it each week on a Sunday. Why? Some groups say this should be on a Saturday, some say it should be only once a year.
Ask someone in the 4th century say in southern Gaul why they worshipped on Sunday each week instead of only once a year on Pentecost and a few would not be able to answer you exactly why, right?
Why, even now ask a bunch of Christians across denominations this and quite a few in each denomination will not be able to tell you why.
No individual, approved or not in any way can change the faith. To come tomorrow and say "gay marriage" is ok, it's a change is wrong.
The article actually sparked a nice conversation for the rest of us... that is, until you came along and peed in the pool.
Tradition (! that word always makes me think of Fiddler on the Roof, great play) is an interesting thing.
Here we are discussing ‘tradition’. The oral and written tradition handed down (thru God’s selected men, the tribe of Levi) from Judaism. As christians, we recognize the original orthodoxy belonged to the Jews. I know there were/are more than a single sect, so fissures in orthodoxy is nothing new.
With Jesus, the christian recognizes a major split. The keepers of the orthodoxy had, thru years of ‘traditions’ and ‘interpretations’, built ‘theology’ that the ‘owner’ never intended. So now we have a new line of traditions, built and owned by men over thousands of years. These traditions have now become part of their ‘orthodoxy’.
Not many years later Peter was trying to steer this new group (to us the one true group) back into parts of the orthodoxy that he grew up in, but was never an ‘insider’ (he wasn’t a scholar, nor in training to be a teacher). Opposing him on this point was Saul of Tarsus (Paul) - an insider’s insider to the ‘old’ orthodoxy, and an outsider to the ‘new’. Paul HATED his old ways, and beat Peter (now the establishment) into submission on some of his theology.
Paul then says stuff like ‘For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified’. As much of our doctrine that we derive from Pauls writings, here we hear his heart.
All that said, what Jesus said in Matthew 23 still gives me pause. While trying to follow His heart, I don’t honor any of those that claim “Moses’ seat”. I try not to dishonor them, but I am not certain how what he said there applies to me...
Remember also that Peter was the first to baptise Gentiles -- no beating into submission my friend.
I didn’t mean to imply that everything Peter did/taught was overturned. Just the fact that Peter, a very outspoken leader of this new orthodoxy, had to be corrected in at least a couple of areas. Peter, the man, was swayed by popular opinion, and went along to get along. Had Peter’s decision been allowed to stand, today it would be ‘orthodoxy’ based on 2000 years of tradition.
Music in the church is another sticking point. Some hymns considered ‘traditional’ today were taken from ‘contemporary’ forms in centuries past.
I believe a great example is the Republican establishment. They see the tea party as an off-shoot of their politcal ‘orthodoxy’. As long as the tea party supports the ‘R’ candidate, they don’t have too much of an issue with it. But the ‘R’ has, in many respects, lost its way. It no longer stands on its principles, but on its traditions. Sad.
Aye, there's the rub. So, whose interpretation is faulty? Who has the authority in Protestant circles to decide? Without authority, there is no unity.
No ... Authority only forces the appearance of unity ...
It is truth that leads to unity ... not the application of authority.
Let me illustrate ... The Catholic book you consulted for your analysis of the teaching in Psalm 119, tell me about it ... who wrote that? Some representative of the RCC right? Who decided that his analysis was correct? The Church did right?
Are you claiming that the exegesis is correct because it was written by the RCC?
How do Catholics argue amongst themselves over differing Biblical interpretations and how is the true interpretation determined in your camp?
The magisterium orchestrates official Catholic doctrine and the ones who protest such are termed Protestants. That is the origin of the name Protestant. You might well say that there is dissension in Catholicism but the magisterium serves as the Supreme Court, a feature which distinguishes it from the non-Catholic churches. Decisions are made over centuries with laborious discussions over the minutiae. There is no "Fly by Night " decision rendered by some pastor who wants to impress their peers. Such deliberations are recorded and made available to scholars who frequent libraries which contain such reference materials.
Before one can intelligently opine on a Catholic position, one would need to thoroughly examine the different theological arguments rendered to achieve such interpretation on a specific decision/doctrine for each specific point. To question an official pronouncement be prepared to cite the historical debates and argumentation which led to the adoption of that interpretation/ doctrine. Without such inclusion of this variable, one merely exposes their ignorance. The burden of proof is on the one who raises the objection to such position.
This salient feature of historical denouement is guided by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus sent to keep His Bride from doctrinal error (MT 28:20 and Jn 16:13). Just look at the Mormons and how many times they change doctrine or the tens of thousand of fundamentalist/evangelical entities who have varying beliefs only to assuage their psyche not to please God.
Thus, to intelligently question a specific point of Catholic doctrine, one must first have done ones homework and not merely counter with their own self serving testimony.
It would be good to remember that Catholics employ exegesis while most of the non catholic crowd respond with eisegesis.
This is why I post to FreeRepublic... these types of conversations make my day. I'm glad you're enjoying it too. Nothing spoils a nice thread like a bad attitude.
No ... Authority only forces the appearance of unity ...
That's going to have to depend on your definition of authority. There is the type of authority that puts a boot to your throat, surely. There is also the type of authority that comes from wisdom, knowledge and experience. The Church teaches from the latter. The Bride reads the love letter Her Bridegroom left Her in His Scriptures, receives wisdom from the Holy Spirit which Christ promised would always guide His Church, and understands through Her corporate experience of the direct revelation of Christ at Her foundations. Through the centuries, Her understanding has increased through the direct intercession of the Holy Spirit and through the contributions of such men and women as St Irenaeus, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, St Catherine of Siena, Her Popes and Her other faithful.
In a classroom, a student with a question wouldn't appeal his question to a fellow student... unless he knew that student was correct. How would he know the other student is correct? Because that student had been pronounced correct by the teacher. Her teaching authority is based on her learning and her experience and it is imparted to her students by their trust in her. This trust is earned by the constancy of her teaching. If she becomes inconsistent, her students begin to question the validity of her instruction. When she is asked a question, she answers by two primary methods... either she simply knows the answer because she has known it from her years of training and experience or she will research the answer in a textbook. In reading the textbook, she has the benefit of her training and experience to realize the answer she is seeking. Just so, the Church looks to the Scripture as the textbook of knowledge and hearkens back to Her training from Christ for understanding. Just as the students' receptiveness is dependent on their trust, so it is with the Church. Her truths are not received where the receiver does not trust the source. That is why the Church makes great pains in Her continuity to show that what is true today has always been true in the Church. We know of Her constancy by the writings of the Apostles, their students and the generations of theologians who have faithfully passed these teachings through history.
The Protestant congregations lack these things. They are as students in a classroom who read the textbook themselves. Without the benefit of an authority on the subject matter, the interpretation of the knowledge is left to decide among themselves. From time to time, leaders among them demonstrate a strong grasp of the subject and they are elevated to a higher stature and the weaker students rely on their interpretations. There are others in the class who, whether they are smarter or simply more stubborn, decide some instruction in the textbook should be seen in different ways. They stumble upon truths, but they can't possibly have the unity of learning among them that comes from having a qualified teacher with experience of the subject matter. The teacher is the one who assigns the grades because the teacher is the one who knows the material better than the students.
Let me illustrate ... The Catholic book you consulted for your analysis of the teaching in Psalm 119, tell me about it ... who wrote that? Some representative of the RCC right? Who decided that his analysis was correct? The Church did right?
Are you claiming that the exegesis is correct because it was written by the RCC?
Partly, yes. Let me explain. If it were advanced solely by Fr Anybody, I would have reason to question its validity. Priests are men and men make mistakes. From its beginning, though, the Church has had the commission to test all things. Before a writing can be promulgated as truth, it must be reviewed to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. For this, you will find that authoritative Catholic sources will have an imprimatur... this is a seal which simply says the document in question does not contain errors in regards to Roman Catholic doctrine and morals. That doesn't mean it's entirely without error, though. For example, consider a document written on an historical or political subject touching on faith and moral issues. The imprimatur would show that the matters of faith and morals are in accordance with Catholic teaching... it does not mean that all of the historical sourcing and political opinions are beyond question. I hope I'm being clear...
How do Catholics argue amongst themselves over differing Biblical interpretations and how is the true interpretation determined in your camp?
Quite simply, we appeal to the Deposit of Faith given by Christ for understanding the Scripture. Just as the Scripture was opened to the disciples on the road to Emmaus through Christ's Teaching, so we appeal to His Teaching when we open Scripture today. These teachings have been passed down through the ages faithfully so that the Church has had continuous belief throughout. That doesn't mean, though, that there is no discussion to be had. Some things are settled matters... Christ died that men may be restored to everlasting life. Most things, though, are open to interpretation and discussion... these discussions are how the Church has been able to recognize the unfolding revelation of God. Nothing can contradict the Bible and the Holy Tradition (capital "T" Tradition is that which Christ gave directly to His Apostles), but much can be learned by listening to the Spirit in others.
I appeal back to my classroom discussion above... in the classroom, there are truths the teacher is endeavoring to impart... but that certainly doesn't dissuade a lively debate... and all benefit from that ongoing discussion.
I pray I was coherent throughout this response and that I haven't made any errors that would cause anyone to stumble... Amen.
Is the conversation over?
Sorry, had a weekend of moving ... will continue soon ...
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.