Posted on 02/03/2012 6:31:03 AM PST by NYer
I've realized that providing any substantive responses to you is a waste of time. All that comes back in return in a non sequitur response ending is an insult to Protestants.
The second “in” s/b “is.”
I haven’t seen you provide a substantive response to anyone yet, so forgive my skepticism.
In that light, you’ll also forgive my belief your “non sequitur” detection is more a function of your limited capabilities than faults in my association of concepts.
Thanks for proving my point in #237.
Exactly what we see in the Protestant world: sheep straying all over the intellectual/philosophical/theological countryside...where "every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25)."
Now THAT is a non sequitur....
That certainly has produced nothing but a structure that must inevitably must subjugate Scripture to tradition. Example?
Would you be kind enough to rewrite this sentence? I'm not sure I take your point.
Also, if you are asking about the Magisterium as an alternate to Sola Scriptura, please forgive my misunderstanding your question.
Perhaps it would be easier to think of Church governance like civil governance. Trying to maintain the Church using nothing but the Bible would be analogous to running the country using a Constitution, but doing so without any judicial mechanism.
And before one is tempted to note that Jesus is the head of the Church, let us recall it is beyond dispute there are many issues on which our Lord simply as decided not to give any clear direction.
Perhaps by illustration.
The Catholic church has as dogma that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Pope Pius XII made an infallible pronouncement and thus belief in the dogma is required of Catholics.
Tradition has it this occurred about A.D. 48. This would've a momentous event occurring before most of the NT was written down.
Yet not one word concerning it, not a hint, not the slightest notice is recorded in the Scriptures.
But corporeal assumption into heaven is not ignored as a subject since Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom. (1 Cor. 15:50)
Paul makes the point that the physical, corporeal, corruptible body must be given up for the spiritual body for entrance into heaven in that same 15th. chapter.
The majesterium has spoken infallibly. Paul has spoken with the authority of Christ's revelation to him.
Will Scripture be made subject to tradition?
Okay. Gotcha. I think I have a handle on what you are saying.
You're saying Scripture gets superseded by Tradition in cases such as you outline regarding Mary and her bodily assumption.
Is that a fair restatement of your point? I'll proceed on the assumption ;o) you would agree.
First let us recognize the use of Scripture in your argument; specifically, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom."
Now in order for your reading of 1 Cor 15:50 to present a problem to the bodily assumption of Mary, you are making assumptions about what that Scripture says that are NOT in Scripture.
The same rationale is used by the Pharisees in Matthew 12:1 and Mark 2:23 to make accusation against Jesus' disciples in that they presumed the apostles grabbing a snack on the Sabbath constituted a violation of the law against "harvesting." And of course, we know this deduction was fallacious.
The deduction Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians constitute a Scriptural conflict with Mary's bodily assumption is just as fallacious, and for the same reasons. The Scripture being cited is NOT a categorical statement, as proven by the heavenly presence of Enoch, Elijah, and indeed Christ himself.
Now you could quibble the point, but such quibbling would also entail assumptions that are similarly not categorical statements.
And to be honest, is not citing that Scripture in that way for the express purpose of proposing a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, because one WANTS to find a conflict with Catholic teaching regarding the bodily assumption of Mary?
Does that seem like innocent Christian thinking to you?
Paul’s argument spoke to Christ’s resurrection, that of his being raised up as a spirit. And since Paul says, “So also is the resurrection of the dead....” he is speaking of a category, Christ being the prime example.
Christ is called the “first fruits” of the resurrection. So that would leave Enoch and Elijah where?
Jesus called himself the “way and the truth” and didn’t hesitate to show how traditions often conflicted with Scripture.
Since you mentioned the Pharisees it should be obvious they didn’t have any idea of what the sabbath was for since they asked if was lawful to heal a man’s withered hand and didn’t comprehend that being in the service of God was not work that violated the sabbath.
They had the Scriptures, they read the Scriptures so why didn’t they understand the Scriptures?
They too were measuring the Scriptures by means of their traditions.
Obvious to whom? Was Luke the Gospel writer wrong in writing his icon?
What is your scriptural basis for drawing that conclusion?
Christ himself clearly attributes their error to pedantry, not tradition, according to Matthew 12:27.
But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Similarly, if you had not been trying to use Scripture, instead of heeding Scripture, you might not have made such a glaringly fallacious statement.
Showing mercy and healing a man's hand on the sabbath was not against the Law even though it could have waited until the next day.
Hence Jesus quoted Prov. 21:3.
In John 5:10 it was not excessive attention to detail that caused the Jews to tell the healed man he could not pick up his cot on the sabbath, Jesus had shown acts of mercy were acceptable and certain works even on the sabbath, but their tradition. They added to the Law a commandment of men calling what the man did a working or labor thus forbidden on the sabbath.
The apostle Paul had been trained as a Pharisee and he attributed his progress in Judaism to being zealous for the traditions of his forefathers. (Gal. 1:14)
So I think my statement, “They too were measuring the Scriptures by means of their traditions.” is so.
Earlier you mentioned Enoch and Elijah. What happened to them? How do you know?
The traditions that are held so near and dear, for example, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, do just what the traditions of the Pharisees did....render the truth of God's word invalid.
It becomes necessary to argue that Paul's description of Christ's resurrection was not as a spirit, that flesh and blood can inherit the heavenly kingdom, that Mary's resurrection would not follow the pattern of Christ's, that long before Christ was offered as a sacrifice in heaven men were taken bodily to life in heaven...if one is to follow tradition.
So who is not paying heed to the Scriptures?
Showing mercy and healing a man's hand on the sabbath was not against the Law even though it could have waited until the next day.
Hence Jesus quoted Prov. 21:3.
In John 5:10 it was not excessive attention to detail that caused the Jews to tell the healed man he could not pick up his cot on the sabbath, Jesus had shown acts of mercy were acceptable and certain works even on the sabbath, but their tradition. They added to the Law a commandment of men calling what the man did a working or labor thus forbidden on the sabbath.
The apostle Paul had been trained as a Pharisee and he attributed his progress in Judaism to being zealous for the traditions of his forefathers. (Gal. 1:14)
So I think my statement, “They too were measuring the Scriptures by means of their traditions.” is so.
Earlier you mentioned Enoch and Elijah. What happened to them? How do you know?
The traditions that are held so near and dear, for example, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, do just what the traditions of the Pharisees did....render the truth of God's word invalid.
It becomes necessary to argue that Paul's description of Christ's resurrection was not as a spirit, that flesh and blood can inherit the heavenly kingdom, that Mary's resurrection would not follow the pattern of Christ's, that long before Christ was offered as a sacrifice in heaven men were taken bodily to life in heaven...if one is to follow tradition.
So who is not paying heed to the Scriptures?
I'll have to grant you the point. I meant to say post #241, not #237. (That's what I get for trying to post quickly before I had to run out the door.)
However, go back to your previous response and note that you can't respond to anything without slipping in an insult as I pointed out in #241.
Says who?
Jesus, if you believe the Bible.”If he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration
I demonstrated by the very words of Christ that you were wrong.
You choose to evade that fact, and continue positing your speculative theory .
There is no reason to continue this discussion with you, because you have demonstrated that even when you are conclusively shown to be in error you either can not, or will not, acknowledge it.
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.