Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
Of course, this is always your fallback position when it is pointed out that Scripture contradicts your precious traditions. This is not my interpretation any more than it is the reasoning of Christ which Paul told us we would receive. I am doing nothing more than listening to Church teaching and comparing it what Scripture says to see if it is true, an exercise that Paul commended the Bereans for doing as "noble".
And what "interpretation" do you need? Over and over the Scriptures flat-out describe the Church as masculine. Yeast always represents evil in Scripture. Before even explaining in Ep.5.23-33 that husbands must love their own bodies just as does Christ His body (the Church), Paul states flat-out in Ep.2.15b-16 that:
Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"
Revelation then tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church). You need interpretation for that? Explain what I am missing?!?
X
QUOTE ===>
As a student of Scripture, the following is certainly one of the most important insights about God in the Bible:
Is.1.18a "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.
God is reasonable. He can be reasoned with, and can be understood by "reason":
1Co.2.15a - 16.b "The Spirit-led man questions all things...we have the reasoning of Christ."
And Paul presented truth through reason:
Ac.26.25 "but of truth with reasonable words I speak."
So it logically follows that Scripture is also understood through that same "reasoning":
Ac.17.2 "As was his custom, Paul...reasoned with them from the Scriptures."
---
To apply reason to the Scriptures means to logically analyze them entirely within the environment of their creation. Discovering accurate, logical explanations for Bible mysteries requires the satisfaction of numerous adequacy conditions (or what I identify as the ten principles of Scripture examination). These adequacy conditions have been derived from my own in-depth analysis of how Scripture works, and ensure that any possible explanation is logically plausible. If a possible explanation fails to meet the requirements of the adequacy conditions, it is marked as inadequate.
I have identified ten principles by which subjective influences and interpretations can be minimized when examining Scripture. They are divided into two groups. The first group of three principles define resolutions pertaining to one's attitudinal approach to the Bible. I find them useful for weeding out previously indoctrinated dogmatic responses and thus allowing for a reasoned examination of the related Scripture. The second group of seven remaining principles are descriptions of how Scripture works. These principles are what might be defined as "substantiation in action", where systematic reasoning is applied to the Scriptures.
The ten principles (which we will get to shortly) have been developed as a type of systems thinking. Systems thinking is a branch of reasoning that regards all details of a system as influencing each other and making up a whole. In our case, the system includes God and all of creation as detailed in the Bible (with occasional considerations for extra-biblical evidence of historical customs of the time). The system interconnections (doctrines) can then be determined or eliminated by rules of interaction (the ten principles). In effect, premises are formed from Scripture and combined to produce conclusions by applying the ten principles.
The Church has consistently utilized inductive reasoning to produce its doctrines where conclusions are drawn from selected passages while other related passages or evidence within their selected passages may be ignored or rationalized. (Church traditions are often soft conclusions that are considered to be a result of illumination - see chapter 10.) Inductive reasoning can lead to conclusions that appear accurate on the surface, given the evidence that is examined, but may in fact be inaccurate because of evidence ignored or questions left unanswered. In a closed system like the Bible inductive reasoning does not, indeed, cannot lead to best-case-scenario-conclusions that inspire confidence.
I have developed an analysis approach to the Bible as a closed system based on a combination of abductive, hypothetico-deductive and deductive reasoning that produces best-case-scenario-conclusions that can answer all related questions and inspire confidence. (Please do not be intimidated by the following explanation – exhaustively understanding it is much less important than properly applying it.)
Abductive reasoning allows for many possible solutions to a problem. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning allows for falsification of possible solutions to a problem. And plain ole vanilla deductive reasoning proves a final conclusion. I begin with an approach of abductive reasoning to find all possible explanations for a given set of related passages connected by a central topic. First I collect all related passages for a topic.
For example, let’s say that we are looking at a scenario where the central topic is the sum of two numbers must equal a conclusion of three, and we have found three integers as evidence; 1, 2 and 3. We have discovered through abductive reasoning that there are three possible solutions; a scenario of one plus two, a second scenario of one plus three, and a third scenario of two plus three. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning then eliminates inaccurate conclusions by falsifying possible explanations. Falsification in our application is when contradictory or otherwise incompatible propositions are discovered in a possible solution (they fail to meet all adequacy conditions). We do this by applying the ten principles. In our example we can find that the second and third possibilities are falsified by an application of the ten principles (or in our example by adding them together). As these possible scenarios to the problem are weeded out by hypothetico-deductive reasoning, one is generally left with one deductively reasonable answer where in our example one plus two equals three, because there are no longer any other plausible possibilities of concern. I think of this approach as metaductive reasoning, [wink] a sort of Ockam’s Razor of possibilities-observation, inference and deduction. Church traditions are often soft conclusions formed from selective evidence. Metasolutions are hard conclusions deduced through a rigorous method of questioning, logical analysis, elimination through falsification, and then the application of a final deduction.
Systems Thinking and the Bride of Christ
With the bride of Christ doctrine our question is who is the bride of Christ? Next we find all plausible answers (abductive reasoning). One possible answer is the Church tradition that the Church itself is the Bride of Christ. Another possible answer is that maybe Scripture identifies the bride of Christ as otherwise. So, next we gather all pertinent Scripture passages to our problem. One of them specifically identifies the bride of Christ as the heavenly Jerusalem as a second possibility. Now we apply falsification (hypothetico-deductive reasoning – the ten principles). Another passage specifically delineates the heavenly Jerusalem from the Church, so the final answer cannot be both. No Scripture passages were found to contradict the finding that the bride of Christ is the heavenly Jerusalem, but many passages were found to contradict the Church tradition of the Church itself being the bride of Christ (these contradictory passages describe the Church as masculine). We also found that the explanations for the passages that the Church tradition uses for its justification are in fact erroneous understandings of those passages, and that more precise understandings of those passages actually support the conclusion of the other passages which suggest that the Church is represented in Scripture only as masculine, thus negating even a slight possibility of the Church being the bride of Christ. Through this process of elimination we can then conclusively conclude that the Church cannot possibly be the bride of Christ, and that the heavenly Jerusalem is indisputably the bride of Christ (our final deductive reasoning).
<=== /QUOTE
The above excerpt is just a sample of my explanation of how Scripture works and how to solve Bible Mysteries like the bride of Christ. My system of "reasoning" the Scriptures eliminates interpretation and illumination from the process, thus personal opinion is virtually rendered irrelevant. It is the result of interpretation and so-called illumination that the worldwide Church is so doctrinally messed up. A combination of systems thinking and logic with added strict adequacy conditions offers an objective process of discovery and elimination resulting in solutions to Bible mysteries and doctrinal errors. Anyone so-motivated can learn the system and apply it for themselves to discover solutions to Bible mysteries.
I have developed this system over a period of many years of studying how the Bible works. The ten principles of Scripture examination (the adequacy conditions) have allowed me to unlock many previously unsolved Bible mysteries (like the bride of Christ - the Church tradition fails all ten conditions, BTW). If this interests you, read the ebook - its free. If it doesn't - meh...
On the other hand, a footnote in the RC NAB Bible says the Red Sea in which the Egyptians drowned was in Hebrew is literally, "the Reed Sea"; hence the Red Sea of Exodus was probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1R.HTM
Which was quite a miracle, but while the Hebrew term for the place of the crossing is "Yam Suph" means "reeds," the LXX translators rendered it "red," thus in the NT also, knowing more than we do, there are explanations which make the reed sea a place of deep water, such as the Ballah Lake .
Kitchen suggested that the Reed Sea terminology might have been used by the ancients for all the bodies of water in the series of reedy lakes that ran the full north-south length of the isthmus (2003:262). By extension, it was also applied to the last of these bodies of water—the Gulf of Suez. This would also explain Numbers 33:10, where the Israelites again passed yam suph (so-called “yam suph II” [Kitchen 2003: 271]) later in the Exodus narrative, after the miraculous yam suph crossing earlier.
Also http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hum358018.shtml
When my last post ended with a quote from that towering theologian who converted to Catholicism, Cardinal Henry Newman who wrote that “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” that this would end the streaming shallow ripostes of Bible Christians But they show an uncanny ability to pull themselves deeper into the quicksand
DANIEL 1212 apparently pulls off stuff from anti-Catholic “Sola Scriptura” blog sites to make such stunningly conclusions that the Assumption of Mary was a doctrine in dispute.
He forgets that like the early Church fathers, the successors to Peter forensically examined the theological evidence for dogmas. In this process contrapuntal are addressed. These “disputes” are part of serious inquiry. Faith, Revelation, Scripture does not fall from the skies. Even the Apostles themselves quarreled among each other. This usually occurs in major theological universities where it is an intrinsic Catholic intellectual tradition to explore all the evidence in establishing the ONE truth. This is no different from the process that led to the establishment of the canonical texts in the fourth century under Petrine authority after 300 years of discussion and debate infused by Divine Revelation.
The Word of God is a divine imperative. An imperative (like a law) without authority is the stuff decried by pagan gods or today’s autocrats. And the exercise of legitimate authority without obedience dissolves into an embarrassing farce. Bible Christianity has neither valid Christological authority nor obedience to follow through on. There are multiple paths to multiple truths. This is why we have the David Koreshs’ and the Joel Osteens’, the Moonies, and the Jehovah’s Witness, and every other Bible Christian blog that purports to offer “their” own interpretation. They cannot point to the type of Divine authority entrusted exclusively to Peter and his successors.
Marian dogmas are irrefutable. From the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, Mary was given the term in Greek “Theotokos” or “Birthgiver of God.” Thus for example even while the dogma of Mary’s Assumption does not require a direct basis in scripture it is implicit in the consequence of Divine Motherhood. Mary is indissolubly linked to her Son on earth and in heaven. With Mary full of grace, her body was not for the worms and parasites of the earth.
Benedict puts it well. The dogmas of Mary’s perpetual Virginity, her divine Motherhood, her Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption into heavenly glory complement the original faith in Christ as true God and true man: two natures in a single Person. This makes Mary’s Assumption as the immortal destiny that awaits all humanity. Mary is the one who does not fear to follow her Son along the Way of the Cross; stand under the Cross; be present at His burial (think Michelangelo’s ‘Pieta’) and who is present at the birth of the Church. She is also the one who, as the Evangelist emphasizes more than once, “keeps and ponders in her heart” that which transpires around her, quintessential human nature. As a creature of courage and of obedience she was and is still an example to which our “human” nature can and should look to.
Having abandoned Sola Scriptura in spades, DANIEL 1212 writes that because “the word of God was orally preached should not be the issue. Instead, he continues: “the issue is that this does not translate into Rome speaking the word of God as is described in Scripture.
This train of logic goes off the rails. So he concedes the early Church authoritatively “preached” the unwritten Word of God, authoritatively assembled the “written” Word of God, but somehow now loses that authority to continue to declare the Word of God.
He overlooks the obvious. It is precisely this derailment, this indefensible uncoupling of authority that has led to a mudslide of heresies, the prophesied false prophets unleashed by Bible Christianity. Enter into this breach Jim Jones, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, First AME, First Calvary, First Baptist, and First Whatever. This is what lends credence to the observation of Evangelical theologian turned Catholic Dr. David Anders’ that Protestantism is in the end “a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.”
That the strong Catholic intellectual tradition has brought in converts of every religion, atheists and agnostics included, give the lie to DANIEL 1212’s prior post that Catholics are “docile sheep.” Some sheep.
DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM challenges us to win him over. Actually he wants us to win over his “soul” by showing him why the canonicity of James is not fallacious and berates us for “childish behavior.” On the latter he needs to dialogue with WVKAYAKER whose response (Steelfish say: blah, blah, blah….He repeats over 30 time for effect) is understandable. It is the drowning cry of Bible Christians when taken into the deep end of theological pool. We cannot cry for those who refuse a lifeline.
DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM’s save his “soul” argument cannot be taken seriously only because he dredges up an old argument of Luther who heaped scorn on the Epistle of St. James. This was because James’ Epistle roundly refutes Luther’s heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent again acting with Petrine authority dogmatically defined the Epistle of St. James to be canonical based chiefly on the testimony of the ancient Fathers.
Here’s a quick snapshot:
(a) In the Latin Church it was known by St. Clement of Rome (before A.D. 100), the Pastor Hernias (about A.D. 150), St. Irenaeus (125?-202?, 208), Tertullian (d. about 240), St. Hilary (d. 366), St. Philaster (d. 385), St. Ambrose (d. 397), Pope Damasus (in the canon of about A.D. 382), St. Jerome (346-420), Rufinus (d. 410), St. Augustine (430), and its canonicity is unquestioned by them. (b) In the Greek Church, Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), Origen (d. 254), St. Athanasius (d. 373), St. Dionysius the Areopagite (about A.D. 500), etc., considered it undoubtedly as a sacred writing. (c) In the Syrian Church, the Peshito, although omitting the minor Catholic Epistles, gives that of St. James; St. Ephraem uses it frequently in his writings. Moreover, the most notorious heretics of Syria recognized it as genuine. Thus we find that Nestorius ranked it in the Canon of Sacred Books, and James of Edessa adduces the testimony of James, v, 14. The Epistle is found in the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian versions. Even if the canonicity of the Epistle of St. James was questioned by a few during the first centuries, from the very earliest ages, in different parts of the Church, there exist numerous testimonies in favor of its canonicity. From the end of the third century its acceptance as inspired, and as the work of St. James, has been universal, as clearly appears from the various lists of the Sacred Books drawn up since the fourth century.
If DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM is interested in saving his “soul,” he could easily embrace the Living Christ in the Eucharist, but instead he elliptically raises an issue of James’ canonicity as if the early Church fathers got this one wrong. In short, by “his” research he and other Bible Christians can practice the heresy of authoritatively picking and choosing what constitutes the true Word of God. Enter into this “picking and choosing” those mainline Evangelical and Protestant Churches that find scriptural support for ordaining married gay and lesbian pastors.
Finally, there is the irrepressible aMORE PERFECTUNION who keeps over and over again in insisting that we provide him a list of traditions unable to comprehend something so basic as that it was sacred oral tradition that governed the Church for the first 300 years and was the very foundation for validating the authenticity of the written texts that were established by the Catholic Church. Tradition is not some fad to be picked up until something novel come along.
The Catholic Church is indeed steeped in liturgical traditions that complement scripture especially of John in 21: 25 and backed the full scholarship of its theologians.
From the color of vestments our priests wear during the liturgical year, to the offering of incense, to the veneration of Mary, as the “full of grace,” the Mother of God; the use of incense; the architecture of our churches, the Stations of the Cross; the making of the sign of the cross; the Crucifix at the center of our faith.
There is no Easter Sunday without a Good Friday. To Bible Christians, the resurrection is about a dead man coming alive to be celebrated at meaningless Sunrise Services at the beach with picnic basket and dog in tow. For Catholics it is an ontological event that changed our understanding of the universe where the Living Christ is forever present in the Eucharist. This is what the Church believed from the times of the early Church fathers to this day. As Luke 20:38 elegantly puts it: “He is not God of the dead but of the living; for all live to him”
Today Bible Christianity is nothing short of an embarrassing caricature as leading Protestant and Evangelical converts to Catholicism have found out after a lifetime of study and scholarship. Its heresy has been exposed long enough that there is nothing more to discuss.
If Bible Christians really, really want to save their souls, then follow the example of Ulf Ekman, the founder of Scandinavia’s biggest Bible school. His congregation exceeded 4000 individuals. He could not live with this lie anymore when in his long course of theological inquiry he converted to Catholicism because he believed the indispensability of Catholic sacraments.
History is not all that friendly to some of the claims of the church of Rome, as for it's own self, and it's own role in the much larger scheme of things.
I didn't even bother reading the rest of your rant.
And I won't. Simply not interested in your own private & religiously vain & proud opinions.
Leave myself off any further group pings to the usual navel-gazing ranting, prideful boasting about how [allegedly] wonderful any and everything Roman Catholic is, and how stupid everyone that does not fully agree with yourself must be.
Understand, KimoSabe?
I don't think anyone really believes this nonsense...Who could???
This train of logic goes off the rails. So he concedes the early Church authoritatively “preached” the unwritten Word of God, authoritatively assembled the “written” Word of God, but somehow now loses that authority to continue to declare the Word of God.
I doubt that Daniel1212 confused the early church with your pagan religion of Rome...
If it wasn't for the entertainment value, your posts wouldn't be worth reading...
Regurgitating the same tired and useless slogans and epithets, without refuting the theme of the thread. Blah, blah, blah makes more sense than that screed I saw. Why would anybody want to read such puerile redundancy?
Thundering bowels is what I hear!
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
Please show us where all those "traditions" were written. If you can't we have to understand that the Catholic Church is accursed for teaching "another gospel".
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!
Another appeal to authority - yawn...
>>>DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM’s save his “soul” argument cannot be taken seriously only because he dredges up an old argument of Luther who heaped scorn on the Epistle of St. James. DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM’s save his “soul” argument cannot be taken seriously only because he dredges up an old argument of Luther who heaped scorn on the Epistle of St. James. This was because James’ Epistle roundly refutes Luther’s heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. ... Enter into this “picking and choosing” those mainline Evangelical and Protestant Churches that find scriptural support for ordaining married gay and lesbian pastors.<<<
Why do you lie about me Steelfish? I have not used Luther's argument of faith alone in this thread (his argument was very poorly constructed and thought out - I do a much better job in my book, but I have not used it here). The arguments against the canonicity of James that I have used you have ignored altogether - can you say, bait and switch?
More dishonesty: Again you lump me in with Protestants when I have only ever claimed (and illustrated) in this thread that I am no more a Protestant than I am a Roman Catholic.
And then to top it off, you attempt to discredit me with guilt by association with the gay ordination issue. You are really grasping at straws now.
So this is how you attempt to win my soul, Steelfish? With lies, deceit and smears? You do realize that this is how cults treat their opponents - don't you?
In my years of polemic practice I have always attempted to treat my opponents with civility and only at most respond in kind. I can usually at least respect my opponents for taking principled stands, even if I see them as incorrect. You have gone beyond that due respect with this post Steelfish.
Shall I respond to you in kind and lie about you say, twist who you claim to be, and smear you by tying you to unrelated issues, as you have done to me?
You have made this personal and dirty. I want a direct answer to this question, Steelfish.
.
>> DANIEL 1212 apparently pulls off stuff from anti-Catholic “Sola Scriptura” blog sites to make such stunningly conclusions that the Assumption of Mary was a doctrine in dispute. <<
.
A doctrine?
Its mixing of paganism with the ancient written Gospel of Yeshua.
It was condemned by Moses in Deuteronomy, and by Paul in most of his epistles, and by all of the OT prophets.
That, of course, applies as well to just about every facet of the RCC.
As has been said by so many before, bla, bla, bla....
.
More “wisdom” from the deep end of the pool. Paul hit it on the head: “Thinking themselves wise, they have become fools.”
“Finally, there is the irrepressible aMORE PERFECTUNION who keeps over and over again in insisting that we provide him a list of traditions”
No Steelfish. YOU claimed that your church is following the Pauline Traditions he mentions in the verse YOU quoted.
I asked you to PROVE it. In SEVEN tries, you haven’t come remotely close to a single Fact, a single piece of EVIDENCE, nor a logical argument that would demonstrate you told the truth.
“unable to comprehend something so basic as that it was sacred oral tradition that governed the Church for the first 300 years and was the very foundation for validating the authenticity of the written texts that were established by the Catholic Church.”
And yet this has nothing to do with PROVING YOUR CLAIM, that you are following the PAULINE TRADITIONS HE REFERRED TO.
Steelfish, I patiently asked SEVEN times for you to prove YOUR CLAIM. You FAILED SEVEN TIMES. Yes, a total failure to support your truth claim.
Please take me off your endless spam list of repeated false claims and slogans.
If you ever find ANY evidence to support YOUR claim, you may ping me directly. Until then, your claims must be treated as false and unproven.
I remain wishing you the best. I just have no reason to believe what you posted.
Daniel1212 and Deprogramliberalism, like the progenitors of Protestantism (Luther and Calvin) would dredge up historical debates, discussions, and debates to tilt “their” version of contrarian opinions toward Catholic teachings. It matters little to them that renowned Protestant theologians have converted to Catholicism or that a massive constellation of serious thinkers, a veritable A-Z list have embraced God’s Word in their conversion to Catholicism.
Deprogramliberalism insists we respond to something he’s written in his book about the canonicity of James’ Epistle while failing to respond even to the historical snapshot of what was provided. So even without reading his tracts we may guess that it is “his” version that remains irrefutable. Instead, he seeks an extended debate on a matter that has been extensively written about that needs no reproduction.
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Epistle-of-Saint-James
He speaks of treating his opponents with “civility” but this does not extend to calling the “intellectual” basis for his point of view for what it is. Why this would drive him to call people names escapes the mind. For sure, Deprogramliberalism honestly believes his views but he can also be honestly wrong and completely wrong about them. Of course like his confreres here, he disputes Petrine authority. In short, this is a backdoor way of letting in each individual’s personal interpretation of Scripture.
aMorePerfectunion union incredulously keeps insisting on a “list” of traditions, the kind of query, that would provoke howls of derision from even Protestant theologians whether asked seven or seven times seventy. We must wish him peace as he requests leave of this thread. The frustration has worn him out.
He follows Bluedragon who quits the thread as well because he can’t “bother” to read what he calls a “rant.” This of course is predictable. Try taking the interpretations any Bible Christian to the deep end of the theological pool and they drown.
Gasping for breath in the deep end of this pool is Elsie and Iscool. Elsie double sizes her type-font with sarcasm in reference to “irrefutable,” Marian dogmas. Iscool doubles down with this gem of an analysis: “I don’t think anyone really believes this nonsense...Who could???” This duo is joined with the unmatched brilliance of Editor-Surveyor who calls Marian dogmas as the “mixing of paganism with the ancient written Gospel of Yeshua.”
Leaving aside the utter indecipherability of Editor-Surveyor’s remarks, maybe the trio should try asking Dr. David Anders the Wheaton-educated historical Biblical scholar who upon converting the Catholicism after being born, raised and educated as an Evangelical wrote this:
“Once I understood the Catholic position on salvation, the Church, and the saints, the Marian dogmas also seemed to fall into place. If the heart of the Christian faith is God’s union with our human nature, the Mother of that human nature has an incredibly important and unique role in all of history. This is why the Fathers of the Church always celebrated Mary as the second Eve. Her “yes” to God at the annunciation undid the “no” of Eve in the garden. If it is appropriate to venerate the saints and martyrs of the Church, how much more is it appropriate to give honor and veneration to her who made possible our redemption?”
CynicalBear’s query takes off from aMorePerfectunion and verges on the hysterical. He wants proof of where “traditions” are written. Jesus’ commandment to the Apostles at the end of Matthew’s Gospel logically assumes the necessity of Sacred Tradition:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt. 28:19-20)
Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write down everything he had taught them. He simply commanded them to teach it. Much of this teaching later made its way into Sacred Scripture, but every bit of it was and still is considered Sacred Tradition. These unwritten traditions span the whole life of the Church. The veneration of saints, statuary, iconography, Church architecture, the offering of incense, the lighting of candles, the public affirmation of our faith in the Eucharist through Corpus Christi celebrations, and the crucifix at the focus of our Churches.
Now the heretics have taken over, ripped off the splendid statuary that once graced the magnificent Berlin Cathedral and replaced it with statues of Luther and Calvin.
CynicalBear offers this scold for Catholic traditions: “the Catholic Church is accursed for teaching “another gospel.” He should try taking this up with the early Church fathers, the saints, and martyrs.
“Accursed”?
Here’ s Paul who provides even more explicit evidence of Sacred Tradition in his writings. Here are three examples:
• “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2).
• “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6).
• “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).
In the third verse, Paul speaks of Sacred Tradition as being taught both orally and in writing. The written teaching would later be canonized as Sacred Scripture, so this verse suggests how Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture.
Near the end of Paul’s ministry he instructed Timothy to carry on the Sacred Tradition passed down to him: “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14). Paul went on to instruct Timothy to pass down that Sacred Tradition to others: “[A]nd what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
Throughout history, the Catholic Church alone has continued to safeguard and teach the fullness of the Christian faith and explains why the most preeminent American Lutheran scholar of his times, Rev. Richard Neuhaus wrote that he found “the fullest expression of Christ in the Catholic Church.”
WVKayaker calls all this “blah, blah, blah.” For the sake of civility let’s stay clear of calling his attention to Matthew 7:6.
CommerceComet would have no use for theological scholars like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, or Benedict. He does the usual Bible Christianity thing. He lets loose a quote from Paul by writing. He writes:
“Paul hit it on the head: “Thinking themselves wise, they have become fools.”
CommerceComet forgets the first rule of quotations. Any statement that is torn or shorn of its context is worse than useless, it is meaningless. Paul was dealing here with the rejection of God’s authority with its replacement by idols and with hearts that are darkened, with futile speculations, and with men “professing to be wise” who become fools. If we go by CommerceComet’s nonsense then even the Church’s first theologians –the early Church Fathers- who assembled the authentic written Word of God were fools. His own logic boomerangs.
So here’s a quick synopsis.
As the Divine Master said, “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me” (John 14:21) and “He that is not with me, is against me” (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). Christ commanded Peter and his successors to go forth and preach “His” one truth. The command was to teach “whatsoever” he has told them. They were to instruct as part of one Church, one truth, both written and unwritten. Not the “truths” of every Jack and Jill, and Joel Osteen and Billy Graham who spout forth selected scriptural quotes providing us with “their” understanding of God’s Word bereft of historical and theological validity while raking personal fortunes for themselves and their families. This is the sheer rubbish that Catholics have had to respond to. Without a Credo and Catechism, Bible Christianity continues adrift into morass of conflicting interpretation.
WVKayaker response to all this is “blah, blah, blah,” and writes not unlike Iscool to whom all this is “nonsense.”
Finally, CynicalBear does what most Bible Christians do. They either rain down on you a downpour of scriptural quotes or randomly shoot a scriptural quote from here and there as when he quotes Paul in Galatians 1:8: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”
Little does CynicalBear realize that he shoots himself in the foot.
Yes, what Paul and the early Church fathers “preached” under Petrine authority for 1500 years was the Word of God. Their preaching was embraced by its long line of Catholic martyrs and saints long before the “other than the one we preached to you,” Protestant heresy washed ashore on this earth in 1517.
Welcome the Moonies, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the 30,000 different sects and sub-sects of Bible Christianity.
It is this that remains “God’s curse.”
Ping me when you answer AMPU's query... No Steelfish. YOU claimed that your church is following the Pauline Traditions he mentions in the verse YOU quoted. ... If you ever find ANY evidence to support YOUR claim, you may ping me directly. Until then, your claims must be treated as false and unproven. Add me to that list, not this one...
And still you haven’t shown where it is written that what the apostles called “tradition” is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches as tradition. That’s a fail Steelfish.
Proverbs 10:19
In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin:
but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Now, that's pretty rich. Most of your rituals and architecture were ripped off from Pagans! Catholic means universal and it all got thrown together to spread the widest net possible not the purest Gospel possible.
Yes, Paul really wanted people to light a candle for him or pray to dead people for him. Uh-huh. That must be some of that deep pool thinking because I think I'm drowning in it but it ain't water.
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.