Ps:

It's also important to remember how very low the literacy rate was in the ancient world. THe production of texts would be of little advantage to the average person. Most people, for most of our history, had access to Scripture only by listening to others read it aloud to them. Hence the orality of Tradition lived on long after the production of texts.

Akoue, et al:

It's agreed that not all disciples are "sent". I found myself in defense of using the term 'Apostle' for all four Gospel writers erlier today. While I was just parroting Carroll in my previous post, it occurred to me while responding to Altenweg that the four may rightly be called Apostles even though some may not have been in the group of twelve. We hold that the Gospels were written as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As such, the authors of the Gospels were being sent out, as it were, to write. Thus, the writers become disciples on a Divine mission and could rightly be called Apostles (with a capital 'A'); regardless of whether they belong to the group of Twelve. I'm just thinking out loud here, and didn't mean for this to be a diversion.

Not that I have the wherewithal to speak with any authority, but I've always had an aversion to the Q. My first encounter with the Q was when “hippieism” seemed to use it as ammunition against Christians; in the late 60's and 70's. (I told my age! – actually I was very young – yeah like, would you believe 5-years old – OK how about 10-year old, OK …?) Consequently, I've built a prejudice against the concept of a Q. Unfortunately, that prejudice isn't built on any factual knowledge – Q just seems counter intuitive. Even still, it would seem that the similarities in certain passages are well beyond chance. To resolve this conflict, I've come to hold a view similar to DeMiria's; there must have been a “Protogospel” in the tradition of oral teaching.

Uhmm, there's that word 'tradtion' again - Do you thing a body of believes, organized, and deliberately set out to write the Good News to “hand down” to the next generation – Christians didn't last long; you do know that Christians were “shot on site”, in a manner of speaking …. Nah too coincidental


JoeT

Tj3,
You have been told that many time over several years. Please don't bother to ask again.
It will just start another confrontation and the hut down of another thread,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I have seen your claims, but I am asking where scripture says that there were more than 12 Apostles.

Please answer that question.

Keep in mind:

- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles (and only will be 12 Apostles), therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Therefore only one of Matthias or Paul can be the God chosen replacement.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.

Scripture counts St. Matthias
Acts 1:25
That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

I know that the other Apostles chose him. I am asking where scripture says that He was God's choice.


and St. Paul as Apostles.
Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

That makes fourteen.

You count different than I do.

Acts 1 15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

This is specific with respect to Judas, and does not refer to Apostolic succession as a doctrine. Further, have a gander at what the Apostles said were the qualifications. One would have to be 2000 years old today to qualify.

Sorry, Tom, that ship has sailed. If you want to argue about this please go to the thread I dedicated to the subject. This thread is about SCripture and Tradition.

Sorry, Tom, that ship has sailed. If you want to argue about this please go to the thread I dedicated to the subject. This thread is about SCripture and Tradition.


Akoue,

Comments were made addressed to me regarding this. I am responding. If the folk do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, they do not need to respond.

Odd, though that you chose to question my posts - I have seen mighty little discussion on scripture and tradition in the last couple of pages.

Joe,

I get your reservations. Being backed into a corner can turn anybody off. I think it would be eminently cool if a Q-Gospel were to turn up one day, but I don't really see what ahngs on it. This is why I find people's frequent appeal to it undermotivated.

Akoue,

Comments were made addressed to me regarding this. I am responding. If the folk do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, they do not need to respond.

Odd, though that you chose to question my posts - I have seen mighty klittle discussion on scripture and tradition in the last couple of pages.

Nope, just people being nice to one another. That's always healthy for conversation, though. And I, and I'm sure many others, would be delighted to discuss the number of Apostles with you--just please take it up on the other thread.

Nope, just people being nice to one another. That's always healthy for conversation, though.

That is why I frequently recommend that discussions be kept respectful. No name-calling, abuse, etc. that we see far too much of on boards like this. Likewise, respect for what others on the list are discussing is importaant, without one person unilaterally assuming authority to choose who is allowed to discuss what, and specifically suggesting that the rights of some to discuss differ from the rights of others.


And I, and I'm sure many others, would be delighted to discuss the number of Apostles with you--just please take it up on the other thread.

All you need to do is just not discuss it or the discussing of discussing it and it will go away. I am not sure why, if you don't want it discussed, why you keep discussing the discussing of the topic.

After all, I was just responding to someone else's comment. And you for some reason did not comment on that. You just don't seem to want me responding to the subtopics raised by others. But I don't care - if no one else comments, it goes away. If you keep commenting, it keeps going.

So, your choice - we can keep discussing this, or you can let it drop.

Just curious, since tradition is often passed from generations down, simply as said, because of illiteracy, or lack of material, but doesn't it seem odd that all the modern traditions, are from ancient man, with no more updates, or added knowledge. Is it that the traditions of ancient man is enough, or there is no more divine writing for scripture? It would seem technology would inspire man to more, not just stop in the middle ages.

This used to bug me too--I'm not really sure when it stopped, or why. I don't think the idea is meant to be that Tradition exists only because of illiteracy or poverty, etc.: It is understood to be a living thing. But it's a living thing that *preserves* what was delivered over to it by Jesus and the Apostles. There is a real tendency to worry about innovation, since this could lead to deformation of what was handed over in the first place. For this reason, new theological insights or ideas have to be tested against what has always been held to be true, to see if they are in harmony with each other. If they are, then that's a good sign for the new insight or idea; if they don't, well, not so good. This is why something like Vatican II stumps a lot of people: It sure looks new to them, and they wonder if it's supposed to replace what came earlier. Of course it's not: It's more like a refresher, a re-appropriation of what came before in the face of a changed world and changed circumstances. But Tradition isn't typically held to be un-dynamic: Through it the unfolding of revelation continues to this day, not because revelation shanges but because we do. That said, what is ancient, and so tested, always has an especially high standing.

I hope this makes sense, at least a little. If not, please say so and I'll have another crack at it.

Sorry, another ps:

If you have some time, you might want to re-read some of De Maria's earlier posts. He's explained the idea really nicely (better than I just did, but oh well).

Just curious, since tradition is often passed from generations down, simply as said, because of illiteracy, or lack of material, but doesn't it seem odd that all the modern traditions, are from ancient man, with no more updates, or added knowledge. Is it that the traditions of ancient man is enough, or there is no more divine writing for scripture? It would seem technology would inspire man to more, not just stop in the middle ages.

Assuming we're talking about Church Tradition, it didn't start in the middle ages. The Church's tradition starts at the ascension of Christ (some Traditions start even earlier). More important is that this Tradition deals with Devine Truth, wherein nothing can be added or subtracted; truth is immutable - truth of any kind. I sometimes think of it this way; It’s like trying to add something new to the sum of 2+2; done right, it always comes out to 4; this is an axiomatic truth of mathematics. Adding or subtracting anything would simply make the answer wrong. But, this concept of math (or Divine Truth) needs to be handed down or taught, as it were, to the next generation. If we don’t, we’d have a bunch of math illiterate kids who are always trying to convince Dad that last week’s allowance of $2 plus this week’s allowance of $2 equals $5 (fork it over Dad!). It just anin’t going to happen is it? Even though I might fail at humor, I hope I didn’t fail at answering your question.

JoeT

Joe,

I liked that. Something I should have said more clearly is that Tradition is understood to be both the deposit of faith that is preserved and the mechanism (I can't think of a better word for it right now) by which that deposit, that body of teachings, is transmitted. De Maria brought this out nicely in an earlier post by emphasizing the important connection between the body of doctrine and the ecclesial structure that preserves and transmits it. If all anybody had was the body of doctrine, without a viable mechanism for its transmission, the body of doctrine would be lost directly.

There is also the idea, which I know you've brought up, that the Holy Spirit is taken to guide this transmission. Something like this would seem to be imperative if Tradition is to be anything over and above tradition.

I hope this makes sense, at least a little. If not, please say so and I'll have another crack at it.
Sort of but not quite. To me, Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.

For instance, I read a book years ago about Christian missionaries who went into a hot, deserty country. The natives worshipped the sun. The missionaries took that ball and ran with it as they introduced their God as the Trinity, one of which is the Son. The natives eagerly embraced this new "Sun." Also, I have always been taught that the early Christian church introduced the veneration of saints in order to extinguish belief in polytheism. The Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, but was added later as a doctrine and became part of Tradition in the Catholic and Eastern churches.

Through it the unfolding of revelation continues to this day, not because revelation shanges but because we do.
So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.

Joe,

I liked that. Something I should have said more clearly is that Tradition is understood to be both the deposit of faith that is preserved and the mechanism (I can't think of a better word for it right now) by which that deposit, that body of teachings, is transmitted. De Maria brought this out nicely in an earlier post by emphasizing the important connection between the body of doctrine and the ecclesial structure that preserves and transmits it. If all anybody had was the body of doctrine, without a viable mechanism for its transmission, the body of doctrine would be lost directly.

There is also the idea, which I know you've brought up, that the Holy Spirit is taken to guide this transmission. Something like this would seem to be imperative if Tradition is to be anything over and above tradition.

I was thinking the same thing about your response. I didn't say a word about the mechanics of it all. Well, at least between the two answers he gets keep both the how and the why.

JoeT

Sort of but not quite. To me Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start out as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.

So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.

Yeah, there are lots of traditions of the sort you describe here. In the capital "T" sense, these don't count as Tradition; some are even customs that are reproved. One of the things Catholics and Orthodox worry a lot about is trying to ensure that traditions don't get confused with Tradition. This is one of the important roles played by bishops (preserving the capital "T" deposit of faith in the face of people who have developed all kinds of traditions over the years). When those traditions are seen as helpful, as deepening the faith of the people, they are typically permitted to continue; when they cut against Tradition, they are suppressed.

As for clerical celibacy and gay marriage... I don't know. There are things which, if the Church permitted them, I would be delighted to see. But it's not for me to decide--and even though my ego would love it if I could make the call, it's probably a very good thing that I'm neither the Pope nor a council of bishops! (I look terrible in hats, for instance.)

I asked a question similar to yours of De Maria and he offered what I thought was a really helpful reply at #35 above. If you have a minute you might take a glance at it and see what you think.

#35 was written by arcura.

#35 was written by arcura.

Yes, it was. I'm sorry about that. I meant to say #32. #38 is good to (same page).

Numbers and I do not get along!

Which reminds me: Joe, you going to send that twenty back my way?

we'd have a bunch of math illiterate kids who are always trying to convince Dad that last week's allowance of $2 plus this week's allowance of $2 equals $5 (fork it over Dad!). It just anin't going to happen is it

Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with than ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new, and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes, and churches, do we not change tradition also??

Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with that ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes and churches do we not change tradition also???

What we may change is our relation to Tradition. By this I mean that we may come to understand it better, more deeply. If we develop traditions that don't serve that end, then it is our duty to correct those traditions. We have to be vigilant with ourselves.

So traditions chage, but Tradition doesn't.

So traditions chage, but Tradition doesn't.
Does Tradition ever change, or has it ever in the past? Have any ever been added to or discarded?

Not in the big "T" sense of Tradition, no. But in the small "t" sense, yes, lots of traditions have changed. Some of those small "t" traditions are bad, bad, bad, and have been suppressed because of it. (Bishops in the Philippines have been trying for years to get people to stop nailing themselves to crosses on Good Friday, for example. NOT a good tradition.)

De Mariia,
I agree with you on that.
Fred

Sort of but not quite. To me, Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start out as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.


You've applied a subjective meaning to 'Tradition,' especially as it may relate to the Christian Church. There can be a tradition of tales and fables we teach our children which are handed down. The fables may contain fact, they may not. In the Christian Church, Tradition is the handing down of Divine Truth. Something that can't be changed; I know you've read were I've said that Truth is God and God is Truth; both immutable and absolute. These are the types of Truth we've been discussing – they simply can't change. However, as Akoue pointed out, we may, for extremely long periods, hold such truths without formulating them in doctrine.

Another concept that may be perplexing is that Church rites and ecclesiastical customs get confused with the fundamental Truths (Traditions) of our faith. That one Diocese may say Mass for St. Christopher on a certain date is a matter of custom not Church Tradition; the main reason is that it doesn't affect the fundamental Truth of our faith.


For instance, I read a book years ago about Christian missionaries who went into a hot, deserty country. The natives worshipped the sun. The missionaries took that ball and ran with it as they introduced their God as the Trinity, one of which is the Son. The natives eagerly embraced this new "Sun." Also, I have always been taught that the early Christian church introduced the veneration of saints in order to extinguish belief in polytheism. The Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, but was added later as a doctrine and became part of Tradition in the Catholic and Eastern churches.

The recounting of this story is a distortion of the intent of the priests. These stories get around a lot in the non-Catholic circles as propaganda against the Church to somehow show that the Church doesn't teach the God's Truth. I don't know this particular story, but as you've portrayed it here, the priests were simply trying to find a way to “relate” to the natives who have no concept of God other than as the sun.

I'm not going to touch the Mary Assumption topic here. We've done it before, but if you want, open another thread and we'll discuss it again.


So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.

To the first, celibate priests is a matter of discipline. Priests don't marry because the Pope has decreed that they can't serve two masters, God and woman.

Second, homosexuality is in conflict with God's revelation (Divine Truth – remember). The Pope can't remove this sanction because it would be an error - the Church doesn't teach error and it doesn't formally cooperate with error. And obviously if homosexuality is in conflict with God's revelations then the marriage of same sex persons can't happen either.

Society might change, Truth is immutable.

JoeT

Not in the big "T" sense of Tradition, no. But in the small "t" sense, yes, lots of traditions have changed. Some of those small "t" traditions are bad, bad, bad, and have been suppressed because of it. (Bishops in the Philippines have been trying for years to get people to stop nailing themselves to crosses on Good Friday, for example. NOT a good tradition.)
But haven't some of the Traditions come about quite recently -- the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950? If they are dogma, why did it take so long for anyone to figure them out -- or is there more to it than that? And why isn't Mary's mother sinless, and her mother, and her mother, all the way back to Eve? Why stop with Mary? (Yes, I know. That's another whole topic and is just a rhetorical question here.)

But haven't some of the Traditions come about quite recently -- the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950? If they are dogma, why did it take so long for anyone to figure them out -- or is there more to it than that? And why isn't Mary's mother sinless, and her mother, and her mother, all the way back to Eve? Why stop with Mary? (Yes, I know. That's another whole topic and is just a rhetorical question here.)

Leaving the rhetorical part ot one side: To say that a doctrine was defined in 1950 or 1854 isn't to say that it wasn't around previously. In fact, a dogma cannot be defined ex cathedra if at hasn't been around a long time. So, without getting into the details of the two cases you mention (another thread, maybe), the ex cathedra definition of a dogma is not to be a theological innovation. These pronouncements are, as it were, the clear and public declaration of what has been believed (not: what is henceforth to be believed).

Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with than ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new, and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes, and churches, do we not change tradition also???

Yeah I know about the 20 bucks deal - I call it KIDflation!

Whether the knowledge is great or small, if it is rooted in “truth” then we view this as God's will. I think what you're suggesting is that we make truth subjective, in the sense that it serves our will, our idea of a predetermined outcome. At this point truth no longer is matter of fact, an immutable truth. If the knowledge we gain today wasn't true at the dawn of time – and then it can't be true today. However, our relationships with tribes, churches, etc. in light of that Truth can change but (big T) Tradition cannot.

JoeT

Akoue,
That is s very good explanation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777,
I agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

There is also the idea, which I know you've brought up, that the Holy Spirit is taken to guide this transmission. Something like this would seem to be imperative if Tradition is to be anything over and above tradition.

I don't remember you ever answering my question about how you deal with the contradictions in tradition and between tradition and scripture.

I don't remember you ever answering my question about how you deal with the contradictions in tradition and between tradition and scripture.

I don't remember you answering Wondergirl's request that you provide some examples.

Oh, and I also don't remember you ever answering the question asked in the OP, nor the question regarding canon formation--both of which have been around on this thread for quite awhile now. I asked the questions. Why don't you give us all your answers.

I don't remember you ever answering my question about how you deal with the contradictions in tradition and between tradition and scripture.
Please give him a specific one to chew on.

I also await the answers to all of those questions,
I'm beginning to think we'll never see them
Fred

I don't remember you answering Wondergirl's request that you provide some examples.

How about when a doctor of the Catholic church says that we must worship Mary, and scripture says that we are not worship anyone but God?

How about when a doctor of the Catholic church says that we are to decide or test all doctrine by scripture, and other says that we are to use tradition?


Oh, and I also don't remember you ever answering the question asked in the OP, nor the question regarding canon formation--both of which have been around on this thread for quite awhile now. I asked the questions. Why don't you give us all your answers.

I believe that I have as we have carried on the discussion.

Now, I am still waiting for your answer to my question - third time in asking. Consider it hypotehtical if you wish, I don't care - but what do you do when a contradiction arises in tradition or between tradition and scripture?

How about when a doctor of the Catholic church says that we must worship Mary, and scripture says that we are not worship anyone but God?

Worship (proskunesis) is reserved for God alone. I've never heard of anybody saying that we should worship Mary. Veneration (dule) and worship (proskunesis) are different things. Catholics and Orthodox (as well as many Anglicans) who venerate Mary regard worship of Mary (or anyone other than the Trinity) as a grave sin.


How about when a doctor of the Catholic church says that we are to decide or test all doctrine by scripture, and other says that we are to use tradition?

I don't see these as in competition with one another. Scripture and Tradition don't stand to each other in the relation of either/or.


I believe that I have as we have carried on the discussion.


Perhaps you can indicate where you answered them (or just refresh everyone's memory):
1. How do we adjudicate when two honest, intelligent, and well-intentioned people disagree over the meaning of Scripture (I gave a more precise formulation of the question earlier--this is just to call your attention to it).
2. How did early Christians (of the late-first and second centuries, lets say) know whether they had the right NT canon, the one God intended. There were lots of texts swirling around, how did the decision get made and how did anyone know it was the right decision? How do we know which canon is right today? If the mysterious Q were to turn up next week, should it be included as well (I didn't ask this last one before--I only just thought of it. But it would be cool if you wanted to wade in on that one too. I think it's an interesting question.)

I also think it is a very interesting question.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

By the way I'll be leaving tomorrow morning.
Bonnie and I are going up near the Canadian border to visit USA And Canadian relatives for Christmas.
I'll be back Sunday nihj or Monday, God willing, to continue here.
Merry, Holy Christmas,
Fred

By the way I'll be leaving tomorrow morning.
Bonnie and I are going up near the Canadian border to visit USA And Canadian relatives for Christmas.
I'll be back Sunday nihj or Monday, God willing, to continue here.
Merry, Holy Christmas,
Fred
Be safe, Fred, and have a blessed Christmas!

Fred,

Have a safe trip and a wonderful Feast of the Lord's Nativity.

Worship (proskunesis) is reserved for God alone. I've never heard of anybody saying that we should worship Mary. Veneration (dule) and worship (proskunesis) are different things. Catholics and Orthodox (as well as many Anglicans) who venerate Mary regard worship of Mary (or anyone other than the Trinity) as a grave sin.

Putting aside you priavte interpretation of veneration vs worship, then would you consider a doctor of the Catholic church who demanded that as an essential to be in error or perhaps even heresy?


I don't see these as in competition with one another. Scripture and Tradition don't stand to each other in the relation of either/or.

You did not answer the question.


Perhaps you can indicate where you answered them

Sorry, Akoue, as I have told you in other threads, I am not up for playing games like that.

Putting aside you priavte interpretation of veneration vs worship, then would you consider a doctor of the Catholic church who demanded that as an essential to be in error or perhaps even heresy?
Please name this person.

Putting aside you priavte interpretation of veneration vs worship, then would you consider a doctor of the Catholic church who demanded that as an essential to be in error or perhaps even heresy?


You did not answer the question.


Sorry, Akoue, as I have told you in other threads, I am not up for playing games like that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "private interpretation" here, so I'm not sure what your first question means. If anyone demanded worship (proskunesis) of Mary, I would regard that view as heretical.

The other question, the one you say I didn't answer, was rather vague. I'm not aware of a Doctor of the Church who said that we should not avail ourselves of Scripture and Tradition, so I'm not sure how to answer your question in a more precise way. Perhaps if you could flesh it out a bit I could try to offer a more satisfactory reply.

Tj, in fairness, no you didn't answer the questions, and this is unfair since you've been quite insistent about your own. I do remember you saying that God fixed the canon. But that doesn't speak to the question I reiterated above, namely, how do we know we've got the one he intended. And I am quite genuinely unaware--and unable to find--your answer to the first question. I think it only fair that everyone here have a voice, and I've invited you both politely and repeatedly a number of times to share your take on the questions (while at the same time trying to keep the thread on topic, with the exception of some felicitations). I think your view of these matters definitely has a place here: We've heard a lot about the Tradition-based view and I have all along asked those who don't share it to offer their own. I even challenged the Tradition-based view in hopes that more alternatives would begin to emerge. So, please, I welcome your input, as well as that of others--including non-Christians who don't have a personal stake in the matter.

If you'd be willing to reiterate your answers for my benefit, and for that of others who may be interested, that would be great and welcome.

I know that the other Apostles chose him. I am asking where scripture says that He was God's choice.

Already answered.


You count different than I do.

Apparently.

This is specific with respect to Judas, and does not refer to Apostolic succession as a doctrine. Further, have a gander at what the Apostles said were the qualifications. One would have to be 2000 years old today to qualify.

The OP requests that you go to the other thread and let this one get back on topic.

That is why I frequently recommend that discussions be kept respectful. No name-calling, abuse, etc., that we see far too much of on boards like this. Likewise, respect for what others on the list are discussing is importaant, without one person unilaterally assuming authority to choose who is allowed to discuss what, and specifically suggesting that the rights of some to discuss differ from the rights of others.



All you need to do is just not discuss it or the discussing of discussing it and it will go away. I am not sure why, if you don't want it discussed, why you keep discussing the discussing of the topic.

Afterall, I was just responding to someone else's comment. And you for some reason did not comment on that. You just don't seem to want me responding to the subtopics raised by others. But I don't care - if no one else comments, it goes away. If you keep commenting, it keeps going.

So, your choice - we can keep discussing this, or you can let it drop.

Just trying to stay on topic TJ. From my perspective, it is you who seems to want to run the thread any direction you want. Is there something wrong with discussing Scripture and Tradition on the Scripture and Tradition thread?

Perhaps you should ask a moderator.

Wondergirl,
Thanks much.
We've got new snow here and the is several hundred miles so we'll drive carfully.
Have a blessed Chrsitmas,
Fred

Okay, Fred, shouldn't you be in bed? You're leaving tomorrow morning, there's bad weather all around... I'm not anxious for you to go anywhere, but I do want to make sure that you come back to us in one piece!

De Maria,
Thanks much for your concern.
I'll be headed for bed shortly.
It's 10:25 PM here.
Merry Christmas,
Fred

I'm not sure what you mean by "private interpretation" here, so I'm not sure what your first question means. If anyone demanded worship (proskunesis) of Mary, I would regard that view as heretical.

The other question, the one you say I didn't answer, was rather vague. I'm not aware of a Doctor of the Church who said that we should not avail ourselves of Scripture and Tradition, so I'm not sure how to answer your question in a more precise way. Perhaps if you could flesh it out a bit I could try to offer a more satisfactory reply.

I don't think Tj understands the role of 'doctor' in the Church. You might want to explain how it works. As I understand it among other things he must be a baptized Christian and subscribe to the profession of faith. As a rule only priests receive doctorate of theology and canon law. Their only role is to advise and may appear as advocates before the Roman tribunals. The Pope maintains has the authority to create doctors and sometimes delegates this authority to universities and seminaries. What is important here is doctors are advisory titles, the role being to 'teach' the faith not make it. Source: (link0 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05072b.htm)

JoeT

I don't think Tj understands the role of 'doctor' in the Church...the role being to 'teach' the faith not make it.
That's why I asked him who it is. He cagily mentioned someone in authority who advocates the worship of Mary but didn't bother to name and quote that person.

How about when a doctor of the Catholic church says that we must worship Mary, and scripture says that we are not worship anyone but God?

What you have described can't happen. All "doctors" of the Church, of which I'm aware, have been designated such, post mortem. Here's a list:
http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/IOD.html

And they would not have been designated such if they had interpreted Scripture incorrectly.

What you are describing is a conflict between a personal interpretation and Scripture. The Church judges whether the interpretation is valid. If the judgement is that it is invalid, the person is asked to change his interpretation in line with the Church.


How about when a doctor of the Catholic church says that we are to decide or test all doctrine by scripture, and other says that we are to use tradition?

Can't happen. Doctors of the Church are so named postmortem.

However, what you describe is two Catholics who disagree on doctrine. This has happened frequently in history. The Church decides which is right based upon whose interpretation is supported by Scripture and Tradition. A famous case is Arius vs. Athanasius.


I believe that I have as we have carried on the discussion.

I don't recall it either. Why don't you refresh our memory?


Now, I am still waiting for your answer to my question - third time in asking. Consider it hypotehtical if you wish, I don't care - but what do you do when a contradiction arises in tradition or between tradition and scripture?

You are spelling tradition with a little "t". When laypeople begin cultural traditions which contradict Scripture. The Church steps in and corrects them.

Traditions spelled with a big T signifying that they are the Word of God do not contradict Scripture. Its impossible.

By the way I'll be leaving tomorrow morning.
Bonnie and I are going up near the Canadian border to visit USA And Canadian relatives for Christmas.
I'll be back Sunday nihj or Monday, God willing, to continue here.
Merry, Holy Christmas,
Fred

May God keep and protect you.

Merry Christmas!

De Maria< right you are.
Good night.
Fred

Already answered.

No, you showed me where scripture says that he was chosen by men, but where does it say that God endorsed him as an Apostle?

De Maria< right you are.
Good night.
Fred

Have fun and stay safe. We'll be talk'en when you get back.

Merry Christmas

Joe

What you have described can't happen. All "doctors" of the Church, of which I'm aware, have been designated such, post mortem. Here's a list:
Introduction to the Doctors of the Catholic Church (http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/IOD.html)

And they would not have been designated such if they had interpreted Scripture incorrectly.

Heh heh, squirming a bit are you because what you believe cannot happen did.

Alphonse Liguori


What you are describing is a conflict between a personal interpretation and Scripture. The Church judges whether the interpretation is valid. If the judgement is that it is invalid, the person is asked to change his interpretation in line with the Church.

Private interpretation of men.

You want to believe that it cannot happen. It did, it has happened, and it does happen.

But now answer my question - why do you do when tradition contradicts itself or scripture? You are doing a great job of avoiding the question.

So there are 32 officially designated Doctors of the Church. They include the 8 Fathers (Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great). The last two Doctors to be named were Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila (in 1970).

No, you showed me where scripture says that he was chosen by men, but where does it say that God endorsed him as an Apostle?

No. The lot fell on Matthias. If you believe in chance, then he was chosen by men. But if you believe that God ordains everything, then God made the lot fall on Matthias.

Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles

How do you interpret it?

I don’t think Tj understands the role of ‘doctor’ in the Church. You might want to explain how it works. As I understand it among other things he must be a baptized Christian and subscribe to the profession of faith. As a rule only priests receive doctorate of theology and canon law. Their only role is to advise and may appear as advocates before the Roman tribunals. The Pope maintains has the authority to create doctors and sometimes delegates this authority to universities and seminaries. What is important here is doctors are advisory titles, the role being to ‘teach’ the faith not make it. Source: (link0 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05072b.htm)

JoeT

Heh heh heh, I find it interesting that you have to suggest that I don't know what I am talking about because the reality is just unthinkable.

No. The lot fell on Matthias. If you believe in chance, then he was chosen by men. But if you believe that God ordains everything, then God made the lot fall on Matthias.

Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles

How do you interpret it?

So we see that they cast lots - I never said that they did not. Men do lots of things that are are not ordained by God to try to figured out things. Often men do not wait upon the Lord as they should. This is not taking anything away from Matthias as a godly man, but I don't see where scripture says that He had God's endorsement as an Apostle.

Where does it say that God endorsed Matthias as an Apostle?

Tj, really, there's a whole thread dedicated to the number of the Apostles. Why don't you respond to De Maria's post there? This isn't the topic of this thread.

Just trying to stay on topic TJ. From my perspective, it is you who seems to want to run the thread any direction you want. Is there something wrong with discussing Scripture and Tradition on the Scripture and Tradition thread?

Perhaps you should ask a moderator.

Who said that there was? Is there something wrong with responding to questions asked of one on a thread?


Perhaps you should ask a moderator.

heh heh, squirming a bit are you because what you believe cannot happen did.

Alphonse Liguori

St. Alphonsus "Marie" de Liguori. My deep respect and veneration for him is one of the reasons I also adopted Mary's name.

Show me what you think he did to contradict Scripture.

Better yet. Your question regarding how contradictions to the Word of God are dealt with has been answered. Now you simply have a problem with St. Alphonsus Liguori or with your interpretation of something he may have or may not have said.

Tj, really, there's a whole thread dedicated to the number of the Apostles. Why don't you respond to De Maria's post there? This isn't the topic of this thread.

I did not see it, but I guess my question is, I just responded to comments made to me. I am not carrying on on that sub-topic, but you are. I suggested before that if you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it and it will die off.

But for some reason you and De Maria keep raising it and then suggest that I should not respond.

St. Alphonsus "Marie" de Liguori. My deep respect and veneration for him is one of the reasons I also adopted Mary's name.

Show me what you think he did to contradict Scripture.

I told you already.

Who said that there was? Is there something wrong with responding to questions asked of one on a thread?


Perhaps you should ask a moderator.

Done. I hope we'll receive a prompt answer.

Who said that there was? Is there something wrong with responding to questions asked of one on a thread?


Perhaps you should ask a moderator.

Well, until you start answering the questions that have been repeatedly put to you, I can't see why anyone here should be obliged to answer yours. If you want to start a topic of conversation, click the ask question button and start your own thread. Please stop trying to hijack this one--which has been going along very nicely, thank you.

Done. I hope we'll receive a prompt answer.

Thank you, De Maria.

Well, until you start answering the questions that have been repeatedly put to you, I can't see why anyone here should be obliged to answer yours.

There is a difference when questions are posted over and over which have been dealt with. BTW, perhaps I should assume the same attitude to your questions - not answer them until you respond. ;)

Can't happen. Doctors of the Church are so named postmortem.

Wait a minute – there is the same problem with tradition (little t) as opposed to Tradition (big T) as there is with doctor vs. Doctors of the Church. “Doctors of the Church” are certain writers from whom most doctrine is derived. These reside in the Church Triumphant as Saints.

The other doctors (little d) are recipients of Ph d’s and reside in the Church Militant. Not to be confused as “Doctors of the Church” (very BIG D). These are the doctors Luke 2:46 refers to – they are either theologians or doctors of Church law.

My fault for the faul-up

Merry Christmas

JoeT

I told you already.

You made an unsubstantiated claim. I've studied the life of St. Alphonsus Liguori and I've never heard of any problem with his understanding of Scripture. In fact, he's a doctor of the Church so he's a Scripture expert.

So, you'll need to be specific. I need a quote and a reference such as title of document, date written and page. Something tangible. "I said so" doesn't meet the requirement.

There is a difference when questions are posted over and over which have been dealt with. BTW, perhaps I should assume the same attitude to your questions - not answer them until you respond. ;)

Please.

heh heh heh, I find it interesting that you have to suggest that I don't know what I am talking about because the reality is just unthinkable.

We don't think bad of you TJ, it's understandable, you learn more from the inside than you do standing on the outside throwing stones.

JoeT

You made an unsubstantiated claim. I've studied the life of St. Alphonsus Liguori and I've never heard of any problem with his understanding of Scripture. In fact, he's a doctor of the Church so he's a Scripture expert.

Then I presume that you have read "Glories of Mary".

Here are quotes, with page references:

"At the command of Mary all obey-even God."

Page 155 in the paperback version that I have, a short ways into Chapter VI.

"The Way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary."

Page 143 in the paperback, but if you read the entirety of Chapter V, you will see this restated over and over and over many times so that it is abundantly clear.

"The Holy Church carefully teaches us her children with what attention and confidence we should unceasingly have recourse to this loving protectress; and for this reason commands a worship peculiar to Mary"

- Immediately after the reference to worship, on page 107, he refers to here as the "Divine Mother" (his capitalization. This term is used from end of the book to the other.
- Page 112 and elsewhere suggests that her mercy never fails, but because Jesus is also our judge, and thus it is better to go to Mary than to Jesus for salvation since we can be assured of her mercy and compassion
- She can be blasphemed (p114) someone which can only be done against God
- Though Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our salvation, we can only be saved through Mary since she dispenses the blood (P.116)
- She conquered Satan, hell and the demons and crushed the head of Satan (which scripture says was Jesus). p.117
- At the name of Mary, the devils tremble and every knee bows (p.123)

Now that I have shown that what you called impossible to be true, please answer my question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

We don't think bad of you TJ, it's understandable, you learn more from the inside than you do standing on the outside throwing stones.

JoeT

I told you before, I have been inside. But maybe that was also unthinkable to you. :D

Then I presume that you have read "Glories of Mary".

Here are quotes, with page references:

"At the command of Mary all obey-even God."

Page 155 in the paperback version that I have, a short ways into Chapter VI.

"The Way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary."

Page 143 in the paperback, but if you read the entirety of Chapter V, you will see this restated over and over and over many times so that it is abundantly clear.

"The Holy Church carefully teaches us her children with what attention and confidence we should unceasingly have recourse to this loving protectress; and for this reason commands a worship peculiar to Mary"

- Immediately after the reference to worship, on page 107, he refers to here as the "Divine Mother" (his capitalization. This term is used from end of the book to the other.
- Page 112 and elsewhere suggests that her mercy never fails, but because Jesus is also our judge, and thus it is better to go to Mary than to Jesus for salvation since we can be assured of her mercy and compassion
- She can be blasphemed (p114) someone which can only be done against God
- Though Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our salvation, we can only be saved through Mary since she dispenses the blood (P.116)
- She conquered Satan, hell and the demons and crushed the head of Satan (which scripture says was Jesus). p.117
- At the name of Mary, the devils tremble and every knee bows (p.123)

Now that I have shown that what you called impossible to be true, please answer my question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

“At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.” St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence; meaning indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands.

You miss quoted it Tj (again). Above is the qoute in context. St. Liguori was quoting somebody else and explained what he meant.

JoeT

“At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.” St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence; meaning indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands.

You miss quoted it Tj (again). Above is the qoute in context. St. Liguori was quoting somebody else and explained what he meant.

JoeT

I did NOT misquote it. And are you saying that him quoting and repeating something which is an error is any better? Clearly he considered this to be a sound teaching of Christianity as he understood it. BTW, how is it a good thing to say that God accepts "command" of Mary? (And yes I pointed out Liguori said that also: "At the command of Mary all obey-even God.")

So please answer the question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

Then I presume that you have read "Glories of Mary".

Here are quotes, with page references:

"At the command of Mary all obey-even God."

Page 155 in the paperback version that I have, a short ways into Chapter VI.

"The Way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary."

Page 143 in the paperback, but if you read the entirety of Chapter V, you will see this restated over and over and over many times so that it is abundantly clear.

"The Holy Church carefully teaches us her children with what attention and confidence we should unceasingly have recourse to this loving protectress; and for this reason commands a worship peculiar to Mary"

- Immediately after the reference to worship, on page 107, he refers to here as the "Divine Mother" (his capitalization. This term is used from end of the book to the other.
- Page 112 and elsewhere suggests that her mercy never fails, but because Jesus is also our judge, and thus it is better to go to Mary than to Jesus for salvation since we can be assured of her mercy and compassion
- She can be blasphemed (p114) someone which can only be done against God
- Though Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our salvation, we can only be saved through Mary since she dispenses the blood (P.116)
- She conquered Satan, hell and the demons and crushed the head of Satan (which scripture says was Jesus). p.117
- At the name of Mary, the devils tremble and every knee bows (p.123)

Now that I have shown that what you called impossible to be true, please answer my question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?


I couldn’t find the quote you attributed to Chapter V, but I did find the following:

No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God.

Don’t you always complain that Catholics put priests as “mediators” when there can only be one mediator. Very Catholic quote, very orthodox faith. Unlike what you were trying to portray.




Why?

JoeT

I did NOT misquote it. And are you saying that him quoting and repeating something which is an error is any better? Clearly he considered this to be a sound teaching of Christianity as he understood it. BTW, how is it a good thing to say that God accepts "command" of Mary? (And yes I pointed out Liguori said that also: "At the command of Mary all obey-even God.")

So please answer the question.

You missrepresented the quote Tj

Why?

JoeT

I couldn’t find the quote you attributed to Chapter V, but I did find the following:

No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God.

Don’t you always complain that Catholics put priests as “mediators” when there can only be one mediator. Very Catholic quote, very orthodox faith. Unlike what you were trying to portray.


I see that you are trying to avoid the question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

I did NOT misquote it. And are you saying that him quoting and repeating something which is an error is any better? Clearly he considered this to be a sound teaching of Christianity as he understood it. BTW, how is it a good thing to say that God accepts "command" of Mary? (And yes I pointed out Liguori said that also: "At the command of Mary all obey-even God.")

So please answer the question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

Support the question with truth.

Why?

Do you hate the Church that much?

JoeT

I don't have a copy of the Liguori book Tj cites with me, so I'm going to speak to the broader issue, as I understand it. Tradition is not composed of every word that every Doctor has ever written. Anselm, for instance, denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Tradition draws upon the work of the Doctors of the Church--among other things, as was made apparent earlier in this thread--and those teachings are part of Tradition which are certified by the Church. So, in other words, Anselm is regarded as a Doctor of the Church, but the Church explicitly rejects his view regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary. So I don't really see what the problem is here. If Liguori is advocating Mary-worship (and the passaged cited above don't look like that to me, but hey, I don't have the book with me) then I would condemn that claim as heretical. The Church also condemns worship (proskunesis) of anyone other than God.

As for the broader question, what do we do when there are conflicts internal to Tradition: Well, there aren't conflicts, since, as I've just said, Tradition does not consist of every word that every Doctor has written, nor of every position taken by every Doctor (cf. Anselm). This is true in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches: The authority to determine what belongs to the deposit of faith belongs to the Church itself, and not to this or that theologian. Doctors of the Church have a special standing, it's true, but they are not themselves infallible. Tradition, as I said in an earlier post, is a dynamic and living thing.

Tj's question is just a later version of the question I've been asking throughout: How do we settle disagreements? If Tradition is off the table, then what do we use to adjudicate between competing understandings of Scripture and between competing canons of Scripture? Tj, since none of us have been able to find the answers you've mentioned (to questions that long predate your most recent challenge to Catholicism), perhaps you would care to tell us your view on the matter.

I don't have a copy of the Liguori book Tj cites with me, so I'm going to speak to the broader issue, as I understand it. Tradition is not composed of every word that every Doctor has ever written. Anselm, for instance, denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Tradition draws upon the work of the Doctors of the Church--among other things, as was made apparent earlier in this thread--and those teachings are part of Tradition which are certified by the Church. So, in other words, Anselm is regarded as a Doctor of the Church, but the Church explicitly rejects his view regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary. So I don't really see what the problem is here. If Liguori is advocating Mary-worship (and the passaged cited above don't look like that to me, but hey, I don't have the book with me) then I would condemn that claim as heretical. The Church also condemns worship (proskunesis) of anyone other than God.

As for the broader question, what do we do when there are conflicts internal to Tradition: Well, there aren't conflicts, since, as I've just said, Tradition does not consist of every word that every Doctor has written, nor of every position taken by every Doctor (cf. Anselm). This is true in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches: The authority to determine what belongs to the deposit of faith belongs to the Church itself, and not to this or that theologian. Doctors of the Church have a special standing, it's true, but they are not themselves infallible. Tradition, as I said in an earlier post, is a dynamic and living thing.

Tj's question is just a later version of the question I've been asking throughout: How do we settle disagreements? If Tradition is off the table, then what do we use to adjudicate between competing understandings of Scripture and between competing canons of Scripture? Tj, since none of us have been able to find the answers you've mentioned (to questions that long predate your most recent challenge to Catholicism), perhaps you would care to tell us your view on the matter.


http://www.jesus-passion.com/BEGINNING_INDEX_GLORIES_OF_MARY.pdf

You missrepresented the quote Tj

Why?

JoeT

No, Joe, in fact you just showed that in addition to commanding worship of Mary, he also said that God obeys Mary's commands.

No mis-representation, but I could have indeed added the rest. In fact I could add plenty more, but I was not trying to put Liguori on trial - I was asked for the quote and provided it, now why don't you answer the question - - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

This is very specific and a key questions raised with respect to the topic of this thread - why do you avoid it?

when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?
Even if Ligouri wrote what you c/p-ed, what does that have to do with Tradition? The worship of Mary is not a Tradition (capital T) in the Catholic Church.

I don't have a copy of the Liguori book Tj cites with me, so I'm going to speak to the broader issue, as I understand it. Tradition is not composed of every word that every Doctor has ever written. Anselm, for instance, denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Tradition draws upon the work of the Doctors of the Church--among other things, as was made apparent earlier in this thread--and those teachings are part of Tradition which are certified by the Church. So, in other words, Anselm is regarded as a Doctor of the Church, but the Church explicitly rejects his view regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary. So I don't really see what the problem is here. If Liguori is advocating Mary-worship (and the passaged cited above don't look like that to me, but hey, I don't have the book with me) then I would condemn that claim as heretical. The Church also condemns worship (proskunesis) of anyone other than God.

Show me where the church condemned Liguori's teachings on this topic or this book (which is just chock full of such things (and I have a copy and have read it), and I will agree that he does not represent a point of view acceptable to your tradition.


As for the broader question, what do we do when there are conflicts internal to Tradition: Well, there aren't conflicts, since, as I've just said, Tradition does not consist of every word that every Doctor has written, nor of every position taken by every Doctor (cf. Anselm).

Which comes back to a question that I asked you earlier - where is tradition written down that we can examine what it says to validate it? You said something to the effect that it was the teaching of the church leaders, and non would be better placed to teach doctrine than the doctors of the denomination.

Your answer illustrates the problem. I could come up with all sorts of issues like this from highly respected church leaders from Catholics denominations, but I am sure that every time the answer that I would get would be well that is not part of tradition. Well that is the problem. If tradition is an undefined "jello" type theology, then it can vary over time and upon who is interpreting it (and the denomination is simply a reflection of the opinions of the leaders of that denomination especially when it comes to matter not defined in scripture).

Even if Ligouri wrote what you c/p-ed, what does that have to do with Tradition? The worship of Mary is not a Tradition (capital T) in the Catholic Church.

That was my earlier question and a repeated question back again - where is tradition written down that we can see what it says. And the answer that I received was something along of the lines that it was the teachings of the denomination's leaders. That being the case, those recognized as "doctors" of the denomination for their skill in sound doctrine as defined by the church would b best placed to define that. So if we cannot rely upon them, where is tradition defined that we can see what it contains?

No, Joe, in fact you just showed that in addition to commanding worship of Mary, he also said that God obeys Mary's commands.

No mis-representation, but I could have indeed added the rest. In fact I could add plenty more, but I was not trying to put Liguori on trial - i was asked for the quote and provided it, now why don;t you answer the question - - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

This is very specific and a key questions raised with respect to the topic of this thread - why do you avoid it?


You're beyond my understanding - this is not a good thing. Your discussions here are disingenuous and not in the spirit of good debate - this is not a good thing. Some other ulterior motive is driving your responses -this is a very bad thing. I don't want to deal with that.



JoeT

You're beyond my understanding - this is not a good thing. Your discussions here are disingenuous and not in the spirit of good debate - this is not a good thing. Some other ulterior motive is driving your responses -this is a very bad thing. I don't want to deal with that.


Truth is my ulterior motive. I am sorry to hear that you don't want to deal with it. You should stop trying to judge everything that anyone who disagrees with you says. The question that I am raising is quite legitimate and represents a key issue that those outside of your denomination have with your denomination's tradition. Just brushing it off as being the result of some evil ulterior motive of others leaves one feeling that you have no answer.

That was my earlier question and a repeated question back again - where is tradition written down that we can see what it says. And the answer that I received was something along of the lines that it was the teachings of the denomination's leaders. That being the case, those recognized as "doctors" of the denomination for their skill in sound doctrine as defined by the church would b best placed to define that. So if we cannot rely upon them, where is tradition defined that we can see what it contains?
Here's where I have been going to figure out what's being said in this thread --

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)

Here's where I have been going to figure out what's being said in this thread --

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)

I am very familiar with that. But it does not address the concerns that I am raising.

Then I presume that you have read "Glories of Mary".

Here are quotes, with page references:

"At the command of Mary all obey-even God."

Page 155 in the paperback version that I have, a short ways into Chapter VI.

"The Way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary."

Page 143 in the paperback, but if you read the entirety of Chapter V, you will see this restated over and over and over many times so that it is abundantly clear.

"The Holy Church carefully teaches us her children with what attention and confidence we should unceasingly have recourse to this loving protectress; and for this reason commands a worship peculiar to Mary"

- Immediately after the reference to worship, on page 107, he refers to here as the "Divine Mother" (his capitalization. This term is used from end of the book to the other.
- Page 112 and elsewhere suggests that her mercy never fails, but because Jesus is also our judge, and thus it is better to go to Mary than to Jesus for salvation since we can be assured of her mercy and compassion
- She can be blasphemed (p114) someone which can only be done against God
- Though Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our salvation, we can only be saved through Mary since she dispenses the blood (P.116)
- She conquered Satan, hell and the demons and crushed the head of Satan (which scripture says was Jesus). p.117
- At the name of Mary, the devils tremble and every knee bows (p.123)

Now that I have shown that what you called impossible to be true, please answer my question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

I asked you to start another thread with this question so this one would remain on topic. Since you didn't, I did. You'll find the answer there.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/st-alphonsus-marie-de-liguori-glories-mary-295366.html#post1446189

Even if Ligouri wrote what you c/p-ed, what does that have to do with Tradition? The worship of Mary is not a Tradition (capital T) in the Catholic Church.

Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

I asked you to start another thread with this question so this one would remain on topic. Since you didn't, I did. You'll find the answer there.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/st-alphonsus-marie-de-liguori-glories-mary-295366.html#post1446189

This deals direction with the question of tradition and scripture.

Well, Tom, it's tricky. The last time you asked where Tradition is written down and I answered (I said the early Fathers) you accused me of denying oral Tradition. When I corrected that misapprehension, reminding you that Scripture is that part of the part of Tradition that has been written down, you went away for awhile. So what are you asking now that's different from what you were asking then, which I answered?

Tradition is not, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread, a body of doctrine alone. But if you want a place to start, look at the Catechism.

Geez, this answer and question thing is starting to feel really one-sided. I wonder why that might be.

thank you, i was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

Lol!

Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

Sigh! Can we not avoid the abusive personal remarks and discuss a topic respectfully?

Well, Tom, it's tricky. The last time you asked where Tradition is written down and I answered (I said the early Fathers) you accused me of denying oral Tradition.

No, I didn't. I asked if you were. Because if it defined by what is written, then it is not oral. If it is oral, then it must be defined elsewhere.



Tradition is not, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread, a body of doctrine alone. But if you want a place to start, look at the Catechism.

This represents that issue that I raise, though. If you cannot define what it is that tradition teaches, then it cannot be used as a definition of sound doctrine.

This deals direction with the question of tradition and scripture.

No it doesn't. It deals with your problem with what St. Alphonsus Liguori said.

No it doesn't. It deals with your problem with what St. Alphonsus Liguori said.

Follow the thread. It was an example. And I might add, an example which was requested.

Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .
You're welcome. I'm Lutheran, by the way, but hate to see pots get stirred unnecessarily.

Follow the thread. It was an example.

And a poor example as I explained.

I just read the other thread, De Maria. You're nothing if not thorough!

And a poor example as I explained.

Well, you are of course welcome to your opinion, but it brought out the point that I was trying to make regardless of what you may think of the example.

And a poor example as I explained.
And if even a lowly Lutheran can see that...

You're welcome. I'm Lutheran, by the way, but hate to see pots get stirred unnecessarily.

And Lutherans and Catholics have been having very productive conversations for the last fifty years. In Germany they're in communion.

Sigh! Can we not avoid the abusive personal remarks and discuss a topic respectfully?

How do you know I was referring to you? Do you feel guilty of having a characteristically dubious nature?

JoeT

How do you know I was referring to you? Do you feel guilty of having a characteristically dubious nature?

JoeT

Where did I say it was me? Does it matter who? Is it okay to be abusive to some people but not others? Why don't you just stay on the topic and lay off the abuse? Do you feel guilty?

How do you know I was referring to you? Do you feel guilty of having a characteristically dubious nature?

JoeT
I had gotten the impression from what you said that you were Googling like mad.

Joe,

You're welcome to abuse me.

... Er... that didn't come out right...

I had gotten the impression from what you said that you were Googling like mad.

I think I wore out the G in Google! Now we have to type oogle.com

Joe,

You're welcome to abuse me.

... Er... that didn't come out right....

Don't worry, I'm not touching that one!

And Lutherans and Catholics have been having very productive conversations for the last fifty years. In Germany they're in communion.
The monk Luther loved his Church and hadn't wanted to leave it. He ended up being excommunicated and married an ex-nun. I wish I had been a guest at their dinner table!

Is there a book that spells out all the Traditions and explains them, such as a catechism of some sort?

Did ya’l pick up on the link to Glories of Mary? Things seem to go by fast – you might of missed it. http://www.jesus-passion.com/BEGINNING_INDEX_GLORIES_OF_MARY.pdf

Did ya'l pick up on the link to Glories of Mary? Things seem to go by fast – you might of missed it. http://www.jesus-passion.com/BEGINNING_INDEX_GLORIES_OF_MARY.pdf

I got the book right in front of me. For those who have not purchased a paper copy, you can read on line: or download it:

http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

Did ya’l pick up on the link to Glories of Mary? Things seem to go by fast – you might of missed it. http://www.jesus-passion.com/BEGINNING_INDEX_GLORIES_OF_MARY.pdf

Thanks, but I dug through my extensive library and found my copy. I'm dusting it off as we speak.

The monk Luther loved his Church and hadn't wanted to leave it. He ended up being excommunicated and married an ex-nun. I wish I had been a guest at their dinner table!

Is there a book that spells out all the Traditions and explains them, such as a catechism of some sort?

Best one-stop shopping is, probably, The Catechism of the Catholic Church. (It's on-line at the USCCB website and the Vatican website--I'd give you the links but I don't know how to... pathetic, I know, by students never stop micking me for that.) Its organization isn't quite as sane as might be desired, but it's pretty good.

If you get a chance to look at it I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I like talking about this stuff with Lutherans--you guys are always so reasonable. (My first patristics prof. years ago was a Lutheran... Man I learned a lot about Catholicism from him!) And you just have to love Luther's scatalogical humor. Liguori, all due respect, never thought of being as funny and off-color while at the same time discussing the most sublime subjects...

I got the book right in front of me. For those who have not purchased a paper copy, you can read on line: or download it:

http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

Wonderful! The type is a lot bigger than my old paperback. Thanks! Now if you'll address the topic in its thread, we can go ahead here with this discussion.

I got the book right in front of me. For those who have not purchased a paper copy, you can read on line: or download it:

http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

Many thanks. I have no idea what happened to my copy. (I most likely lent it to a crazy Marian who didn't have the common decency to return it!)

Best one-stop shopping is, probably, The Catechism of the Catholic Church. (It's on-line at the USCCB website and the Vatican website--I'd give you the links but I don't know how to... pathetic, I know, by students never stop micking me for that.) Its organization isn't quite as sane as might be desired, but it's pretty good.

If you get a chance to look at it I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I like talking about this stuff with Lutherans--you guys are always so reasonable. (My first patristics prof. years ago was a Lutheran... Man I learned a lot about Catholicism from him!) And you just have to love Luther's scatalogical humor. Liguori, all due respect, never thought of being as funny and off-color while at the same time discussing the most sublime subjects...

Voila'

English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Search Utility (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)

Voila'

English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Search Utility (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)

Show-off.

Show-off.

Just the touch of a button. Maybe one of your students could help you. :)

I'd give you the links but I don't know how to
It took the wiles of a mere woman to tempt Adam. Maybe a quick lesson by this mere woman can teach you how. I have to go to bed now though. Pencil me in on your calendar for the near future.


I like talking about this stuff with Lutherans--you guys are always so reasonable. (My first patristics prof. years ago was a Lutheran... Man I learned a lot about Catholicism from him!) And you just have to love Luther's scatalogical humor. Liguori, all due respect, never thought of being as funny and off-color while at the same time discussing the most sublime subjects...
My dad was a Lutheran pastor from a long line of pastors, I'm full-blooded German and (was) a Lutheran teacher (librarian now). Oh, and I share a birthday (different year) with Luther.

Humor and religion go nicely arm in arm. Guten nacht. Schlaf gut.

It took the wiles of a mere woman to tempt Adam. Maybe a quick lesson by this mere woman can teach you how. I have to go to bed now though. Pencil me in on your calendar for the near future.


My dad was a Lutheran pastor from a long line of pastors, I'm full-blooded German and (was) a Lutheran teacher. Oh, and I share a birthday (different year) with Luther.

Humor and religion go nicely arm in arm. Guten nacht. Schlaf gut.

Done. And I've lived long enough to fear the phrase "mere woman".

Done. And I've lived long enough to fear the phrase "mere woman".
And well you should...

Maybe one of your students could help you. :)

Never! They'll hit some keys and walk away laughing. The next thing I know, the FBI will be confiscating my computers and reading me my rights. I don't trust anybody between the ages of 18 and 24.

Never! They'll hit some keys and walk away laughing. The next thing I know, the FBI will be confiscating my computers and reading me my rights. I don't trust anybody between the ages of 18 and 24.
I'm older than dirt. We could do it secretly and surprise everyone. I'll even teach you basic HTML.

And well you should.................

Hey, my mama raised me right. And what she didn't teach me, well, let's just say I've learned. Oh, have I learned!

I'm older than dirt. We could do it secretly and surprise everyone. I'll even teach you basic HTML.

Basic what, now? I know that wasn't German, so now I suspect you of making up your own language. You aren't a twin, are you?

Basic what, now? I know that wasn't German, so now I suspect you of making up your own language. You aren't a twin, are you?
I'm one of a kind. And oh, are we going to have fun! Luther may roll over in his grave. Good night.

>Thread Closed<