Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The difference between yours and our understanding of the Word of God is we believe God's authority is passed down through the Church.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation..... 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Luke 10 16He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Well I can see where the authority might be issued to the church to teach everything concerning Chirst, and to enforce the importance of observing Chirst power and authority over us. I understand the words of Christ saying
Matthew 23:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

I do understand the church to be judge first for their work. The churches are listed in Revelation as you know, and it tells of 2 that are doing according to God's plan. I think that notes a warning of importance for us all to consider what it is our church may teach.

But that does not explain why Joe feels we are unclean without the traditions of the church included?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

It looks, from what you say, like both big- and little-t tradition are understood to be "based on" Church authority.

---

Not exactly. They are both based on Christ's authority. Church authority itself is a Tradition established by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ commanded the Church to make disciples of the world.

Matthew 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It is understood that a Teacher has authority over her disciples. The Church uses this authority to establish traditions for discipline and to promote the faith. Sometimes these traditions come from the Church listening to the faithful and their devotional practices. The Rosary is a tradition which came from the faithful and was later approved by the Church.

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In the same statement, Jesus commanded the Church to establish His Traditions. These Traditions are those spoken of with a capital "T".

Quote:

---

So two questions occur to me off the bat:
1. How are the two discriminated from one another,

---

Mainly by catechetical instruction. Many people who are not knowledgeable of the Catholic faith assume for instance that abstinence from meat on Fridays is a Tradition which can't be changed. These people were terribly offended when the Church permitted us to substitute another pious act on Fridays rather than the well known abstinence from red meat.

But that is not the case. Abstinence from meat on Fridays has always simply been a discipline of the Church. It is a tradition with a small t.

Quote:

---

and what relative authority is to be accorded to each? Are they equally authoritative?

---

They come from the same authority. Jesus vested His authority in the Church. Therefore, when traditions are in place, they are to be obeyed.

However, Traditions are much more important and for that reason we can say that they are more authoritative.

Quote:

---

2. What certifies the beliefs and practices contained in tradition in either of these senses? Are we to say that it is the Church?

---

Yes. Jesus vested His authority in the Church.

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Quote:

---

If so, then, since the authority of the Church is contained in Tradition, it looks like we're using Tradition to certify Tradition.

---

Tradition is just a word. The Church is a living entity comprised of living, breathing servants of God who use their spiritual knowledge of the Word to determine whether something is good or detrimental to the people of God.

The Church is the judge of whether her disciples are observing the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Quote:

---

The second question is, of course, one that some have raised as an objection against the Church's view. I'd like to make sure that response is included in the conversation.

---

I hope I've addressed that satisfactorily. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Truth of faith rest in Christ. Morals and ethics should be the lamp known as the law. Neither of these can I see leaving us unclear with Christ included. We are all subject to free will because it was given unto us by God. Please explain why you feel differently?

---

Just to be painfully clear, I'd suggest that Christ is Truth. Our faith in God relate to those truths revealed by God. Faith is both objective and subjective faith and are elements of reasoning. Objective are those truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition, and subjective faith are those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason; “What is faith but belief without seeing?” Faith works through our free will. Morals can have two natures, one of natural law and one of Divine law. While it's within his power to do so, God rarely interferes with free will.

Understood this way you could say that morals and ethics are the lamp of Divine law, as well as natural law. But I've got a funny feeling we're not talking about the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

We are told to do the traditions which as DeMaria spoke of as T. Quoted DeMaria: Tradition with a capital "T" was passed down by Jesus through the Apostles and is based on the Word of God.

---

Yes T's include the oral instruction of the Apostles not found in Scripture as taught by successors; along with those thing revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

---

Ok, and? If you are inferring that because these “instructions” are handed down though the ages they are not God's reveal word, you've erred in your judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

And don't forget when Peter and John were told by man of the church not to speak of Christ. So we need to judge whether man has authority or if it is God's authority we followActs 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

---

This gets to the teaching authority of the Church. Yes the Church has authority to teach God's revealed truth, infallibly.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?
.

---

I believe reveal truth is through The Holy Spirit whom Our Father of spiritual truth says that Christ also was one with. And tradition such as baptism is commanded by Christ that we observe and do.

However man's traditions should be watched careful. I do offer the following 2 scripture to note my belief.

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

I believe it is important to hear Chirst.. And in doing so knowingly the Holy Spirit is present.


(James 3:2) says that if any man does not offend by what he teaches, it comes from the perfect man that [bridles his teaching.] To bridles ones teaching is to walk in the light of Christ, which would be the law. And walk with Christ as One unitied with Him. This is the perfecting of saints that is refer: in Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is above all], and through all, and in you all.

It is important to realize that the Spirit of Truth from Our Father is given unto everyone in grace. Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the [perfecting of the saints], for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

We as fellow Christain must be aware of the importance of warnimg within the scripture. Lack of knowledge can destroy us.

Titus 3:8-11 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We as Christian should watch careful..

~child of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

....
But that does not explain why Joe feels we are unclean without the traditions of the church included?

---

Unclean? Or unclear?

I think he said unclear. The reason being that the Word of God can be interpreted several ways. But we believe that if we look at the actual response of the Church to the Word of God through the centuries, we will see the way that Jesus intended His Word to be understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

We as Christian should watch careful..

~child of God

---

Your call for vigilance is, I think, well taken. Too often people allow themselves to be infantilized. I cannot think of any Christian community that doesn't encourage its members to be educated in the faith. And vigilance is a part of this.

A criticism one often hears of those communities which emphasize Tradition is that it inevitably infantilizes its members. They are, in effect, encouraged to accept whatever they are told without any real critical engagement. The appeal to Tradition appears, to many, to be doctrinaire rather than doctrine: Believe what you are told, because you are told it, otherwise you are a sinner or a heretic. This is a concern I've often heard raised with the first view mentioned in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

I believe reveal truth is through The Holy Spirit whom Our Father of spiritual truth says that Christ also was one with. And tradition such as baptism is commanded by Christ that we observe and do.

However man's traditions should be watched careful. I do offer the following 2 scripture to note my belief.

Galations 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

I believe it is important to hear Chirst.. And in doing so knowingly the Holy Spirit is present.


(James 3:2) says that if any man does not offend by what he teaches, it comes from the perfect man that [bridles his teaching.] To bridles ones teaching is to walk in the light of Christ, which would be the law. And walk with Christ as One unitied with Him. This is the perfecting of saints that is refer: in Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is above all], and through all, and in you all.

It is important to realize that the Spirit of Truth from Our Father is given unto everyone in grace. Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the [perfecting of the saints], for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.


Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

We as fellow Christain must be aware of the importance of warnimg within the scripture. Lack of knowledge can destroy us.

Titus 3:8-11 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We as Christian should watch careful..

~child of God

---

As always, your understanding is very close to ours. You are right to be careful, test everything, keep the good.

It seems you are applying the same logic we do. But you start with a different premise.

We believe Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God. Whereas, if I understand you correctly, it seems you believe only Scripture is the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

We can't forget what Peter said in Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Ok, and? If you are inferring that because these “instructions” are handed down though the ages they are not God’s reveal word, you’ve erred in your judgement.


JoeT

---

I have no idea why you would even suggest this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

But we believe that if we look at the actual response of the Church to the Word of God through the centuries, we will see the way that Jesus intended His Word to be understood.

---

But why think that? It strikes many as neithr obviously right nor obviously wrong, so perhaps we can try to get the picture into view a little more clearly. Why suppose that understanding Christ's Word is to be had by looking to the Church? After all, there are smart people who aren't Catholic, and they don't obviously have a deficient understanding of Scripture. Some of them have studied it closely. Why, in other words, suppose that we need that authoritative mediation? Why suppose it to be desirable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

All:



Without Tradition our knowledge must act on faith alone, without guidance, without assurance. As such, the fundamental truths of our faith, morals and ethics, remain unclear and subjective to our own will and desires.

JoeT

---

OOPS!! RIGHT DEMARIA JOE DID SAY UNCLEAR...
Top line of you quoted statement says without Tradition?

I believe we do need the traditions which Christ commanded we follow.. such as baptism.
So that is what I felt Joe was getting to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

This is the question: ? why Joe would we be unclean without the traditions of the church included?

Top line of you quoted statement says without Tradition?

I believe we do need the traditions which Christ commanded we follow.. such as baptism. Is that what you mean?

---

If I may speak to this, I think that Joe means to present the Catholic-Orthodox view that without the guidance of Tradition we couldn't have a *clear* understanding of Scripture, since in its absence we would be left with each individual interpreting Scripture and, inevitably, interpreting it differently. On the view to which Joe is sympathetic, there must be an authority which can say which interpretations are correct and which are mistaken, an authority which guides each of us in our understanding of God's word.

Of course, this isn't all Joe is saying in his post. I just want to speak to what looks to me like a miscommunication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

It seems you are applying the same logic we do. But you start with a different premise.

We believe Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God. Whereas, if I understand you correctly, it seems you believe only Scripture is the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

no.. The traditions which Christ told us to follow are clearly baptism, communion, but I do fear the additional man made traditions which you have suggested as the small " t "
These are those I feel will raise as leaven just as Christ spoke of and Paul cautions us.
And I fear these, because man changes the traditions that Christ has commanded. Such as the way some baptize.

Causion.. it's sad to see the need but it does exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

But why think that? It strikes many as neithr obviously right nor obviously wrong, so perhaps we can try to get the picture into view a little more clearly. Why suppose that understanding Christ's Word is to be had by looking to the Church?

---

For two reasons:

1. Divine authority, charism. When the Lord gives a mandate, He provides the wherewithal to accomplish it. We see that Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). We believe that means that the Apostles recognize that Jesus has given the Church the charism of infallibility. Therefore, we will always have His guidance through the Church.

2. Because the Church keeps a record of the Traditions. And through an investigation of this record, they can determine how those closest to Christ and the Apostles actually interpreted the Word of God. This gives us assurance that we are either interpreting the Word correctly or reveals that we have taken a new direction which those closest to Christ did not follow.

Quote:

---

After all, there are smart people who aren't Catholic, and they don't obviously have a deficient understanding of Scripture. Some of them have studied it closely. Why, in other words, suppose that we need that authoritative mediation? Why suppose it to be desirable?

---

Because even the most brilliant men are not infallible.

We believe that the gift of infallibility (inerrancy) would have been wasted on the Scriptures, if God had not also anointed an infallible interpreter who could mediate disputes between these Scholars of the Word and determine who is right and who is wrong.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

For two reasons:

1. Divine authority, charism. When the Lord gives a mandate, He provides the wherewithal to accomplish it. We see that Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). We believe that means that the Apostles recognize that Jesus has given the Church the charism of infallibility. Therefore, we will always have His guidance through the Church.

2. Because the Church keeps a record of the Traditions. And through an investigation of this record, they can determine how those closest to Christ and the Apostles actually interpreted the Word of God. This gives us assurance that we are either interpreting the Word correctly or reveals that we have taken a new direction which those closest to Christ did not follow.



Because even the most brilliant men are not infallible.

We believe that the gift of infallibility (inerrancy) would have been wasted on the Scriptures, if God had not also anointed an infallible interpreter who could mediate disputes between these Scholars of the Word and determine who is right and who is wrong.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

So the authority is, at least in large measure, juridical. It is an authority to *decide*.

Okay, here I think most people agree, to wit, that if this authority exists in the way you describe it is juridical in nature. Where there is considerable controversy, of course, is with regard to the infallibility claim. The Church may be the Body of Christ, but the institutional Church is composed of eminently fallible personages. We even have instances where bishops of Rome taught things that later fell into disfavor (e.g. Novatian). If we grant that an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter, why suppose that infallibility to rest anywhere other than with the Holy Spirit itself guiding individuals? Sure, the individuals may err, but success is never guaranteed anyway. And why, in particular, suppose that infallibility to reside with the bishop of Rome (as opposed to say the bishop of Constantinople, or the bishop of Canterbury, or with Deepak Chopra, while we're at it). It looks to a lot of people who advocate for the second position described in the OP like we just have to take Rome's word for it.

(I'm trying to keep both sides of the OP alive here!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Causion.. it's sad to see the need but it does exist.

---

No doubt. And you do well. You are indeed a Berean in Spirit.

Quote:

---

no.. The traditions which Christ told us to follow are clearly baptism, communion, but I do fear the additional man made traditions which you have suggested as the small " t "
These are those I feel will raise as leaven just as Christ spoke of and Paul cautions us.
And I fear these, because man changes the traditions that Christ has commanded. Such as the way some baptize.

---

No doubt. It is proven historically.

For example. Fat Tuesday is a Catholic "tradition". It is not one instituted by the Church but it does not violate any Commandments so the Church permits the laity to celebrate before the forty day fast.

The secular world has turned that into Mardi Gras. No need to go into detail about the excesses which occur in that celebration throughout the world.

Another example is Halloween. That is Catholic "Tradition". It is our celebration of the Saints. Halloween comes from the Old English word for All Hallows Eve. On that night, faithful Catholics celebrate the departure of Satan and his Demons because "The Saints come marching in". We do this by thanking God in the Mass and with separate fesitivities at home and with our neighbors.

In non-Catholic countries, like the United States, where the people don't understand the significance of the masks and the costumes and the parties, secular people have turned that celebration into a celebration of evil.

So, you are right to be concerned.

But, Jesus teaches us that "fear is useless".

Mark 5:36As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.

And also:

Matthew 11:18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Therefore, the Church is not afraid to celebrate our love for God. We know full well that anything we say or do will be turned against God by His enemies. But that shouldn't keep us from being a light to the world. We can't put our light under a bushel basket. We can't let the world keep us from showing our faith and our joy in God.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't intend to change your attitude. I'm just explaining ours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue [QUOTE

those Christians who believe that God is a Trinity certainly don't take themselves to believe something which is in tension with Scripture; the Tradition, the teaching shows them how to interpret various Scriptural passages in order to see that God is in fact a Trinity.

---

Ok, so what about those Christians do not come to that same conclusion. They too provide "tradition" as proof that a Trinity is not a concept found in the bible and that God is in fact one God, not a Trinity. So who is right? Those who stick to the bible or those who add to it?
2 John vs 9 "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God."
God does not take kindly to those who add or take away from his words. Prov 30:6 "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."
I personally see this concept (Trinity) simply as a man made tradition, not divine. Why? Because it doesn't match with the what the bible teaches and history shows that triune Gods began in Babel as did most other false religions. Just my own thoughts on the subject.

Aloue,
You mentioned that the Holy Spirit guides each of us as long as we read Scripture faithfully.
That caused a question to pop into my head.
What about those who claim to read scripture faithfull but come up with various wrong beliefs such as there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others??
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.
Is that proof the they are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it that their personal interpretation of Scripture over rides what the Holy Spirit is tying to guide them or something else?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

So, you are right to be concerned.

But, Jesus teaches us that "fear is useless".

---

True , The LORD, will be with thee, He will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't intend to change your attitude. I'm just explaining ours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Accepted as evident from and to both of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura [QUOTE

there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others??
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.

---

Exactly, and Christmas and birthdays and Easter and modern-day speaking in tongues etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

So the authority is, at least in large measure, juridical. Okay, here I think most people agree, to wit, that if this authority exists in the way you describe it is juridical in nature.

---

I would say, "the authority is in part, juridical.

Judgement is just one facet of the authority imparted to the Church by Jesus Christ. There is also worship, blessing, preaching, teaching, healing, ministering, and everything which Jesus attended to when He was walking the earth. We, the Church, are after all, the body of Christ. And we go about our Lord's business.

Quote:

---

It is an authority to *decide*.

---

Yes. Where there is dispute or uncertainty.

Quote:

---

Where there is considerable controversy, of course, is with regard to the infallibility claim. The Church may be the Body of Christ, but the institutional Church is composed of eminently fallible personages. We even have instances where bishops of Rome taught things that later fell into disfavor (e.g. Novatian). If we grant that an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter, why suppose that infallibility to rest anywhere other than with the Holy Spirit itself guiding individuals?

---

I can only answer for myself.

1. I believe 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is infallible.
2. I do not believe Jesus would give the Church the power to excommunicate unless the Church were infallible (Matt 18:17). Otherwise, innocent people could be condemned to life without the Sacraments and thus without access to God's grace.
3. I believe Jesus appointed Simon His representative. Therefore, Simon, renamed Peter, has been granted infallibility by Christ because of the dignity of His office. Because of Christ's glory. For the sake of brevity, please see this reference:
Simon you are god? - Catholic Wiki

4. Jesus said He would always be with His Church (Matt 28:20).
5. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remain with the Church forever (John 14:16).
6. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would remind the Church of all He taught (John 14:26).
7. And it seems logical and necessary to me that an infallible document needs an infallible interpreter. The transmission of the message is only have the issue. The reception is the completion of the task. If the one receiving can misunderstand the message, then the message is lost. I don't think Jesus would permit that.

Quote:

---

Sure, the individuals may err, but success is never guaranteed anyway. And why, in particular, suppose that infallibility to reside with the bishop of Rome (as opposed to say the bishop of Constantinople, or the bishop of Canterbury, or with Deepak Chopra, while we're at it). It looks to a lot of people who advocate for the second position described in the OP like we just have to take Rome's word for it.

---

Oops. I answered that above. #3.

Quote:

---

(I'm trying to keep both sides of the OP alive here!)

---

You're doing a good job. These are thought provoking questions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

Ok, so what about those Christians do not come to that same conclusion.

---

First we must be faithful to our own conscience. If in fact one can't comprehend or believe the Trinity then there is little anyone can do but present the evidence for the Trinity. In the end, all we do is plant and water, God provides the growth.

Quote:

---

They too provide "tradition" as proof that a Trinity is not a concept found in the bible and that God is in fact one God, not a Trinity. So who is right? Those who stick to the bible or those who add to it?
2 John vs 9 "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God."
God does not take kindly to those who add or take away from his words. Prov 30:6 "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."
I personally see this concept (Trinity) simply as a man made tradition, not divine. Why? Because it doesn't match with the what the bible teaches and history shows that triune Gods began in Babel as did most other false religions. Just my own thoughts on the subject.

---

In order not to derail this thread, why not open another thread on the question of the Trinity and we can all give our reasons we do or why we don't believe in that doctrine?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thanks De Maria but I was merely pointing out that the example of this type of "tradition" as mentioned by Akoue, can and is taken and understood in different ways. (and the OP did ask to give our reasons for our comments). I was basically saying I do not believe in "truths" if they are not revealed in the bible.
It wasn't my intention to start a debate. Darn it, did I misunderstand the OP yet AGAIN? Hate it when I do that. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Why suppose that we need Tradition to mediate our understanding of Scripture?

---

Professor:

Why would you ask the hardest question of the dimmest bulb?

God revealed his plan of salvation to all of us in the person of Christ. He ministered to poor and sick, taught the meaning of the prophets, gave of Himself in a new covenant. Commissioning the apostles to inspire in the name of the Holy Spirit with His message of salvation, He appointed one to lead. In the living memory of those who walked in the shadow of Christ listening to his oral wisdom, they committed part of this Gospel to writing. This inspiring written word will be preserved through the sea of time. The Apostles were enjoined to teach and defend His Traditions through all generations of man; this is a faith that ascends to holiness by the written word and by word of mouth, Scripture and Tradition. As a result, the Church sees a symbiotic relationship between Word and Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” The written word, scripture, news of eternal life animated in Christ through Tradition. “For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. " Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum. Without Tradition, an essential element of illumination is lost.

I like to conceptualize "Scripture and Tradition" as a bridge over which the living Word can travel across a vast sea of time. On the far side the bridge abutment is anchored in the Living Christ at the dawn of Christendom . The girders of tradition span though the misty past to the near abutment rooted in today, connecting a Scriptural Gospel of time past with today's living. In this way, the living Word of God can live in us.

Thus, when viewed from the far bank, terminating the Church's Traditions in the 1500's would be a bridge ending in death. When viewed from the near bank and terminating the Church's Traditions in the 1500's would be a bridge to nowhere. So you see why it seems a foreign concept, there is no Catholic faith without a Living Tradition.

JoeT

De Maria.
I tend to believe as you do and I believe what The Church officially says.
That means that I do not FULLY believe what some individuals in the Church say.
Over the years we have had officials in The Church make statement that were very wrong.
A recent one was made by The Church's head astronomer.
He was admonished and replaced.
At the moment I can not remember what the issue was.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

Thanks De Maria but I was merely pointing out that the example of this type of "tradition" as mentioned by Akoue, can and is taken and understood in different ways. (and the OP did ask to give our reasons for our comments). I was basically saying I do not believe in "truths" if they are not revealed in the bible.
It wasn't my intention to start a debate. Darn it, did I misunderstand the OP yet AGAIN?! Hate it when I do that. :rolleyes:

---

No, you misunderstood nothing, and your posts have, I think, been quite useful. If I understand correctly, I believe De Maria meant only to extend an invitation to explore the question of the Trinity more fully--and another thread would afford us this opportunity. And on this thread, I'm happy to see exploration of a question (or set of closely related questions) from all angles. Please, continue to challenge or query whatever strikes you as in need of further consideration. I really do find it helpful to hear from a number of different voices on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Professor:

Why would you ask the hardest question of the dimmest bulb?

God revealed his plan of salvation to all of us in the person of Christ. He ministered to poor and sick, taught the meaning of the prophets, gave of Himself in a new covenant. Commissioning the apostles to inspire in the name of the Holy Spirit with His message of salvation, He appointed one to lead. In the living memory of those who walked in the shadow of Christ listening to his oral wisdom, they committed part of this Gospel to writing. This inspiring written word will be preserved through the sea of time. The Apostles were enjoined to teach and defend His Traditions through all generations of man; this is a faith that ascends to holiness by the written word and by word of mouth, Scripture and Tradition. As a result, the Church sees a symbiotic relationship between Word and Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” The written word, scripture, news of eternal life animated in Christ through Tradition. “For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. " Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum. Without Tradition, an essential element of illumination is lost.

I like to conceptualize "Scripture and Tradition" as a bridge over which the living Word can travel across a vast sea of time. On the far side the bridge abutment is anchored in the Living Christ at the dawn of Christendom . The girders of tradition span though the misty past to the near abutment rooted in today, connecting a Scriptural Gospel of time past with today’s living. In this way, the living Word of God can live in us.

Thus, when viewed from the far bank, terminating the Church’s Traditions in the 1500’s would be a bridge ending in death. When viewed from the near bank and terminating the Church’s Traditions in the 1500’s would be a bridge to nowhere. So you see why it seems a foreign concept, there is no Catholic faith without a Living Tradition.

JoeT

---

It would appear the dimmest bulb has managed to express his view quite eloquently!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Aloue,
What about those who claim to read scripture faithfull but come up with various wrong beliefs such as there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others????
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.
Is that proof the they are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it that their personal interpretation of Scripture over rides what the Holy Spirit is tying to guide them or something else?

---

These are questions I share. If I am guided by the Holy Spirit in my reading of Scripture, does this mean that I cannot misunderstand it? There have been so many conflicting interpretations of Scripture through the years, and it is difficult for me to believe that the disagreements result from a lack of faith by one or more of the parties. So how DO we explain error? And how do we detect it? Let's say you and I read that same verses and arrive at a different understanding of them. How do we determine which of us is right (or, what's worse, if both of us are wrong)?

One answer, offered by Joe and De Maria, is that we look to the Church (i.e. the bishops and the Tradition they preserve). But, of course, there are plenty of people who don't take this view--i.e. who don't adhere to Catholic views about the teaching authority of the Church--who certainly believe that there is something that counts as getting Scripture wrong. Let's now suppose that you and I are in that camp. Suppose, for the purposes of discussion, that neither of us is Catholic. And yet we have this disagreement, we don't see eye to eye on the meaning of some passage of Scripture.

What then? I mean, how could the two of us sort this out? (Assuming that we are both faith-filled, intellectually honest, and diligent.) I'd be interested to get anybody's take on this.

Akoue
Yes it would be VERY interesting to get their take on this.
Particularly considering that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations who in some way (some many ways) do not agree with each other yet (those who believe in the Holy Spirit) claim they are guided or inspired by them.
I personally pray for His guidance and believe that I have received some of it.
I know this because later I found that The Church did teach as I was inspired to believe.
I was raised a protestant and a Catholic basher for 30 years.
After much study I took the road to Rome and am extremely happy that I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Particularly considering that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations who in some way (some many ways) do not agree with each other yet (those who believe in the Holy Spirit) claim they are guided or inspired by them.

---

Yes, Fred, there are a lot of denominations. But I didn't intend with my question to throw down the gauntlet. While it's true that fault lines have emerged, and hardened, over the years with regard to the two positions outlined in the OP, I take it for granted that neither view is just obviously wrong--or wrong-headed. Reasonable people can disagree. So when I say that I'd like to hear people's answer to the question, as much as anything I'm interested to learn how people *approach* that question. There are genuine disagreements with respect to how people read Scripture. We can either all agree to disagree, and potentially risk still more fragmentation (which doesn't seem like an entirely good thing), or we can try to figure out a way to adjudicate between competing interpretations. One approach to this is to appeal to Tradition. But, as I say, not everyone recognizes the authority of that appeal. So, in its absence, what do we turn to to resolve disagreements over the meaning of Scripture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

what do we turn to to resolve disagreements over the meaning of Scripture?

---

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

---

This is good, it speaks to the second view of the OP. So, if I may, I'd like to ask you to say a little bit about how you might apprach the question I asked Fred:

You and I are intellectually honest, faith-filled, diligent people who sit down together and talk about a passage of Scripture. And we find ourselves in disagreement over what it says. Each of us understands it differently. We talk it through, each of us explains why we understand it the way we do, and still we find ourselves understanding it differently. What, if anything, do we do then to sort out the disagreement? Since it is the word of God we know that it can't be saying two conflicting things. And yet here we are with two conflicting understandings of what it says. What resource do you and I have--assuming that neither of us is inclined to appeal to Tradition in the sense of the first view--for figuring out whether one of us is right and the other wrong, or whether we're both mistaken?

I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer on this.

Wondergirl,
BUT that have been proven to not unite but to fragment Christianity.
How can Scripture support and interpret itself with 30,000 denominations doing it differently FROM AND WITH THE BIBLE but each claiming they are right?
No, that is why Jesus set up an authority as to how and what should be taught. It is The Church Jesus said is "MY CHURCH" and he appointed Peter to be the head of it.
As far as I'm (and the Bible is) concerned it is the only church that has God's authority to teach.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Wondergirl,
BUT that have been proven to not unite but to fragment Christianity.
How can Scripture support and interpret itself with 30,000 denominations doing it differently FROM AND WITH THE BIBLE but each claiming they are right?

---

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

it is the only church that has God's authority to teach.

---

Then why do I so often hear people say, "I was raised Catholic, but later became a Christian"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

---

Who's decides what willy and whose nilly. What authority do we go by? And shouldn't there be objectivity in Truth? If there is no authority there is no Rule of Faith.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Then why do I so often hear people say, "I was raised Catholic, but later became a Christian"?

---

For the same reason people sin.

JoeT

Wondergirl,

I wonder if you have any thoughts about my question. Not an answer, necessarily, just some thoughts. No hurry, I would just find it helpful to hear more about how you think through the issues regarding disagreement that I raised in my question of, first, Fred, and then you. I ask because it seems to me that a lot turns on how different people approach this.

This I firmly believe.
Anyone who was raised or becomes a member of the Catholic Church, if they truly understand it well will never leave it.
Why are so many Protestant ministers becoming Catholic?
Because they have come to understand Catholic teaching.
What is interesting is that some have done so so well that they have become outstanding theologians.
Like me many did not go to the Ford dealer to learn the truth about Dodge cars.
That is go to the Protestants to learn about Catholicism.
Only the Catholic Church can accurately teach what Catholicism is all about.
Protestants do not understand Catholicism otherwise they would become Catholic.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

---

How? Scripture, the Bible, is a book. How does a book interpret itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

---

Who would enforce the order?