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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
|
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
Then I presume that you have read "Glories of Mary".Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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 told you before, I have been inside. But maybe that was also unthinkable to you. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
“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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.")Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
So please answer the question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
You missrepresented the quote TjQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why?
JoeT
I see that you are trying to avoid the question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Support the question with truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
http://www.jesus-passion.com/BEGINNI...ES_OF_MARY.pdf
No, Joe, in fact you just showed that in addition to commanding worship of Mary, he also said that God obeys Mary's commands.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
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).
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).
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Here's where I have been going to figure out what's being said in this thread --Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium
I am very familiar with that. But it does not address the concerns that I am raising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1446189
Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This deals direction with the question of tradition and scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.
Lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by joet777
Sigh! Can we not avoid the abusive personal remarks and discuss a topic respectfully?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
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.
No it doesn't. It deals with your problem with what St. Alphonsus Liguori said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Follow the thread. It was an example. And I might add, an example which was requested.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You're welcome. I'm Lutheran, by the way, but hate to see pots get stirred unnecessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And a poor example as I explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I just read the other thread, De Maria. You're nothing if not thorough!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
And if even a lowly Lutheran can see that...Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
And Lutherans and Catholics have been having very productive conversations for the last fifty years. In Germany they're in communion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
How do you know I was referring to you? Do you feel guilty of having a characteristically dubious nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM. |