115 replies to this topic

[reyb]

Even I intentionally refrain to participate in any social networking discussion or forum for almost a number of years nonetheless I did not succeed to remain in silence because just last week I participated in our daily news web forum. My eagerness of sharing the truth is always in my heart thus, I am here again to tell you what I posted in that site and our discussion goes something like this.

To Ryan and to all Catholics,

I think you are too busy celebrating whatever ‘growth and development’ or ‘new found revelations’ after the traditions (oral or written) was given by the Apostles and their successors ‘the apostles’ to your Church. Nevertheless, I will post whatever teaching your Church is offering to the world so that we can study them - to learn or criticize them –so that, you Catholics in return will be informed. This is what your Church teaches regarding this issue as I understood it.

In the history of humanity, from the very beginning of man’s generation, God ‘make known of himself’ thru revelations by the power of Holy Spirit that is in them. Now, these ‘revelations’ is the one you called ‘traditions’ (oral or written) given by all witnesses and the prophets in the old testament and all witnesses of the new testament like Mary including Jesus Christ himself and all his Apostles (like Peter, John and others) and their successors – the apostles like the writers of the four gospels (i.e. Luke and others).

To summarize it and I will repeat it again, all of these 'previous revelations’ are now called traditions (oral and written) handled-down by the Apostles and their successors to your Church. But the ‘whole revelations about God’ or ‘all truths about God’ are not yet revealed to humanity. Thus, it is not hard to understand the statement of your Dei Verbum that the given tradition ‘develop’ because ‘the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down’ grew. (see your Dei Verbum Chapter II).

This is the reason why I informed you, this ‘development and growth’ did not come from the tradition (oral or written) given to your Church by the Apostles but rather, this ‘growth and development’ was the new found revelations given by God thru the power of the Holy Spirit to your Church. (This is what I understand to your Dei Verbum).

Now, in relation to your analysis that this ‘growth and development’ started immediately after Jesus preached, is too far the thought of your Dei Verbum because previous to that paragraph it states ‘
-------------------------
'But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3).
---------------------------------
So, from here, it is very clear that there is a tradition given by them to your Church and then, this tradition is the one ‘develop’ because Dei Verbum states further.
----------------
‘This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down’.
---------------
Now, if what I just said is not what Dei Verbum is trying to tell to the world and your analysis is the correct one because of the reasons you previously stated like the ‘contemplation and studies of Paul and Mary’ are included in this ‘growth and development’ and it started immediately after Jesus preached. Then, what is that ‘tradition’ mentioned in the above paragraph which was handled-down by the Apostles to your Church If all of them are 'growth and development'.?

Again, if I will analyze your suggestion that ‘growth and development’ started immediately after Jesus preached, are you now saying that the word of Christ itself is the ‘thing’ that undergo this ‘development’ in your Church? To make it clearer, are you now suggesting that your Church did not keep the words of Jesus Christ because you ‘develop’ it?

Please make these things clearer because the world is listening. I will wait for your response otherwise; I will call your Dei Verbum - Die Word. Okay?

If I were you, I will listen to the suggestion of Protestants - grow in the light of the scriptures alone and let God do the rest for your salvation.

(http://newsinfo.inqu...ets-says-bishop)

Edited by reyb, 05 April 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[Anomaly]

reyb,
I'm not a Catholic, nor religious, though have spent a number of years learing about religions. I think objectively (hopefully), I recognized some errors that would make a pony ill.
I'd like to take a stab at this under the category of 'Context and Definitions'. Taking another religions words out of context so they can be redifined in one's own agenda driven context is a consistent ploy when bashing another's religion/politics/philosophy/opinion/or support of a sports team.

First off, the author provided his own definitions of 'tradition' that are not what the Catholic Church teaches as being 'Tradition'. They pretty much have codified and set in concrete what the bible 'is'. (you can thank them later, if you so desire). The CC is pretty consistent on not adding to Jesus' revalation previously provided. Even if they okay the message from a 'confirmed apparation of some saint, angel, or Mary', they qualify that it doesn't add, revise, subtract, or change the original revalation.

However, they, like ALL Christian religions, feel free to revise, devolop, change, "grow in" the understanding of the body of 'revalation'. They do attempt to fillter and temper this 'development' through a church institurion of ordained clerics (Magisterium), similar to Lutheran's Synods, Baptist Councils, Church Elders, AOG Assemblies, or the Independent Baptist Preacher or even some other trained person in X relgion's doctrine or bible exegesis. Of course, they, like the other Christians, allow their congregation to follow what they (hopefully) is a well considered and informed personal conscience.

It's funny how the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religions all believe in the same "Ultimate God", but are so often violently antagonistic towards each other when they try to 'grow in the light of "X" scriptures/Torah/Bible/Koran.

They never let go and let "God" sort it out as most successful alcoholics are able to. .

Edited by Anomaly, 05 April 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[reyb]

So, are saying this 'growth and development' is the same as 'nothing changes' although this nothing is something which they call 'growth and development'? Well that is another revelation although this revelation is mysteriously hidden because they cannot understand what is this revealed mystery. It seems they learn the secret of nothingness called everything - a picture of faith rested on lies, hypocrisy and stubbornness.

These things are not the character of a true Disciples of Christ thus, I do not agree with you at this moment. I will wait for their explanation. Please do not make me feel hopeless my friend.

Edited by reyb, 05 April 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[Papist]

It is no debate that is how you understand it.

Not all Revelation is in scripture. See John 21.

[reyb]

It is no debate that is how you understand it.

Not all Revelation is in scripture. See John 21.

Dei Verbum stated:
‘Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.’
------------------------
So, do you agree that this ‘tradition of the Apostles’ was developed since there is ‘growth in the understanding….’.?
or
Do you agree that this ‘growth and development’ is not apostolic or a part of the teaching of the Apostle?

Edited by reyb, 05 April 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[arfink]

It would be far easier to follow your line of reasoning if you used complete and properly formed sentences. Seriously, in some portions I am being forced to guess at what you mean because it's very unclear.

If I understand you properly, you are attempting to convince Catholics to believe in "Sola scriptura." It's the same old argument again, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way fallen human intellect works. Can we, who are in original sin, really expect to be able to interpret scripture? After all, interpretation MUST take place if we are to believe anything the bible has to say. If we chose to take all of scripture literally we are clearly failing in our interpretation and the atheists and scoffers of the world are vindicated. Yet, if we each interpret it individually then then we risk infinite fragmentation of belief.

I'm no great church scholar, but the Magesterium at least seems like a reasonable solution: Jesus knew people would not understand scripture on their own. The Jews didn't understand the prophesies about Jesus. His own disciples didn't understand his parables. If he wished his teachings to be passed on and interpreted correctly he would need to bestow some kind of divine gift upon his Church. He did. He breathed the Holy Spirit into his priests, his bishops, his pope. By the sacramental power of their orders they have been given special graces to lead the faithful in the name of Christ.

But then, none of this makes sense if you don't believe in the efficacy of sacraments. Somebody smarter than me will have to say it better.

[Papist]

Dei Verbum stated:
‘Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.’
------------------------
So, do you agree that this ‘tradition of the Apostles’ was developed since there is ‘growth in the understanding….’.?
or
Do you agree that this ‘growth and development’ is not apostolic or a part of the teaching of the Apostle?

I agree with Dei Verbum.

So, do you agree that this ‘tradition of the Apostles’ was developed since there is ‘growth in the understanding….’.? - This question makes no sense. Can you rephrase?
or
Do you agree that this ‘growth and development’ is not apostolic or a part of the teaching of the Apostle? - Growth and understanding is not Sacred Tradition. It is an effect of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Individuals growth and understanding vary.

[Anomaly]

reyb,
You have to set up definitions and limits of how you want to discuss. All relgions and most philospies will have fundamental foundations/frameworks that they'll build and develop their understanding. It can be philosophical principles, the body of "scripture" whether it's the Bible, Koran, Torah, Confucious's Sayings, or Mao's book. Add it understanding and conclusions, and you'll have your body of set 'revelation'. The Catholics include the 'Tradition' of what the earliest Apostles, Disciples, Bishops, etc., thought and did, and may be documented. They'll qualify subsequent conclusions against what was earlier understood and codified. Just like Sola Scriptura Christians will qualify their understanding of a passage and seek what others around them will teach and check in with their own personal conscience and (hopefully) intellect.
Everybody's trying to stay consistent with the foundation and apply it to their unique circumstances and current conditions. In the Roman times, you didn't have cars, texting, broad-cast music, television, science technology for safe abortions, test-tube babies, or concepts for Universal Government Run Health-Care. Society didn't really discuss in scientific terms what a 'person' is, and religions don't address that in scientific terms, but philosophers and religions do try to define and acknowledge who and what is a person, but they have to include scientific knowledge as well.
The bible doesn't include an index that points to the clear definition of what constitutes a person. It'll say that God knew you when you were in the womb, but it doesn't specifically say it started at the instant of conception. People at that time had no idea what sperm and egg really are, thought today, conception is common knowledge. At one time, Christians generally defined personage as beginning when they could feel a 'quickening'. It worked because they didn't know better, and it didn't matter because Planned Parenthood wasn't around in tents down the road.
This example clearly shows that the definition of personage needs to be developed in religion and philosophy because of current society conditions and additional scientific knowledge. It's reasonable for a relgion to include 'scripture understanding that God knew you in the womb, along with the tradition of understanding personage did not start after birth only. The development would be in the details without changing the foundation.

[Papist]

The first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42, 2 Timothy 1:14) long before the New Testament was written—and centuries before the New Testament canon was settled. The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is “preached” (1 Peter 1:25), that the Apostles’ successors were to teach what they have “heard” (2 Timothy. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both “by word of mouth [and] by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corrithians 11:2).

Not everything Christ did is recorded in sacred Scripture (John 21:25). New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels. Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Peter 1:20-21, 3:15-16).

Christ left a Church with divine authority to teach in His name (Matthew 16:13-20, 18:18; Luke 10:16). The Church will last until the end of time, and the Holy Spirit protects the Church’s teaching from corruption (Matthew 16:18, 28:19-20; John 14:16).

The Church—and not the Bible alone—is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

The Bible does not refer to Scripture as the exclusive source of the Word of God. Jesus Himself is the Word (John 1:1, 14), and in 1 Thessolonians 2:13, St. Paul’s first epistle, he refers to “the Word of God which you heard from us.” There St. Paul is clearly referring to oral apostolic teaching: Tradition.

i.e. Sola Scriptura is not scriptural.

[reyb]

It would be far easier to follow your line of reasoning if you used complete and properly formed sentences. Seriously, in some portions I am being forced to guess at what you mean because it's very unclear.

If I understand you properly, you are attempting to convince Catholics to believe in "Sola scriptura." It's the same old argument again, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way fallen human intellect works. Can we, who are in original sin, really expect to be able to interpret scripture? After all, interpretation MUST take place if we are to believe anything the bible has to say. If we chose to take all of scripture literally we are clearly failing in our interpretation and the atheists and scoffers of the world are vindicated. Yet, if we each interpret it individually then then we risk infinite fragmentation of belief.

I'm no great church scholar, but the Magesterium at least seems like a reasonable solution: Jesus knew people would not understand scripture on their own. The Jews didn't understand the prophesies about Jesus. His own disciples didn't understand his parables. If he wished his teachings to be passed on and interpreted correctly he would need to bestow some kind of divine gift upon his Church. He did. He breathed the Holy Spirit into his priests, his bishops, his pope. By the sacramental power of their orders they have been given special graces to lead the faithful in the name of Christ.

But then, none of this makes sense if you don't believe in the efficacy of sacraments. Somebody smarter than me will have to say it better.

First, I do not convince you or anyone to become Protestant neither to remain in Roman Catholic Church nevertheless these things is up to you.

I am simply suggesting if you want to save time and energy consumed by many rituals, sacraments, prayers and other religious activities in Roman Catholic Church and in any Protestant Churches, it is much better to read the scriptures without favouring any commentaries or preachers or teachers or Magisterium, Synods, Councils, Elder and many other leaders since none of them can reveal the mystery of the scripture, do not involve yourself in any of their actives as a member but be part in their bible studies and consider all of them as your brothers, to listen and discuss the scriptures - all of them if you can like the bible, the holy Quran and the writing of Buddha and many others, do not judge who or what is wrong or right, and to seek nothing except the truth.

To cut it short, open yourself to the world religion even to atheism and consider all of them your brothers and then wait for the Lord to come because He will come. Oneness in mind as in groupings gives you nothing but hatred to one another. Let God himself separate you from the world and not by your own doing separate yourself from your brothers. This is the essence of my suggestion in my previous post.

Edited by reyb, 05 April 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Papist]

First, I do not convince you to become a Protestant neither to remain in Roman Catholic Church nevertheless these things is up to you.

I am simply suggesting if you want save your time and energy consumed by many rituals, sacraments, prayers and other religious activities in Roman Catholic Church and in any Protestant Churches, it is much better to read the scriptures without favouring any commentaries or preachers or teachers or Magisterium, Synods, Councils, Elder and many other leaders since none of them can reveal the mystery of the scripture, do not involve yourself in any of their actives as a member but be part in their bible studies and consider all of them as your brothers, to listen and discuss the scriptures - all of them if you can like the bible, the holy Quran and the writing of Buddha and many others, do not judge who or what is wrong or right, and to seek nothing except the truth.

To cut it short, open yourself to the world religion and consider all of believers your brothers and then wait for the Lord to come because He will come. Oneness in mind as in groupings gives you nothing but hatred to one another. Let God himself separate you from the world and not by your own doing separate yourself from your brothers. This is the essence of my suggestion in my previous post.

Why should people read the scriptures?

[reyb]

Why should people read the scriptures?

It is written in John 5:39-40

9 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me , 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Therefore, to see the Christ of God and have eternal life.

[Papist]

It is written in John 5:39-40

9 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me , 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Therefore, to see the Christ of God and have eternal life.

So, you are saying I need to read the scriptures b/c the scriptures say so. Do you not see the problem with this?

[thessalonian]

Reyb, does Christ not speak of the seed that grows up to be a tree? Does the seed look like the tree? No. Yet we know from DNA studies today that the seed contains all that the tree will be. I take it you reject the trinity since there has been great development of the doctrine which has its foundation in scripture, even in protestant circles. If you can't see development going on in the New Testament you are missing alot. Where was Peter told by Jesus to appoint deacons in Acts 8. Peter tells us what deacons are to do and yet later we find Stephen and Phillip doing more than Peter spoke of in Acts 8. Later the apostles start appointing local leaders, i.e. bishops, presbyters. Presbyters are even mentioned in scripture before their role is spoken of. And it is not obvious that the role specified for them in scripture is complete. Do the presbyters in your church only do what the bible says they should? I doubt it. In fact I doubt you have presbyters or bishops. Maybe not even deacons as most denominations don't have these offices. Funny.

[thessalonian]

It is written in John 5:39-40

9 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me , 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Therefore, to see the Christ of God and have eternal life.

The point of the passage interestingly is not what you state. THey dillegently studied and yet they missed the boat simply by studying. Hardly a passage proof text for sola scriptura. Which boat are you on? Clearly not the bark of Peter.

Edited by thessalonian, 05 April 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[reyb]

So, you are saying I need to read the scriptures b/c the scriptures say so. Do you not see the problem with this?

In my previous post re: the essence of my suggestion; did I quote any bible verse? But the idea is the same seek the truth from God himself – in essence seek him and you shall find him – The Christ of God.

Now, if what you are saying is that I favored the bible more than the Holy Qur’an or the writing of Buddha (the true writing) you are wrong. I do not consider that the bible is greater than these sacred books because the message of all of them is one – the power and wisdom of God who the Christ and I am not referring to your historical Jesus. But I quoted bible verses because I am speaking to someone who considers themselves Christian. In short, to Christians I must use the bible as our reference and to Muslims I must use the Holy Qur’an.

Edited by reyb, 05 April 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[reyb]

The point of the passage interestingly is not what you state. THey dillegently studied and yet they missed the boat simply by studying. Hardly a passage proof text for sola scriptura. Which boat are you on? Clearly not the bark of Peter.

Because it is happening now. It is just a reminder to all Christians today. Something like that;

[reyb]

Reyb, does Christ not speak of the seed that grows up to be a tree? Does the seed look like the tree? No. Yet we know from DNA studies today that the seed contains all that the tree will be. I take it you reject the trinity since there has been great development of the doctrine which has its foundation in scripture, even in protestant circles. If you can't see development going on in the New Testament you are missing alot. Where was Peter told by Jesus to appoint deacons in Acts 8. Peter tells us what deacons are to do and yet later we find Stephen and Phillip doing more than Peter spoke of in Acts 8. Later the apostles start appointing local leaders, i.e. bishops, presbyters. Presbyters are even mentioned in scripture before their role is spoken of. And it is not obvious that the role specified for them in scripture is complete. Do the presbyters in your church only do what the bible says they should? I doubt it. In fact I doubt you have presbyters or bishops. Maybe not even deacons as most denominations don't have these offices. Funny.

I am aware that customs, traditions, rituals, beliefs, teachings, prayers, creeds, and many other religious activities even compiled sacred books are evolving. There is ‘growth and development’. But just the same assurance of salvation comes only thru the power and wisdom of God.

[Papist]

In my previous post re: the essence of my suggestion; did I quote any bible verse? But the idea is the same seek the truth from God himself – in essence seek him and you shall find him – The Christ of God.

Now, if what you are saying is that I favored the bible more than the Holy Qur’an or the writing of Buddha (the true writing) you are wrong. I do not consider that the bible is greater than these sacred books because the message of all of them is one – the power and wisdom of God who the Christ and I am not referring to your historical Jesus. But I quoted bible verses because I am speaking to someone who considers themselves Christian. In short, to Christians I must use the bible as our reference and to Muslims I must use the Holy Qur’an.

It would be better if you used reason.

[arfink]

It would be better if you used reason.

I agree.

By the way, I don't really feel a great need to be "open minded" about atheism when I have the certitude of my faith to guide me. That's a bit like saying "Hey, I have this really really great delicious hamburger IN MY MOUTH RIGHT NOW. But I'm not sure it's really great, so I should probably spit it out and taste some tofu, just to be sure." No, I'm gonna eat what's already in my mouth.

Don't take it personally, I can appreciate your sentiment, but I'm really not discontented with my Catholic faith. I enjoy it, much as one would enjoy good food or fine wine- why bother with seeking something else when what I desire is already placed before me?