Growth And Development In Catholic Tradition Is Not Apostolic

[reyb]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1333644080' post='2413319']
So, you are saying I need to read the scriptures b/c the scriptures say so. Do you not see the problem with this?
[/quote]


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 April 5, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1333646650' post='2413348']
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.
[/quote]

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

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1333646556' post='2413345']
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.
[/quote]


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]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1333646913' post='2413353']
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.
[/quote]

It would be better if you used reason.

[arfink]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1333648731' post='2413374']
It would be better if you used reason.
[/quote]

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?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1333646913' post='2413353']
...In short, to Christians I must use the bible as our reference and to Muslims I must use the Holy Qur’an.
[/quote]

And when they contradict, do you flip a coin?

And when they agree, you have a majority vote, so majority wins?

[arfink]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1333661429' post='2413448']
And when they contradict, do you flip a coin?

And when they agree, you have a majority vote, so majority wins?
[/quote]

No no, you have a holy war. Clearly. /sarcasm

[thessalonian]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1333648169' post='2413372']
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.
[/quote]

Assurance of salvation? You have bought in to that lie? There are so many passages that put that theology in the dumpster....

[reyb]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1333661236' post='2413447'] 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? [/quote]



All believers wherever they stand now are always satisfied in their own conviction and having the same feeling of religious contentment though they may differ in appreciating it by their own choosing. Even Atheist has this feeling of self-contentment in believing God do not exist. I say, Atheist believes there is no God rather than he knows there is no God because, even a hardcore atheist can never lay or present any proof that God really do not exist. If what you see cannot convince you the possibility of an unseen thing to exist, much more you cannot disprove it by what you see. Nevertheless, this kind of conviction comes to them simply because the reason for them to believe in God’s existent is nowhere to find in anything and everything they see and understand. I might say they still have a positive attitude in this regard since only Christ can reveal God. That is the reason or proof they are actually asking or looking from anyone including himself though Atheist are not aware of it. Thus, I may say, The logos or Christ is the Reason of God.

I know the feeling of frustration and sometimes hatred brought by criticizism but it is an ingredient to see things clearly if only you will take it positively. You can't see a dust in your eyes but others can. But look in a mirror and you will see it. To make it short, - learn to judge yourself.

By faith there are some who burn their children as a sacred offering to God. Some give their life in the name of God and still some do not believe in God. All of them are foolishness to you. But in their eyes, it is foolishness too to consider your sins are forgiven in eating that piece of bread.

Looking is different from eating. In my previous post I said, attend bible meetings and discuss with them and I also said, do not participate with them as a member. Eating their food offering is different from just eating. Sharing by saying ‘amen’ is different from just sharing. I hope you get me.

Edited April 6, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1333636520' post='2413267']
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.
[/quote]


I will let them (Catholics) honestly give to us their own definition of ‘Tradition’ in their Dei Verbum although to a non-Catholic like me the meaning of that tradition which was handled-down to them is ‘teaching’, that is, if I will try to understand what they are trying to tell the world thus, if that tradition (oral, written or whatever form) grew and developed. This’ growth and development’ is no longer a part of that tradition or teaching which was given to them. That is how I see it. Now, if I am wrong I will asked them to explain as I am already please them so that we who are non Christians will learn or them to be informed that they are in error.

Anyway, thank you for your advice.

Edited April 6, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1333661429' post='2413448']
And when they contradict, do you flip a coin?

And when they agree, you have a majority vote, so majority wins?
[/quote]
[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1333661473' post='2413449']
No no, you have a holy war. Clearly. /sarcasm
[/quote]
[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1333730882' post='2413673']
Assurance of salvation? You have bought in to that lie? There are so many passages that put that theology in the dumpster....
[/quote]

Please, let us go back to our discussion

[arfink]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1333732796' post='2413692']

Please, let us go back to our discussion
[/quote]

Oh? You're the one painting yourself into a corner here.

[reyb]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1333636223' post='2413262']
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.
[/quote]


We are already warned ‘not to lean on our own understanding’ which is the same as not to interpret the scripture and then consider this interpretation as revelation from God. It is just a mere interpretation – your interpretation or his interpretation. What I am saying is like this. In the earliest time of Christianity, there are people like Marcionites who believe that Jesus Christ is a ghost and not a man and there are some (like your early fathers) who believe that Jesus Christ is a true man and not a ghost. These two ‘beliefs’ are just two different ‘interpretations’ when they read the same scripture.

Now, they should meet and discuss these things and none of them should ‘judge’ that his interpretation is the revelation from God or the truth since none of them see that Christ written in the scripture. But of course history tells they go on separate ways. These things have been warned by Apostles Paul in his letter in 1 Corinthians – continue to meet although differ in opinion, do not judge one another and then wait for the Lord to come. They must agree on this thing. (This is the 'oneness in mind' Apostle Paul is telling us in his letter and not oneness in mind as in grouping just like what your early father did).

To do otherwise you will end up having this groupings with somebody doing a thing for you which you called 'revelation from God'. But actually it is not revelation from God but just a mere interpretation brought by their intense studies and investigation.

Edited April 6, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1333636298' post='2413265']
[size=3]I agree with Dei Verbum. [/size]

[size=3][color=black]So, do you agree that this ‘tradition of the Apostles’ was developed since there is ‘growth in the understanding….’.? - [/color][color=#ff0000]This question makes no sense. Can you rephrase? [/color]
[color=black]or[/color]
[color=black]Do you agree that this ‘growth and development’ is not apostolic or a part of the teaching of the Apostle? - [/color][color=#ff0000]Growth and understanding is not Sacred Tradition. It is an effect of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Individuals growth and understanding vary.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

I am asking.....

Do you agree your Church added something to the ‘tradition’ given by the Apostles?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1333766850' post='2413821']
I am asking.....

Do you agree your Church added something to the ‘tradition’ given by the Apostles?
[/quote]

Didn't, because there was no need to mess with perfection.