[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know of none, so I wouldn’t know. I still want to know why you have faith that you’re reading the true gospels and letters, with circularly quoting the bible.
[/quote]
I have already allowed that you may call recognizing which are apostolic writings as a kind of tradition, although I see it as in keeping with what Paul required.
You seem to be saying if I look to the bible to tell me how to understand the bible, I’m engaging in circular reasoning. Is that correct? I cannot use what the bible has taught me (a man) to understand how the bible should be understood, or even what letters are apostolic, but should rather listen to the authorized position of the church (made up of men)?[/quote]
Let’s do this. Here’s a list of traditions:
-the process of recognizing the apostolic writings.
-kosher dietary law
-genuflecting
-only the priest can drink the blood of Christ.
Are these substantially the same, yes or no?[/quote]
So we agree that scripture alone isn’t enough, and that it takes a preceding faith in sacred tradition to even accept the scripture in our bibles. With that, I’m going back to bed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So we agree that scripture alone isn’t enough, and that it takes a preceding faith in sacred tradition to even accept the scripture in our bibles. With that, I’m going back to bed. [/quote]
If you mean by “sacred tradition” things like:
-genuflecting
-only the priest can drink the blood of Christ.
-college of cardinals
-etc.
then no, we do not agree, as I’ve explained about 3 different ways now.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The dark ages, burning bibles and people, the Ustachi in the last century, pedophilia in this century.
[/quote]
I have one question before I address this…why are rejecting institutes were around during the dark ages?
Of course we are talking about the Catholic Church since it is the only institute that has been here for the entire dark ages. I still don’t understand why you included that dark ages, if you could qualify that qualification.
Burning Bibles and people?
Church of England
Calvinism
Lutheranism (he did worse than burn a Bible)
Anabaptist (sad because I always had a yearning to become Amish)
Ustachi in the last century?
I don’t quite know what that is, but I’m guessing it has something to do with trying to link the Vatican to Nazis. Strange, because all the Germanic Bishops declared that those who were nationalist socialist were excommunicated de facto. But you already disqualified the Catholic Church before this one.
Pedophilia?
Emerging Church
Evangelical Church
Orthodox
Jews
Muslims
Teachers
Dads
Coaches
Uncles/Cousins/Male Family
So, you have excluded pretty much anything that is old, Christian (actually any religion), made up of sinners, and includes males in its ranks.
Cool, so what authority do I look to, to know what books are in the bible? So far it seems like the only authority is me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So we agree that scripture alone isn’t enough, and that it takes a preceding faith in sacred tradition to even accept the scripture in our bibles. With that, I’m going back to bed. [/quote]
If you mean by “sacred tradition” things like:
-genuflecting
-only the priest can drink the blood of Christ.
-college of cardinals
-etc.
then no, we do not agree, as I’ve explained about 3 different ways now.
[/quote]
I hate to point this out to you, but that at least two of those are not sacred tradition (the first two). I’ll have no clue on your third thing here, but I can check it out for both of us.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So we agree that scripture alone isn’t enough, and that it takes a preceding faith in sacred tradition to even accept the scripture in our bibles. With that, I’m going back to bed. [/quote]
If you mean by “sacred tradition” things like:
-genuflecting
[/quote]
Sacred tradition? It’s simply a sign of respect. Can’t say it’s a ‘sacred tradition’
Not true, had me a big gulp on Sunday.
Just fancy bishops really. Just a hierarchical setup. Like you’d have Timothy, or Titus who’d report to Paul, who’d report to Peter…
[quote/]There [quote]
There are entire segments of Romanism who disavow anything post Vatican II because they quite rightly recognize how drastically things changed toward liberalism.[/quote]
The council itself is not heretical, although those groups are usually heretical or at least schismatic. But, yes there were abuses post VII, but VII itself did not allow those abuses. The fact that there were also abuses before (that is why we created the Office of Inquisition after all) seems to allude some of these schismatic groups.[/quote]
Tribulus you are correct on this point however you have not quite accurately identified the phenonomenon when you label it liberalism, it’s name is modernism which could simply be described as a so called evolution of church teaching. Pius X called modernism ‘the synthesis of all heresies’ his papal enciclical Pascendi Domini addressed it directly and he even instituted an anti-modernist oath which was later quashed by John Paul VI - who himself was a modernist.
Brother Chris you seem to be in denial about VII - there are large sections of catholics who reject modernism and the teachings of Vatican II who are neither schismatic or heretical.
[quote/]There [quote]
There are entire segments of Romanism who disavow anything post Vatican II because they quite rightly recognize how drastically things changed toward liberalism.[/quote]
The council itself is not heretical, although those groups are usually heretical or at least schismatic. But, yes there were abuses post VII, but VII itself did not allow those abuses. The fact that there were also abuses before (that is why we created the Office of Inquisition after all) seems to allude some of these schismatic groups.[/quote]
Tribulus you are correct on this point however you have not quite accurately identified the phenonomenon when you label it liberalism, it’s name is modernism which could simply be described as a so called evolution of church teaching. Pius X called modernism ‘the synthesis of all heresies’ his papal enciclical Pascendi Domini addressed it directly and he even instituted an anti-modernist oath which was later quashed by John Paul VI - who himself was a modernist.
Brother Chris you seem to be in denial about VII - there are large sections of catholics who reject modernism and the teachings of Vatican II who are neither schismatic or heretical.[/quote]
I am sorry. I do not follow, what are you referring to and how do you come to that conclusion?
Modernism is a stench in the nostrils of the holy immutable God. I’m pretty sure my definition of “modernism” differs drastically from even the most traditional/conservative Catholics.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Modernism is a stench in the nostrils of the holy immutable God. I’m pretty sure my definition of “modernism” differs drastically from even the most traditional/conservative Catholics. [/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Theistic evolution is a modernistic stench in the nostrils of the holy immutable God. For instance.[/quote]
I’m still not following your point. [/quote]This will be further addressed as we progress in the epistemology thread Chris. I don’t wanna start another train of thought here when I have two major ones there already, including one with you, not to mention a few smaller ones, pm’s and an email conversation.
Man it’s great having you back here Chris =] =] =]