Aug 19, 2009 -- 2:55PM, Matt16-18 wrote:

Campbellite: The Bible did not just fall out of the sky. And any serious study of the Bible must needs include an understanding of its origins.

True indeed!

Campbellite: While many of us have a congenital aversion to the word "Tradition", we also are aware of the plain fact that we of the 21st Century are not the very first people to read, ponder, study and meditate on the Scriptures.

Most Mainline Protestants should be adverse to "Tradition" with a capital "T" because they have rejected Hoy Tradition.

Read what I just said above, this time for comprehension. It is our position that Tradition has built up accretions which have become barriers to faith. The obvious abuses and corruption of the late Medieval RC Church needed to be addressed and corrected. The Reformers were originally attempting to do just that. But the Powers That Be in Rome would not listen or make amends. THAT is the Tradition which we quite rightly rejected.

What we (liberal) mainliners realize (and some GenX evangelicals are now discovering) is that some valuable things may have been tossed out with the trash. One of those valuable things is, as I said, the realization that "we of the 21st Century are not the very first people to read, ponder, study and meditate on the Scriptures." After 500 years, we are seeing that while the rubbish had to go, the traditions of the undivided church continue to speak to us today.

Aug 19, 2009 -- 2:55PM, Matt16-18 wrote:

Campbellite: And, because we are distrustful of "authorities", we see Biblical study as a "conversation" between us and fellow believers of all times and places.

The mainliners aren't distrustful of authority, because the trust their own assumed authority to interpret scripture. The mainliners are only distrustful of the interpretations preserved by Holy Tradition, and that is why the mainliners willingly accept so many novelties that are not part of Holy Tradition.

You are putting words in my mouth. We are not distrustful of authority. We are distrustful of "authorities". Especially one who wears a funny hat and calls himself the "Vicar of Christ". We mainliners are not distrustful of interpretations preserved in tradition, we are distrustful of those who would insist that there is only one interpretation, theirs, and no other.

And before you even say it, Yes, some Protestants do this, too. Most of us, however, especially we mainliners, reject this categorically.

Aug 19, 2009 -- 2:55PM, Matt16-18 wrote:

Campellite: What it boils down to is this: Our Lord Jesus Christ is head of the Church.

No, it does NOT boil down to this. Every Church with a two thousand-year history acknowledges that Jesus is head of the Church. There is NO dispute between Protestants, and the OO, EO and CC about Christ being the head of the Church.

The issue of contention is about is Protestants rejecting the authority of Holy Tradition and claiming that the Bible is the ONLY authority that they will acknowledge - an untenable position that is not even supported by the Bible. Sola scriptura is a mere tradition of men that was unknown by Christians until the Protestants made up this doctrine.

Matt, you will never gain any traction with me by banging on this sola scriptura line. Scripture first, yes. But read in light of our God given reason, and experience, and the testimony of the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Even some RCs!

Aug 19, 2009 -- 2:55PM, Matt16-18 wrote:

Campbellite: While no one of us can perfectly grasp everything, the collective wisdom and consensus of believers is sufficient for us to know enough of the Truth that we are led in the right Way.

And because this is the "collective" wisdom, and not the exclusive property of any one faith community, we all have need for all the others. The hand cannot say to the foot, I have no need of you.

You have tried to make this argument before, but it requires a perverse interpretation of 1 Cor 12 to make it.

When Paul writes that "the body does not consist of one member but of many", Paul does not have in mind that the Body of Christ being composed of thousands of bickering and contentious sects divided over doctrine. Paul is not saying that the feet represent the Gnostics, the eyes represent the Donatists, the ears the Nicolaitans, the hands the Judaizers, and that each of these heretical sects have some part of the truth, and that all together these heretical sects make up the Body of Christ.

Paul would utterly reject your idea that the Body of Christ has no unity of faith, and that the Body of Christ is composed of thousands of divided, bickering and contentious Protestants sects that are the creation of men.

Are you channelling Paul these days?

And the very notion that I hold to any idea that the Body if Christ has no unity of faith is ludicrous. Clearly you know nothing about me or the tradition I represent. Our prime foundational document, The Declaration and Address, published in 1809 declares, "The Church of Jesus Christ on Earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one, comprised of all those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Lord of the Universe, and who commit themselves to living in accordance with his will."

Could you do me one favor Matt? I don't mind you telling me what Roman Catholics believe. You are one, and thus have some credibility in that department. But do kindly refrain from telling me what it is that *I* believe? Because, as often as not, you are mistaken. It comes across as rather obnoxious as well, and I know that is not your intent.

 www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/image...

And our hats are funnier!

Aug 20, 2009 -- 4:15PM, Roodog wrote:

Aug 20, 2009 -- 4:01PM, KatherineOrthodixie wrote:

Aug 20, 2009 -- 3:38PM, Roodog wrote:

Do you have problems with the Bible being the winning hand as opposed to tradition?

 

As I think I've said before, the Bible is Holy Tradition, a part of it. But I have no idea what the RCC teaches about that.

But Katherine the Bible is the trump card when tradition contradicts it.

Again, the Holy Tradition cannot contradict the Bible - if it does, it's not Holy Tradition.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that Holy Tradition might contradict some screwball personal individual interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible came out of the Church and not vice versa.

People were hearing the Gospel centuries before the canon of Holy Scripture was finalized. Or the printing press was invented.

Aug 20, 2009 -- 4:46PM, KatherineOrthodixie wrote:

Again, the Holy Tradition cannot contradict the Bible - if it does, it's not Holy Tradition.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that Holy Tradition might contradict some screwball personal individual interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible came out of the Church and not vice versa.

People were hearing the Gospel centuries before the canon of Holy Scripture was finalized. Or the printing press was invented.

Amen!

KevinPOneil: If Matt 16-18's definitions are true ...

You keep making this same bogus argument - that what I am saying is grounded in MY definitions, and not the Church's definitions. You know as well as I do that I have listed in this thread more than once the Canon Law that unambiguously states that heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church (latae sententiae excommunication).

KevinPOneil: Matt 16-18 said that all who disagree with that official teaching are by definition excommunicated.

If a Catholic rejects the Church's official teaching concerning doctrines of morality, then he is a heretic by definition. (And the key here is official teaching, that is, the official teaching concerning infallible moral doctrines as taught and received by the Catholic Church from the teaching office of the Catholic Church).

One more time for roodog:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2089 ... "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ...

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication ...

KevinPONeil: Matt 16-18 states that unlike Protestant, RCs have one source of authority, Rome.

Never have I said this, and I would know, since I don't believe it. Holy Tradition is a source of authority, an authority that the Pope is bound to uphold.  An important office held by the the Pope is that of a teacher that is obligated to defend and elucidate Holy Tradition.  All bishops hold an office of teacher that binds them to defending Holy Tradition.   Neither the pope nor the bishops have authority to exercise their teaching office to change Holy Tradition. 

Today's Protestants seem to know very little about the distinction of Tradition and tradition - which is apparent when Protestants bring up the argument that the Catholic Church changed Tradition when the hierarchy of the Latin Rite instituted mandatory celibacy for Latin Rite priests. The Protestants are confused in their argumentation, because the discipline of celibacy for Latin Rite priests is a tradition, not Tradition. Likewise, mandatory celibacy for Orthodox bishops is also tradition, not Tradition.

As far as I know, all the moral doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in Holy Tradition - the Holy Tradition that teaches, for example, that the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians. It is from Holy Tradition that I know that sexual promiscuity, fornication, and adultery are sins that can bring about eternal damnation.

There are some "Catholic" AIDS workers are giving out condoms to men and women that are engaging in prostitution, promiscuous sex, fornication and adultery. By doing that, these so-called  "Catholics" are helping these people commit sin that could lead to their eternal damnation.

Christ never told his Apostles to go out to the nations and become enablers of sinful behavior.

Christ the Enabler is strictly a fiction of the Progressive Protestants.