One holy catholic and apostolic church

15,579 Views | 394 Replies | Last: 14 days ago by Zobel
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Catag94 • 4:16p, 1/15/25
Catag94 said:
So, to expound on the OP question, and in light of Jesus prayer in John 17:20-23, what are reaching your thoughts on the idea that Christian's of ALL rites should prioritize unity? It seems to me as I said before that there is an opportunity here, if not a responsibility for the church to work harder to this end. By "church" I'll go with CCC 751 (pic added).

And to more one claims, "The One True Church", perhaps the greater this responsibility. Perhaps that means finding a way to move to a more common ground.




There have been plenty of cross denominational talk through the past few decades. I'd say all sides are "trying" but we're starting very far apart so it's gonna take some time and spiritual help.
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 4:19p, 1/15/25
AG
Reformation 2.0?
(kidding)
Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 4:39p, 1/15/25
Martin Q. Blank said:
Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?


Transubstantiation the metaphysical argument of how something can look like something but be something else isn't infallible. The process that Transubstantiation tries to describe; how bread and wine turn into body and blood while still looking like bread and wine, is.

Reply Quote
2
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:57p, 1/15/25
AG
Would the tradition of transubstantiation make the RCC/EO faith one of a continuationist, versus a cessationist? Or just not related to that topic? Maybe that is more of a protestant divide?
Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 5:03p, 1/15/25
10andBOUNCE said:
Would the tradition of transubstantiation make the RCC/EO faith one of a continuationist, versus a cessationist? Or just not related to that topic? Maybe that is more of a protestant divide?


I actually don't know what those mean
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 5:11p, 1/15/25
Quo Vadis? said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Would the tradition of transubstantiation make the RCC/EO faith one of a continuationist, versus a cessationist? Or just not related to that topic? Maybe that is more of a protestant divide?


I actually don't know what those mean


Neither had I. I guess were continuationsts? This is not something talked about in Catholic circles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuationism
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 5:13p, 1/15/25
Quo Vadis? said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation the metaphysical argument of how something can look like something but be something else isn't infallible. The process that Transubstantiation tries to describe; how bread and wine turn into body and blood while still looking like bread and wine, is.
Is there a book somewhere there lists the infallible traditions? Similar to the Bible?
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 5:19p, 1/15/25
Martin Q. Blank said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation the metaphysical argument of how something can look like something but be something else isn't infallible. The process that Transubstantiation tries to describe; how bread and wine turn into body and blood while still looking like bread and wine, is.
Is there a book somewhere there lists the infallible traditions? Similar to the Bible?


There are lists. I know someone posted one earlier in this thread. But nothing "official" official. My understanding is that this push back on the church is a relatively objection, so I'm sure an official list will get put together at some point. And knowing how fast the church moves, you and I may not be hear to see it lol
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 5:25p, 1/15/25
The Banned said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation the metaphysical argument of how something can look like something but be something else isn't infallible. The process that Transubstantiation tries to describe; how bread and wine turn into body and blood while still looking like bread and wine, is.
Is there a book somewhere there lists the infallible traditions? Similar to the Bible?


There are lists. I know someone posted one earlier in this thread. But nothing "official" official. My understanding is that this push back on the church is a relatively objection, so I'm sure an official list will get put together at some point. And knowing how fast the church moves, you and I may not be hear to see it lol
I'm guessing any reunification of RC and EO will involve y'all picking your favorite ones to continue to call "infallible"?


Reply Quote
4
Catag94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 6:01p, 1/15/25
AG
The Banned said:


There have been plenty of cross denominational talk through the past few decades. I'd say all sides are "trying" but we're starting very far apart so it's gonna take some time and spiritual help.

So do you think it may require a compromise from the RCC? If so, do you think it will be willing to?

I understand the declaration of later dogmas seemed necessary to end the debates over them, but it also seems that their very creation either helped create divisions or installed roadblocks to unity/reuniting.

Logic suggests all these can't be true simultaneously:

  • There is one Church created by Jesus. (RCC Dogmas 137, 149, and 153)
  • Membership in the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (RCC dogma 157)
  • The Sacrament of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind (RCC dogma 170)
  • The Eucharist is a true Sacrament (of the new covenant) instituted by Christ. (RCC dogma 194)
  • For people over the age of reason, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation (inferred by RCC dogma 196)
  • Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Canon 750.2)
  • The Catholic Church is the one true church
  • Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith..... (Canon 751)
  • Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. (CCC 838) - not able to receive the Eucharist

Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Catag94 • 6:16p, 1/15/25
AG
Any scripture references for each of those as backup?
Reply Quote
1
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:17p, 1/15/25
AG
As I have come to understand it- not all of the Crusades were wrong.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 6:47p, 1/15/25
AG
No idea. But many of those numbers were not local to Jerusalem. That included people from all over who had gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage for the feast.

Also, you never answered how you know valid books of scripture from spurious. Oops sorry saw you did:
Quote:
The books in the Bible were letters, etc. that were widely circulated and acknowledged as Scripture early on. I assume First Clement wasn't like that.

I don't distinguish them because it's always been that way.


So if it was always this way - which isn't true at all, but whatever - how do you accept scripture as a concrete reality but reject other things that have "always been this way"?

Because this kind of reads like - "the early church got *the most important thing right* when they identified scripture from not out of dozens and dozens of writings, but then screwed everything else up"
Reply Quote
2
4 edits
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Catag94 • 6:53p, 1/15/25
AG
You write, "Membership in the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (RCC dogma 157)"

Can you provide the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) reference for this?

+++

CCC 157 is regarding the certainty of faith.

Further, your statement does not follow CCC 847 which clarifies the affirmation from the earliest times that reads, "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

CCC 847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
337. LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.

ETA: Since this thread has turned into questions about the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, please use the Vatican's website of the Catechism for reference and not a list from some blogger. Good chance the blogger does not have all the information. Thx!
Reply Quote
1 edit
Catag94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 8:10p, 1/15/25
AG
My apologies if the source I pulled those from is errant. Accuracy is something I was certainly trying to attain. I didn't not use a blogger page but found this on a Catholic Church website.

https://stbenedictchurch.org/files/2024/05/255-Dogmas-of-the-Catholic-Church.pdf

That said, perhaps you can direct me to a concise yet condensed listing (like that one) of the teachings, doctrines, dogmas required to be firmly believed and not doubted to avoid being found as a formal or a material heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
Does this exist other than the Catechism?
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:22p, 1/15/25
Zobel said:
No idea. But many of those numbers were not local to Jerusalem. That included people from all over who had gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage for the feast.

Also, you never answered how you know valid books of scripture from spurious. Oops sorry saw you did:
Quote:
The books in the Bible were letters, etc. that were widely circulated and acknowledged as Scripture early on. I assume First Clement wasn't like that.

I don't distinguish them because it's always been that way.


So if it was always this way - which isn't true at all, but whatever - how do you accept scripture as a concrete reality but reject other things that have "always been this way"?

Because this kind of reads like - "the early church got *the most important thing right* when they identified scripture from not out of dozens and dozens of writings, but then screwed everything else up"
Who says I reject them? I just don't hold them to be infallible.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 8:35p, 1/15/25
AG
What is the difference in your mind between "these books have authentic teaching of Jesus" and "this teaching is an authentic teaching of Jesus"?

And not infallible just means subject to rejection.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:50p, 1/15/25
So you believe in papal infallibility?
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Catag94 • 8:58p, 1/15/25
AG
Here is the INDEX...

What happens a lot, is that some take parts of the CCC out of context and run with it. The example above is a case in point in which the Magisterium (official teaching body) starts off with the affirmation from tradition, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" and then proceeds to break this down with scripture and 2000 years of history.

If you only have a fragment of the teaching you can interpret that to mean differently than it actually is taught.


Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:01p, 1/15/25
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
So you believe in papal infallibility?
I'm not answering for Zobel, but wanted to chime in that as a Christian you have to believe in the concept of "infallibility" less the word of God is subject to error.

Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:08p, 1/15/25
AG
No, because that doesn't meet your criteria of "always been that way". Or as St Vincent put it a long time ago, "everywhere, always, by all"
Reply Quote
2
Catag94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 9:13p, 1/15/25
AG
PabloSerna said:
Here is the INDEX...

What happens a lot, is that some take parts of the CCC out of context and run with it. The example above is a case in point in which the Magisterium (official teaching body) starts off with the affirmation from tradition, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" and then proceeds to break this down with scripture and 2000 years of history.

If you only have a fragment of the teaching you can interpret that to mean differently than it actually is taught.




Thanks.

What are your thoughts on how this differs from say those who heard the teachings of the Apostles, believed, were baptized (with water and received the Holy Spirit) and all in so doing, became part of the body of Christ, the Church? Serious question (not being snarky).
I know there is a lot to learn as one matures in the faith, but it seems the core fundamentals of the gospel are all that should be or are required to enter into it.

Now, the church has such an exhaustive list of teachings that she herself deems infallible and, one is a heretic if he obstinately doubts any of them.
It seems to me that this list should be no longer today than it was in say 100 BC. If it weren't, we may be surprised at how much Christians may be unified.

So, can you speak to my point about the responsibility of the church to seek a path for unity among Christians?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:13p, 1/15/25
Zobel said:
No, because that doesn't meet your criteria of "always been that way". Or as St Vincent put it a long time ago, "everywhere, always, by all"
Holy tradition is infallible, including papal infallibility.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 10:19p, 1/15/25
AG
You know, you say you don't troll, but every conversation and thread with you goes the exact same way.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Catag94 • 12:25a, 1/16/25
AG
Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

In that moment, the early Church began to define the "core fundamentals", as you say, not in an effort to add to any divinely revealed truth, but in order to establish a consistent "doctrine" for all the faithful. This is what the councils did as the early Church began to grow from a small area to larger parts of the world.

I once heard an analogy that helped me understand:
1. Is the statement, "Fish swim in the ocean." true?
2. Yes.
3. Then we learn that whales are not fish.
4. Does this change our original statement about fish?
5. No.
6. Rather it expands our understanding about the nature of fish and whales.
7. Now we can say, "Fish and Whales swim in the ocean."

So it was that the Church came to understand that when Jesus said, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mt 16:15-16) Jesus was not passing judgement on those who did not hear but lived a life "pleasing to God."

We do need to become one, that was the will of Christ.

Reply Quote
1
2 edits
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 6:05a, 1/16/25
AG
PabloSerna said:
Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

I guess my hang up is similar to the theme of the circumcision of the heart, and not an outward act. Scripture leads me to believe Jesus is after my heart, but tradition tells me not so fast.

Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

Romans 2:29
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 7:27a, 1/16/25
Zobel said:
You know, you say you don't troll, but every conversation and thread with you goes the exact same way.
So I make sure I'm not talking to a straw man, what is your criteria to believe a tradition is infallible? Not mine, yours.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 7:49a, 1/16/25
AG
What is a tradition?
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 7:50a, 1/16/25
10andBOUNCE said:
PabloSerna said:
Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

I guess my hang up is similar to the theme of the circumcision of the heart, and not an outward act. Scripture leads me to believe Jesus is after my heart, but tradition tells me not so fast.

Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

Romans 2:29
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.


Jesus commanded baptism. Why does that mean He isn't also after your heart? Both/and, not either/or
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 7:55a, 1/16/25
Zobel said:
What is a tradition?
If I answer, will you confirm that we're on the same page? I don't want to find out two days later that I've been conversing with a straw man this whole time.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 7:59a, 1/16/25
AG
That would be frustrating wouldn't it?
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Catag94 • 8:04a, 1/16/25
Catag94 said:
PabloSerna said:
Here is the INDEX...

What happens a lot, is that some take parts of the CCC out of context and run with it. The example above is a case in point in which the Magisterium (official teaching body) starts off with the affirmation from tradition, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" and then proceeds to break this down with scripture and 2000 years of history.

If you only have a fragment of the teaching you can interpret that to mean differently than it actually is taught.




Thanks.

What are your thoughts on how this differs from say those who heard the teachings of the Apostles, believed, were baptized (with water and received the Holy Spirit) and all in so doing, became part of the body of Christ, the Church? Serious question (not being snarky).
I know there is a lot to learn as one matures in the faith, but it seems the core fundamentals of the gospel are all that should be or are required to enter into it.

Now, the church has such an exhaustive list of teachings that she herself deems infallible and, one is a heretic if he obstinately doubts any of them.
It seems to me that this list should be no longer today than it was in say 100 BC. If it weren't, we may be surprised at how much Christians may be unified.

So, can you speak to my point about the responsibility of the church to seek a path for unity among Christians?


How does a church stand if differences are left to fester? Look at all of the issues through the history of the church. Arianism wasn't immediately condemned. There were a significant number of people going about teaching that Jesus was not truly God in the way God the father is. He was a lesser being. Im sure there were attempts to settle it less formally, but at the end of the day, Christians were set against Christians, denouncing each other as heretics. There is no way that "as long as we all believe in Jesus that's all that matters" could have worked because we didn't agree on who Jesus was.

Fast forward a few centuries to iconoclasm. Many Christians had practiced this for centuries. There were no issues with it. But because of the over the top practices of some, the iconoclasts very violently tried to remove icons from the church and the faithful. The church doesn't get to say "as long as we all believe in Jesus" here either. The church has to either say icons are not allowed, icons are allowed, or watch as Christians kill each other.

We can do this for the Eucharist, Mary, confession, church membership, etc. The pronouncements are done in order to unify Christians that are failing to rally around "just believe in Jesus" because there are natural questions about what believing in Jesus means and looks like. This is the whole reason Jesus left the church and not a book.

Maybe this will help. Letter from Clement that historians believe was written in 70AD. He was discipled by Peter and Paul. Chapter 40-44 show a church that was trying to get rid of the leaders that the apostles had left. He describes how these leaders were specifically chosen and charged with leading their flock. It was clear that differences would arise and need to be put down.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
Reply Quote
2
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:14a, 1/16/25
Zobel said:
That would be frustrating wouldn't it?
I see. I don't believe tradition is infallible. Or at least I think Scripture is on a different level than tradition. That even though the canon was arrived at by tradition, the Scriptures themselves are better. Tradition discovered truth, it didn't create it.

Obviously you don't. So back to my original question, how do we distinguish between the infallible, Holy Spirit provided tradition and the traditions of men? Jesus identified the ritual of handwashing as a tradition of men that his disciples did not keep. This tradition supposedly came from Moses. It was passed down as a doctrine to reflect purity. Anybody careful to honor Moses and the tradition kept this ritual. Either Jesus sinned or he was able to identify it as a tradition of men and not a doctrine given by Moses.

Roman Catholics explicitly identify papal infallibility as an infallible, apostolic tradition in Vatican I. You identify it as a tradition of men, right?
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 8:45a, 1/16/25
AG
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
PabloSerna said:
Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

I guess my hang up is similar to the theme of the circumcision of the heart, and not an outward act. Scripture leads me to believe Jesus is after my heart, but tradition tells me not so fast.

Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

Romans 2:29
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.


Jesus commanded baptism. Why does that mean He isn't also after your heart? Both/and, not either/or
Sorry, I may have intended to stress that idea of "membership" - would baptism and membership be similar is this sense?
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 8:57a, 1/16/25
AG
I think a lot of this is a problem of framing, because it's a debate about how Rome talks about, defines, and handles tradition from people whose denomination raison d'etre is not being part of the RCC.

I don't see how you can arbitrarily divide scripture from any other tradition. It came in the same way, was formed in the same way, was similarly vague for centuries in the same way. The only reason it even seems possible is - in grand irony - that there is a tradition of treating it as a separate category. It is not, and that can't be justified under even casual scrutiny.

"Tradition" as a long list of specific items and legal definitions with numbers next to them is a Roman thing - not a universal Christian one.

Tradition is simply what the Greek word says - what is handed down. We learn from the fathers what they learned apostles what they learned from Christ. It's a way of life and a pattern of being in the world. It includes how we worship, how we sing, what we celebrate, and absolutely what scriptures we use. The traditions include the teachings that were used to sift the scriptures. It's all one piece.

This is not a new discussion. St Vincent of Lerins answered it over 1500 years ago. How do you know? You see what Christians have been doing, believing, practicing in a universal way, from ancient times, with wide agreement. (Universality, antiquity, consent - or everywhere, always, by all). This is necessary because he noted that people interpret scripture differently and all heretics quote scripture.

To your specific question - does papal infallibility meet this? Objectively, no. That's not an opinion, it's fact. It was even met with strong resistance within the RCC during Vatican I.

The other point that matters is this isn't really most of our job to discern. That's what bishops are for, they sit in Moses' seat. They will be judged for what they do, they are responsible for themselves and their entire flock.

But practically, you can see this working out in time. No one is going to leave a post-it note on your forehead saying what is and isn't "infallible". History is messy. Israel's history was messy, so was the early church. We can see though what was and wasn't real, what wasn't god-pleasing. In time it works itself out. Judge the tree by its fruit.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.