Growth And Development In Catholic Tradition Is Not Apostolic

[Groo the Wanderer]

you still are not listening or reading what was posted reyb

[Papist]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334012671' post='2415152']
When I post it (my previous post). It is almost morning here. So after I post it I sleep. I did not clearly see that this short sentence becomes ‘I come from the lips of Christ himself’ rather than ‘It comes from the lips of Christ himself’ in Microsoft Word since I am now usually checking its spelling and grammar. My previous post is an answer to the question…..

[/b]


Thus, I ask.

What does he says? (What did he say? To test him also).

Now, I want to explain to you what is happening.

The Catholic Priests and Bishops are simply saying there is something ‘handled down’ to them since the earliest time of Catholicism that they called ‘Divine Revelation’. This ‘Divine Revelation’ is also called ‘Tradition’. Thus, they say it can be ‘handled down’.

Now, since this ‘Divine Revelation’ is active and living, it grows. Thus, they are claiming whatever growth and development or whatever new found doctrines or whatever ‘new revealed truths’ they decided to approve – These things are not or should not be taken as ‘addition’ to the handed down ‘Divine Revelation’.

That is the essence of everything they are saying since the beginning of time. This is their secret (I may say) since they hid or not clearly explain them to ordinary Catholics.
[/quote]

Drat!!!! You figured out our secret that has been hidden for 2,000 years.

[bridgejumper]

A great book on this is Yves Congar's [u]The Meaning of Tradition[/u]. Something every Catholic should read!

[reyb]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334056402' post='2415330']
Drat!!!! You figured out our secret that has been hidden for 2,000 years.
[/quote]


I am aware my grammar is not good and I am not a good speaker. But I know what I am saying. You are not simply codifying words but manipulating them to suit to your belief and to justify your intention.

I said you are manipulating these words because you give different meaning or definition to the same word and you give the same meaning for different words.

For example, the word ‘Tradition’ is different from ‘Revelation’. ‘Tradition’ is handling down of belief, customs and teaching from one man to another while ‘Revelation’ means supernatural disclosure to humans. But to you (Catholics) they are the same i.e. ‘Tradition’ is the same as ‘Divine Revelation’.

To an ordinary mind, the definition of the word Tradition (with capital T) and tradition (with small t) are the same. But to you (Catholics) they are different. Tradition (with capital T) is Divine Revelation while tradition (with small letter t) is handling down of belief or teaching from one man to another.

When you said ‘Sacred Tradition comes from Christ’, your intention is very clear. You are trying to justify that the ‘Divine Revelation’ can be handled down from one man to another. You are thinking that Jesus as a man can ‘handled down’ the Divine Revelation to another man. This is entirely wrong and not scriptural.

It is written in John 14:10 ‘‘The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work’. Thus, it is only proper to say ‘Divine Revelation comes from the lips of Christ’ because God is doing his work of revealing himself when God is speaking thru him. But it is not correct to say ‘Sacred Tradition comes from the lips of Christ’ because Jesus as a man do not speak on his own.

Again, it is the Father who is doing his work of revealing himself to a man when God is speaking thru him. Thus, it is a ‘Divine Revelation’ to that man to whom God is doing his work. But it is wrong to consider such thing to be ‘Tradition’ because Jesus does not speak as a man to another man.

Edited April 10, 2012 by reyb

[arfink]

You're acting like the Sadducees while they questioned the man born blind- Who healed you? What did he say? What did he do? He tells them everything he knows, and they don't even try to listen. They just keep asking the same exact questions. What did he say? What did he say?

They didn't want to know what Jesus said. They were trying to see if the man born blind would slip up. Finally, seeing through their obvious game, the blind man asks "I told you, and you did not listen... Do you want to become his disciples too?"

Do you, Reyb?

[reyb]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1334096915' post='2415528']
You're acting like the Sadducees while they questioned the man born blind- Who healed you? What did he say? What did he do? He tells them everything he knows, and they don't even try to listen. They just keep asking the same exact questions. What did he say? What did he say?

They didn't want to know what Jesus said. They were trying to see if the man born blind would slip up. Finally, seeing through their obvious game, the blind man asks "I told you, and you did not listen... Do you want to become his disciples too?"

Do you, Reyb?
[/quote]

You are the one not listening to me. I show you that I know what you (catholics) are doing. (meaning, I must have listening then. Otherwise, how can I know them?). Please read my previous post carefully.

Anyway, I will post my side regarding his (Papist) argument in justifying that 'Divine Revelation' can be handled down using bible verses,

Edited April 10, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

This is a clarification for my previous post because it seems you do not get it.

The word ‘Tradition’ and ‘Divine Revelation’ are not the same. They do not have the same meaning because ‘Tradition’ means handling down of belief, custom, teachings and the like from one man to another. While the term ‘Divine Revelation’ means the revelation of God himself to a man.

Tradition (with capital T) or tradition (with small letter t) is the same word. They have the same meaning or definition.

In Roman Catholic doctrine, these two words are manipulated in order to prove that ‘Divine Revelation’ can be handled-down from Jesus to his Apostles and thus, to all of Catholic priests or priesthood.

Priest and Bishops did not clarify these things to ordinary Catholics and the rest of the world and remain to their ‘doctrine’ that Tradition (with capital T) is the same as Divine Revelation while tradition (with small t) is not the same with Tradition.

My goodness brothers what is happening to you.

Edited April 11, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1333982510' post='2414820']
Here's another try. If you still don't understand, I pray the Holy Spirit will help you. God bless you.




Sacred Tradition comes from Christ. It's the full, living gift of Christ to the Apostles, faithfully handed down through the centuries. It is through Tradition that the Holy Spirit makes the Jesus Christ present among us, offering us the very same saving Word and Sacraments that he gave to the Apostles. Christ did not hand the Apostles a bible and say "Go, make copies and tell everyone this is all they need."



Understanding Catholic Tradition is essential to understanding the Catholic Church and the Catholic Christian faith. Tradition is "handed down" The word "tradition" actually means handing down something to another person.

[b]

Scripture testifies to this meaning of Catholic Tradition as the normal mode of transmitting the Faith[/b]:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

[/quote]

(I am not speaking to Papist here in particular. I just used his post because it is the Catholic faith and doctrine).

To All Priests and Bishops,

Even a neophyte was taught to read the scripture according to its context and all of us must read it that way, otherwise you will be lost. Now, in Papist previous post his usage of these verses is out of context. He used them to justify Catholic tradition as scriptural while the writer is not referring to Catholic tradition in apostolic succession when he mentioned ‘tradition’ is his letter.

Again, the writer is not referring to Catholic tradition in apostolic succession when he mentioned ‘tradition’ in his letter.

Priest and Bishops must know it because apostolic succession was just an invention by Catholic Church against Gnostic believers during the time of Clement of Rome. (Goggle it my friends). Today, Catholics priest and bishops are at tune with the Jews who are always crying ‘we are descendants of Abraham’ but now they are shouting ‘We are the successor of Peter’. They have forgotten about Moses and Paul. Are they chosen by succession?

Again, the writer (of 2 Thess) is not referring to tradition of apostolic succession because ‘Divine Revelation’ is not a tradition which you can ‘handed-down’. But rather he is talking about this ‘coming of Christ’. All witnesses are taught their listeners to seek for this ‘coming’ because it is the Divine Revelation itself. Thus, they teach us -if we wanted to see it - by giving ‘instructions’ (what to do) and ‘warning’ (what not to do). This is the tradition (teachings) he is talking about.

Thus you can see in his letter previous to that paragraph where he mentioned the word ‘tradition’ the following message in 2 Thess 2:1-2

[indent=1]Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.[/indent]

You can see at the above verses, some preachers are already ‘distorting’ their letters.
Now, who do you think they are?

------------
BTW. ---The doctrine of apostolic succession is another ‘growth and development’ in their ‘Tradition’ (with capital T) or ‘Sacred Tradition’ (with capital S and capital T). My goodness brothers. Apostles (with capital A) is different from apostles (with small a). Truly my Goodness. If I were you, I will ask for God’s forgiveness in revealing this ‘manipulation’ to the world. Tell them you are in error and let God decide for your fate.

You suppressed the truth to come out for billions of souls who are trying to come to God since all of you (priests and bishops) tell them, ‘God is mystery that cannot be seen by man’. It is (by itself) already a suppression of truth. Oh my goodness my brotherS (with capital S).
---------

Edited April 12, 2012 by reyb

[Seven77]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334207165' post='2416249']


Priest and Bishops must know it because apostolic succession was just an invention by Catholic Church against Gnostic believers during the time of Clement of Rome. (Goggle it my friends). Today, Catholics priest and bishops are at tune with the Jews who are always crying ‘we are descendants of Abraham’ but now they are shouting ‘We are the successor of Peter’. They have forgotten about Moses and Paul. Are they chosen by succession?

[/quote]

Clement of Rome was himself a successor of an Apostle. Successor of Moses was Joshua. Successor of Paul is Timothy just to name one.

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334114871' post='2415638']
This is a clarification for my previous post because it seems you do not get it.

The word ‘Tradition’ and ‘Divine Revelation’ are not the same. They do not have the same meaning because ‘Tradition’ means handling down of belief, custom, teachings and the like from one man to another. While the term ‘Divine Revelation’ means the revelation of God himself to a man.

Tradition (with capital T) or tradition (with small letter t) is the same word. They have the same meaning or definition.

In Roman Catholic doctrine, these two words are manipulated in order to prove that ‘Divine Revelation’ can be handled-down from Jesus to his Apostles and thus, to all of Catholic priests or priesthood.

Priest and Bishops did not clarify these things to ordinary Catholics and the rest of the world and remain to their ‘doctrine’ that Tradition (with capital T) is the same as Divine Revelation while tradition (with small t) is not the same with Tradition.

My goodness brothers what is happening to you.
[/quote]

Tradition is divine revelation handed on. Here's a stumper for you-- is the Bible of product of tradition or divine revelation?

Oh by the way I really dig your avatar. Amen brother--Long live the Pope!

[reyb]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1334278407' post='2416782']
Clement of Rome was himself a successor of an Apostle. Successor of Moses was Joshua. Successor of Paul is Timothy just to name one.



Tradition is divine revelation handed on. Here's a stumper for you-- is the Bible of product of tradition or divine revelation?

Oh by the way I really dig your avatar. Amen brother--Long live the Pope!
[/quote]

The bible comes from Catholic tradition in as much as they compiled it rather than they wrote it. The early Catholics choose among many letters, books or whatever sacred scriptures accepted by many and different God believing people like Jews, Greeks and others during that time, and their criteria in choosing which books or letters must be included or excluded is, the orally transmitted tradition or belief in historical realization or actualization of prophesied Messiah of the Jews.

Therefore, the bible comes from the tradition of Catholics.

This is another ‘Growth and Development’ on Sacred Tradition of Catholics.
If you have any follow up questions, please post it in my other topic titled ‘The bible’.

Regarding my avatar….He is saying ‘Hear Us, Hear Us, Hear Us all of you….please forgive us for we have sinned against you’.

Now, regarding Tradition and Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation is not a tradition which can be ‘handed on’ or transmitted to or gave by a man to another. Divine Revelation by its very meaning is not a Tradition or Sacred Tradition. Divine Revelation means 'God reveal Himself to a man'. (Thus, Only God can do it).

Is Apostle Peter in Luke a true man or a legend?

Edited April 13, 2012 by reyb

[Tally Marx]

I'm having trouble following you.
I agree that Divine Revelation comes from God (obviously). But what is the premise for your assertion that it must be to "a man"? Why can't it be to Man (in general)? Why do you assume it must be revealed on an individual basis?

Does the Divinely Revealed have to do with the information that was revealed, or with the person it was revealed to? Ex: God's existence was Divinely Revealed to Abraham. Therefore, it is Divine Revelation. Then, Abraham told his son about God. It was humanly revealed *to Isaac*. Would that make the information itself humanly revealed? I would say no. The information in and of itself was revealed Divinely, regardless of who Abraham told. It finds its origins in the Divine. Therefore, it is Divinely Revealed information, regardless of who knows it now and how they came across it.

Your definition seems a bit arbitrary, and a little needless. By your definition, Divine Revelation can become Tradition, and does. The second Abraham told his son about the existence of God, that information would have become Tradition. Yet it didn't lose any element of truth, and is the same information. If that's the case, then why even differentiate?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Tally Marx

[reyb]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1334289877' post='2416862']
I'm having trouble following you.
I agree that Divine Revelation comes from God (obviously). But what is the premise for your assertion that it must be to "a man"? Why can't it be to Man (in general)? Why do you assume it must be revealed on an individual basis?

Does the Divinely Revealed have to do with the information that was revealed, or with the person it was revealed to? Ex: God's existence was Divinely Revealed to Abraham. Therefore, it is Divine Revelation. Then, Abraham told his son about God. It was humanly revealed *to Isaac*. Would that make the information itself humanly revealed? I would say no. The information in and of itself was revealed Divinely, regardless of who Abraham told. It finds its origins in the Divine. Therefore, it is Divinely Revealed information, regardless of who knows it now and how they came across it.

Your definition seems a bit arbitrary, and a little needless. By your definition, Divine Revelation can become Tradition, and does. The second Abraham told his son about the existence of God, that information would have become Tradition. Yet it didn't lose any element of truth, and is the same information. If that's the case, then why even differentiate?
[/quote]


If I got you correctly you are saying something like this:

God reveal infomation 1 to A and then, God reveal infomation 2 to B and then, God reveal infomation 3 to C. and so on. Thus, you said Divine Revelation can be ‘handed-on’ in tradition if all of these information was given to D.
----------------
Our best example is the salvation history of Roman Catholic Church. This salvation history is accepted by Catholics to be a ‘collection of divine revelation of God’ but, actually it is not. Salvation history is a collection of religious belief and prophesies about the coming of Christ which by itself evolve to another of form of tradition – the historical fulfillment of the coming of Christ. Salvation history is a collection of religious tradition about Christ centered to another tradition about Him.

Actually all of these religious traditions from one generation to another is an outcome of distorted interpretation to the testimonies of witnesess which are all pointing to one Christ though they call it in different names and in different times. (see the ‘Word’ in the beginning of Luke).


Again, Salvation history is an evolution of religious traditions rather than a ‘collection of divine revelation of God’ because all witnessess see only one God. Moses see Christ in the same way Paul saw him and since even witnessess has no power to reveal the mystery of God. The only way for them to help their brothers is to testify, guide, instruct and warn in order to see what they saw. These testimonies which are hidden in mystery are now become traditions. I am not saying testimonies are traditions but rather, traditions are the outcome of distorted interpretation to testimonies of witnessess.
------------------------

Again, to show it in our previous example. It goes something like this:

If God reveal himself to A. Then A make testimony ‘inform of A’. When X read ‘inform of A’ he got ‘deformed of A’. This ‘deformed of A’ is the tradition. Same thing happen when God reveal himself to B. Then B make testimony ‘inform of B’. When Y read ‘inform of B’ he got ‘deformed of B’. and so on and so forth. And these deformed informations are the traditions and sometimes evolving to another tradition in the course of time. But salvation never changes. You must see what they saw.

And this is what Catholic did. She got ‘inform of old testament writers’ and then she got the ‘inform of Luke’ and said ‘inform of old testament’ = ‘inform of Luke’. Not knowing they got 'deformed of old prophesies' =‘deformed of Luke’.

Thus, in the old days the Jews are waiting for historical Jesus and these early Catholics are accepting the authenticity of this particular Jewish belief while at the same time, they are condemning the Jews for being sons of devil. In short, these sons of the devil have correct interpretation to the Old Testament prophesies. Is that so?

The Jews are offering animals to God. Now they are offering bread and wine. They are condemning the Jews without looking at themselves. Do you think your bread and wine will please the anger of God?

Edited April 13, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1334289877' post='2416862']
I'm having trouble following you.
I agree that Divine Revelation comes from God (obviously). But what is the premise for your assertion that it must be to "a man"? Why can't it be to Man (in general)? Why do you assume it must be revealed on an individual basis?
[/quote]


I said ‘God reveal himself to a man’. Okay, it Is written in 2 Cor 12:2-4

[indent=1]I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know — God knows. 3 And I know that this man — whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.[/indent]

Although Apostle Paul is speaking about the likeness of himself in this experience he did not say ‘When I was caught up to the third heaven….’. The reason is, to claim such things will be an act of arrogance as if he alone is that man. Thus, he said further in 2 Cor 12:5-6

[indent=1]I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.[/indent]

In short, this is a confirmation and respect to anyone who see what he saw.

Now, why not to all man or Man as in general. Because not all of us will pass thru that gate although all of us will be forgiven as it is written in 1 Cor 15:51-52

[indent=1]51 Listen, I tell you a mystery : We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed[/indent]

Edited April 13, 2012 by reyb

[Papist]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334309793' post='2416911']
If I got you correctly you are saying something like this:

God reveal infomation 1 to A and then, God reveal infomation 2 to B and then, God reveal infomation 3 to C. and so on. Thus, you said Divine Revelation can be ‘handed-on’ in tradition if all of these information was given to D.
----------------
Our best example is the salvation history of Roman Catholic Church. This salvation history is accepted by Catholics to be a ‘collection of divine revelation of God’ but, actually it is not. Salvation history is a collection of religious belief and prophesies about the coming of Christ which by itself evolve to another of form of tradition – the historical fulfillment of the coming of Christ. Salvation history is a collection of religious tradition about Christ centered to another tradition about Him.

Actually all of these religious traditions from one generation to another is an outcome of distorted interpretation to the testimonies of witnesess which are all pointing to one Christ though they call it in different names and in different times. (see the ‘Word’ in the beginning of Luke).


Again, Salvation history is an evolution of religious traditions rather than a ‘collection of divine revelation of God’ because all witnessess see only one God. Moses see Christ in the same way Paul saw him and since even witnessess has no power to reveal the mystery of God. The only way for them to help their brothers is to testify, guide, instruct and warn in order to see what they saw. These testimonies which are hidden in mystery are now become traditions. I am not saying testimonies are traditions but rather, traditions are the outcome of distorted interpretation to testimonies of witnessess.
------------------------

Again, to show it in our previous example. It goes something like this:

If God reveal himself to A. Then A make testimony ‘inform of A’. When X read ‘inform of A’ he got ‘deformed of A’. This ‘deformed of A’ is the tradition. Same thing happen when God reveal himself to B. Then B make testimony ‘inform of B’. When Y read ‘inform of B’ he got ‘deformed of B’. and so on and so forth. And these deformed informations are the traditions and sometimes evolving to another tradition in the course of time. But salvation never changes. You must see what they saw.

And this is what Catholic did. She got ‘inform of old testament writers’ and then she got the ‘inform of Luke’ and said ‘inform of old testament’ = ‘inform of Luke’. Not knowing they got 'deformed of old prophesies' =‘deformed of Luke’.

Thus, in the old days the Jews are waiting for historical Jesus and these early Catholics are accepting the authenticity of this particular Jewish belief while at the same time, they are condemning the Jews for being sons of devil. In short, these sons of the devil have correct interpretation to the Old Testament prophesies. Is that so?

The Jews are offering animals to God. Now they are offering bread and wine. They are condemning the Jews without looking at themselves. Do you think your bread and wine will please the anger of God?
[/quote]

No. You don't understand. What he is saying is this,

God reveals infomation 1 to A, then A tells information 1 to B. In both situations, information 1 is Divine Revelation.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334314128' post='2416915']



I said ‘God reveal himself to a man’. Okay, it Is written in 2 Cor 12:2-4

[indent=1]I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know — God knows. 3 And I know that this man — whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.[/indent]

Although Apostle Paul is speaking about the likeness of himself in this experience he did not say ‘When I was caught up to the third heaven….’. The reason is, to claim such things will be an act of arrogance as if he alone is that man. Thus, he said further in 2 Cor 12:5-6

[indent=1]I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.[/indent]

In short, this is a confirmation and respect to anyone who see what he saw.

Now, why not to all man or Man as in general. Because not all of us will pass thru that gate although all of us will be forgiven as it is written in 1 Cor 15:51-52

[indent=1]51 Listen, I tell you a mystery : We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed[/indent]
[/quote]

Wow. When you edit you really edit, don't you?
Okay....
2Corinth12 is an interesting passage. The Corinthians had been criticizing Paul, and accusing him of not really being an Apostle: "I have become a fool in boasting, but you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you, for in nothing was I behind the most imminent Apostles, though I am nothing." (v11). This passage isn't about revelation in general; it is about Paul trying to prove his worth. He is trying to establish his authority, and points to his visions and his works to show that he is favored by God. It is a personal account, and I do not think it speaks for all of revelation. In other words, I don't see how it supports your claim that truth must be revealed on an individual basis and the term "Divine Revelation" refers to the person it was revealed to, and not the information itself.

"Revelation" is a noun. It refers specifically to the information which is being revealed. Divine Revelation, then, can be said, "Divine Information." I maintain that, no matter how you personally got the Information, if it originated in God then it is still Divine Information. If God came up with the idea, it is still His idea, no matter who reiterates it. If Abraham told Isaac about the existence of God, the existence of God is still Divine Information. I do not see how it can logically be otherwise. For it to be otherwise is to say that if I write a book, and you read it aloud to your kid, it isn't my book anymore. I must confess that doesn't make sense to me!

As for the post you deleted...it assumes the deterioration of the information. You have no reason to assume that.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Tally Marx