Growth And Development In Catholic Tradition Is Not Apostolic

[reyb]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1334444968' post='2417879']
Again, you assume that the person told cannot comprehend. You have no reason to assume this.
Your proof is off-topic. It doesn't prove anything.
[/quote]

This is what Apostle Paul said in relation to your question (see 1 Cor 2:11-16).


The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 [b]The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/b] 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"

But we have the mind of Christ.
---------------------------

In relation to their 'instructions' or tradition - he can understand it.

Edited April 15, 2012 by reyb

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334528715' post='2418302']


This is what Apostle Paul said in relation to your question (see 1 Cor 2:11-16).


The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 [b]The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/b] 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"

But we have the mind of Christ.
---------------------------

In relation to their 'instructions' or tradition - he can understand it.
[/quote]

Acts:
31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

Sounds to me like Divine Information can be passed on, even if one needs grace (supernatural gift of faith) to accept it. Else, what was the point of Philip's preaching?

Look, the Church didn't add anything to God's Revelation, any more than you add to my DNA if you map my genome. The Church didn't add--she grew in understanding. And Divine Information can be passed on. All you have proven is that an individual needs grace to accept said Information. You have not proven that it cannot be passed down, or that it cannot be preserved in this passing by God. If you haven't proven such simple assertions by now, you won't. No offense, but I find this discussion tedious and I wish to discontinue it.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1333630269' post='2413238']
reyb,
I'm not a Catholic, nor religious, though have spent a number of years learing about religions. I think objectively (hopefully), I recognized some errors that would make a pony ill.
I'd like to take a stab at this under the category of 'Context and Definitions'. Taking another religions words out of context so they can be redifined in one's own agenda driven context is a consistent ploy when bashing another's religion/politics/philosophy/opinion/or support of a sports team.

First off, the author provided his own definitions of 'tradition' that are not what the Catholic Church teaches as being 'Tradition'. They pretty much have codified and set in concrete what the bible 'is'. (you can thank them later, if you so desire). The CC is pretty consistent on not adding to Jesus' revalation previously provided. Even if they okay the message from a 'confirmed apparation of some saint, angel, or Mary', they qualify that it doesn't add, revise, subtract, or change the original revalation.

However, they, like ALL Christian religions, feel free to revise, devolop, change, "grow in" the understanding of the body of 'revalation'. They do attempt to fillter and temper this 'development' through a church institurion of ordained clerics (Magisterium), similar to Lutheran's Synods, Baptist Councils, Church Elders, AOG Assemblies, or the Independent Baptist Preacher or even some other trained person in X relgion's doctrine or bible exegesis. Of course, they, like the other Christians, allow their congregation to follow what they (hopefully) is a well considered and informed personal conscience.

It's funny how the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religions all believe in the same "Ultimate God", but are so often violently antagonistic towards each other when they try to 'grow in the light of "X" scriptures/Torah/Bible/Koran.

They never let go and let "God" sort it out as most successful alcoholics are able to. .
[/quote]

I was going to give you props till you said it's funny how christian,muslim etc. 1. it isn't funny and to the only serious battle the holy roman catholic church has ever issued where the crusades and that was protecting israel and the planned invasion of europe for the muslims had already advanced on constantinople as far as i'm aware,and plus the holy roman catholic church could have invaded the muslim regions right than and there but we didn't because that was not the purpose of the crusades it was only to defend europe and israel and send the attacker back from wence it came. No pun intended but thanks for saying what you said about opposition creating fabricated half truths based on limited facts to sell them as an assumed truth.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1333635637' post='2413258']
[color=black][size=3]Dei Verbum stated:[/size][/color]
[color=black][size=3]‘Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.[/size][/color]
[color=black][size=3]This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.’[/size][/color]
------------------------
[color=black][size=3]So, do you agree that this ‘tradition of the Apostles’ was developed since there is ‘growth in the understanding….’.? [/size][/color]
[color=black][size=3]or[/size][/color]
[color=black][size=3]Do you agree that this ‘growth and development’ is not apostolic or a part of the teaching of the Apostle?[/size][/color]
[/quote]

Is that an encyclical letter , is this a matter of faith and morals granted to the pope to exercise his rite to infalibilty when the holy spirit desires him too. Also my take on some of what you stated is in this document says the faith that jesus died and resurected in the [u]flesh[/u] is the corner stone of the faith that can not change.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1334575766' post='2418603']
Is that an encyclical letter , is this a matter of faith and morals granted to the pope to exercise his rite to infalibilty when the holy spirit desires him too. Also my take on some of what you stated is in this document says the faith that jesus died and resurected in the [u]flesh[/u] is the corner stone of the faith that can not change.
[/quote] oh encyclical letter and some council jargon is not as far as i'm aware where the pope exercises by the will of the holy spirit to put his foot down and say this is a matter of faith and morals and there is no other way to interpret it. Please correct me if i'm wrong. And i'm not saying the council jargon and encyclical letters are not good, like somone asks me how is the water and i say warm and the questionaire says i was kinda looking for an exact temperature and i say i don't have a themometre sorry, so

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

why did i post on my own letter lol, that wasn't meant to happen. Fear not to correct me in peace. I need to know if i'm wrong.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334399146' post='2417644']
As I have said in my previous post, you are correct in saying if you write a book and another read it. It will remain your book. The reason is because whatever the reader ‘gets’ that is what you ‘mean’ in that book and nothing is lost in transmission. But if the reader did not 'get' what you 'mean', you will say 'I did not mean it in my book' or that is not my book he is holding. (because he is holding a distorted book and therefore not your book anymore).

Thus, I said. It is like - God write a book and other spirits read it - so whatever knowledge he got from that book did not come from God because, the spirits (with small s) did not 'get' what the Spirit of God (with capital S) 'mean'. Now, since to learn something which is not true is the same as ‘learning nothing at all’. It only follows that everything is lost in transmission.

Okay for example: God reveal himself to A and then A said ‘There is only one God’ to B. B will not get what A means by ‘One God’.

Proof is this:

[indent=1]It is written in James 2:19 you believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.[/indent]

In the above verse, it is very clear that even demons believe that there is one God.
My question is this: Is the devil telling the truth or not?
[/quote]

I like this passage of scriture this is true, but i get what your getting at about lost in transition so to speak. But i don't believe scripture has been lost in transistion because the Holy Spirit is the author and granted the grace to remember that which the Holy Spirit desired to be remembered,and if scripture wasn't open to various interpretation and the chatechism states it can be just CC search interprating scripture, i think that God allows this that we may commune and search/seek out his will/truth with each other person to person and with God himself in prayer. For me i have to simplify and it plainly gives us something to look for that we may never go hungry,if it was exact and robotic ie only one definative way to interpret scripture( though i must insist that some scripture is literal and to the point without deviation and even than some of these paticular verses have a spiritual disernenment as well as the truth is a double edged sword not a single bullet gun PAPOW) back to the point if it was robotic and exact we would be robotic without need to seek God in a rainbow of colors(which is his signature) and not so black and white ,what point would there be to living if the whole wedding feast was layed out on a red carpet from day dot,surely we would have no need for a loving God than. And even if everything i have said is off the mark simply we need to deepen in the faith and correct interpretation and mis-interpration allows us this over time till. The faith would be boring otherwise and the magesterium would have to force us like the muslims are forced in saudi arabia and if we are forced how can this be true belief when we are held against our will and told to believe or burn. Anyhow am bailing now coz i ain't got much else to say and will turn into ranting if it has not yet become that on the point i'm trying to communicate.

[reyb]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1334535873' post='2418378']
Acts:
31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

Sounds to me like Divine Information can be passed on, even if one needs grace (supernatural gift of faith) to accept it. Else, what was the point of Philip's preaching?

[/quote]

Is Philip a man like us? Please read that verse carefully.



[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1334535873' post='2418378']

Look, the Church didn't add anything to God's Revelation, any more than you add to my DNA if you map my genome. The Church didn't add--she grew in understanding. And Divine Information can be passed on. All you have proven is that an individual needs grace to accept said Information. You have not proven that it cannot be passed down, or that it cannot be preserved in this passing by God. If you haven't proven such simple assertions by now, you won't. No offense, but I find this discussion tedious and I wish to discontinue it.
[/quote]

I explained these things since the beginning of this post. Your claim is not possible. Divine Revelation cannot be 'handed-down'. Now, if you think you are right then, what can we do? ,Do not blame me or anyone when you see yourself restless. Okay?

[reyb]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1334377049' post='2417575']
If I am understanding you correctly, though--you are seeing this passage of John 5 as a rebuke to those who read the book of Moses and believe it to be true?--I think you may need to read the entire chapter again. [b]Jesus is saying that Moses will rebuke the people for not reading the Scriptures and so ignoring the coming of Chris[/b]t. In other words, if they don't believe Moses, they can't believe Christ, and of they believe Moses they would believe Christ. I see this as a direct contradiction to your statement that truth can't be passed down. Because Jesus is clearly saying they would know the truth of His coming through Moses.

[/quote]

You do not need to answer me but I must correct you. Your analysis is wrong because it is written, they diligently study the scriptures see John 5:39-40. As I have said --it is like God write a book and other spirits read it. These other spirits cannot understand that book because only the Spirit of God can see its message. Thus, even they diligently study the book of Moses they cannot accept the Christ and therefore, they do not believe Moses too since they do not understand him.

[Ice_nine]

again, can someone give me a sparknotes version of whatever the hell it is you guys are talking about?

Where's reyb's thesis? Reyb, what is your religious orientation?

[reyb]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1334876350' post='2420921']
again, can someone give me a sparknotes version of whatever the hell it is you guys are talking about?

Where's reyb's thesis? Reyb, what is your religious orientation?
[/quote]

I will summarize our discussion for you. give me time.