Sacred Tradition

[kafka]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1341783' date='Jul 26 2007, 09:00 PM']Conte needs a doctor to tend to his mental health. Believe anything you wish. But please don't label Conte's writings "Catholic."[/quote]

Since you seem to know so much about mental health, maybe you could be his doctor

[kafka]

btw Ron Conte is my friend and I gave that article privately to revb. Maybe this should get locked moderators before it gets ugly. My above post was out of loyalty to him.

Edited July 27, 2007 by kafka

[reyb]

[indent]Due to seriousness of our topic ‘Sacred Tradition’ it is likely for Katholikos to become cautious to whatever source of document we will use as reference. On the other hand, God alone has the sole authority on everything from where it seems the argument of Kafka is heading in respect to Mr. Conde as a theologian. Both are correct. There is only a misunderstanding. Forget it and let us study the Sacred Tradition.

Kafka, since Mr. Conde is your friend, why not invites him to participate in our discussion. If he is really good as you said he is, then his inputs and arguments may lead us to our objective in relation of our topic.

Everyone has an insight in one way or another. Therefore everyone is welcome to be heard. In the spirit of brotherhood, let us know the truth of the Sacred Tradition.[/indent]

[abercius24]

I think the topic at hand is what Sacred Tradition is; maybe we can argue Mr. Conde's academic credentials somewhere else.

Sacred Tradition can in fact be oral. Most "tradition" in any cultural and anthropological sense is oral. The Oral Tradition of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through the lives of the faithful with direction by the Magesterium of the Church. You'll find that masturbation has rarely been discussed by the Magesterium over the Church's history, but the faithful have always understood it to be a grave sin. The Catechism even recognizes that the faithful are the source from which the Holy Spirit has preserved this Tradition.

As far as the Church Fathers are concerned, Sacred Tradition can be found in what the majority of the Church Fathers teach in common when those topics apply to faith and morals. Better yet, though, Sacred Tradition is simply what the Church has always taught regarding faith and morals from the beginning to the present, whatever form it may have been preserved in.

To hopefully sum up Mr. Conde's place in this discussion, he is in fact off base. He says Sacred Tradition is not infallible, but he is quite wrong. The only thing that separates "church tradition" from "Sacred Tradition" is the divine source from which Sacred Tradition comes and is preserved by. Everything taught by Christ and the Apostles regarding faith and morals is infallible. The elements of those teachings that have not been written into Sacred Scripture are Sacred Tradition. You'll find many of the Popes refusing to invoke extraordinary infallible declarations because the teachings of the Church already infallibly declare those teachings through Sacred Tradition. John Paul II did this very same thing when he issued his statement on women in the priesthood. He declared that the teaching was already infallibly stated through ordinary means by virtue of Sacred Tradition and the continuous teachings of the Church in union with the Magesterium. "Church tradition" (lower case 't') on the otherhand, is everything else we've taught in various uncollected circles that are not sourced from the Apostles and Christ, or may not have anything to do with faith and morals. The teachings on Limbo, for instance, are "church tradition" and by no means of "Sacred Tradition." This type of tradition is not infallible, nor in many cases should it be. It is this distinction that Mr. Conde does not recognize, which confuses our ability to otherwise identify the ordinary, infallible teachings of the Church. I hope we can deal with Mr. Conde on this level, though, and stop hanging his dirty laundry out for everyone else to see (remember, these posts are on the internet for EVERYONE to read, not just us Catholics). Please.

Steve S. -- abercius24
CatholicQandA.com Edited July 28, 2007 by abercius24

[goldenchild17]

His timeline looks fairly decent, a lot in that I wouldn't disagree with, though not sure of the exact dates for each. Though some errors I can definitely see.

[reyb]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1343118' date='Jul 28 2007, 03:35 PM']Steve S. -- abercius24
CatholicQandA.com[/quote]
[indent]Thank you abercius24. I just visit your site - [url="http://www.CatholicQandA.com"]http://www.CatholicQandA.com[/url] - that brings me to [url="http://www.amen.co.nr"]http://www.amen.co.nr[/url]. And I see......

The Authority Debate:

[indent]The Bible is sufficient to give us knowledge that understanding, which is necessary for us to come to Christ and to put out faith to him
Robert Hudson (Protestant, Western Theological Seminary)[/indent]

[indent]I believe that doctrine of ’sola scriptura’, that the bible alone is our only authority, is itself unscriptural.
Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic Church)[/indent]

Is there really an apostolic teaching which is not in writing?

If Sacred Tradition is indeed from the mouth of the Apostles and Jesus Christ down to our generation thru oral transmission carried by apostolic succession and we fail to listen to it. Then, anybody who finds himself against it is dead. But, it is found to be false – million and millions of souls are already lost because of simple word ‘negligence’.[/indent]

Edited July 29, 2007 by reyb

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1343414' date='Jul 29 2007, 03:22 AM'][indent]Thank you abercius24. I just visit your site - [url="http://www.CatholicQandA.com"]http://www.CatholicQandA.com[/url] - that brings me to [url="http://www.amen.co.nr"]http://www.amen.co.nr[/url]. And I see......

The Authority Debate:

[indent]The Bible is sufficient to give us knowledge that understanding, which is necessary for us to come to Christ and to put out faith to him
Robert Hudson (Protestant, Western Theological Seminary)[/indent]

[indent]I believe that doctrine of ’sola scriptura’, that the bible alone is our only authority, is itself unscriptural.
Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic Church)[/indent]

Is there really an apostolic teaching which is not in writing?

If Sacred Tradition is indeed from the mouth of the Apostles and Jesus Christ down to our generation thru oral transmission carried by apostolic succession and we fail to listen to it. Then, anybody who finds himself against it is dead. But, it is found to be false – million and millions of souls are already lost because of simple word ‘negligence’.[/indent][/quote]

The Holy Spirit is quite capable of overcoming such issues. Even without the help of the Holy Spirit, anthropologists have found oral tradition to be almost as reliable as the written word.

I'm a little confused, though, by your words in the previous post. Are you attempting to make a case for Sola Scriptura and against Sacred Tradition, or are you against Sola Scriptura? I'm not quite understanding what you are saying.

Edited July 29, 2007 by abercius24

[reyb]

[indent]I will not be the judge. I will let them (participants) to decide about the issue. The way I look at it, Protestants are actually adapting the very essence of Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church because; they themselves are accepting the holiness of the Trinity. There is something wrong in it. They do not accept the apostolic succession but they accept the Trinity, where in fact the Trinity comes from these ‘apostles’ of the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I do not take side to the Roman Catholic Church or to any Protestants, even to ‘Oneness’ Protestants. [/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='reyb' post='1343414' date='Jul 29 2007, 03:22 AM'][indent]Thank you abercius24. I just visit your site - [url="http://www.CatholicQandA.com"]http://www.CatholicQandA.com[/url] - that brings me to [url="http://www.amen.co.nr"]http://www.amen.co.nr[/url]. And I see......

The Authority Debate:

[indent]The Bible is sufficient to give us knowledge that understanding, which is necessary for us to come to Christ and to put out faith to him
Robert Hudson (Protestant, Western Theological Seminary)[/indent]

[indent]I believe that doctrine of ’sola scriptura’, that the bible alone is our only authority, is itself unscriptural.
Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic Church)[/indent]

Is there really an apostolic teaching which is not in writing?

If Sacred Tradition is indeed from the mouth of the Apostles and Jesus Christ down to our generation thru oral transmission carried by apostolic succession and we fail to listen to it. Then, anybody who finds himself against it is dead. [color="#FF0000"][b]But, it is found to be false – million and millions of souls are already lost because of simple word ‘negligence’[/b][/color].[/indent][/quote]

[size=3]correction on my previous post [/size]

[indent]But, [b][color="#FF0000"]IF[/color][/b] it is found to be false – million and millions of souls are already lost because of simple word ‘negligence’[/indent]

Edited July 29, 2007 by reyb

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1341803' date='Jul 26 2007, 08:28 PM']The future looks exciting. [/quote]
Yeah, it usually is with self-styled "prophets." There's really not much of a market for boring prophecies.

[quote name='kafka' post='1341390' date='Jul 26 2007, 11:23 AM']Katholikos,

I dont see your case. You quoted the above out of context. He wrote a book and many articles on Eschatology. One would have to make a study of all his works in order to understand the above dates/conclusions. I dont see you quoting the above as any sort of valid argument for a debate.

Still at the same token his writing is speculative.[/quote]
I went to that website. It's there for all to see - nothing out of context. He gives an extremely detailed and often bizarre "history" of the future from the present until the return of Christ (in the year AD 2437, to be exact).
Of course, we have a much shorter time to wait until the conversion of President Hillary Clinton to the pro-life cause (2009) and the beginning of WWIII when "the Arabs" bomb NYC in 2010!

[url="http://catholicplanet.com/future/Christ-Returns-2437.htm"]The Return of Jesus Christ in A.D. 2437 [/url]
Get the full scoop here!

Wonder if Mr. Conte has Balls of Redemption?

Edited July 31, 2007 by Socrates

[Paddington]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1344795' date='Jul 30 2007, 11:59 PM']Wonder if Mr. Conte has Balls of Redemption?[/quote]

He definitely has balls.

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1343425' date='Jul 29 2007, 06:36 AM'][indent]I will not be the judge. I will let them (participants) to decide about the issue. The way I look at it, Protestants are actually adapting the very essence of Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church because; they themselves are accepting the holiness of the Trinity. There is something wrong in it. They do not accept the apostolic succession but they accept the Trinity, where in fact the Trinity comes from these ‘apostles’ of the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I do not take side to the Roman Catholic Church or to any Protestants, even to ‘Oneness’ Protestants. [/indent][/quote]

The most prominent element of our Catholic Sacred Tradition --one our Protestant brethren have kept but can be found nowhere in the Bible -- is our teachings on monogamy for lay members. The Bible only says a Bishop or a Deacon must have no more than 1 wife (1 Timothy 3). It says nothing of the requirements of laymen. It is the Church's constant teaching and history that gives testimony to Monogamy as being a Teaching of Christ and the Apostles. As we know, Hebrew men were allowed to have more than one wife. If anything, the Bible alone would teach us that polygamy is acceptable. Martin Luther himself knew of this discrepency and subsequently allowed his First Lieutenant to marry twice as a result of it. Monogamous Christians must turn to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church to find moral certainty in this doctrine.

[kafka]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1344802' date='Jul 30 2007, 09:43 PM']He definitely has balls. [/quote]

he's twice the man we are

[reyb]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1345042' date='Jul 31 2007, 01:16 AM']The most prominent element of our Catholic Sacred Tradition --one our Protestant brethren have kept but can be found nowhere in the Bible -- is our teachings on monogamy for lay members. The Bible only says a Bishop or a Deacon must have no more than 1 wife (1 Timothy 3). It says nothing of the requirements of laymen. It is the Church's constant teaching and history that gives testimony to Monogamy as being a Teaching of Christ and the Apostles. As we know, Hebrew men were allowed to have more than one wife. If anything, the Bible alone would teach us that polygamy is acceptable. Martin Luther himself knew of this discrepency and subsequently allowed his First Lieutenant to marry twice as a result of it. Monogamous Christians must turn to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church to find moral certainty in this doctrine.[/quote]
[indent]King David and King Solomon are known as Polygamous Prophet of God while, Apostle Paul lived with a celibate life after he knew Jesus Christ.

We know that in the history of man the standard of morality differs from one generation to another and in different religion (as in the case of Islam and Christianity). These moral gauges comes from the generally accepted belief regarding what is right or wrong in the eyes of their God and it depends how long such generally accepted religion will exist. And they know the ‘truth’, which is the ‘tree’ that gives them knowledge of what is right and wrong based on their own interpretation to whatever sacred scripture they possessed.

Now, we know that in Christianity especially Roman Catholic Church, lay people are not allowed to marry twice except if their spouse is already dead. On the other hand, Priests and Nuns are commanded to have a celibate life. (All of these teachings are scriptural doctrines though I may say according to their own ‘interpretation’ to the scripture).

The question is - can this ‘morality issue’ guarantees salvation?

We know that the commandment of God was given to all of us – to all generation of the entire humanity. Why then a polygamous person will go to hell only in our generation? How about King David and King Solomon and the rest of holy prophets of the ancient world? I do not hear that David and Solomon are now in hell because they are immoral persons in eyes of God when Priest, Pastors and Minister preached about Polygamy as if they are always exempted from the morality issue.

I am not saying that Martin Luther is right in allowing his First Lieutenant to marry twice. (I do not know about this and I am just relying on what you said). Although I said, morality does not guarantee salvation but, violating any moral is a sign that he is not a ‘too honest’ disciple of Jesus – fall short of being a true disciple because as Apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 6:3-10.

[color="#FF0000"][indent]3 We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. 4 Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; 5 in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; 6 in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; 7 in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; 8 through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; 9 known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; 10 sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.
NIV[/indent][/color]


Many preachers forget the true meaning of Matt 23:25-26.[/indent]

Edited August 1, 2007 by reyb

[reyb]

[indent]Is there really an oral apostolic teaching which they failed to put in writing? Or ‘Is there really an oral apostolic teaching which is not in the scripture?

Maybe ‘failed ‘is a harsh and unacceptable word but, whatever statement we used - whether they missed, could not, neglected, forgot, and worst if they intentionally keep it as a secret to the next and following generations since they hold themselves to put it in writing and gave it to few selected people thru oral tradition – it will remain, Roman Catholic’s Sacred Tradition are apostolic teachings in an unwritten form.

Deep in my heart, I cannot believe it for they know too well that their teaching will be for the good of the entire humanity even after their earthly life in response to their obligation. Why then they will ever do it? Are apostles not fair to all of us? Am I now a stubborn slave because I learn to question the early church father’s apostolic tradition in abiding to their (Apostles) advice ‘[color="#FF0000"]do not go beyond what is written’[/color] and ‘[color="#FF0000"]do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God’?[/color]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter Two, Article 2, paragraph 82 states;

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

But, why Paul seems not agreeing with it?
What I am saying is this. It is written in 1 Cor 4:6-7

[color="#FF0000"]6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?[/color]

Take note, Paul says ‘[color="#FF0000"]Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else[/color]? Is it not the Sacred Tradition the pride of Roman Catholic Church against any other churches or believer?

For the sake of argument, let us assume that apostolic succession is binding and true, meaning bishops and priest truly succeeded the Apostles. Paul said further, ‘[color="#FF0000"]What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?[/color]’ Obviously, Paul put himself as if he is with the same level as that of Apollos (in treating other believer while he is doing his obligation) though Apollos lacks the blessing of the Holy Spirit. And we know that the Holy Spirit is the seal of True discipleship.

Now, do the Catholics put themselves as if they are with the same level as that of other Protestants in matters of faith? In same manner, do the Protestants put themselves as if they are with the same level as that of the Catholics? Do the Roman Catholic Church and all Protestants treated one another as if they have the same level in matter of authority? Therefore, nobody seems to listen to Apostle Paul.

Nevertheless, I am always open to know the truth. Let us study the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and to all Protestant please learn to listen to the Catholics. If you will allow me, I will start in Dei Verbum. [/indent]