Oral Tradition

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
You cant quote one early church "father" who interprets Matt 16:18 the way the Roman Catholic Church interprets it today, unless it is taken out of context.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 59 (55), 14, [A.D. 256]

 

Hi Ps104_33,

What do you suppose Jerome, the great Biblical scholar/translator, meant when he wrote to Pope Damasus in 375 A.D.:

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain' and the garden inclosed,' I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.' Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,' ye are the salt of the earth,' ye are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist." (Epistle 15:1-2)

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

Hi Ps104_33,

Would you kindly answer my original question concerning Jerome? Thank you.

When you quoted Cyprian, was this Cyprian of Carthage?

This bishop wrote ca. 250 A.D.:

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." (The Unity of the Church 4-5)

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

Hi Ps104_33,

Do you know much about Origen?

He is notable for his instruction and method of allegorical exegesis at the Eastern School of Alexandria. His interpretation of Scripture was extremely spiritual and was heavily criticized and rejected by the catechetical school of Antioch. Many of the Church's Doctors (e.g. Augustine & Bonaventure) take a balanced view between the two school's methods of interpretation.

Also, you should account for Origen's interpretation in his Commentary on John:

"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..." Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (ca. A.D. 232)

Origen did not believe in Original Sin, did not believe in hell, and believed that the human soul of Christ (as well as all other souls) are pre-existent - that the human soul of Christ mediates between the Logos and the human body of Jesus.. and that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father - following the Platonic great chain of being.

You should read the Fathers and Church history for yourself; it's an interesting journey.

God bless,

Carson Weber

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Ps104_33,

The entire Old Testament refers to God as the Rock. Peter literally means Rock. The NT refers to Christ as Rock. We should avoid mixing metaphors.

You seem to want to avoid a dialogue and engage in more of a closed battle, so I'll concede.

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

Ps,
You're beating the air. There is much proof that the early Catholic-Christians believed in the primacy of Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome.

You give one quote of Cyprian and ignore all that he wrote in support of that primacy.

There are many verses in the NT showing that Peter was the earthly leader, under Christ, of the Church. And there is much documentation from the time of the apostles on starting with Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and on.

You cannot win on this subject because the evidence is against your stand on it.

Pauline

 

Hi Ps104_33

I have one final comment for you.

Formal sufficiency of Scripture is a logical absurdity as the very existence of what we regard as New Testament Scripture is preceeded by the Christian communion of believers (ecclesia).

God bless,

Carson

 

This thread will be closed at 7:30 in the morning. Please post any last thoughts before then.

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator

 

T2U,
Regarding the first two commandments here are some of the quotes that you gave out of your catechism. I did not repeat the entire quote due to space, and it is readily available in the post above.
“"The first commandment condemns polytheism.”
The rest of this quote implies that the only thing talked of in these verses is polytheism, which of course is not true. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness thereof. Thou shalt not bow down to them. The catechism refers to this as polytheism (and so be it if that is what God is calling the practice of the Catholic Church). But in so doing they are referring it to the practice of the pagans. They refuse to apply that which is written in these verses to themselves. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE. THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN TO THEM. Don’t explain it away as the polytheism of another religion; it is the polytheism of your own religion. Don’t explain it away as the idolatry of another religion; it is the idolatry of your own religion.

”Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.”
It is put quite well here isn’t it. “Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God.” That is what you do. You bow down in front of a graven image which God commanded you not to. That is idolatry, whether or not you believe that creature (image, statue) is taking the place of God is irrelevant. God says it is. You shall bow down to him only. Just like Mordecai would. He would only bow down to Jehovah, the Lord God Almighty.
“Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who 'transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God.'"”

Why complicate the first two commandments? Simply don’t make a graven image, and don’t bow down before it. It is that simple. God did not make these Ten Commandments complicated. Why do you try to complicate them, and pervert them? Just obey them! It is much simpler that way. The first part of this quote is right. “Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense.” And you have done that with your idolatry. Instead of worshipping the one true God, you have bowed down before other idols. With that comes the second part of the quote. Behind every idol is a demon. You find yourself praying to that idol/statue and transferring your worship (your notion of God) to that idol (anything other than God). The Catholic Church condemns itself.

”In short, idolatry is belief in or the worship of other than the one true God. As it relates to the crucifix,statues, et al. (and I know that you have heard this before) Catholic do not worship or bow down to the objects. We worship and bow down to the one true God. The objects serve merely to bring God to our mind.”
Now you have borne false witness, or shall we say that you have just come straight out and lied. “Catholics do not worship OR bow down to the objects.” It has been the testimony of many Catholics, even on this board, that they bow down to various statues, and other objects of adoration. Why do you lie about this? As for worship, the act of bowing down TO A RELIGIOUS FIGURE OR ICON, (a graven image) is an act of worship.

You say that in Esther 3:1-5, “Mordecai refused to bow to Haman in order not to render to man the homage which belongs to God alone. Now why would bowing to Haman be making such homage? Because Haman was entitled "father of the king", which was a claim to diety.”
---Haman was not entitled “father of the king.” Please give chapter and verse, or any evidence at all for this assertion. The name “Haman” was of Persian origin. It meant magnificent, but that name was given at his birth and meant nothing to the king. Haman himself was of Agag, of the Amalekites. He found favor in the sight of the king. The king chose him to be one of his princes, and in this case, he became the vizier or prime minister of the land. His status was high, but there was no claim to deity attached to this man. They bowed down in simple reverence to him. It was the honor of the position that demanded that they bow down, just like one would salute the President of the states, if he was working at the White House. It was gesture of respect that Mordecai would have nothing to do with. He would bow down to no one but Jehovah, the one and true God of Heaven above. This is what angered Haman. THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN TO THEM.

”I nor any Catholic that I know worships any man, not even the Pope.”
---But I and most Baptists and protestants know that you do. If you bow down before the pope and you kiss his feet, you perform an act of adoration and worship. You have transgressed the first two commandments of God. You have not convinced me of anything, other than your refusal to accept what the Scripture says.

DHK

 

DHK: Catholic are forbidden to worship anything or anyone but God. To do so is a mortal sin. We know this. We honor all the angel and saints and we ask for those in heaven to pray for us to God. But, we worship only God. We worship Him and pray together at Mass:

“Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship You, we give You thanks, we praise You for Your glory.

Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, You take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.

For You alone are the Holy One, Your alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.”

“Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.”

“Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sings of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.”

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

Catholics know what we mean when we pray these words together. We are praying and worshipping together as the body of Christ. We are on our knees adoring and worshipping God alone. Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord and our God.

God Bless

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Disciple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
T2U,
Regarding the...

... your refusal to accept what the Scripture says.

DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clang goes the cymbal.

DHK, you insist that I must accept your definitions. I do not.

When I enter the Church and bow, I do not bow in worship of a statue or image. I bow before God.

I was at the Baptist church last night, as I often am on Wednesday nights. The kids play a pick up game of soccer in the church while the adults are still eating downstairs. They crawl under the pews and play keep-away. They hide behind the plants and jump and wrestle on the sanctuary.

They do not seem to feel God's presence in their church. Perhaps it is the same for you. If so, that would explain a lot.

When I enter a Catholic Church, I know that God is present there. I assume an attitude of humility and respect before Him. If you choose to assume that I do so becase there is an image also present, by all means do.

I believe that it was you that admonished Pauline that God will judge not by the heart. That it is necessary to obey the commandments. In that case, will your defense of bearing witness as best as you know the truth be a defense at all if your words are not true?

I shake the dust off my feet.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

DHK,
You did yourself in when you say that we transfer our notion of God. That is intention. And we know we don't do that. You just shot your own assertion in the foot.
Pauline.