Mary, Mother Of The Lamb(flesh) Of God, Not Mother Of God

[LysanderShapiro]

Well, looking at pictures by Cathloic Artist, I don't believe purgatory to be some "Activity" You make it sound like something you do with kids at Sunday school and from what I have seen and read, Purgatory is a miserable place, so bad that Priest step in to get loved ones out because the family does not want their loved one to be there.

If I made it sound like a Sunday School activity, then it's only because I'm not detailed in explaining it. Purgatory isn't explicit joy -- there is suffering. Not in the way that you would view hell as suffering, which would be far worse, but more of an overwhelming longing. However, there is also a sense of great joy at the same time (I don't know how to even begin explaining the two feelings in one).

If a priest were to step away from the Church because they are afraid that loved ones might go to purgatory, then he is doing everyone a disservice. That would be the equivalent of a Christian stepping away from his faith because it acknowledges the existence of hell, and he wants no one to go there..

...Whether we like these places or not, they exist, and everyone is going to die some day and face judgement. There is nothing relative in regards to what happens when we die, nor is there any negotiating with God.

Now, I don't believe in this place on bit, but what I believe means nothing when someone believes something else is true. It don't matter what we said, It is what people think you said that matters.

Well, yes. It would mean there is a conflict between those who believe in purgatory and those who don't. Hence the discussion.

I will spare you all the scriptures about the blood and being washed white as snow and the sin cast into the sea of forgetfulness and how we are presented without spot or blemish by the work and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Purgatory not mentioned one time to fix things the Blood did not cover.

That's because Purgatory isn't a place to save one's sins, as I already stated. Christ's blood has washed away damnation for those who accept His grace of salvation. This is not what Catholics believe Purgatory is.

Your also misquoting God is a consuming fire.

Deu 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee. For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
(Deu 4:23-24)

That's because fire has been used to illustrate God's power and works different in different books. What I said was that the NT tends to use fire in regards to God's love for us. I recommend reading Hebrews 12:25-29 so that you get the full context, along with 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (emphasis on 1 Corinthians 3:15 though as it expresses the mercy of God through His fire).

There are OT references to this as well; Psalm 66:12, Isaiah 4:4, Ecclesiastes 12:4.

Paul was quoting the OT............ I would not put yourself in God's pile where he has to be a consuming fire. That would mean your in serious trouble. Stay out of there.

That's the whole goal, MichaelH. No one wants to go through purgatory -- it's God's judgement, not mine.

Also don't say God is removing dross in your life. If you study those with dross were counted as witches and destroyed with no remedy. Don't put yourself in that group either.

Don't put myself in what group?

I don't practice sin, that does not mean I don't blow it. I don't have a sin conscience.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Again, you're confusing self-works to something different. That is not purgatory. You have a misunderstanding of what purgatory is and what the scriptures teach.

I would suggest to just do what the Lord says do for the plan for your life, and avoid any concern for this place called purgatory. If you want to believe in such a place then I can't change that. However I can show you lots of scriptures where the Lord is on your side and you are the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Righteousness means just right standing with the Father. Stay in that position and just avoid any Purgatory. Disobedience will cost you everything in this life, so don't wait until the next to fix things in this Purgatory.

MichaelH, why would I even begin to plan on going to purgatory? If I had it my way, I'd do what any sane person would do and go directly to heaven without the purging of my impurities. The goal is to simply do as Jesus says. That's not even in question.

Michael, I don't WANT to believe that Purgatory is real just as I don't want to believe that Hell is real or that people will go there...but it doesn't matter what I want, what matters is what simply is.

Yes, I know God is on my side, and I'm on His side. Purgatory is an extension of God's mercy. It is an allowance for us to become perfected before we come into his presence. How is that not merciful?

I mean no disrespect, MichaelH, and you have free will to believe however you wish, but all I am simply doing is explaining what purgatory is and what purgatory is not. I am not trying to argue with you whether it is real or not -- that would be a different discussion altogether.

 

[MichaelH]

MichaelH - this is one of the many areas in which you err - you have no idea what God has or has not said, or to whom.
This notion that "the Bible is the entire and complete commentary on everything and all that God has ever said"
is pure nonsense. God has spoken to thousands over the years, and what He has told them is every bit as valid as anything in the Bible. You wonder why the Saints can do things that you and other Saint despisers cannot? Because they are actually open to what God has said over the centuries and do not turn up their noses at what things you would not consider "official".
Which is odd since you despise the Church that gave you the Bible in the first place.

God has spoken to me about many things, in fact speaking with my son we were talking about some things God said to us and we followed with great victory.

Despite what the Lord has spoken to me. I have a more sure word of prophecy.

Peter warned about this personal stuff that would over ride the Word. He said we heard God speak on high seen the Miracles but.... We have a more sure word.

That means if I think I hear God but it does not line up with the Written Word then it's not God.

It's this thinking that creates many false religions because someone claimed some angel spoke this or that to them. The scripture is there to keep us out of error.

So, if Peter said that despite what he saw, we have a more sure Word, then I would suggest you pay attention to that and stop with the man made stuff and religious nonsense that has been added.

I can quote Star Trek as that carries just as much authority as any Pope. According to you we can make up anything we like and call it God....................

I also never said anything anywhere about not liking the Catholic Church. It would be my guess I give more to them than you do as I sow to one of their programs. Just because I sow into a program though does not mean I believe in their system, just the program.

 

[MichaelH]

I mean no disrespect, MichaelH, and you have free will to believe however you wish, but all I am simply doing is explaining what purgatory is and what purgatory is not. I am not trying to argue with you whether it is real or not -- that would be a different discussion altogether.

Well, it would seem to me that Jesus bore any punishment. You would not deserve to be thrown into some Purgatory at all. Aside from the lack of scripture about such a place, I believe you will be just fine and not have to think about it if you just do in your heart what is right and not violate your conscience.

blessings.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Well, it would seem to me that Jesus bore any punishment. You would not deserve to be thrown into some Purgatory at all. Aside from the lack of scripture about such a place, I believe you will be just fine and not have to think about it if you just do in your heart what is right and not violate your conscience.

blessings.

Michael,
I already cited a few passages of scriptures regarding Purgatory. There is no lack of this scripture. Any verse read out of context is just a pretext, and that's why it's important to not bypass any scripture and not avoid context.

Christ taking on the punishment of our sins is the gift of grace, that we may enter Heaven because we can't handle it on our own. Purgatory doesn't restrict us from heaven. Again, purgatory prepares us for heaven. It is Christ's sacrifice brought to fruition.

I appreciate that, Michael. I believe I will be fine, too. And it's because of God's grace and mercy that I will be fine. I think we both agree on that.

 

[MichaelH]

Michael,
I already cited a few passages of scriptures regarding Purgatory. There is no lack of this scripture. Any verse read out of context is just a pretext, and that's why it's important to not bypass any scripture and not avoid context.

Christ taking on the punishment of our sins is the gift of grace, that we may enter Heaven because we can't handle it on our own. Purgatory doesn't restrict us from heaven. Again, purgatory prepares us for heaven. It is Christ's sacrifice brought to fruition.

I appreciate that, Michael. I believe I will be fine, too. And it's because of God's grace and mercy that I will be fine. I think we both agree on that.

yes, absolutely. You just keep that commandment of Love as you seem to do well, and do what God said do. I would see no reason to expect to have to visit Purgatory at all. If anything I would believe it be a place where someone did not obey God and did their own thing.

That would mean to completely ignore the plan of God, and build your own works. That would be Work built on hay and stubble and Paul said the mans works would be burnt up but him himself would escape as by fire. Meaning he was not lost, but lost all his reward to come.

If I were to believe in such a place, I would believe it would be hard to end up there unless you just flat out refused to do anything you were made and designed to do. You escape as by fire, your own work burned up.

blessings.

 

[AllieWi]

Can you help me understand this question better. I'm not taking his question, but I'd like to maybe respond too if possible.

My understanding if sanctification is that it is the process by which we become more like Christ. We become more obedient? Idk...

Is this biblical? My church teaches it.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

My understanding if sanctification is that it is the process by which we become more like Christ. We become more obedient? Idk...

Is this biblical? My church teaches it.

Absolutely. Baptism if a great example of sanctification (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, John 3:5). Our aspirations as Christians is to be further sanctified in God's grace -- to be more holy and more like His Son.

 

[John Ryan]

Nobody has failed God with just scripture only. The power of God in my own life never relied on anything but scripture. Not what some denomination added in. We do not add to the Word or subtract from the Word. We do not follow things God never mentioned and there are only 66 books. None of the others were ever quoted or mentioned anywhere else in scripture.

If you believe the Word you do well, now cut off the man made stuff and you will do great.

Do you simply refuse to answer my questions? Nothing in this post remotely answers what I have asked. All you do is repeat your own beliefs over and over again without any sort of justification. We get it! You believe X. And yet, you do not give justifications a, b, c, to why anybody should believe X.

 

[MichaelH]

Do you simply refuse to answer my questions? Nothing in this post remotely answers what I have asked. All you do is repeat your own beliefs over and over again without any sort of justification. We get it! You believe X. And yet, you do not give justifications a, b, c, to why anybody should believe X.

would you repost the question in a simple format.

 

[John Ryan]

would you repost the question in a simple format.

Why should I believe in Sola Scriptura? Why should I believe that the Word of God is equal to the Bible exclusively and does not include the Apostolic tradition, especially given St. Peter's instruction to obey the word-of-mouth traditions handed down to them (2 Thessalonians 2:15)?

 

[Brother Paul]

Well lets see what the fathers had to say...as they were either taught by the Apostles or by those the Apostles instructed personally appointed as the church's first leaders...

Irenaeus of Lyons (160 A.D.) “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Clement of Alexandria (CA. 150 – 215), Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from Scripture themselves.”

Tertullian (CA. 155 – 220)

In refuting a heresy of Docetism (denying doctrine of incarnation), Tertullian writes, “But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” Furthermore, he writes, “If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word.”

Hippolytus (CA. 170 – 236) Against the Heresy of One Noetus

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. . . . Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and the Father will our belief to be, let us believe . . . Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scripture, so let us discern them.”

Basil of Jerusalem "Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

Augustine (354 – 430)

On the Good of Widowhood
“What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise.”

Basil the Great (368 A.D.)

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.


‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)

Gregory of Nyssa (394 A.D)

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Cyril of Jerusalem (450 A.D.)

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

Hmmm? Seems pretty clear that things later claimed to be Tradition if they disagree with or contradict the Scriptures are not required nor to be relied on as correct or true...

brother Paul

 

[John Ryan]

Well lets see what the fathers had to say...as they were either taught by the Apostles or by those the Apostles instructed personally appointed as the church's first leaders...

Irenaeus of Lyons (160 A.D.) “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Clement of Alexandria (CA. 150 – 215), Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from Scripture themselves.”

Tertullian (CA. 155 – 220)

In refuting a heresy of Docetism (denying doctrine of incarnation), Tertullian writes, “But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” Furthermore, he writes, “If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word.”

Hippolytus (CA. 170 – 236) Against the Heresy of One Noetus

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. . . . Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and the Father will our belief to be, let us believe . . . Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scripture, so let us discern them.”

Basil of Jerusalem "Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

Augustine (354 – 430)

On the Good of Widowhood
“What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise.”

Basil the Great (368 A.D.)

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.


‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)

Gregory of Nyssa (394 A.D)

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Cyril of Jerusalem (450 A.D.)

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

Hmmm? Seems pretty clear that things later claimed to be Tradition if they disagree with or contradict the Scriptures are not required nor to be relied on as correct or true...

brother Paul

Are you so foolish that you mistake abstracted, one-sided understanding for the Truth? You are like the Althusserian Marxists who take a few cut-out passages from Marx's writings and pretend that he had abandoned his humanism. Protestants continually misread the Church Fathers and only take snippets that support their own views, and ignore the full theology present in their writings.

St. Irenaeus (189A.D.)
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?"

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

Clement of Alexandria (208A.D.)
"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition".

St. Augustine
"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

The problem with you Brother Paul is that you think that the Church Fathers exalting Scripture is a necessary condemnation of the Apostolic Tradition. You think that the moment a Church Father says that the Scriptures are necessary for forming doctrine and right theology that that means they are supportive of Sola Scriptura. No matter the lies vulgar Protestants (and I say this because there are many Protestants I admire, Miroslav Volf comes to mind) spit off their venomous tongues, Roman Catholics have an utmost respect for Sacred Scripture. You are locked into a Protestant, 16th century mode of thinking. I hate to break it to you, but the Church Fathers were not Protestant and they did not live in the 16th century. You have this prejudice that it is either Sacred Scripture alone or Sacred Tradition alone, but the Roman Catholic faith and the Church Fathers believed that it was both/and not either/or.

 

[Tressa]

Are you so foolish that you mistake abstracted, one-sided understanding for the Truth? You are like the Althusserian Marxists who take a few cut-out passages from Marx's writings and pretend that he had abandoned his humanism. Protestants continually misread the Church Fathers and only take snippets that support their own views, and ignore the full theology present in their writings.

St. Irenaeus (189A.D.)
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?"

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

Clement of Alexandria (208A.D.)
"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition".

St. Augustine
"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

The problem with you Brother Paul is that you think that the Church Fathers exalting Scripture is a necessary condemnation of the Apostolic Tradition. You think that the moment a Church Father says that the Scriptures are necessary for forming doctrine and right theology that that means they are supportive of Sola Scriptura. No matter the lies vulgar Protestants (and I say this because there are many Protestants I admire, Miroslav Volf comes to mind) spit off their venomous tongues, Roman Catholics have an utmost respect for Sacred Scripture. You are locked into a Protestant, 16th century mode of thinking. I hate to break it to you, but the Church Fathers were not Protestant and they did not live in the 16th century. You have this prejudice that it is either Sacred Scripture alone or Sacred Tradition alone, but the Roman Catholic faith and the Church Fathers believed that it was both/and not either/or.

You have a passion for what you believe is right - and you communicate that. That is admirable.

But have you not, just as Brother Paul has done, posted only snippets that support your view?

Error comes from both sides here - the vile tongue can be found in the mouths of Catholics and Protestants. Over the centuries both groups have misunderstood the Word of God in various ways and introduced serious errors into the world. But vehemence towards a group is neither productive or right. And it misses the important part - the errors that are in conflict with the Truth.

The Body is not about us and them. In the early church there was neither Catholic nor Protestant. It was the Body - the body of Christ (Romans 12:3-5, 1 Corinthians 10:31-33).

As for what is Truth we have one, end all answer. "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life..." Done.

 

[Tressa]

And as for Scripture and traditions of men...

Israel's religious leaders had traditions along with the written Scriptures...

Mark 7:1-13. "
7 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they [a]carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they [b]cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the [c]washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them,“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to [d]be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father orhis mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, [e]given to God),’12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Christ makes a distinction between the Word of God and tradition. And tradition doesn't get upheld here....it is actually an enemy of Truth. Those with tradition missed the point. They even got the point where they put more effort into keeping tradition at the expense of Scripture. Tradition, passed down by men, is not reliable.

And one does not need tradition to know Truth. For it is the Spirit that teaches. The Spirit that was there at the beginning and got things rolling is the same Spirit that is with us and in us today! "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will be your teacher in all things and will put you in mind of everything I have said to you." Clearly Christ meant for us to rely on the Spirit. He made no mention of tradition there either. By the Spirit, says the Lord. And in this new life we who are saved and filled are led by the Spirit....we live this new life BY the Spirit (Galatians 5:25) and again no mention of tradition. Spirit, Spirit, Spirit.

 

[ixoye_8]

“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition

there is nothing wrong with traditions as long as you have love ..

 

[LysanderShapiro]

The early Church father, when speaking of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, always acknowledge the material sufficiency of Scripture with the need for Tradition. There is a difference between the formal sufficiency of Scripture and the material sufficiency of Scripture. Protestants believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture -- the belief that all Christian truths are explicitly stated in the Bible, and Tradition and a Magisterium are not needed to interpret its plain meaning. Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture -- that all Christian truths are found in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, but require the aid of Tradition and the Magisterium to be understood properly.

I wish I remembered the name of the Protestant author, but he wrote on the early Church fathers and how they supposedly supported Sola Scriptura. However, about 4 Catholic authors wrote in response -- those authors are Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Peter Kreeft, and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa.

Ryan is right -- one could indeed take what they've written to support an agenda. However, they've said much more than these lines:

Irenaeus wrote "But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser...When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition"

This was written in his same book, 'Against Heresies,' that Brother Paul very eloquently mentioned.

The Church fathers absolutely LOVED the scriptures -- they read the scriptures, quoted the scriptures, and demanded the scriptures are given their due respects. But they never justified the scriptures alone as sole authority.

St. Augustine was pretty hard on those slipping from Church authority because of his concerns with heresies. He wrote "Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities [the pagan greek philosophers] as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable."
Their positions, most of them, were as bishops and priests, and wrote about the Church as Apostolic. Some of these Church fathers were even existing at the same times as Paul, like Polycarp and Ignatius.

One should be careful in reading Church history as well, because if history can be changed, so can scriptures -- and that's what has lead to more than 30,000 different denominations.

 

[ixoye_8]

Over the centuries both groups have misunderstood the Word of God in various ways and introduced serious errors into the world. .

I have not met a person ever, who has not misunderstood the Word of God at sometime or another, and almost EVERY person still in some place or another .. and Some in MANY places ..
there is NO WAY a person can understand ALL God's Word without guidance from the HS .. and even, then He teaches it over time ..
only altering the Gospel of Salvation is serious .. which is to teach to love God with your ALL and neighbor as self .. Salvaion is of the Lord .. and the Lord is Love, and enduring to the end in that love ..

so those who are accusers of the brethren are demonstrating A DIFFERENT GOSPEL .. if a person has love, they do not attack or denigrate, they with kindness try to shore up build up their Catholic or Protestant brother ..

the hardest part is to get such a one to stop doing this when they refuse to correct themselves from abandoning the Love of Christ ..

 

[ixoye_8]

Why should I believe in Sola Scriptura? Why should I believe that the Word of God is equal to the Bible exclusively and does not include the Apostolic tradition, especially given St. Peter's instruction to obey the word-of-mouth traditions handed down to them (2 Thessalonians 2:15)?

we learn by word and deed ..
we also teach by word and deed ..
if someone says to love, but does not, do they not send out a mixed signal ???
this was Jesus complaint to the Pharisees ..

always keep the foremost tradition handed down by Christ and the Apostles, because without it, as Paul says, YOU ARE NOTHING ..

and as James said. "do not be just hearers of the word whom delude themselves" ..
the simple truth is this .. if you do not live the love of Christ, then you do not believe it ..

 

[Brother Paul]

Brother John Ryan,

You said "You are like the Althusserian Marxists who take a few cut-out passages from Marx's writings and pretend that he had abandoned his humanism."

Well thanks for the insult John, it lets me know I must be doing something right. You err not knowing me apparently and not having read my posts elsewhere. So to begin with in relation to the OP please note I support the phrase mother of God as being appropriate (though keep the m small m).

So first let me point out (see your post 172) the alleged Letter to Januarius is considered by most to be quite spurious. We have no such extant letter and it appears only this section you quote is quoted over and over and only by Roman Catholics to support their position. It is well known that at some point after Augustine some did this for example creating longer versions of Ignatius letters, the pseudo-Clementine writings, etc….now because by consensus the leaders of that tradition accepted these as “Tradition” and used them as alleged support for their positions unusual to the rest of Christendom does not make these truth.

Please give your source for your Irenaeus and Clement quote…

Now to address the discussion aspect…I have NO PROBLEM with these (except for Januarius)…they speak of the tradition handed down from the Apostles and the basis upon which they demonstrated and proved that tradition was clearly by measuring it against the scriptures they had been handed down. In my fervent study of the fathers scriptural quotes we see all the accepted New Testament we now enjoy with the exception of five books they pretty much all agreed may be spurious (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and James) and this was considered because as we later learned not all churches in the beginning of the churches had received these (only some).

I find in fact that they confirming and supporting all their doctrines on the scriptures, to the chagrin of most protestants, the interpretation passed on in many cases agrees much more with the early Roman Catholic/Orthodox position than with the post-1500 A.D. protestant position. For example whether by transubstantiation or consubstantiation or by mysteries not able to be understood, the bread and the wine IS the body and blood of Christ and those who eat unworthily (which speaks to the eating not the eater) are those who do not discern the body of the Lord in the breaking of the bread…

So having said that, there is a difference between what you site Irenaeus and Clement calling traditions and what many RCCs and Orthodox today call “Tradition” and in that I default back to the earliest fathers and see they never mention some of these things, neither are they supported or confirmed in the TRUTH (the word of God) they received from the Apostles themselves.

So I am not here simply “quote-mining” but pointing out (with sources) that this is indeed what they received (as their tradition), believed (in fullness of faith), and imparted as the rule of thumb for all generations. Scripture is not to be put on a secondary rung with man-made traditions (though one is free to believe them so long as they do not contradict what Jesus and the Apostles actually said and taught).

In His love

Your brother Paul

 

[Brother Paul]

Brother John Ryan,

Then you say "The problem with you Brother Paul is that you think that the Church Fathers exalting Scripture is a necessary condemnation of the Apostolic Tradition. You think that the moment a Church Father says that the Scriptures are necessary for forming doctrine and right theology that that means they are supportive of Sola Scriptura."


I said no such thing! Not the first false accusation nor the second, I merely pointed out the reality (explained further above). If insult after insult is the way you think you prove a point or even make one you should re-think what you think supports your position. Just to clarify, I know loving saved Spirit filled Christians in different denominations (some RCC) who cannot even read a newspaper.

So again I say based on the teachings of the early church fathers "things later claimed to be Tradition if they disagree with or contradict the Scriptures are not required nor to be relied on as correct or true..." and this does not mean YOU are not free to follow these if you will but only that they are not binding and should not be the cause of division or accusations of heresy.


In His love


Your brother Paul[/quote]