Oral Tradition

Welcome back, Disciple -- you have been missed.

Constantine was never pope. The line of the popes is available on-line at newadvent.org. And at any public library. We'll have to look into why newadvent shows it as "Pope Constantine." Furthermore, an act such as kissing the feet has absolutely nothing to do with Sacred Tradition.

Pauline

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

 

Ps,
Please give the sources you are quoting from and where you found them. Thanks. I need to read both of those comments in context before saying anything on them.
Pauline

 

Hi, Pauline: Thank you. The article in New Advent is referring not to Emporer Constantine, but to Pope Constantine who was Pope from 708–715. Maybe this is why some Protestants think Emporer Constantine was Pope, since there was was a Pope Constantine about 400 years later.

God Bless

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


These are not my shortcomings T2U. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was referring to your obstinate and erroneous insistence that veneration = worship.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Pauline,


Do you see a difference here? It seems even among catholics there is disagreement regarding what is and what and is not the Word of God. Until there is some consesus among catholics concerning the meaning of "tradition" one must not go around saying that sola scriptura is insufficient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the offical teaching of the Magisterium that defines truth for faithful Catholics, not what an individual Catholic thinks or says, apologist or not.

 

Ps,
Thank you for your sources. Now I have a dilemma, how to read them in time to post on here. It looks impossible. Fr. Straninkas' quote is clear. I think I know what Cardinal Ratzinger was getting at but would have to read it in context. I do not think there is any contradiction in what they are saying.


But anyway, here is the official Church teaching on it.

The Catechism says, " Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the age.'" #80

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." #85.

So you see, the Catholic Church does officially see both Tradition and Scripture as making up the word of God.

Pauline

 

I don't see the contradiction in the two statements either. They are consistent with my understanding of what the church teaches.

God Bless

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

I was referring to your obstinate and erroneous insistence that veneration = worship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is more of the context of the quote which you apparently did not bother to read:

"Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one."

"UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF...THE CEREMMONIAL KING-WORSHIP... THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF VENERATION CAME TO PREVAIL AT AN EARLY DATE."
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines veneration as worship.
This ceremmonial king worship is defined as or referred to as a type of veneration.
veneration = worship.
It is on the Catholic Encyclopedia website. Their words, not mine.
DHK

 

Disciple,
"Sacred Tradition is the teachings inherited by the Church which were transmitted by Christ and His Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. This includes the whole body of faith of the fathers, the preaching, liturgy, the teachings, etc. The Church fathers themselves in their writings refer to this."
"Do Baptists honor your clergy with any marks of respect? Scripture says to honor even the king, and all lawful authority comes from God."
"Baptists I know have traditions. I have been to a Baptist wedding and saw quite a bit of tradition. Rings, vows, rice, wedding gowns, tuxedos, etc. Catholics have traditions also that are not Sacred Traditions and can be changed."

---First you define sacred tradition as "teachings inherited by the Church which were transmitted by Christ and His Apostles." If this is true then you would find some evidence that Christ or the Apostles either taught or practiced kissing the feet of another person, wherein the actual facts point to the exact opposite. Peter rebukes Cornelius for even bowing down in front of him. No such act can be found in Scripture.
---Secondly you refer to Baptist "tradition." Wearing wedding dresses, tuxedos, giving a ring, etc.? What are we talking about here? Baptists never claimed any of this to be Scriptural. We do not say it is sacred tradition. We do not trace it back to the apostles. We do not make such claims. What are you talking about here? Are you insinuating that the practice of wearing a wedding gown is on the same level as a papal decree of kissing the pope's feet, or the pope's ring, or any other papal decree: whether it be concerning the immaculate conception of Mary, the annunciation, purgatory, praying the rosary, etc. etc. Wearing a wedding gown is that important!!??
DHK

 

DHK:
It is you who insist that kissing the Popes feet is "Sacred Tradition". No one else here has claimed this. The Church has traditions that are not Sacred Traditions, just like other faiths such as Baptists have their own traditions.

Scripture teaches us to honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. 1 Peter 2:17 This honor is because all lawful authority is from God.

As for our elders in our faith, Scripture also teaches us to give DOUBLE HONOR to our clergy.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 1 Timothy 5:17 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

St. Paul speak of marks of respect that were given to them.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Acts 28:10
They also honored us with many marks of respect; and when we were setting sail, they supplied us with all we needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do Baptists show double honor to their clergy? How do you deal with Holy Scripture that commands this honor to be given to people who have this authority given by God? What is this DOUBLE HONOR stuff about?

God Bless

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Disciple ]

 

DHK,
Disciple is correct. You're the one who is mixing up what Catholics mean by sacred tradition with what is tradition of man. A very big difference.

Kissing someone's feet is not sacred tradition. And we need to discern what is sacred tradition and what isn't. You want the word tradition to refer to only one thing and to always refer to that one thing. Life and language do not work that way.

That reminds of the one Bible translation, which translates the word as tradition where it means tradition of men, and translates it as teaching where it means Sacred Tradition.
It is, of course, a Protestant Bible. And the translators evidently wanted to ignore the fact that the Bible teaches there is such a thing as a sacred tradition.

Concerning the word "worship" or even the word "veneration", it has been pointed out on this board more than once -- that the word worship is used to mean different levels of honor. You use it to mean "adoration" (the highest honor possible and due to God alone -- the recognition that He alone is God). But that is only one way of using the word, one level of its meaning.
And the King James Bible uses it on lesser levels in regard to men.

You work with a handicap when you don't take into account the levels of meaning of words.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


"UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF...THE CEREMMONIAL KING-WORSHIP... THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF VENERATION CAME TO PREVAIL AT AN EARLY DATE."
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines veneration as worship.
This ceremmonial king worship is defined as or referred to as a type of veneration.
veneration = worship.
It is on the Catholic Encyclopedia website. Their words, not mine.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Under the influence of" does not mean "defined as".

Many Christian practices were developed "under the influence of" pagan practices. Does that then "define" those Christian practices as pagan?

 

Hi Guys,

I'm back from Winter Vacation and ministering to the people of Jamaica.

One thing I'm doing presently is reading the New Testament once again starting w/ the Pastoral Epistles, moving through the Catholic Epistles, and then through the rest of the Pauline literature, etc.. to finish w/ the Gospels. As I'm doing this, I'm taking note of the authors' notions of faith, justification, sanctification, and transmission of the faith.

It has, so far, been a really eye-opening experience to recognize just how "Catholic" the New Testament authors were in their views of grace and oral tradition. God's word is creative and effects the justification within him who is declared just and the Church is visible, lead by ordained presbyteros, and passes on the faith like a family would, built upon the apostles, not upon wayward interpretations of Holy Writ.

God bless everyone. I hope to post more if time allows this semester.

 

Dear Carson,

You wrote...

&lt;&lt;God's word is creative and effects the justification within him who is declared just and the Church is visible, lead by ordained presbyteros, and passes on the faith like a family would, built upon the apostles, not upon wayward interpretations of Holy Writ.&gt;&gt;

Who are the "wayward"?
The Separatists, the Protestants or the the hierarchy of Holy Roman Empire?

HankD

 

Hi, Carson:
Great to hear from you! Keep in touch and continue to check in on us.

God Bless

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

"Under the influence of" does not mean "defined as".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come now T2U, you can do better than that with the English language.
"This type of veneration." "THIS" refers right back to the word "king-worship."
Let's look at it again:
"This particular type of veneration (ceremonnial king worship)came to prevail at an early date."
veneration = worship (unless your a double-speaking Catholic, who likes put their own spin on words and redefine them according to their own liking)
This is worship, plain and simple. This is not simply a matter of giving honor to someone. It is a matter of worship. It is a tradition of the Catholic Church (kissing the pope's feet), and the "honor, adoration, veneration, worship, latria," that is given here are all one and the same.
DHK

 

nevermind...

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Davidson ]

 

Ps,
Catholics always believed in one God with three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The word Trinity first showed up in A.D. 180.

This truth of the Trinity could not be figured out by man's reason. It had to be revealed by God to His Church. And it was a doctrine that natural man has always rejected and which continues to be rejected and disputed even today. And there were attacks on the belief in one God and three divine Persons. And there continue to be such attacks even today.

Revelation is always complete and has been since the death of St. John, last of the apostles. But as the Church prays and studies divine revelation, she is given, by the Holy Spirit, more understanding of God's truth. (Jn 16,13).

Pauline