View Full Version : It Has Begun...
An Anglican bishop has said he is prepared to convert to Roman Catholicism after the General Synod voted to allow women bishops
The traditionalist Bishop of Ebbsfleet has asked the Pope, as well as Catholic leaders in England and Wales, to help him and his parishes defect to Rome.
The Right Reverend Andrew Burnham said objectors within the Church of England were feeling "shipwrecked".
He said: "We are floating in the water looking for someone to rescue us."
LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7499852.stm)
Soundbear
07-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Tradition trumps bible.
BlueSky
07-11-2008, 11:32 AM
Any church whose raison d'etre was Henry VIII's voracious appetite for women can't be standing on solid ground to start with.
Now that I've got you off "ignore", Barry...
What is "Tradition"?
Let's ask the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
#81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.
#82 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."
#83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc
Please explain why you look upon Tradition negatively, Barry, within the context of the Catechism's definition.
Soundbear
07-11-2008, 11:42 AM
This assumes I believe any of that??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This assumes I believe any of that?? </div></div>
No, it doesn't Barry. In fact, it was provided because I assume it encourages you in why you do not believe the Church when it comes to Tradition. It was provided so you could take on the Church's view of Tradition head-on, without any non-issues clouding the discussion.
Now, please, you've called for a civilization of the board, so we can actually discuss matters. If you're going to jump right on this thread with some seemingly cursory comment, then at least be gracious enough to explain to us why the Church is wrong on this particular stance.
Soundbear
07-11-2008, 12:16 PM
My study of scripture has shown me that Jesus treated women DIFFERENTLY from His culture. Also, I believe a careful study of exactly what the writers were saying about the role of women does NOT relegate them to some lesser role.
The traditions of BOTH our denominations are suspect in this matter. Neither is following the word of God, but twisting it to fit age old preconceptions.
IMO, the gender of any leader in the church is irrelevant.
But the Bible states women cannot be episcopates and such. Is the Bible wrong here?
Soundbear
07-11-2008, 12:18 PM
Where?
1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Now critics will jump at a perceived opportunity to label the Bible 'sexist', and on and on. But the fact is the Bible and the Church teach that women have an integral role; they have leadership roles in the family and religious community. But they are not to take the position of priest or bishop.
Now, can you explain how the Church is wrong as it concerns Tradition, not one tradition, small "t", but "Tradition in the RCC-sense.
Soundbear
07-11-2008, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Now critics will jump at a perceived opportunity to label the Bible 'sexist', and on and on. But the fact is the Bible and the Church teach that women have an integral role; they have leadership roles in the family and religious community. But they are not to take the position of priest or bishop.
</div></div>
Are you saying that the above is part of the "Tradition"??
I'll be back later, gotta go back out. I do have information on those verses.
KDawg
07-11-2008, 05:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is "Tradition"?
Let's ask the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
#81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.
#82 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." </div></div>
I personally don't disagree with #81, but that first sentence in #82 is a prerequisite for accepting the rest.
Here's my question: Where is it written that the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted to the RCC?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Now critics will jump at a perceived opportunity to label the Bible 'sexist', and on and on. But the fact is the Bible and the Church teach that women have an integral role; they have leadership roles in the family and religious community. But they are not to take the position of priest or bishop.
</div></div>
Are you saying that the above is part of the "Tradition"??
I'll be back later, gotta go back out. I do have information on those verses. </div></div>
Barry, you're stuck, and here's why: you are mistaking "ritual" for "tradition".
"Tradition" in the RCC sense means oral teachings handed down through the years. These work in tandem with the Bible. It's quite obvious Tradition is important, because the New Testament was written upon Tradition.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is it written that the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted to the RCC? </div></div>
Here's why we Catholics believe Tradition is entrusted to the RCC:
One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the "rock" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the "small stone" Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the "large rock" (petra) of Jesus.
What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).
I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for our interpretation.
I knew enough back in 1991 to know that the interpretation of the rock as the revelation of Jesus’ identity was not entirely secure. It was a general deduction based on the themes being talked about in the passage, not a specific deduction based on the structure and grammar of the passage. Then, as my eyes went over the text once again, I suddenly noticed a structural feature of the passage that tipped the balance in favor Peter being the rock. Instantly, I knew I had to do a major theological re-evaluation.
For some time, I had recognized that if Peter was the rock then he would be the head apostle and thus, when Jesus returned to heaven, the earthly head of the Church. That would make him, in essence, a pope. If Catholics could be right about Peter being a pope, they might be right about other things—about everything. And so I would have to do a thorough re-investigation. When I did, I was forced to conclude the Catholic Church was right, and I became a Catholic.
After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter"— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.
I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" is explained by "for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, "And I tell you, you are Peter" is explained by "and on this rock I will build my Church."
No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.
(CA)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is it written that the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted to the RCC? </div></div>
Here's why we Catholics believe Tradition is entrusted to the RCC:
One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the "rock" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the "small stone" Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the "large rock" (petra) of Jesus.
What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).
I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for our interpretation.
I knew enough back in 1991 to know that the interpretation of the rock as the revelation of Jesus’ identity was not entirely secure. It was a general deduction based on the themes being talked about in the passage, not a specific deduction based on the structure and grammar of the passage. Then, as my eyes went over the text once again, I suddenly noticed a structural feature of the passage that tipped the balance in favor Peter being the rock. Instantly, I knew I had to do a major theological re-evaluation.
For some time, I had recognized that if Peter was the rock then he would be the head apostle and thus, when Jesus returned to heaven, the earthly head of the Church. That would make him, in essence, a pope. If Catholics could be right about Peter being a pope, they might be right about other things—about everything. And so I would have to do a thorough re-investigation. When I did, I was forced to conclude the Catholic Church was right, and I became a Catholic.
After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter"— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.
I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" is explained by "for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, "And I tell you, you are Peter" is explained by "and on this rock I will build my Church."
No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.
(CA)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470). </div></div>
The link:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Now critics will jump at a perceived opportunity to label the Bible 'sexist', and on and on. But the fact is the Bible and the Church teach that women have an integral role; they have leadership roles in the family and religious community. But they are not to take the position of priest or bishop.
</div></div>
The bible is not sexist. The church is.
The first pasage you mention has a key word right at the end, "subjection". This is often translated "submission".
Problems?? This is the only time in the New Testament this word is used, and exactly what it means is subject to debate. The mutual submission Paul preaches elsewhere does not fit it. The verse stands alone in its eight word command, though something as important as the exclusion of women from certain church ministries SHOULD be mentioned in the other Epistles. It is not.
The ministry of teaching apparently would be restricted by this passage, though that ministry is open to "all" in other passages. Women were allowed to prophecy according to scripture, such a gift usually being MORE inmportant that teaching, so a total restriction makes no sense.
The most reasonable explanation is that Paul has placed a restriction on the women of the church addressed TEMPORARILY, probaly encouraging them to sit and listen and be taught the truth BEFORE attempting to speak out and teach themselves.
There is no biblical ruling that restricts women from ANY role in the church, so long as she remains submissive to authority in the same way a male must be.
An exhaustive study on these verses may be found in the book, "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Bilezikian.
Duh..."CA" means "Catholic Answers", Mr. CopyPaste /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, can you explain how the Church is wrong as it concerns Tradition, not one tradition, small "t", but "Tradition in the RCC-sense. </div></div>
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, can you explain how the Church is wrong as it concerns Tradition, not one tradition, small "t", but "Tradition in the RCC-sense. </div></div> </div></div>
You can see from my post about "women and silence" just how "tradition" keeps women down.
"Tradition" in the RCC sense means oral teachings handed down through the years. These work in tandem with the Bible. It's quite obvious Tradition is important, because the New Testament was written upon Tradition."
Really? Which oral teachings are we talking about specifically.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Really? Which oral teachings are we talking about specifically.</div></div>
How was the OT created? How about the NT? Through oral tradition.
The Bible was created around 340 AD, but Christianity was around since 34 AD. How did it survive over 300 years without the written word?
Tradition.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:20 PM
"Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
And if Tradition pops up with something totally outside the writings of scripture, it has equal authority BESIDE (even "added" to) scripture, as something that MUST be believed to be a good Christian??
I don't think so.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Really? Which oral teachings are we talking about specifically.</div></div>
How was the OT created? How about the NT? Through oral tradition.
The Bible was created around 340 AD, but Christianity was around since 34 AD. How did it survive over 300 years without the written word?
Tradition. </div></div>
Oh, you mean Paul's letters passed around, right??
Even the early church fathers didn't get it all right, did they??
And half the bible WAS already written and carefully preserved. The Old Testament.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if Tradition pops up with something totally outside the writings of scripture, it has equal authority BESIDE (even "added" to) scripture, as something that MUST be believed to be a good Christian??
</div></div>
Strawman, Barry. Tradition has never over-ruled the Bible. They are equals.
Now, can you actually comment on the what Catechism says, or are you going to continue constructing strawmen in order to knock them down, and pretend you've proven something?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Really? Which oral teachings are we talking about specifically.</div></div>
How was the OT created? How about the NT? Through oral tradition.
The Bible was created around 340 AD, but Christianity was around since 34 AD. How did it survive over 300 years without the written word?
Tradition. </div></div>
Oh, you mean Paul's letters passed around, right??
Even the early church fathers didn't get it all right, did they?? </div></div>
Letters, oral teachings...all are Tradition.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if Tradition pops up with something totally outside the writings of scripture, it has equal authority BESIDE (even "added" to) scripture, as something that MUST be believed to be a good Christian??
</div></div>
Strawman, Barry. Tradition has never over-ruled the Bible. They are equals.
Now, can you actually comment on the what Catechism says, or are you going to continue constructing strawmen in order to knock them down, and pretend you've proven something? </div></div>
Waiting for your comments on women, too, re those verses you put up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Waiting for your comments on women, too, re those verses you put up. </div></div>
Barry, I've commented on the women issue, even though you sidetrack the thread by bringing it up.
The issue with women is small "t" tradition...this thread is discussing big "T" Tradition.
Now, can you support your initial cursory comment, or can we assume it's just another emotional response absent intellectual weight?
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:28 PM
#81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.
Appears only the RCC has the authority to tell us what the Scripture say, right. I don't think so.
#82 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."
Yup, see above
#83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
"Demonstrates" not preserves. Again, the RCC claims all authority to itself to tell us what the bible says, and to add to it as it sees fit.
Nope, ain't so.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ..Barry, I've commented on the women issue, even though you sidetrack the thread by bringing it up.
</div></div>
You commented by quoting bible verses whose true meanings your church over rides with its "traditions".
So, you have emotional reasons for not believing it, but no intellectual response whatsoever.
I'll accept that.
like I've always said, you are one of Catholicisms greatest allies in here. You constantly attack her, but provide no backup whatsoever, other than emotional responses based on prejudices and biases.
I'm heading out now, thanks for the responses.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... oral teachings...all are Tradition. </div></div>
What "teachings" specifically are we talking about. Imaculate Conception, maybe??
BlueSky
07-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Barry, you are way too certain sounding about your interpretation of the role of women in ministry. And furthermore, your accusation that the church is sexist is one issue that may or may not be true of various churches due to attitudes towards females. But you cannot, and must not accuse the church of being sexist if it is trying to be true to its best attempts to be biblical faithful.
That is as bad as saying the church is homophobic because of its interpretation of those verses dealing with homosexuality.
And btw, Gilbert Bilezikian is a lousy exegete who is a prime example of an evangelical wanting to 'move with the times' and allowed his theology drive his hermeneutio.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, you have emotional reasons for not believing it, but no intellectual response whatsoever.
</div></div>
Run away again. Bye.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, you are way too certain sounding about your interpretation of the role of women in ministry. And furthermore, your accusation that the church is sexist is one issue that may or may not be true of various churches due to attitudes towards females. But you cannot, and must not accuse the church of being sexist if it is trying to be true to its best attempts to be biblical faithful.
That is as bad as saying the church is homophobic because of its interpretation of those verses dealing with homosexuality.
And btw, Gilbert Bilezikian is a lousy exegete who is a prime example of an evangelical wanting to 'move with the times' and allowed his theology drive his hermeneutio.
</div></div>
Right, where'd you find that??
After you read the book, come back.
Lemme give you a simple thing that bugs me.
What does it mean to "prophecy". We take it to mean "preach the word". Here's a rule about that:
1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
So, she should cover her head when she prophecies. But can she??
Nope.
So to me, the "tradition" of the church has set up a contradiction in Scripture.
There are no contradictions in Scripture.
Therefore the church tradition is wrong.
BlueSky
07-12-2008, 02:37 PM
nah.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:40 PM
You mean you WON'T read the book??? Why not??
BlueSky
07-12-2008, 02:46 PM
If you want to discuss the Bible and your interpretation of it, we can do that. But if I have to run out and buy a book before I can discuss something with you, well then, you will be talking to yourself.
Did you read the first part of my post?
You accused the church of being sexist, because the church has a certain understanding of Scriptures. That is a fallacy.
What if your interpretation is wrong? You'd be calling St Paul and Jesus himself sexist and wrong.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... You'd be calling St Paul and Jesus himself sexist and wrong. </div></div>
Maybe we should consider how Jesus treated women in comparison to His culture??
Interested??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... You'd be calling St Paul and Jesus himself sexist and wrong. </div></div>
Maybe we should consider how Jesus treated women in comparison to His culture??
Interested?? </div></div>
Barry, because Jesus treated women as equals means He also wanted women to be priests?
Again, pure emotionalism absent reason.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 10:59 PM
I begin to suspect that emotionalism is your new hobby horse.
It might as well be, since you can't understand any scripture without the say-so of your denomination.
Soundbear
07-12-2008, 11:00 PM
p.S. Junia was an apostle. Higher than a priest.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I begin to suspect that emotionalism is your new hobby horse.
It might as well be, since you can't understand any scripture without the say-so of your denomination.
</div></div>
Personal attacks will prove your assertions about the Catholic Church?
You listen to a preacher every weekend, who tells you what Scripture says. Your criticism borders on laughable.
BlueSky
07-12-2008, 11:05 PM
Show why Jesus's treatment of women is the same as qualifying them to be ordained.
You are equating equality of human dignity with gender-specific roles by doing that.
Although Jesus treated men and women as equals, he did not take a stand against the prohibition against female priests. Nor did he protest that the women's court in the temple was sexist or discriminatory. But he was certainly counterculture in how he treated them in society. Look at the taboos he broke with the Samaritan woman in Jn 4.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show why Jesus's treatment of women is the same as qualifying them to be ordained. </div></div>
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
BlueSky
07-12-2008, 11:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">p.S. Junia was an apostle. Higher than a priest. </div></div>
Not so fast.
The verse says:
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Interpretice possiblities
a. Andronicus and Junias might have been husband and wife
b. Junias can be masculine or feminine
c. The word Apostle is used to describe an office (only the twelve) and it has a broader more geenral meaning, as in one who is sent.
So this verse is far from being supportive of the idea that women were ordained or pastored churches in the first century
Soundbear
07-13-2008, 12:04 PM
Oddly enough, the King James version is the only one using a feminine version of the name.
It may be "far from being supportive", as should any one verse. But it is further from denying a woman a role in leadsership.
Other versions say "numbered with" the apostles.
Also, there were clearly women called "disciples".
You mention the twelve. Do you then contend that Paul was not an apostle, and equal to the others??
That mention of Junia does not stand alone as supportive of women in ministry.
Any comment on women prophecying, a higher call than teaching??
Soundbear
07-13-2008, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show why Jesus's treatment of women is the same as qualifying them to be ordained.
You are equating equality of human dignity with gender-specific roles by doing that.
Although Jesus treated men and women as equals, he did not take a stand against the prohibition against female priests. Nor did he protest that the women's court in the temple was sexist or discriminatory. But he was certainly counterculture in how he treated them in society. Look at the taboos he broke with the Samaritan woman in Jn 4. </div></div>
Indeed He WAS counterculture.
But there were msny aspects of the Jewish culture hHe did not challenge. That does not indicate support.
Indeed, He spoke out against a hierarchical structure in the church.
Soundbear
07-13-2008, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I begin to suspect that emotionalism is your new hobby horse.
It might as well be, since you can't understand any scripture without the say-so of your denomination.
</div></div>
Personal attacks will prove your assertions about the Catholic Church?
You listen to a preacher every weekend, who tells you what Scripture says. Your criticism borders on laughable. </div></div>
Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Those guys didn't wait for a denomination to tell them what to believe.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Those guys didn't wait for a denomination to tell them what to believe.</div></div>
That's an amazing show of ignorance. The Churches in Thessalonia and elsewhere were constantly looking for guidance and asking for help with contentious issue from Church leaders.
Why did Paul write his letters? Because he was bored? No, he wrote them to provide guidance and to ensure the churches were not veering too far off the path.
Authority.
Soundbear
07-13-2008, 09:44 PM
What did that verse say??
The Churches in Thessalonia and elsewhere were SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY.
And what did Paul put in place at each of those churches??
Elders. Local men qualified to lead.
As a matter of fact, I'm trying to think of one single time that Paul EVER told the churches in the places he visited to look to Peter, the Rock, or ANY leader outside their own group.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what did Paul put in place at each of those churches??
Elders. Local men qualified to lead. </div></div>
Thank you for agreeing with the hierarchical nature of the RCC! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Soundbear
07-14-2008, 06:49 PM
Thank you for ignoring my last comment to prove my point.
The bible clearly teaches that there are to be elders (and note that that is PLURAL) in every church.
But that is as for as the hierarchy goes. Ever.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The bible clearly teaches that there are to be elders (and note that that is PLURAL) in every church.</div></div>
And those elders looked to one place when disagreements came up. They didn't believe in anything like sola scriptura, because they knew it would end in chaos.
They were correct.
Soundbear
07-14-2008, 06:52 PM
They looked to one place?
Chapter and verse, please.
Clement of Rome, a man taught by the Apostles themselves...
"Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect" (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They looked to one place?
Chapter and verse, please. </div></div>
All the quotes above are from before there was even a "chapter and verse" to quote.
Soundbear
07-14-2008, 06:58 PM
Scripture is inspired of God.
Where does it say any of the above is??
Are those guys all infallible??
The Early Church Fathers
by Sebastian R. Fama
The Early Church Fathers were the leaders and teachers of the early Church. They lived and wrote during the first eight centuries of Church history. Some of their writings were composed to instruct and / or to encourage the faithful. Other writings were composed to explain or defend the faith when it was attacked or questioned. The writings of the Early Fathers are widely available and studied. They are accepted by Catholic and non Catholic scholars alike. Thus they provide common ground in establishing the beliefs and practices of the early Church.
The earliest of the fathers are known as the Apostolic Fathers. Their writings come to us from the first two centuries of Church History. They were the immediate successors of the Apostles. Three of them were disciples of one or more of the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of the Apostle John. <span style="color: #FF0000">Naturally we would expect that those who were taught directly by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly.</span>
Protestantism is based on the allegation that the Catholic Church became corrupt shortly after 312 AD. That’s when the emperor Constantine converted and made Christianity the state religion. It is alleged that pagan converts came into the Church bringing with them many of their pagan beliefs and practices. According to Protestant historians the pagan practices that were brought into the Church became the distinctive doctrines of Catholicism. Thus the Catholic Church was born and true Christianity was lost until the Reformation. But history tells us a different story.
Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (8:2 [A.D. 107]).
In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.
As you can see, the writings of the Early Fathers are especially helpful in refuting the Protestant claim that many Catholic doctrines were invented in later years. Although they are wrong concerning the age of Catholic doctrines their reasoning is sound. If a teaching appears after the apostolic age without evidence of previous support it must be false. Curiously enough though, they abandon this line of reasoning when it comes to many of their own beliefs such as the doctrine of Scripture Alone (mid 1500’s), The Rapture (late 1800’s), the licitness of artificial contraception (1930) and many others.
It is important to note that some doctrines existed in a primitive form during the early years. These doctrines would develop over time. One example is the Doctrine of the Trinity. All of its elements were present at the beginning but it wasn’t clearly defined the way it is today. It wasn’t until later that it was fully understood. This would not make it a late teaching as all of the information was there from the beginning. Other doctrines were developed in this same way.
Also worthy of note is the fact that the Early Fathers occasionally disagreed on minor issues that were not yet settled by the Church. This does not present us with a problem as we do not claim that the Fathers were infallible. While they were not infallible they were unmistakably Catholic. They clearly illustrate the fact that the early Church had no resemblance to Protestantism.
John Henry Newman was one of the more famous converts to Catholicism. After studying the Early Fathers he wrote: <span style="color: #FF0000">"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant"</span> (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).
Christianity was started by Christ 2000 years ago and it has existed for 2000 years. It didn’t go away for 1200 years and come back. Indeed that would have rendered Jesus’ words impotent. In Matthew 16:18 as He was establishing His Church Jesus gave us a guarantee. He said: "I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scripture is inspired of God.
Where does it say any of the above is??
Are those guys all infallible?? </div></div>
No, they are not infallible. Now, is Luther infallible? If not, why do you follow his lead, and not those who were taught by Jesus' apostles?
They in turn taught the very same guys that picked the books to be in the Bible we use.
I guess the Bible is now in question, huh?
Soundbear
07-14-2008, 10:35 PM
"Naturally we would expect that those who were taught directly by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly."
Is this what you believe???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Naturally we would expect that those who were taught directly by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly."
Is this what you believe???
</div></div>
If they didn't, then many of the books in the Bible are worthless.
Now, why do you not believe those men, but believe Luther, who came along 1,500 year later?
Soundbear
07-15-2008, 01:09 PM
So you are saying that those taught directly by the apostles were correct in all they taught??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you are saying that those taught directly by the apostles were correct in all they taught?? </div></div>
Not in all, because we can say that about no one human being in all circumstances...not even Martin Luther. But where the early apostles were in agreement, they were steadfast in stating so.
Now, why do you not believe men taught by Christ's very apostles, but will believe a man 1,500 years after Christ?
Soundbear
07-15-2008, 03:58 PM
Why do you think I believe Luther was always right?? I don't and I know you know it.
An admission that all that those who were taught by the apostles were not always correct is good. This is one of the reasons that we try so hard to understand exactly what the apostles wrote in the books that we now consider scripture.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.