- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Protestant Christian – I reject the notion of apostolic succession because it's not taught in the
scriptures.Catholic Christian – You only believe things that are taught in the scriptures?
Protestant Christian – Yes. I believe that all scripture is inspired so that we can be fully equipped
for every good work. Christians should be careful not to go beyond what is written, to avoid the
traditions of men. And since the teaching of apostolic succession is a very important matter, we
should expect to see it in scripture. It's not there, however. It's simply a “tradition of men” that
was added to the faith in post-apostolic times.Catholic Christian – May I ask you a question?
Protestant Christian – Sure
Catholic Christian – Would you say that the acceptance of the books/letters of the New Testament
is a very important matter?Protestant Christian – Most definitely. It's through the New Testament that we learn of Jesus and
his plan of salvation.Catholic Christian – Where then in the New Testament do we learn of there being a set of inspired
books and letters that together form a definitive literary body of work to be obeyed by all
Christians?Protestant Christian – I don't understand the question.
Catholic Christian – Well, you said you only believe things that are written in the Bible, right?
Protestant Christian – Right.
Catholic Christian – You also hold to the notion that if something is really important for our
salvation the Bible should say so. Correct?Protestant Christian – Yeah, that's correct.
Catholic Christian – So, is the acceptance of the New Testament books and letters as inspired by
God an important matter?Protestant Christian – Absolutely!
Catholic Christian – Great. So, where in the New Testament do we read that? That is, show me
chapter and verse from the New Testament that informs us of this most important matter –
namely, that there are 27 inspired books that form the definitive body of literature for all
Christians.Protestant Christian – 1st Timothy 3:15 says all scripture is inspired.
Catholic Christian – What constitutes scripture?
Protestant Christian – What do you mean?
Catholic Christian – If all scripture is inspired, then we need to find out what books and letters
constitute inspired scripture. Does the New Testament tell us that?Protestant Christian – Well…no.
Catholic Christian – So how do you know which books and letters are scripture?
Protestant Christian – Well the Church has always believed that there were certain books and
letters that had authority.Catholic Christian – Really? How do you know that?
Protestant Christian – Well, if you study history you'll learn that the earliest Christians viewed
most of the New Testament as we know it today.Catholic Christian – Hold on. I thought you only go by what's in the Bible?
Protestant Christian – I do.
Catholic Christian – But if you only go by what's in the bible, why do you resort to history in an
effort to explain which books and letters are inspired?Protestant Christian – Because history tells us that that's what Christians have always believed.
Catholic Christian – But history also tells us that Christians have always believed apostolic
succession. Why do you accept Christian history when it comes to sacred scripture and reject it
when it comes to apostolic succession?Protestant Christian – Because apostolic succession is not in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – Neither is the notion that there are 27 inspired books that form a definitive
body of literature for all Christians. Right?Protestant Christian – Um….
Catholic Christian – Can I ask you another question?
Protestant Christian – Sure.
Catholic Christian – If Christians of the second century largely knew which books and letters
comprised the New Testament without the New Testament listing them, then where did they get
this information?Protestant Christian – From the apostles and early believers.
Catholic Christian – So, basically you're saying that they passed this information down orally?
Protestant Christian – Um….I suppose.
Catholic Christian – But I thought you were opposed to oral tradition.
Protestant Christian – I'm opposed to oral tradition that is not in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – That doesn't make sense, though. The New Testament books are not
mentioned in the Bible nor is the idea of a definitive literary body of Christian writings. For that
information you trust the testimony of the Church. I sense an inconsistency here. How can you
say that you reject oral tradition when you come by your knowledge of scripture via oral
tradition?Protestant Christian – The Catholics were involved in inquisitions!
Catholic Christian – I know. But let's stay on the issue in question. How do you know who wrote
the gospel that we commonly attribute to Matthew?Protestant Christian – I'm not sure.
Catholic Christian – Well, we know this by the testimony of the Church fathers. In fact, to
Mathew's gospel could be added Mark, Luke John and John's three letters. All those writings
lack autographs. Why do you trust that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?Protestant Christian – Because the Church has always believed that.
Catholic Christian – Why do you trust the Church's oral tradition on the authorship of the gospels
and epistles, but distrust her when she speaks of apostolic succession?Protestant Christian – Because apostolic succession is not taught in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – Point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that lists 27 books/letters as
the inspired literary corpus for Christians.Protestant Christian – I can't do that.
Catholic Christian – But you said that we should expect to find all important matters in the
scriptures, that Christ would certainly see to it that such things were written down in holy
scripture if our very lives depended on them.Protestant Christian – The fact of the matter is that the 27 books which the Catholic Church
officially counted as NT scripture near the end of the 4th century had already been recognized as
such by millions of Christians for hundreds of years!Catholic Christian – Did those millions of Christians recognize apostolic succession?
Protestant Christian – Yes. But that's a false teaching.
Catholic Christian – How do you know?
Protestant Christian – Because it's not in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – But if millions of Christians for hundreds of years recognized the 27 books
which the Catholic Church officially counted as NT scripture near the end of the 4th century even
though these books and the notion of a an inspired body of literature are not mentioned in the
Bible, then that means millions of Christians for hundreds of years did not limit their beliefs to
things found only in the Bible. Right?Protestant Christian – I'm not sure.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by
word of mouth or by letter” – St. PaulHi CA,
Your traditions are not those of Paul and the apostles.
You have drifted far into vain speculation.CA,
WOW. I need a moment to take this in. WOW, again. The circular argument is so obvious in this little skit. Hmmmm. Although I also believe a little of what Nick is presenting, too. Some of the Catholic “traditions” seem far away from what the boys would have been involved in. Say like, the rosary, praying to Mary (or giving her any honor, to be honest. Jesus said, “…Who is my mother? Who is my brother? But he who does the will of God….”.).
Drifting into vain speculation, as Nick says, is a symptom of all religions. Because so many of us are trying to be guiding by this so-called “Holy Spirit”. Everyone appears to be guided in different directions? Surely this cannot be from God!
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,04:23) CA, WOW. I need a moment to take this in. WOW, again. The circular argument is so obvious in this little skit. Hmmmm. Although I also believe a little of what Nick is presenting, too. Some of the Catholic “traditions” seem far away from what the boys would have been involved in. Say like, the rosary, praying to Mary (or giving her any honor, to be honest. Jesus said, “…Who is my mother? Who is my brother? But he who does the will of God….”.).
Drifting into vain speculation, as Nick says, is a symptom of all religions. Because so many of us are trying to be guiding by this so-called “Holy Spirit”. Everyone appears to be guided in different directions? Surely this cannot be from God!
Love,
Mandy
Hi Not3,Now we're talking.
Quote Some of the Catholic “traditions” seem far away from what the boys would have been involved in. What are you going on to make this statement? What are you basing this assumption on?
Quote praying to Mary (or giving her any honor, to be honest. Jesus said, “…Who is my mother? Who is my brother? But he who does the will of God….”.) This selective interpretation of the Scriptures is prime example that when we each “come up with” our own interpretation based upon our own subjective readings…well you know the end of that story.
Not3, have you ever considered that we hold the same Scriptures you are quoting precious and have passed down their original intent for 2k years.
You said you have a problem with honoring Mary. Please consider the following:
“To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:” – Rom. 2:7
Here St. Paul is commending Christians who seek after honor just as they seek after eternal life.
Sounds like a throw-back to 1 Samuel 2:30:
“Wherefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father should minister in my sight, for ever. But now saith the Lord: Far be this from me: but whosoever shall glorify me, him will I glorify: but they that despise me, shall be despised.”
My point is not to veer off onto a discussion about Mary. Indeed that is a wonderful topic that I am very ready to address with you. But my point is that not only do we claim to have the correct interpretation, but all of our answers MAKE SENSE…AND…MAKE THE PUZZLE ALL FIT TOGETHER. It is so wonderful. I used to be so conflicted in my own struggle to reconcile the Scriptures. My faith is completely married to reason. It makes so much sense.
So my logic and mind is satisfied. The deeper I go the more intellectually satisfied I become.
Isn't this ironic, though, that the position has the most satisfying argumentation is the one that says, in effect, “you must believe this?”
See, the difference between Catholics and Protestatns is that we encourage the journey. No high pressure altar calls. No rush to get you baptized. In fact I had to exercise real patience with how cautious my spiritual director was with me. He wanted to make sure I wasn't going to join and then apostasize in 6 mo to a year.
A little bit of a rabbit trail here. But I sure would love to hear your thoughts on my first question above: Why do you think “the boys” would have believed differently than the CC?
Rabbit trails….love them! In fact I think I'm part-rabbit, so you'll have to forgive me.
Some of the assumptions I have are based on things I have heard from my husband's family. For instance, when I was first married my mother-in-law did not recogize our marriage because it wasn't in the church. Is this something the disciples would have approved of? Later, when we tried to conceive and no dice…..my mother-in-law said she would pray to some Saint for me. I told her to go directly to God because I didn't have time to wait!
She didn't laugh. Would the disciples have encouraged us to pray to Saints?Jesus washed the disciples feet. He told them it was not the outside of the cup that needed washing. Yet I do not see this same un-orthodox, if you will, behavior amongst Catholics. In fact, I see the opposite. There are plenty of washing the outsides of cups, and there are distinctions made between brethren (the master washed the disciples feet, now we have disciples kissing the hands of priests – I've seen this with my own eyes in services).
So I am ignorant to the religion, that's why I am enjoying your testimony. But I do have some experiences to draw from that have confused me, it's true.
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,05:57) Rabbit trails….love them! In fact I think I'm part-rabbit, so you'll have to forgive me. Some of the assumptions I have are based on things I have heard from my husband's family. For instance, when I was first married my mother-in-law did not recogize our marriage because it wasn't in the church. Is this something the disciples would have approved of? Later, when we tried to conceive and no dice…..my mother-in-law said she would pray to some Saint for me. I told her to go directly to God because I didn't have time to wait!
She didn't laugh. Would the disciples have encouraged us to pray to Saints?Jesus washed the disciples feet. He told them it was not the outside of the cup that needed washing. Yet I do not see this same un-orthodox, if you will, behavior amongst Catholics. In fact, I see the opposite. There are plenty of washing the outsides of cups, and there are distinctions made between brethren (the master washed the disciples feet, now we have disciples kissing the hands of priests – I've seen this with my own eyes in services).
So I am ignorant to the religion, that's why I am enjoying your testimony. But I do have some experiences to draw from that have confused me, it's true.
Love,
Mandy
This is my fault for not communicating my question effectively. Let me do it this way:When we, as people, look at new information and decide if it is true or false. We compare it with previous information that we have accepted to be true. Usually if the new information doesn't agree with the info that got to us first, we reject the new info.
So my question is: on what grounds do you trust the accuracy of the information you have learned, received, believe, and hold dear about the gospel, Jesus Christ, etc? So yes, there is much to ask about what the Catholics do (new info). But first, I want to ask what makes your previous interpretations of Scripture true (old info).
If this doesn't make sense, let me know.
Quote So my question is: on what grounds do you trust the accuracy of the information you have learned, received, believe, and hold dear about the gospel, Jesus Christ, etc? Because your Dad preached it and taught it. He was my pastor, and I believed him. He baptized me, and I learned about all things “Jesus” from his church.
Sigh….not quite the answer you were perhaps hoping for, huh?
Of course I've conducted my own study which has spanned many years now beginning in 2003….. But I'm beginning to believe it's all a matter of opinion depending on who you read.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,06:10) Of course I've conducted my own study which has spanned many years now beginning in 2003….. But I'm beginning to believe it's all a matter of opinion depending on who you read.
Actually, that was exactly the type of answer I was looking for. Now since this is a public forum I want to be the first to say that my dad is a man of integrity. Honestly I wonder if he has ever gravely sinned in his entire life. I have to think that maybe he has. But he sure has me fooled.My point is that even my dad who really loves the Lord and is as sincere as you are going to find can't begin to answer the questions I have raised.
As you know, I was raised Bible only. I may have heard more sermons preached than anyone else here (but then I can't really say that cause I don't know everyone here). But I remember from a child that I really tried to make sense of things. I remember before I was to be baptized by my dad poring the Scriptures about baptism to try and figure out what I was doing. I didn't see a Scripture that said that baptism was “an outward sign of an inward work.” I did see in Col. 2 that it replaced circumcision. I did see in Acts 2:38 that it was “for the remission of your sins.” (The UPC folks entertained me for quite a while on that verse) – Rabbit trail – But the bottom line is that the puzzle wasn't fitting.
So I went to Bible college. I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth. So when I felt a call to preach, I decided to go to THE college run by my denomination. And I really did get the real history and scoop on their movement. They hammered into me a respect and love for the Bible and proper hermeneutical principles. They hammered in the need for good exegesis. With those tools, I set out to go win the world.
I started out traveling as an evangelism in the US and the world. I have preached all over America and many parts of the world. I was really big on praying for the sick and expecting them to recover. I saw amazing miracles, many devils cast out, many speak in tongues, and many many respond to my altar calls. I was in my element.
After I got married we planted congregations and pastored them.
There was just ONE problem. My doctrine was constantly being tweaked. Thus it was in flux. I was searching HARD after truth. I had one standard: The Bible. Was the trinity right? Was Jesus God? What was the Bible? Why do different Bible versions include different conflicting passages? Why are there different manuscripts containing variant readings? Why is the Bible translator forced to choose between them? Does God save us through baptism? I think you are beginning to see in your own life what I was beginning to see.
There is a stack of books on side A of the argument…and a stack of books on side B of the argument. Both sides love God. Both sides want to please God and be saved. Both sides anathematize the other side. Only one side can be right. Or they could both be wrong. But someone HAS to be right.
I think the most prudent thing is to go back and remove the goggles of the Protestant reformation since this is the fountain that we come from. And go back…way back to the beginning and see what the early church really did believe. I mean these guys in the first to third century suffered and died and were tortured for their faith. These men received the faith directly from the apostles. I think they deserve another look.
Plus, why would I believe any 21st century preacher or teacher over the guys that received the gospel DIRECTLY from the apostles themselves?
Which brings me to another question. Did the apostles fail THAT MISERABLY? I mean did God's plan fail that miserably? Did the gospel get passed off and immediately get lost? Was God's plan to come and establish a church only for it to get tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine? Was it God's plan for us to make it to the 21st century and it's every man for himself?
Hope you make the right guess or it's torch time for you.
Consider this further…not everyone has the same intellectual capacity. What about those who don't have the same measure of the gift of reason that you and I have?
Didn't we (as Protestants) just hand them a Bible and say, “read it every day, the Holy Spirit will guide you”? My God, what did we do? What we really did was say, “You're on your own, don't believe anything that I say. God has given you the job of figuring out what this book says.”
I remember preaching, “Don't believe anything just because I said it. Check your Bible. If you can prove me wrong using your Bible I'll change.” Is this the message Jesus commanded his apostles to preach? :
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.” – Matt. 10:14
“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. ” – Luke 10:16
I'll tell you one thing, as an evangelist or church planter I never said, “If you don't receive my words then you are rejecting the words of Jesus.” But this is exactly what the apostles told their converts:
“”Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6)
Tradition? What?
Or this:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Gal. 1:8
That sounds pretty harsh. Eh? Notice that none of these verse speak of what is written, only what is ORALLY communicated.
What say you?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 10 2009,06:05) When we, as people, look at new information and decide if it is true or false. We compare it with previous information that we have accepted to be true. Usually if the new information doesn't agree with the info that got to us first, we reject the new info.
Sometimes though, we classify it into degrees of probability, and wait for correlation of data to either classify it as true or false. Sometimes we do not keep the old information simply because it is the longer standing information.But yes, most people believe their first information simply because someone told them to.
Hi CA,
Indeed catholicism is full of new information.
Adrift from the anchor of scripture she teaches what she wants.Yet she believes she enjoys the blessing of a God of order?
CA,
Quote My point is that even my dad who really loves the Lord and is as sincere as you are going to find can't begin to answer the questions I have raised.
I still wish I could have been a fly on the wall the day you told your dad you were converting (and your reasons why). Hmmmm. I wonder how that conversation went and is still going on today. But that is pure curiosity.Quote There was just ONE problem. My doctrine was constantly being tweaked. Thus it was in flux.
And the Catholic religion hasn't done some tweaking? As I understand it, they used to be banned from eating meat on Fridays but then later it was okay….I think I understand what you are really saying, though. You are saying you wanted something written in stone – something that didn't change. It's hard to provide that when you are supposed to be living by the ever-living Spirit who guides…. I can dig this. It's comforting to know what you know – what you know what you know – is true. But even now, with the traditions, can you really know? Do you really know the documents were handed down correctly?
Quote Plus, why would I believe any 21st century preacher or teacher over the guys that received the gospel DIRECTLY from the apostles themselves?
I don't think anything we have now is directly from the apostles. Human nature – over time – has seen to that I'm sure. Call me hopeful, but I think the best we can hope for is documents with as few of errors as possible. But then again, how would we check it?Quote Which brings me to another question. Did the apostles fail THAT MISERABLY? I mean did God's plan fail that miserably? Did the gospel get passed off and immediately get lost? Was God's plan to come and establish a church only for it to get tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine? Was it God's plan for us to make it to the 21st century and it's every man for himself? Hope you make the right guess or it's torch time for you.
What time does the torch parade begin? As for what was orally communicated – have you or your children ever played the “Telephone” game? You know, where you sit in a circle and one person whispers something into the ear of his neighbor and it's passed on through the circle. When you come to the last person, the message has been totally changed. Or if not totally changed, parts of it have lost their meaning OR worse yet, taken on different meanings.
I'm afraid I am losing faith daily….perhaps hourly at this rate.
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,08:08) CA, Quote My point is that even my dad who really loves the Lord and is as sincere as you are going to find can't begin to answer the questions I have raised.
I still wish I could have been a fly on the wall the day you told your dad you were converting (and your reasons why). Hmmmm. I wonder how that conversation went and is still going on today. But that is pure curiosity.Quote There was just ONE problem. My doctrine was constantly being tweaked. Thus it was in flux.
And the Catholic religion hasn't done some tweaking? As I understand it, they used to be banned from eating meat on Fridays but then later it was okay….I think I understand what you are really saying, though. You are saying you wanted something written in stone – something that didn't change. It's hard to provide that when you are supposed to be living by the ever-living Spirit who guides…. I can dig this. It's comforting to know what you know – what you know what you know – is true. But even now, with the traditions, can you really know? Do you really know the documents were handed down correctly?
Quote Plus, why would I believe any 21st century preacher or teacher over the guys that received the gospel DIRECTLY from the apostles themselves?
I don't think anything we have now is directly from the apostles. Human nature – over time – has seen to that I'm sure. Call me hopeful, but I think the best we can hope for is documents with as few of errors as possible. But then again, how would we check it?Quote Which brings me to another question. Did the apostles fail THAT MISERABLY? I mean did God's plan fail that miserably? Did the gospel get passed off and immediately get lost? Was God's plan to come and establish a church only for it to get tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine? Was it God's plan for us to make it to the 21st century and it's every man for himself? Hope you make the right guess or it's torch time for you.
What time does the torch parade begin? As for what was orally communicated – have you or your children ever played the “Telephone” game? You know, where you sit in a circle and one person whispers something into the ear of his neighbor and it's passed on through the circle. When you come to the last person, the message has been totally changed. Or if not totally changed, parts of it have lost their meaning OR worse yet, taken on different meanings.
I'm afraid I am losing faith daily….perhaps hourly at this rate.
Love,
MandyQuote I still wish I could have been a fly on the wall the day you told your dad you were converting (and your reasons why). Hmmmm. I wonder how that conversation went and is still going on today. But that is pure curiosity. Maybe it's better you weren't there. Email me and I can tell you more.
Quote And the Catholic religion hasn't done some tweaking? As I understand it, they used to be banned from eating meat on Fridays but then later it was okay…. Eating meat on Friday has always been a pastoral provision and not infallible Dogma. It would fall in the category of married priests. In the Latin West they usually don't allow it. In the East we do. I think it is important to see what the Church actually claims to believe instead of assuming there is a contradiction. Any moment it wanted to, the Latin Church could allow for married priests. There is actually a former-Protestant married priest down here in this archdiocese. I have also seen this proposed in a European country that was short on vocations – Rabbit trail
Quote I think I understand what you are really saying, though. You are saying you wanted something written in stone – something that didn't change. It's hard to provide that when you are supposed to be living by the ever-living Spirit who guides…. I can dig this. Cool. I really don't believe a loving God wants us to be in doubt about things of such eternal importance. But yes, we do believe that it is possible that guys like Sidharta Gautama (the Bhuda) MAY have received mercy from God and been saved (we don't know…but we allow for this based upon the light they had and the seeking of God they may have done). Only God knows. But Catholics agree that we won't know until the end who makes it because we are not omniscient. We have faith in God who loves all men and wants them to be saved more than we do.
Quote It's comforting to know what you know – what you know what you know – is true. But even now, with the traditions, can you really know? Do you really know the documents were handed down correctly? I must admit that somewhere there is the necessity of faith. I believe God ordained the Bible was written so we wouldn't have the game of telephone on our hands. But we have to quickly say that this is also the reason that the oral tradition of the bishops throughout history was written to avoid the game of telephone as well.
So we have this huge snapshot of the constant teaching of the church in every generation. And the amazing thing is that it is in complete conformity and agreement. We only run into problems when we disobey 2 Thess. 2:15 and tear any part of the “traditions” away from the other.
St. Basil the Great wrote:
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D
. 375]).Quote I don't think anything we have now is directly from the apostles. So you don't believe that the NT manuscripts of the apostle's writings are accurate?
Quote Human nature – over time – has seen to that I'm sure. You asked how can you be sure. I answered that there DOES have to be an element of faith. Please remember though that in the same breath I must admit that this faith is always joined with reason. So let me say that one of the biggest proofs of the Catholic faith is that in 2,000 years of saints and sinners, not one person has been able to change the deposit of faith. We still believe in the Trinity. We still believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ. We still confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. On and on and on. You can go to the bank that tomorrow, or next year, or next hundred years NO one is going to stand up and say “we don't believe Jesus is God” anymore. Human nature flip flops.
I'll pick on the Watchtower for a moment. They've hardly been around for a minute, right? And yet they have said that military service is good, then that it is bad. They have said the Bible has errors, then that it doesn't.
You follow any man-made organization and you will find the same.
Quote But then again, how would we check it? How do we check anything? We have to use God-given reason. That's the best we can do.
Quote Or if not totally changed, parts of it have lost their meaning OR worse yet, taken on different meanings. So things were written down to avoid this. The bishop doesn't have to say to the other priests “I'm getting old now, sit down and I'll tell you what my predecessor told me and what his predecessor told him and so on”. That is NOT how the Oral Tradition of the church has been passed down. First, we have writings throughout history to look back and verify. Copies of these letters and writings are dispersed throughout the world so as to avoid a deviant copyist error. We have the ancient liturgy of the apostles. We have so much. The following is not mine, but I think it is helpful:
The game of “Telephone” does not actually simulate normal oral communications. The game relies on whispering the message which eliminates the distinction between unvoiced and voiced consonants. Whispering, because it loses the distinction between voiced and unvoiced pairs of consonants (e.g. v/f, b/p, d/t, z/s, zh/sh, th of “this”/th of “thin”) is inherently more prone to miscommunication. Normal oral transmission uses plainly spoken language and is thus less prone to miscommunication. The game transmits a message on a one-to-one basis, once (or possibly twice, depending upon rules) and thus the message can always be altered by a single person (deliberately or accidentally) whether due to a misunderstanding or mischief (it is a game, after all!). Normal oral transmission, especially of a message as important as Holy Tradition, is on a many-to-many basis, many times. This provides built-in correction. If one person changes the message, others transmitting the correct message override those errors. If one person misunderstands the message, the transmitters can repeat the message and the other recipients can provide clarification (e.g. if a person in a group of movie viewers misunderstands the dialogue [a one-time transmission], he will accept corrections from others, especially when the vast majority of the group is in agreement). In normal oral transmission, the message, being heard many times, is not just learnt, but memorised. Anyone who has participated in a play (especially one with numerous rehearsals and/or performances) is familiar with the fact that everyone — not just the players delivering the lines — memorises all the dialogue. If a mistake is made, everyone involved recognises it.
Those who argue against the process of Holy Tradition often do so because of an ignorant bias held by so many modern, technologically-based people against the “dumb”, “benighted”, “backward” ignoramuses of centuries past. People having this bias start with an assumption that the only way to preserve a message is by preserving it in written form. This bias may also be due to societal changes. Not that long ago, it was common for people to see their grandparents daily; many lived with them. They were able to hear their grandparents speak of their own parents and grandparents and thus had a real sense of knowing their great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents. Recent changes (e.g., most households now consist of only the nuclear family; families frequently move so people do not live where they were born and raised) have largely destroyed this living connection to the past. As a result, there is a loss of confidence in the possibility that history can be preserved by oral tradition; written records are thought to be the only reliable way to preserve history. They overlook the fact that written texts, unable to transmit experiential knowledge and lacking heart and soul, are more easily misunderstood than oral traditions.
Another part of this bias is based upon the failure to recognise that in societies that were largely illiterate (in the strictest sense of the term) had to rely on oral traditions. Most (all?) societies where means of preserving text was inconvenient have relied on (tribal) historians who learnt their national/cultural heritage from an elder who learnt it from an elder, etc. Each historian's responsibility is to (1) preserve what has been given them, (2) add the events that occur during his/her lifetime, and (3) pass on to a successor all of the first two. This has always been an important responsibility in these societies which is honoured by the group.
It is no different within the Church. In fact, because it deals with knowledge about God Himself, preserving the history was even more important.
Now, within the Church, Holy Tradition is constantly being transmitted by many people and being heard by many people (most of whom have heard it many times already), errors in transmission are corrected. Because the message is particularly rich (see John 21:25), a single person may forget some portion, but another person will supply the information, as can be seen in the (unimportant) differences between the various gospels. Those who alter the information are corrected (see Acts 18:26), and if they reject correction are excluded (see Galatians 1:9: “If anyone preaches a gospel to you besides what you received, let him be anathema.”) because the alteration is as obvious to the entire Church as the actor's mistake is obvious to everyone involved in a play's production. This is what Saint Vincent of Lerins means when he defines the truth as “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”. The definition doesn't include those who have never seen the play (those outside the Church) or have just come for a single performance (visitors who remain outside the Church). The definition refers to all those within the Church no matter where they live (“everywhere”, thus excluding regional and cultural differences), no matter when they've lived (“always”). G.K. Chesterton's definition of tradition explains the idea of ”
always” particularly well:Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes — our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 10 2009,08:52) Hi not3,
Underneath are the everlasting arms.
I'm hoping for them…..
CA,
Thank you. Let me ponder what you have shared here, and get back to you this evening.
I love your ability to remain focused and not on the defense – signs of a true teacher.
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 10 2009,05:57) Rabbit trails….love them! In fact I think I'm part-rabbit, so you'll have to forgive me. Some of the assumptions I have are based on things I have heard from my husband's family. For instance, when I was first married my mother-in-law did not recogize our marriage because it wasn't in the church. Is this something the disciples would have approved of? Later, when we tried to conceive and no dice…..my mother-in-law said she would pray to some Saint for me. I told her to go directly to God because I didn't have time to wait!
She didn't laugh. Would the disciples have encouraged us to pray to Saints?Jesus washed the disciples feet. He told them it was not the outside of the cup that needed washing. Yet I do not see this same un-orthodox, if you will, behavior amongst Catholics. In fact, I see the opposite. There are plenty of washing the outsides of cups, and there are distinctions made between brethren (the master washed the disciples feet, now we have disciples kissing the hands of priests – I've seen this with my own eyes in services).
So I am ignorant to the religion, that's why I am enjoying your testimony. But I do have some experiences to draw from that have confused me, it's true.
Love,
Mandy
Greetings Mandy…..I can relate to your story….My mother and father didn't recognize my marriage either to add to the problem my wifes family didn;t recognize it either(they were jewish)…a direct result was we got married 35 yrs ago by a JOP in virginia….The Apologist is sounding less like an apologist and more like a propergator of the faith…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
