What is Tradition?

Home Forums All Things Catholic What is Tradition?

This topic contains 23 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Andres Ortiz 8 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1435

    weather
    Member

    <img src=” title=”Confused” /> Most non-Catholic denominations say the Catholic Church belives to much in Tradition.First of all what is the stumbling block about this and what is wrong with being traditional??. Tradition in the dictionary is defined as “the oral transmission of events,opinions,doctrines,practices,etc.,through successive generations without memorials; that which is so handed down; ancient custom.” Amen to that,I hope the Catholic Church continues Tradition till the end of time.

    #7189

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    It’s the verse in the Bible that says you shouldn’t follow traditions of man. Non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has added things to God’s word and therefore those things are traditions of man. Therefore the Catholic Church is surely not of God.

    However, little do they know that the Scriptures arose out of Tradition and are a part of it.

    #7190

    weather
    Member

    Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong and may well hinder one in coming to God.

    Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith” as expressed in the Bible itself is Scripture plus [color=red:gglbrvew]apostolic tradition,[/color:gglbrvew] as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

    In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: “The Word of God”), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

    “Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. [color=red:gglbrvew]Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.” [/color:gglbrvew]
    But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is
    inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16‚Äì17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory).

    Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

    Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

    Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.”

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Scriptu … dition.asp

    #7305

    Ron K
    Member

    let’s look at Newman’s article:

    Newman’s argument

    He wrote: “It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
    [b:36fgitq9]
    But what traditions? We use Scriptures to know that it isn’t all or any traditions that are to be acceptable, just those that are found in the Bible[/b:36fgitq9]

    “Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.”
    [b:36fgitq9]
    That is not true, but your interpretation. Today ALL Scriptures are still Scripture as God meant us to have[/b:36fgitq9]

    Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14‚Äì15). [b:36fgitq9]
    WHY? Who said we cannot use all?[/b:36fgitq9]

    Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it Paul himself and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition![b:36fgitq9]
    But the Oral teaching must match the written, these are not to be “either or” but the same regardless of which came first[/b:36fgitq9]

    The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
    [b:36fgitq9]Simply not true. Since Scriptures are truth, the traditions match or they
    aren’t acceptable. How else would we KNOW what or who is telling the truth?[/b:36fgitq9]

    This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
    [b:36fgitq9]Again I repeat, the only acceptaable means to KNOW what was orally truth is by knowing what is written for they MUST match.[/b:36fgitq9]

    And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
    [b:36fgitq9]But it does[/b:36fgitq9]

    Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. “‘But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached” that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
    [b:36fgitq9]Again the two are the same, not different[/b:36fgitq9]

    This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6‚Äì8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
    [b:36fgitq9]Same responds as above[/b:36fgitq9]

    What is Tradition?

    In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
    [b:36fgitq9]It would be nice to know that this is what you mean, but you don’t because of the many traditions that you practice that aren’t Scriptural![/b:36fgitq9]

    They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
    [b:36fgitq9]And we only can know who is telling the truth is by knowing what Scriptures say – that is as Paul told Timothy to study it[/b:36fgitq9]

    I think you know what I mean by now……

    #7307

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    Who the heck is Newman?

    #7308

    Benedict
    Member

    John Cardinal Newman. He wrote an essay on the development of doctrine.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]But what traditions? We use Scriptures to know that it isn’t all or any traditions that are to be acceptable, just those that are found in the Bible[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    That is a circular argument. You can only use Scripture to discern tradition by presuming, a priori, that Scripture is the rule.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]That is not true, but your interpretation[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    It is both his interpretation and the truth. A simple look at the context of the statement (“you have known since your infancy”) indicates that Paul was speaking of the Old Testament. For you to say that he necessarily referred also to the New Testament, which was not yet written nor yet compiled, is to make St. Paul’s instruction to Timothy incorrect, incomplete, or both.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]But the Oral teaching must match the written, these are not to be “either or” but the same regardless of which came first[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    It does and they are. When one looks at Scripture without the aid of tradition, interpretation suffers.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]Simply not true.[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    On the contrary, Cardinal Newman proved it in St. Paul’s exhortation to follow both the written and the spoken. The Bible itself says to follow the oral tradition, therefore the Bible itself says it is not formally sufficient.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]Since Scriptures are truth, the traditions match or they aren’t acceptable.[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    True. And the traditions do match with Scripture, just not your interpretation thereof.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]How else would we KNOW what or who is telling the truth?[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

    Christ established a church, a church which preserved both the Scriptures and the oral traditions passed down through the Apostles. Simple as that.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]Again I repeat, the only acceptaable means to KNOW what was orally truth is by knowing what is written for they MUST match.[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    And we return to the fact that they do match.

    Interestingly, did you know that the canon of the Bible was determined based on whether the book matched the oral teaching? You somehow think that by going the other way there is a contradiction.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]But it does[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    As shown earlier, it does the exact opposite.

    [quote:3jhzke1m]Again the two are the same, not different[/quote:3jhzke1m]
    Therein you are incorrect. Note, for example, that St. Paul, in Scripture, exhorts Christians to follow the written word and the oral word. He demarks them as separate. If the two were the same, as you assert, there would be no need.

    Further, St. John specifically states in his epistles that there is much he would talk about but he does not write it. Instead, he waits to speak in person. Such lessons were carried in the oral tradition but are specifically called out as absent from the Biblical text.

    The Bible and Tradition are never in contradiction but they are not identical.

    From there you just repeat your errors concerning Biblical interpretation (mistaking your interpretation for the sole interpretation) and the circular argument of Scripture as the final authority. Scripture was discerned by its matching with Tradition, not the other way around.

    #7309

    Ron K
    Member

    Benedict writes:
    [quote:2svb3al3]
    That is a circular argument. You can only use Scripture to discern tradition by presuming, a priori, that Scripture is the rule[/quote:2svb3al3]

    Circular argument? Naw, It is the Word of God and it is sufficient. To say that the Bible doesn’t tell us everything is to suggest that we’d need something that’s missing. So what is it that you think we’re missing and then do we just ignore the verses that says we can know?

    [quote:2svb3al3]It is both his interpretation and the truth. A simple look at the context of the statement (“you have known since your infancy”) indicates that Paul was speaking of the Old Testament. For you to say that he necessarily referred also to the New Testament, which was not yet written nor yet compiled, is to make St. Paul’s instruction to Timothy incorrect, incomplete, or both[/quote:2svb3al3]

    Paul knew whagt was being taujght orallyand how to discern what was being said orally for He was there. But since we aren’t living at that time, the only way for us to know this 2000 years later is through the written Word as He tells us in 1 Corinthians 4:6 – [color=darkred:2svb3al3]that you may learn in us[u:2svb3al3][b:2svb3al3] not to think beyond what is written[/b:2svb3al3][/u:2svb3al3], that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other[/color:2svb3al3]
    [quote:2svb3al3]
    It does and they are. When one looks at Scripture without the aid of tradition, interpretation suffers. [/quote:2svb3al3]

    Oh is that so? I’m afraid that you are badly mistaken. Why? Because even Jesus would say, [color=darkred:2svb3al3]” Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”[/color:2svb3al3] and yet we’re warned about the many traditions that are false. And how does one know what to believe? Hebrews 4:12 does not include traditions, but on ly Scriptures – [color=darkred:2svb3al3]For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and[u:2svb3al3][b:2svb3al3] is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart[/b:2svb3al3][/u:2svb3al3].[/color:2svb3al3]

    [quote:2svb3al3]It does and they are. When one looks at Scripture without the aid of tradition, interpretation suffers[/quote:2svb3al3]

    Sorry Benedict, but you have those reversed with your problem being that you aren’t able to discern this fact – [color=darkred:2svb3al3]But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned[/color:2svb3al3] (1 Corinthians 2:14)

    [quote:2svb3al3]On the contrary, Cardinal Newman proved it in St. Paul’s exhortation to follow both the written and the spoken. The Bible itself says to follow the oral tradition, therefore the Bible itself says it is not formally sufficient. [/quote:2svb3al3]

    The areas in which they do NOT match are many in Catholic teachings as I’ve shown in my website – the oral traditions aren’t the same as what your church claims and tries to tell us – which is another reason that you have the catechism, the Mormons have the Book of Mormonism, the JW’s have their own book as well – again this is why there was the reformation needed – because Martin Luther could see this fact as well.

    [quote:2svb3al3]
    Christ established a church, a church which preserved both the Scriptures and the oral traditions passed down through the Apostles. Simple as that. [/quote:2svb3al3]
    By quoting Matthew 16 in no way proves you are the “church” its only one of your claims. One only has to know Scriptures to see that much!

    [quote:2svb3al3]And we return to the fact that they do match.

    Interestingly, did you know that the canon of the Bible was determined based on whether the book matched the oral teaching? You somehow think that by going the other way there is a contradiction. [/quote:2svb3al3]

    So you say this but as you can see by the Facts of knowing Scriptures
    that THE oral teachings that was said is much different then what you guys claim it said, things like today’s mass, priests, sacramental means of “meriting graces,” purgatory. In most of these your interpretation of
    the word is explained, not what the Bible says especially in the Gospel itself!!!

    [quote:2svb3al3]Therein you are incorrect. Note, for example, that St. Paul, in Scripture, exhorts Christians to follow the written word and the oral word. He demarks them as separate. If the two were the same, as you assert, there would be no need.

    Further, St. John specifically states in his epistles that there is much he would talk about but he does not write it. Instead, he waits to speak in person. Such lessons were carried in the oral tradition but are specifically called out as absent from the Biblical text. [/quote:2svb3al3]
    If they were different, then we’d have a bunch of contraditions, but they’re the same. Its the many traditions that you guys have added that differs and weren’t said and those are the ones that are absent from Scriptures. Yet John says we can know because what the Scriptures have
    is sufficient – Do we ignore this statement?

    [quote:2svb3al3]From there you just repeat your errors concerning Biblical interpretation (mistaking your interpretation for the sole interpretation) and the circular argument of Scripture as the final authority. Scripture was discerned by its matching with Tradition, not the other way around.[/quote:2svb3al3]

    Anyone that truly is a Believer, knows that the Scriptures are the truth -John 17:17 and this is without having your “traditions” to compair them as a guide. You, my friend, have this reversed and often times your church tries to isolate a verse or section of verses to back up strange traditions such as praying to the dead, somehow gets backed up by “those in Heaven are alive in Christ” – a whole distortion in itself, or John 6 as “proof” of the unbiblical tradition of transubstantiation in which we are to disregard verses like Matthew 10-11 ” [color=darkred:2svb3al3] 10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” [/color:2svb3al3] and further stated in verses 15:16-18[color=darkred:2svb3al3] “16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.”[/color:2svb3al3] as well as Acts 7:48 [color=darkred:2svb3al3]””However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands,[/color:2svb3al3]”

    these traditions never were taught BIBLICALLY!

    #7310

    Victor
    Member

    [color=darkred:2pu6cht4]This is going to turn into a finger pointing match. Ron will conclude that the Catholic Church has “tradition of men” and we will conclude the same.

    Only difference is that we as catholics admit we have Traditions (capital “T”), while Ron will fight it tooth and nail.

    Common Ron, admit it, you believe in tradition?

    Do you really want us to prove it to you?[/color:2pu6cht4]

    #7311

    Benedict
    Member

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]Circular argument? Naw, It is the Word of God and it is sufficient.[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    If you have no rebuttal, you have conceded my point. Sola Scriptura only stands when it is presumed. When one’s conclusion is one’s premise, the argument is a circle and invalid.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]To say that the Bible doesn’t tell us everything is to suggest that we’d need something that’s missing. So what is it that you think we’re missing and then do we just ignore the verses that says we can know?[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    The Bible itself tells you what is missing: oral tradition.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]But since we aren’t living at that time, the only way for us to know this 2000 years later is through the written Word[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    Christians did not have a single word of New Testament for 20 years and did not have a Bible for nearly 400 years. They knew what was what because they listened to the Church. And as I mentioned before, it was through their knowledge of tradition that they discerned the books of the New Testament.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]He tells us in 1 Corinthians 4:6 – that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other [/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    You take this completely out of context if you believe St. Paul is teaching the Corinthians to look only to Scripture. St. Paul is reproaching them for their pride and reminding them that God is Judge.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]Hebrews 4:12 does not include traditions, but on ly Scriptures[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    The word of God is not Scripture alone. The word of God is all of God’s revelation through the words of the prophets. Scripture consists of the portion of the word of God that was written down, not the entirety of it.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]The areas in which they do NOT match are many in Catholic teachings as I’ve shown in my website[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    Ron, you have demonstrated a very deficient understanding of Catholic doctrine since you have been here. You have also shown a wooden, literalistic understanding of Scripture that time and again has wrested Scripture from its proper context. Your website only shows contradiction between your faulty hermeneutic and your faulty understanding of tradition and Catholic teaching.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]the oral traditions aren’t the same as what your church claims and tries to tell us[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    Tradition is profuse throughout the early Church Fathers and their writings. They are unmistakeably Catholic, not Protestant.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]which is another reason that you have the catechism[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    A Catechism is no closer to the Book of Mormon than a Sunday school lesson. The Catechism is a compilation of the Church’s teaching provided for reference and catechesis (instruction in the faith). It is a textbook of the faith and not a source of addition.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]By quoting Matthew 16 in no way proves you are the “church” its only one of your claims. One only has to know Scriptures to see that much![/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    The succession of the Catholic Church from St. Peter and the Apostles to the bishops of today is unbroken and historical fact. Every Catholic bishop in the world can trace his ordination to an Apostle. These are the very men St. Paul charged Timothy to instruct and pass on the faith.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]THE oral teachings that was said is much different then what you guys claim it said, things like today’s mass[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology LXVII

    That is the mass right there.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]priests[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    “Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.s Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.” St. Cyprian, To the Lapsed, Epistle 26/33

    “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which iseither by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]sacramental means of “meriting graces,”[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    “‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ” St. Irenaeus, Fragment, 34

    “Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” ” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]purgatory[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    “Abercius by name, I am a disciple of the chaste shepherd…He taught me .. faithful writings…These words,I, Abercius, standing by, ordered to be inscribed.In truth, I was in the course of my seventy-second year. Let him who understands and believes this pray fro Abercius.” Inscription of Abercius

    “[A] woman is more bound when her husband is dead…Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowshipin the first resurrection;and she offers on the anniversary of his falling asleep.” Tertullian, On Monogamy, 10

    “If the baptized person fufils the obligations demanded of a Christian,he does well. If he does not–provided he keeps the faith,without which he would perish forever–no matter in what sin or impurity remains,he will be saved,as it were,by fire; as one who has built on the foundation,which is Christ,not Gold,silver, and precious stones,but wood, hay straw,that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works.” St. Augustine, Faith and Works, 1:1

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]In most of these your interpretation of
    the word is explained, not what the Bible says especially in the Gospel itself!!! [/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    I can show all of the above in the Bible as well. But we are discussing oral tradition right now.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]the many traditions that you guys have added that differs and weren’t said and those are the ones that are absent from Scriptures[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    Just because they are absent from the Scriptures does not mean they were added. And just because they are absent from the Scriptures does not mean they contradict Scripture.

    But the point is moot as the Church has not added any tradition. She has passed down only what she has received, which I have already started showing above.

    [quote:3i0tiy9u]Yet John says we can know because what the Scriptures have is sufficient – Do we ignore this statement?[/quote:3i0tiy9u]
    We ignore it as much as we ignore the statements that Scripture is not complete.

    Every Catholic doctrine can be found in the Bible, be it explicitly, implicitly, or deductively. Scripture is materially sufficient for that reason. But Scripture is not formally sufficient and it states so explicitly several times, such as the admonishment to follow oral tradition in addition to Scripture or the acknowledgement that there is much Christ said and taught that was not recorded.

    You then go on to, I believe, argue against transubstantiation by citing verses dealing with ritual washing before a meal. That just makes no sense and it further shows me that you do not understand Catholic teaching nor do you interpret the Bible in context with a sound hermeneutic.

    #7312

    Bernardine
    Member

    [color=green:1hefbusl]Wow, this is good stuff. Ron is getting picked apart here.[/color:1hefbusl]

    #7313

    weather
    Member

    One cannot debate a subject when the other person has a closed mind to see the other person’s view,and he was a hair’s breath away from being a priest(we lucked out).

    #7317

    Ron K
    Member

    Victor says:

    [quote:1h26lu6s]while Ron will fight it tooth and nail.

    Common Ron, admit it, you believe in tradition?

    Do you really want us to prove it to [/quote:1h26lu6s]

    Well you seem to have plenty of ammo and friends but you are right
    about me fighing it = because I know the deceptions tha you guys will learn much to late to be of any good, how sad for you

    as far as the traditions – you have nothing to prove to anyone as weathers said below – eveeryone here has that closed mind – come to think of it – the Bible tells me that you guys wouldn’t understand long before today…. :lol:

    benedict looking at your replies, well they are the usual type of answers that I expected, nothing new.

    [quote:1h26lu6s]If you have no rebuttal, you have conceded my point. Sola Scriptura only stands when it is presumed. When one’s conclusion is one’s premise, the argument is a circle and invalid. [/quote:1h26lu6s]

    What kind of reply is that? More rhetoric then substance. You nor has any Catholic been able to tell me what Isn’t covered sufficientlly by Scriptures. If there was then they’d have to be the one that could debate with God Himself the answers to the questions in the last three chapters of Job – and we know there isn’t one other person that can do that!

    [quote:1h26lu6s]The Bible itself tells you what is missing: oral tradition. [/quote:1h26lu6s]

    And whatever orally spoken was eventually written down or wasn’t necessary, or do you forget who is the real writers of Scriptures? (Hint – it isn’t any human)

    [quote:1h26lu6s]Christians did not have a single word of New Testament for 20 years and did not have a Bible for nearly 400 years. They knew what was what because they listened to the Church. And as I mentioned before, it was through their knowledge of tradition that they discerned the books of the New Testament[/quote:1h26lu6s]
    obviously you give man to much credit for doing what God did through the Holy Spirit

    [quote:1h26lu6s]You take this completely out of context if you believe St. Paul is teaching the Corinthians to look only to Scripture. St. Paul is reproaching them for their pride and reminding them that God is Judge. [/quote:1h26lu6s]
    It still applies regardless of your denials that Scriptures aren’t sufficent. Funny how you know about God being able to judge yet you don’t swallow your own pride. :rolleyes:

    [quote:1h26lu6s] The word of God is not Scripture alone. The word of God is all of God’s revelation through the words of the prophets. Scripture consists of the portion of the word of God that was written down, not the entirety of it. [/quote:1h26lu6s]

    Yes that is so soothing to listen to until you think about all of the deceptive “prophets” in business, seems like the Mormans and Jw’s claim the same thing today

    [quote:1h26lu6s]Ron, you have demonstrated a very deficient understanding of Catholic doctrine since you have been here. You have also shown a wooden, literalistic understanding of Scripture that time and again has wrested Scripture from its proper context. Your website only shows contradiction between your faulty hermeneutic and your faulty understanding of tradition and Catholic teaching.[/quote:1h26lu6s]
    Have you ever looked at my articles to know? Obviously not by his kind of rhetoric!

    [quote:1h26lu6s]Tradition is profuse throughout the early Church Fathers and their writings. They are unmistakeably Catholic, not Protestant. [/quote:1h26lu6s]
    I can definitely agree with you here and that ispart of your problem!

    [quote:1h26lu6s] Catechism is no closer to the Book of Mormon than a Sunday school lesson. The Catechism is a compilation of the Church’s teaching provided for reference and catechesis (instruction in the faith). It is a textbook of the faith and not a source of addition. [/quote:1h26lu6s]
    Excuse the pun but This “traditionally” is also correct and part of the problem – it contradicts much of Scriptures.

    [quote:1h26lu6s]The succession of the Catholic Church from St. Peter and the Apostles to the bishops of today is unbroken and historical fact. Every Catholic bishop in the world can trace his ordination to an Apostle. These are the very men St. Paul charged Timothy to instruct and pass on the faith. [/quote:1h26lu6s]
    Even through all of the prostitues and illegitiment popes! Yes that would be something to announce to the world – I’d run from that for sure! It isn’t something that I’d shout about. Are you bragging or complaining? Somehow it doesn’t seem to fit Paul’s instuctions very well.

    then you go on a tipical “he said” “she said” tangent which doen’t prove a thing as Paul would point out in Galatians 1:6-9 or as I’d say “who cares?”
    Are we to believe them over God’s word? Not hardly. And we get to this:

    [quote:1h26lu6s]I can show all of the above in the Bible as well. But we are discussing oral tradition right now. [/quote:1h26lu6s]
    You mean what your church says is Biblical doen’t you? A little twist here and there for good measure. I’ve seen enought to know that those aren’t Biblical evidences if the truth was known.

    [quote:1h26lu6s] Just because they are absent from the Scriptures does not mean they were added. And just because they are absent from the Scriptures does not mean they contradict Scripture.

    But the point is moot as the Church has not added any tradition. She has passed down only what she has received, which I have already started showing above. [/quote:1h26lu6s]

    Nice sounding but so is the thought of ocean-front properties in Arizona
    and about that realistic as well.

    [quote:1h26lu6s]Every Catholic doctrine can be found in the Bible, be it explicitly, implicitly, or deductively. Scripture is materially sufficient for that reason. But Scripture is not formally sufficient and it states so explicitly several times, such as the admonishment to follow oral tradition in addition to Scripture or the acknowledgement that there is much Christ said and taught that was not recorded. [/quote:1h26lu6s]

    1 -again you claim what isn’t truthful, only what your church claims.
    2 – Scriptures are sufficient without your church’s okay, thank you, and
    3 – Scriptures do tell us that not everything was written but don’t quit there because if you contine it tells us “what is written down is enough to KNOW how to believe and what we should know” No maybes about it!

    [quote:1h26lu6s]You then go on to, I believe, argue against transubstantiation by citing verses dealing with ritual washing before a meal. That just makes no sense and it further shows me that you do not understand Catholic teaching nor do you interpret the Bible in context with a sound hermeneutic[/quote:1h26lu6s]
    Funny it is very clear to anyone that KNOWS Scriptures what those verses say. read them over, I bet you can too!

    I doubt it though…..

    Bernardine says: [quote:1h26lu6s]
    Wow, this is good stuff. Ron is getting picked apart here.[/quote:1h26lu6s]
    Have a good laugh, but I don’t think so! I read the last chapter and I know who wins <img src=” title=”Wink” />

    Weathers — to you I just think that I luck out as well. Praise God!

    #7318

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    [quote:tzvbpo4v]And whatever orally spoken was eventually written down or wasn’t necessary, or do you forget who is the real writers of Scriptures? (Hint – it isn’t any human)[/quote:tzvbpo4v]
    Silly rabbit, man participated with God in creating the Scriptures. Scripture is inspired by God, not dictated by God.

    #7319

    Benedict
    Member

    [quote:1cjpalr9]And whatever orally spoken was eventually written down or wasn’t necessary[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    So you assume. This is just another instance of circular reasoning. “The Bible alone is the rule of faith therefore everything I need to know must be in the Bible.” Your premise is again your conclusion.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]obviously you give man to much credit for doing what God did through the Holy Spirit[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    What the Holy Spirit did through the Catholic Church. I nowhere deny or minimize the role of the Holy Spirit in the preservation of the faith, Ron. Quite the contrary, the entire Catholic system is based entirely on the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]It still applies regardless of your denials that Scriptures aren’t sufficent.[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    If the context is stripped from the verse, thereby changing the meaning, it does not still apply. And that is just what you have done, Ron.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]Yes that is so soothing to listen to until you think about all of the deceptive “prophets” in business[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    What Mormons and JWs do is irrelevant to the truth. Just because the devil masquerades as an angel of light does not incriminate the heavenly host.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]Have you ever looked at my articles to know? Obviously not by his kind of rhetoric![/quote:1cjpalr9]
    Are you telling me that you are only ignorant of Catholic teaching and hermeneutics while on this site? That you somehow understand and present it accurately elsewhere? That would be dishonest of you, Ron.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]Even through all of the prostitues and illegitiment popes! Yes that would be something to announce to the world – I’d run from that for sure! It isn’t something that I’d shout about.[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    If anything, Ron, all the prostitutes and illegitimate popes are a proof for Catholicism, not against it. Through 2000 years of existence the Catholic Church has proclaimed the same teaching. When popes were sleeping with prostitutes and reigning over Europe with both secular and religious power, no Catholic teaching changed. If anything shows the work of the Holy Spirit in preserving the truth, it is a corrupt pope on the chair of St. Peter answering to no authority yet teaching the doctrines that condemn himself.

    It was the heresy of the Donatists that tied spiritual efficacy to personal holiness. Do not follow in their footsteps.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]You mean what your church says is Biblical doen’t you? A little twist here and there for good measure.[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    If by little twist you mean reading Scripture in proper context and following the wisdom of the early Church, which was composed of those who learned the faith from the Apostles and spoke Greek as a native language, then yes. What you would want to avoid is reading Scripture woodenly, literalistically, and piecemeal.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]Nice sounding but so is the thought of ocean-front properties in Arizona and about that realistic as well.[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    Because it has gone on for your entire post, I will mention it here. You have yet to respond with anything more than snide comments.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]1 -again you claim what isn’t truthful, only what your church claims.[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    I can show you the Biblical basis of any Catholic doctrine you want. But not in this thread. Just keep in mind that showing a Biblical basis does not mean “convincing Ron something is true.” Your conviction is irrelevant.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]2 – Scriptures are sufficient without your church’s okay, thank you,[/quote:1cjpalr9]
    See ‘asserting one’s premise as one’s conclusion’ several times above.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]3 – Scriptures do tell us that not everything was written but don’t quit there because if you contine it tells us “what is written down is enough to KNOW how to believe and what we should know” No maybes about it![/quote:1cjpalr9]
    I did not stop there. You will note that I agreed completely that Scripture is materially sufficient in my last post. Are you aware of the difference between materially sufficient and formally sufficient?

    Scripture is our book. Tradition is our reading glasses. It makes the small print easier to read.

    [quote:1cjpalr9]Funny it is very clear to anyone that KNOWS Scriptures what those verses say. read them over, I bet you can too![/quote:1cjpalr9]
    In other words, you have no argument to present so praise the emperor’s new clothes.

    Looking through the thread you can see a difference in our posts, Ron. Both of us make snide comments. I have always been a smart ass. But in my posts, I back up my words. I do not simply say “you don’t get it, stupid” and leave it at that. Neither do I simply reassert. I explain. I argue. I show. Just because you disagree with the conclusion does not change that.

    #7486

    Ron K
    Member

    Bendict, you said:

    [quote:3dij3pkj]Looking through the thread you can see a difference in our posts, Ron. Both of us make snide comments. I have always been a smart ass. But in my posts, I back up my words. I do not simply say “you don’t get it, stupid” and leave it at that. Neither do I simply reassert. I explain. I argue. I show. Just because you disagree with the conclusion does not change that.[/quote:3dij3pkj]

    that’s very nice however, as Matthew 22:29 points out:
    [color=red:3dij3pkj][b:3dij3pkj]”You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”[/b:3dij3pkj][/color:3dij3pkj]

    #7487

    Benedict
    Member

    I suppose that would be another difference. Not only do I back up my comments, I do not run from debate with my fingers in my ears.

    #7490

    weather
    Member

    [color=blue:2jy0kbpu]I may be wrong,but isn’t the Bible “Tradition”?It is defined in the dictionary as “the oral transmission of events,opinions,doctrines,practices,etc.,throught successive generations without written memorials; that which is so handed down; ancient custom”.[/color:2jy0kbpu]

    #7505

    Ron K
    Member

    Mr Weathers, you asked:

    [quote:17n50z1f]I may be wrong,but isn’t the Bible “Tradition”? [/quote:17n50z1f]

    nothing wrong about Biblical traditions, If indeed any tradition is Biblical!

    #7631

    LARobert
    Participant

    I scanned through the postings rather quickly, so forgive me if this was covered before. As the late Abp. Fulton Sheen used to say, “In the US there are but a handfull of people who hate what the Catholic Church teaches, and millions who hate what they think it teaches.”

    Tradition, comes from the latin word Traditio, meaning, “that which is handed down.” The Roman Catholic Church, (as do the Orthodox) differentiate between three types of Tradition.

    Written Tradition: the inspired books of the Bible, (All the books, not just the books that Martin Luther and his compatriots tossed out of the Bible because they did not agree with his Theology).

    Oral Tradition: those things taught to the Apostles that the Sacred Scriptures illude to when we read that after preaching to the crowds, our Blessed Lord took His Apostles aside and taught them further. Also in the last verses of the Gopsel according to St. John, where we read: “These and many other things did our Lord say and do, if they where all written down, not all the books, (libraries) of the world could hold them.”

    A third is usually spelled with a lower case T, this tradition, are the rites and customs surrounding the everyday practices and histories passed down to us from those who upheld the Faith before us, Things like clerical celebacy, abstaining from meat on Fridays etc. Things that can be changed by lawful authorities in the Church. As these traditions are man made, (with the authority given the Church by Christ) they can also be changed by men. The first two cannot be changed, as they where not given or made by men. The last a competent authority in the Church can change.

    One thing many people forget is that when changes where made in the past, lets say to abstaining from meat on Fridays; Pope Paul VI praised those who kept the old customs, and for those who no longer abstained instructed them to find some other suitable way of remembering our Lord’s great action on Good Friday by marking the day with some other form or mortification or charity. When Pope Paul VI changed the Eucharistic fast to one hour, and Pope Pius XII to Three hours (when he also permitted Masses to be offered after Noontime), from the traditional Midnight fast, they both praised those who could and did keep the old midnight fast, and encouraged them to do so.

    Sorry I write so much gang!

    #7639

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    excellent explanation LARobert. <img src=” title=”Smile” />

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.