A Question For Protestants regarding the Catholic Church...

[Mikejw]

No valid holy orders deacons, no prebyters, no bishops to hand down the Tradtional teachings of the apostles. (2Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits 7 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.

Jesus didn’t say continue in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but in His word. God gave us the Bible. Every word of it proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3)

The only final authority is the word of God. The Bible declares it is the only authority:

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17).

Whatever a person teaches, it must agree with Scripture, it is the final authority.

The Catholic church talks about “tradition” standing equal along side the word of God.

The Bible says much about “tradition.” In the New Testament, the words “traditions” and “tradition” occur 14 times. There are eight references (Matt. 15:2,3,6: Mark 7:3,5, 8,9,13) in which Christ makes statements about traditions, which are derogatory. In Colossians 2:8 and Galatians 1:14, Paul makes five references, which are derogatory. Peter also has one reference (1 Peter 1:18) which is derogatory. There are only three favorable references left concerning tradition.

In the New Testament Gospel, Jesus publicly rebuked the Pharisees about their traditions:

“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…” (Mark 7:7-8)

What the Pharisees did was elevate their tradition above the word of God. Doesn’t this sound like the Roman Catholic Church? They have elevated themselves and tradition above the Holy Scriptures. Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees was because their traditions led people to a path of eternal destruction. Jesus says destruction awaited them:

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” (Matt. 23:15)

Then we have the Pharisees questioning Jesus because His disciples were transgressing their traditions, but Jesus turned and questioned them:

“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3)

Jesus let them know they were elevating their traditions above Scripture. It was the opposite with Jesus; He elevated the Scriptures above tradition. He told them they were in err, not knowing the Scriptures:

“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29)

Like the Pharisees, the Roman Catholic Church elevates tradition above Scripture. But we are given a warning in the Bible:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

The traditions of the Pharisees perverted the word of God, rendering it ineffective (Matt. 15:1-9).

Now for the three favorable references concerning tradition.

“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)

Nowhere in the above verses does it refer to the Roman Catholic traditions that have developed in past centuries, tracing back to the time of the Apostles.

 

[Mikejw]

The following refer to the time each practices were either A) first introduced, B) formulated, C) adopted by council, or D) proclaimed by a pope:

310 Prayers for the dead began.
375 The worship of saints.
394 The Mass was adopted
431 The worship of Mary began to develop.
593 The doctrine of purgatory was introduced.
606 Claims to papal supremacy took root.
650 Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary started.
709 Kissing the pope’s foot began with Pope Constantine
750 The pope first assumed temporal power.
787 The worship of images and relics was introduced.
819 The first observance of the Feast of Assumption began.
850 The invention of holy water.
965 The blessing of the bells.
983 The canonization of saints was formulated.
998 Lent, Advent, and fasting from meat on Friday.
1003 Feasts for the dead were introduced
1074 The celibacy of the priesthood was asserted.
1076 The doctrine of papal infallibility suggested.
1090 The use of prayer beads (Rosary)
1115 Confession of sins to a priest was instituted.
1140 The doctrine of seven sacraments was introduced.
1190 The sale of indulgences.
1215 Transubstantiation was adopted by Pope Innocent III.
1216 The acceptance of auricular confession of sins to a priest.
1220 Holy water accepted
1226 The elevation and adoration of the wafer began.
1274 Purgatory was declared doctrine at the Second Council of Lyons.
1303 The Catholic Church as the only true Church for Salvation.
1316 The Ave Maria was introduced.
1414 Only Catholic priests can say the Mass and partake of the wine.
1438 Purgatory and the seven sacraments officially decreed.
1545 Tradition declared to be equal with Scripture by Council of Trent.
1546 The Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent.
1547 Rejection of justification by faith alone.
1562 The Mass declared a propitiatory offering.
1854 The immaculate conception announced by Pius IX.
1864 The doctrine of the temporal power of the pope was proclaimed.
1870 Papal infallibility was proclaimed at Vatican I.
1950 The bodily assumption and personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven proclaimed by Pope Pius III.
Even with the above stated, there was much dissension by Catholic scholars concerning certain doctrine. For instance, at the Council of Trent, not everyone thought the Apocrypha was Scripture. Nacchianti and Bonuccio rejected the idea that tradition held equal footing with the Scriptures (Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965, p. 93). And not all believed the pope should be considered infallible, nor did some of them accept the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception (See encyclopedia articles on Vatican II and August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, pp. 189ff.)

There are many more Scriptural abuses that could be added to the list above: monks, nuns, monastaries, convents, holy week, Ash Wednesday, holy oil, Palm Sunday, All Saints Day, relics, novenas, St. Christopher medals, charms, incense, forty days of lent, etc. etc. The above is nothing more than human inventions that have developed throughout the centuries. Not one of these traditions can be found in Scripture.

As far as the three favorable Scriptures relating to tradition? Whatever was taught orally, was eventually put down into writing.

During the time of the Apostles, the Scriptures were still developing, and whatever was taught orally by the Apostles was eventually written down. This is even indicated by Paul. He presents to them what he earlier taught them orally:

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” (1 Cor. 11:23)

He also says:

“Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (1 Thess. 2:5)

So here Paul is writing and elaborating what he had told (orally) them previously. And when it comes to “tradition,” it has to do with what the Apostles commanded them earlier, but now have it in writing:

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)

Peter also says:

“Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” (2 Peter 1:15)

It is obvious Peter is relating to what he had said earlier so they will remember. He wanted them to remember for there were some who were already trying to corrupt the word of God:

“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:” (2 Cor. 2:17)

Something documented in writing is more reliable than trusting in oral teachings which inevitably is less accurate, even within ten minutes of its transmission. Could you imagine over a period of many centuries?

People searched the Scriptures, it was their final authority. We should follow the same example:

 

[laurenharper]

Agreed.
I find that protestant churches even define sola scriptura differently. I think protestants pay lip service to it, but in the end other “sources” creep into their doctrines. Prima scriptura is probably more accurate. For example, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - Scripture, Reason, Tradition, Experience.

Then again, I get the impression some of my Catholic brothers would prefer I didn’t read the Bible at all. There is too much risk of me misinterpreting a verse.

Seriously? Like the Bible is a dangerous thing? It seems like that if you’re so sure that your faith is biblical, you wouldn’t be afraid of the Bible proving you wrong!

 

[laurenharper]

I was once a protestant who went to school to become a pastor and instead came out Catholic! I believe the Catholic church is Christ authentic church, however there are truths in protestant beliefs that make them brothers and sister in Christ. Interpretaions are misconstrude out of personal beleifs when it comes to protestant Bibles however God loves them the same as us. It is our responability as Catholics not to argue but love those of denominations and to pray that they will find there way to the mother church, not for the sake of there salvation but for the sake of there spiritual maturity. All should have there own personal journey to find Gods church without oustide influince, it is then that one can authenticly become part of the holy church. Instead of questioning protestants lets pray for them and show them unconditional love for it is only then that they might find there way home! God Bless!

Absolutely. And, I might add, take an approach of humility and ask ourselves what strengths prostestants have that might enhance our own Christian life. There is definately a passion for Christ in many Protestant Churches that is inspiring to me. Can’t argue with that!

 

[laurenharper]

Jesus didn’t say continue in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but in His word. God gave us the Bible. Every word of it proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3)

The only final authority is the word of God. The Bible declares it is the only authority:

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17).

Whatever a person teaches, it must agree with Scripture, it is the final authority.
.

I must correct a few things here. First off, although God has a hand in everything, our Cannon comes from the Catholic Church. Without the Church, we would just have a vast collection of letters to sift through. If you consider the Scriptures infallible, then you must believe that the Counsel that assembled them was also infallible. Otherwise, you would have a fallible collection of infallible letters, which makes no sense.

Secondly, John 17:17 does not state that the Bible is the only authority; it ONLY says that God’s word is TRUTH. Catholics agree with this. Scripture is absolute truth. But the Bible simply doesn’t teach ‘scripture alone’. And by the way, God’s ‘Word’ is two-pronged: it includes written Scripture, as well as oral teachings.

No Church doctrine should conflict with Scripture, but there are truths taught by the apostles and handed down orally that are not fully contained in the Bible.

 

[laurenharper]

The Bible says much about “tradition.” In the New Testament, the words “traditions” and “tradition” occur 14 times. There are eight references (Matt. 15:2,3,6: Mark 7:3,5, 8,9,13) in which Christ makes statements about traditions, which are derogatory. In Colossians 2:8 and Galatians 1:14, Paul makes five references, which are derogatory. Peter also has one reference (1 Peter 1:18) which is derogatory. There are only three favorable references left concerning tradition.

So, according to what you have said, there are both good and bad traditions discussed in Scritpture (given that the bad seem to outweigh the good). There is some semantics involved here though. First, there are Traditions. Then, there are traditions. When Catholics speak of ‘keeping with the Traditions’, they are talking CAPITAL letter T, meaning all the doctrines that have been constant since the time of Christ. When the Bible tells us to ‘hold to the traditions, both written and oral’, it is refering to this kind of Tradition. It is NOT refering to all of the little ‘traditions’ of PRACTICE, that can and at times are changed/ammended. These traditions are not considered infallible. Just “FYI”.

 

[laurenharper]

Mikejw, concerning your list of dates/doctrines: I haven’t checked them for accuracy, but that really isn’t the point. When the Catholic Church formally comes out and ‘indoctrines’ (for lack of a better word; sorry, it’s late) something, that doesn’t mean that it is a brand new teaching at that point. It means that the Church has taught whatever doctrine consistently from the time of the Apostles, and so, at some point, decides that it is fitting to formally make it doctrine. The Church concurrs with Scripture when it says to not believe any new doctrine. But, the list you provided aren’t really NEW doctrines. They are old ones, orally passed down (if not completely founded in the written Word) thru the ages. Remember, God’s Word, according to Scripture, is both written AND oral.

 

[Mikejw]

denemoore.com/Mother.html
denemoore.com/Mooncrest.html
denemoore.com/Fish.html
denemoore.com/Wheel.html
denemoore.com/Crosier.html
denemoore.com/Serpant.html
denemoore.com/Prayerbeeds.html
denemoore.com/Hand.html
denemoore.com/Globe.html
denemoore.com/Pinecone.html
denemoore.com/Trident.html
denemoore.com/Eye.html

Gen 11:3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar.
Gen 11:4 And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
Gen 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people [are] one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
Gen 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Hmmm

 

[Mikejw]

So, according to what you have said, there are both good and bad traditions discussed in Scritpture (given that the bad seem to outweigh the good). There is some semantics involved here though. First, there are Traditions. Then, there are traditions. When Catholics speak of ‘keeping with the Traditions’, they are talking CAPITAL letter T, meaning all the doctrines that have been constant since the time of Christ. When the Bible tells us to ‘hold to the traditions, both written and oral’, it is refering to this kind of Tradition. It is NOT refering to all of the little ‘traditions’ of PRACTICE, that can and at times are changed/ammended. These traditions are not considered infallible. Just “FYI”.

“These traditions are not considered infallible.”

Yes, but what should raise red flags to all with minimal decernment are traditions and practices that are contrary to the Word. Catholics know what I’m refering to without even having to post selected scripture, I keep getting the same baseless explainations. Look, I love catholics ok, we are all created in the image of God, but what I do hate is lies and deception and I will earnestly defend the faith as we are requisted to do so.

Hbr 4:12 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 is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 149:6 [Let] the high praises of God [be] in their mouth, And a two-edged sword in their hand,
Psa 149:7 To execute vengeance on the nations, And punishments on the peoples;
Psa 149:8 To bind their kings with chains, And their nobles with fetters of iron;
Psa 149:9 To execute on them the written judgment– This honor have all His saints. Praise the LORD!

 

[rbarcia]

So here’s the real question. If (for the sake of the argument) the Catholic Church is NOT the True Church:

1. Which Protestant denomination is the True Church? Remember, the True Church is a physical church, not a spiritual fellowship of believers. James 5:14 pretty much says that the True Church is a real, physical church.

James 5:14 does not say this, it says that you should call an elder of a church (which just another word for group of believers).

1. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 1500 years before correcting it? In the OT, God only allowed the Jews to be in error for a hundred years or so before sending Babylon/Assyria/Persia/etc… to ruin them and show them the Truth of God. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 10x that amount of time?

You are misrepresenting history since the early church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false.

What do you think that Jesus meant when He gave Peter the keys, and gave Him responsibility to feed and care for His flock? These are things that were said to only Peter.

Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church.

This is correct. The Apostles, and the Catholic Church, have always taught that Jesus is the Head of the Church. This is clear in the Catholic writings found in the NT.

The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

I agree that Peter recognizes Christ as the chief shepherd. However, Scripture is clear that Jesus commissioned Peter to feed and care for the flock. This duty does not replace Christ as chief shepherd, but grafts Peter into His shepherdom, just as all those who are appointed by God as shepherds are grafted into Him.

The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.

Yes, of course. Jesus is the Rock, the statment is a Rock, and Peter is a Rock. They are not mutually exclusive. Christ is the cornerstone, and the Apostles and prophets are part of the foundation.

We need not be in any doubt on the basic questions about the Church because the Bible gives us clear answers.

If this were true, there would not be so many separations in the Body of Christ.

The church is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles as recorded in the Bible.

No, the Apostolic Church is the one that follows the teachings of the Apostles. I will agree that some of these are found recorded in the bible, but not everyone understands what is written in the same way. Those who interpret scripture apart from what the Apostles believed and taught have strayed from the Catholic faith.

Every assembly of Christians, the local church, that believes and obeys the teaching of the Bible form part of the one, holy and catholic church of Jesus Christ.

If this were true, there would be unity in the body. As it is, every local church understands the scriptures a little bit differently.

Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Are you laboring under some misunderstanding that Cathlolics are not “born again”?

 

[guanophore]

No strawman, someone earlier in this thread basically said I had no business interpreting scripture. Maybe reading is different from interpreting?
I appreciate your comment about how verses fit into a larger picture. It’s so easy to take things out of context.

Anyway, I know from the high level scholarship I’ve seen in this forum that many Catholics know the Bible. I’m glad reading of the Bible is encouraged.

God Bless You.

Perhaps there is a better way to say it. You are correct, we all read and interpret what we read. Catholics encourage reading and interpreting Scripture. However, it is not appropriate to interpret it apart from what the Apostles believed and taught, which is held by the Church. As soon as interpretations are made that are inconsistent with what was committed to the Church, errors and heresies begin to arise. This has been going on since the books of the NT began to be written.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say in the Bible that it is wrong starting churches? Please show me where it says in the Bible that certain church is correct over other churches?

What it says in the bible is that there is only One Church. Those who depart from her to start their own ecclesial communities have departed from the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

“many do and also claim the apostacy of the Catholic church.”

It’s a foregone conclusion that true born again Christians are going to argue the legitimacy and claim the apostacy of the cc.

No, it is not. There are many “born again christians” that do not subscribe to this view. A statement such as this indicates the narrow minded prejudice and limited experience of the person making it.

 

[guanophore]

“communion” To have in common, to paticipate and have partnership with.
Commemorating the Lord’s supper by which believers remembered their saviour’s death and celebrated their common salvation and eternal life which reflected their perfect spiritual oneness.

“Take, eat; [fn] this is My body which is broken [fn] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Cr 11:25 In the same manner [He] also [took] the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink [it],** in remembrance of Me**.”
1Cr 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

I think what gets lost amongst our separated brethren is the concept of the amanesis. The Lord’s supper is based on the prefigurment of the Passover. In this “rememberance”, the deliverance was re-enacted. The Lamb was literally slain and consumed. It was not a symbolic lamb.

Jesus did not give his “symbolic” flesh and blood on the cross, but His own.

It is necessary to set all sin before the Lord, then partake, so as not to mock the sacrifice for sin, by holding on to it.

It is good that this element of Catholic Teaching has been retained in your ecclesial community.

“This cup [is] the new covenant in My blood”

Clearly the cup only represented the New Covenent. If the cup is claimed to be literal blood, why don’t catholics claim the cup to be the literal Covenent.

The cup is the new covenant in His blood. We believe the cup to be His Blood, because He said it was. We believe the New Covenant has been sealed in His blood, and we have been sealed into it through baptism.

 

[DonLeon]

James 5:14 does not say this, it says that you should call an elder of a church (which just another word for group of believers).

You are misrepresenting history since the early church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

You mis-understand history. Eusebius (about 160 AD) called the church catholic, which is the same church today. It is called Roman Catholic because the major episcopal see of the Catholic Church is located in Rome. The Roman Catholic church today is the exact same church that Peter, Paul, and the Apostles assembled and taught. To prove otherwise is a futile exercise. Many have tried and failed.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[guanophore]

Jesus didn’t say continue in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but in His word. God gave us the Bible. Every word of it proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3)

There was no Latin Rite at the time the NT was written. Yes, God gave us the Bible, through the Catholic Church (which is not “Roman”). We were commanded to continue in the teachings of the Apostles, and to preserve the traditions that were handed down to us. This is what was done for 400 years before we had a NT. Even still, during that time, many departed from the Apostolic faith, forming what the Church called “heresies”. Many of them are re-emerging today, among those who are again separated from the Apostolic faith.

The only final authority is the word of God. The Bible declares it is the only authority:

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17).

No, Mike, God’s Word is not confined to scripture. If it were, then the early church would have been in real trouble figuring out the truth, since there was no NT for 382 years!

The Bible cannot be an “authority”. It is authoritative, yes, but the exercise of authority is an activity that belongs to persons, not writing, however Holy.

Whatever a person teaches, it must agree with Scripture, it is the final authority.

This is a heresy that emerged about 500 years ago, and is not found anywhere in the teaching of the Church for the first 1500 years.

The Catholic church talks about “tradition” standing equal along side the word of God.

The Bible says much about “tradition.” In the New Testament, the words “traditions” and “tradition” occur 14 times. There are eight references (Matt. 15:2,3,6: Mark 7:3,5, 8,9,13) in which Christ makes statements about traditions, which are derogatory. In Colossians 2:8 and Galatians 1:14, Paul makes five references, which are derogatory. Peter also has one reference (1 Peter 1:18) which is derogatory. There are only three favorable references left concerning tradition.

It is essential that one distinguish between Sacred Tradition (the Revelation of God) and human tradition (customs and practices). If one does not do this, then one cannot understand the nature and function of tradition.

What you seem to fail to realize is that the entire NT was produced out of Sacred Tradition. It did not just fall out of the sky. The writers penned what the Church believed and taught. The Revelation of God to the Church was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Christ Himself is the Source of our faith.

In the New Testament Gospel, Jesus publicly rebuked the Pharisees about their traditions:

Only when they contradicted the intentions of God. When they did not, He supported them. Again, one must distinguish between the sacred, and the human.

Jesus does not even condemn human traditions, so long as they do not oppose the intentions of God.

What the Pharisees did was elevate their tradition above the word of God. Doesn’t this sound like the Roman Catholic Church?

No, but I believe that it does to you, since you know very little about the Catholic Church. You don’t even know that it is not “Roman”.

They have elevated themselves and tradition above the Holy Scriptures.

No, Mike. Scripture and Tradition are two equal strands of God’s revelation.

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The Apostolic Teaching was sacred and commanded to be held, whether it came by the words of their mouths, or by letter. Same source, same weight.

Jesus let them know they were elevating their traditions above Scripture. It was the opposite with Jesus; He elevated the Scriptures above tradition. He told them they were in err, not knowing the Scriptures:

“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29)

Like the Pharisees, the Roman Catholic Church elevates tradition above Scripture.

It is true that, when the traditions of men replace the commandments of God, errori happens. Sola scriptura is a good example of this. A tradition of men that contradicts the word of God and causes all kinds of error.

However, there are no Sacred Traditions that contradict the Scriptures. They cannot contradict, because they come from the same Source. They compliment one another. Your statement indicates that you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches.

If you are not just here to make spurious accusations, and bring your anti-Catholic rhetoric, you may learn where you are wrong.

 Now for the three favorable references concerning tradition.

“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)

Nowhere in the above verses does it refer to the Roman Catholic traditions that have developed in past centuries, tracing back to the time of the Apostles.

Well, that is because the Latin Rite had not yet emerged when these verses were written. However, These are the Sacred Traditions that have been preserved in the Catholic Church, just as we have been commanded. It seems that you understand very little about Sacred Tradition, and have been taugth a lot of errors.

 

[jake23]

Protestants seem to forget or do not know that the holy Catholic church created the Bible. It is a waste of time to argue with them, it is like tryong to convince a mormon that joseph smith was a conman! you will get no where! It is only on there own spiritual search with some real education that they may find the truths revealed in the church! arguing with protestants will only absorb your valuable energy!

 

[NDfan]

So here’s the real question. If (for the sake of the argument) the Catholic Church is NOT the True Church:

1. Which Protestant denomination is the True Church? Remember, the True Church is a physical church, not a spiritual fellowship of believers. James 5:14 pretty much says that the True Church is a real, physical church.

The true church has and always will be the universal/kathilocos church that Christ founded after Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah the Son of GOD. Universal or catholic as Ignatius called it to mean no barriers regarding age, race, sex, etc. etc. No Protestant denomination will ever try to establish itself as the true church and shouldn’t. It may consider itself to be part of the true church but the use of a different title just refers to that denomination’s position on what scripture is stating. The problem we have today is anyone who reads scripture seems for some reason to believe they can found a new brand of Christianity and give a new title with complete knowledge of the truth as led by the Holy Spirit. That behavior is continuing to fracture the true universal church leading to much unnecessary conflict.

If we look at what scripture states with regard to homosexual behavior just as an example, it’s clear that GOD detests it and has no tolerance for it. Yet there are Christian churches today that are developing a tolerance for this declaring that “it’s OK”. The Presbyterian church is facing this very issue and probably will split as a result of it. So we have to ask where is the authority to decide on these types of issues and how does the church declare those opposing it to be in error or to be heretical??? It’s always been my belief that scripture has to be the governing entity which is why sola scriptura when used properly makes sense. In the absence of scripture having an official position then we must be able to turn to our history and ask what traditionally has the church taught. The Jerusalem council settled the matter of circumcision as scripture wasn’t yet officially canonized and even the canonized books don’t tell us Christ’s official position on this issue. That’s where Peter’s statement was so brilliant asking why should gentiles be yoked with conditions that even the Jews could not uphold. That is the true power of binding and loosing.

One issue I do have even with my own church is they believe that where the Bible is silent we are silent. Well that’s a great thought but then does that mean you dismiss all the oral teachings of the Apostles that may not have been written down Why does the church have the power to bind and loose then??

1. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 1500 years before correcting it? In the OT, God only allowed the Jews to be in error for a hundred years or so before sending Babylon/Assyria/Persia/etc… to ruin them and show them the Truth of God. Why would God allow the Catholic Church to be in error for 10x that amount of time?

This statement is not true at all. The Jews drifted away from GOD for thousands of years. That’s why we read about Judges being raised up to rescue them constantly. Even as the Jews approached the promised land GOD turned them back into the desert for abandoning their faith. The whole history of the Jews is surrounded by turmoil because of their abandonment of their faith. Look at how many Kings were raised up and the time frame that covers. The kingdom was split into 2 with separate leadership in each. Generations of leaders followed GOD’s rule to the T while others did what was detestable in the eyes of GOD. That certainly was much more than 100 years. The ultimate destruction of the Temple and exile of the Jews was the culmination of thousands of years that finally climaxed. Then as we see GOD allowed the Jews to return to rebuild the Temple only to be destroyed again by the Romans several hundred years later even after the death of Christ.

One could say that the church in it’s first 1500 years of existence always fell into some type of error. The split between east and west is similar to the slit between the north and south within Israel. That was a culmination of years of turmoil because of opposition to Rome and it’s claims for supremacy. Those who considered themselves followers of Christ denied the trinity, the deity of Christ etc. etc. It wasn’t because they denied Jesus as being the messiah, it was because they interpreted HIS existence to be different. At one point the Pope was exiled to Avignon France shortly after his declaration of being infallible. Even today the church in Rome faces controversy. There are Catholic Bishops that do not hold to the doctrines of Mary nor to Transubstantiation. Someone will always be in error one way or another. The problem is we have lost our unity for the sake of someone’s quest for “righting the ship” if you will.

I honestly don’t know what the answer is but I believe unity and our allegiance to Christ is above everything.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

The following refer to the time each practices were either A) first introduced, B) formulated, C) adopted by council, or D) proclaimed by a pope:

Your list is erroneous. Furthermore, it is required here at CAF that you cite your sources. There are so many wrong elements on this list, it is hard to know where to begin! However, I suspect that you are not really here to learn about the Catholic faith, or to get Catholic Answers, so I am not going to respond to your list right now, other than to remark at the preposterous claims it makes. From whence did you copy it?

… there was much dissension by Catholic scholars concerning certain doctrine. For instance, at the Council of Trent, not everyone thought the Apocrypha was Scripture.

Such a statement reflects an ignorance about the nature and source of Catholic Doctrine. “Catholic scholars” do not define doctrine. It is defined by those appointed by Christ, and preserved by His promise of infallibility.

The books you are referring to as “apocrypha” are not. They are the Deuterocanon. There was also a great deal of dispute about the books that were eventually included in the NT. The amount of dispute does not define divine revelation.

  Nacchianti and Bonuccio rejected the idea that tradition held equal footing with the Scriptures.

Yes, people have been doing this since day one. People’s rejection of the Truth, however “scholarly” they may seem, does not negate the Truth. As my beloved Fr. Corapi says “people can be educated into imbecility”.

And not all believed the pope should be considered infallible, nor did some of them accept the idea of Mary's immaculate conception (See encyclopedia articles on Vatican II and August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, pp. 189ff.)

Given your many apparent misunderstandings of the Catholic faith, I doubt very much that you understand anything about the charism of infallibility. And in any case, people who reject the Truth don’t nullify the Truth.

For anyone but themselves, that is.

There are many more Scriptural abuses that could be added to the list above: monks, nuns, monastaries, convents, holy week, Ash Wednesday, holy oil, Palm Sunday, All Saints Day, relics, novenas, St. Christopher medals, charms, incense, forty days of lent, etc. etc.

I don’t think there is any such thing as a Catholic “charm” but none of these other things you name are “scriptural abuses”. I don’t know where you are getting your information, but it seems high time for you to read some history.

The above is nothing more than human inventions that have developed throughout the centuries.  Not one of these traditions can be found in Scripture.

It is very possible that you cannot see these things in scripture, since you are reading it with your anti-Catholic blinders on. However, they are all there, so if you are willing to learn, people here are more than able to go through each element of your spurious list, and this list of practices, and show you where you are wrong.

As far as the three favorable Scriptures relating to tradition?  Whatever was taught orally, was eventually put down into writing.

This is also a false statement, and cannot be found in scripture either. It is one of the traditions of men that has emerged and is espoused so that people can reject the authority appointed by Christ.

During the time of the Apostles, the Scriptures were still developing, and whatever was taught orally by the Apostles was eventually written down. This is even indicated by Paul. He presents to them what he earlier taught them orally:

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” (1 Cor. 11:23)

This has to do with the Sacred Traditions, and the Mass, not the Scriptures. The vast majority of scripture had not been written when this letter was penned. All of the gospel was delivered personally.

He also says:

“Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (1 Thess. 2:5)

So here Paul is writing and elaborating what he had told (orally) them previously. And when it comes to “tradition,” it has to do with what the Apostles commanded them earlier, but now have it in writing:

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)

The Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture were never meant to be separated. Sacred Tradtition contains the way of life taught by the Apostles. It was never intended to be completely contained in Scripture.

It is obvious Peter is relating to what he had said earlier so they will remember. He wanted them to remember…

Something documented in writing is more reliable than trusting in oral teachings which inevitably is less accurate, even within ten minutes of its transmission. Could you imagine over a period of many centuries?

No need to imagine, since God prepared a people for Himself who held the Sacred Tradition. Salvation came from the Jews, who knew how to maintain oral tradition. It is not the ability of man that preserves God’s word, but His Spirit. What you are basically saying is that God is too weak to preserve His Word in the Church.

People searched the Scriptures, it was their final authority. We should follow the same example:

To search the scriptures, sure. But scripture cannot wield authority.