Are there Traditions that are contrary to Scripture?

[Mailman]

“Tradition,” according to Catholic teaching, is the handing on of the essentials of apostolic faith and morals of the Church in unwritten form. It is said that “the Catholic concept of Tradition in no way undermines Scripture, but rather strengthens it with a parallel and unwritten source of the word of God” (J. Redford, What Is Catholicism).

My view is that it is not true that Catholic Tradition “in no way undermines Scripture.” There are “Traditions” of the Catholic Church that are contrary to Scripture. One of these is Sunday observance.

It is claimed that Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church that is not expressly taught in Scripture but is not contrary to it. However, the late J. Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our Fathers” frankly admitted that, “The Scriptures ENFORCE the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” He further stated that, “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.”

If “the scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,” then, of course, Sunday observance would be contrary to the teachings in Scripture. How could it not be so?

Your views and comments would be highly appreciated.

 

[zach_dunn]

“Tradition,” according to Catholic teaching, is the handing on of the essentials of apostolic faith and morals of the Church in unwritten form. It is said that “the Catholic concept of Tradition in no way undermines Scripture, but rather strengthens it with a parallel and unwritten source of the word of God” (J. Redford, What Is Catholicism).

My view is that it is not true that Catholic Tradition “in no way undermines Scripture.” There are “Traditions” of the Catholic Church that are contrary to Scripture. One of these is Sunday observance.

It is claimed that Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church that is not expressly taught in Scripture but is not contrary to it. However, the late J. Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our Fathers” frankly admitted that, “The Scriptures ENFORCE the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” He further stated that, “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.”

If “the scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,” then, of course, Sunday observance would be contrary to the teachings in Scripture. How could it not be so?

Your views and comments would be highly appreciated.

Where exactly in scripture does it “enforce the religious observance of Saturday”?

Also, just because one, maybe even a few writers, say it is so, does not neccessarily make it so. The Church teaches the religious observance of Sunday so I go to Church on Sunday.

 

[Mailman]

Where exactly in scripture does it “enforce the religious observance of Saturday”?

Also, just because one, maybe even a few writers, say it is so, does not neccessarily make it so. The Church teaches the religious observance of Sunday so I go to Church on Sunday.

Actually, the Scriptures do not enforce the religious observance of Saturday. That is a quote from Gibbons and is not entirely accurate. Rather, the Scriptures enforce the religious observance of the seventh day - Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. This is found in God’s fourth commandment.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is claimed that Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church that is not expressly taught in Scripture but is not contrary to it. However, the late J. Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our

There isn’t an explicit command, as Gibbons may have noted, however…The resurrected Christ celebrated the Eucharist (which is the worship event in remembrance of the Resurrection which he commanded (Lk 22:19)) on a Sunday (Lk 24:1, 30-31).

Nevertheless and ultimately, even if there was not such an example in Scripture…Sunday worship is a matter of discipline or practice, not faith or morals, and thus subject to the binding and loosing authority of the Church via the Holy Spirit.

 

[CalCatholic]

---

“Tradition,” according to Catholic teaching, is the handing on of the essentials of apostolic faith and morals of the Church in unwritten form. It is said that “the Catholic concept of Tradition in no way undermines Scripture, but rather strengthens it with a parallel and unwritten source of the word of God” (J. Redford, What Is Catholicism).

My view is that it is not true that Catholic Tradition “in no way undermines Scripture.” There are “Traditions” of the Catholic Church that are contrary to Scripture. One of these is Sunday observance.

It is claimed that Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church that is not expressly taught in Scripture but is not contrary to it. However, the late J. Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our Fathers” frankly admitted that, “The Scriptures ENFORCE the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” He further stated that, “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.”

If “the scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,” then, of course, Sunday observance would be contrary to the teachings in Scripture. How could it not be so?

Your views and comments would be highly appreciated.

This is the problem that Christians who only have the Bible as their authority encounter. The first Christians did not have a New Testament at their disposal to consult for questions regarding their faith, most of them did not read and write. Most of the teachings from Jesus were handed down to them through oral tradition. There were some letters of Paul to consult in the 50’s AD but before that there was nothing written down that we know of. The switch from celebrating the Sabbath to the ‘First day of the week (Sunday) called by the first Christians, **‘The Lord’s Day’ **was done after Jesus’ death, probably with the teaching of the Holy Spirit (on and after Pentecost).

Ignatius of Antioch (35-110 AD) wrote in his letter to the Magnesians, "If, then, those who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer sabbathing but living by the Lord’s Day, on which we came to life through Him and through His death, - which some deny, - through which mystery we received faith, through which also we suffer in order to be found to be disciples of Christ Jesus, our only Teacher."

The Didache (a text for early Christians- 140 AD) states,** ‘On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break the bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrafice may be pure.’**

Justin Martyr (100-165) in his ‘First Apology’ wrote, "The Day of the Sun is the day on which we all gather in a common meeting, because it is the first day, the day on which God, changing darkness and matter, created the world; and it is the day on which Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead."

So Christians at the end of the first century already had a solid TRADITION of celebrating the Eucharist (breaking of the bread) on the first day of the week (Sunday), The Lord’s Day. Hope this helps.

 

[Robbinson]

“Tradition,” according to Catholic teaching, is the handing on of the essentials of apostolic faith and morals of the Church in unwritten form. It is said that “the Catholic concept of Tradition in no way undermines Scripture, but rather strengthens it with a parallel and unwritten source of the word of God” (J. Redford, What Is Catholicism).

My view is that it is not true that Catholic Tradition “in no way undermines Scripture.” There are “Traditions” of the Catholic Church that are contrary to Scripture. One of these is Sunday observance.

It is claimed that Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church that is not expressly taught in Scripture but is not contrary to it. However, the late J. Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our Fathers” frankly admitted that, “The Scriptures ENFORCE the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” He further stated that, “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.”

If “the scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,” then, of course, Sunday observance would be contrary to the teachings in Scripture. How could it not be so?

Your views and comments would be highly appreciated.

The misunderstanding/misconception is in thinking the Church moved the “Sabbath” to Sunday. It did not. The Sabbath is saturday, but rest on the Sabbath (saturday) is fulfilled in Christ (See Hebrews). Sunday, as a day of gathering and worship in honor of the resurrection and in celebration of the Eucharist is a tradition since the earliest Church years. It is not contrary to scripture as scripture does not prohibit such a celebration on Sunday (or any other day).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[rocketrob]

Mailman,
I do not have access to the publication that you mention, but I would have to assume that the quote you present is only a partial quote, or is taken out of context. Regardless, the opinion of one Bishop does not form the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Many of the challenges or questions posed against the Catholic Faith are often answered by Scripture or the Catechism itself. Regarding the role of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, I would recommend going to this link:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml

Regarding your question about the Lord’s Day versus the Sabbath Day, you may refer to this link:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1art3.shtml

The following articles are located in that section of the Catechism:

Article 2175
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

Article 2190
The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

Mailman, you often post on these forums challenging the tenets of the Catholic Faith. Perhaps this is a an outward symptom of an inward challenge you are facing yourself. If you’d like a concise, non-threatening reference discussing many of the major mis-conceptions regarding the Catholic Faith, I would recommend the following book:

“Catholic and Christian by Alan Schreck”:
amazon.com/Catholic-Christian-Explanation-Commonly-Misunderstood/dp/0867165995/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225583609&sr=8-1

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[CalCatholic]

Mailman,
I do not have access to the publication that you mention, but I would have to assume that the quote you present is only a partial quote, or is taken out of context. Regardless, the opinion of one Bishop does not form the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Many of the challenges or questions posed against the Catholic Faith are often answered by Scripture or the Catechism itself. Regarding the role of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, I would recommend going to this link:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml

Regarding your question about the Lord’s Day versus the Sabbath Day, you may refer to this link:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1art3.shtml

The following articles are located in that section of the Catechism:

Mailman, you often post on these forums challenging the tenets of the Catholic Faith. Perhaps this is a an outward symptom of an inward challenge you are facing yourself. If you’d like a concise, non-threatening reference discussing many of the major mis-conceptions regarding the Catholic Faith, I would recommend the following book:

“Catholic and Christian by Alan Schreck”:
amazon.com/Catholic-Christian-Explanation-Commonly-Misunderstood/dp/0867165995/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225583609&sr=8-1

Sincerely,
rocketrob

Good recommendation !!!
This book is for both Catholics that want to know more about their faith, and for other Christians to know the truth about Catholicism.

 

[lofktis14kr]

---

This is the problem that Christians who only have the Bible as their authority encounter. The first Christians did not have a New Testament at their disposal to consult for questions regarding their faith, most of them did not read and write.

Does this partly explain why Catholic doctrine had so evolved over the centuries that they now have such traditions as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

 

[notsmart]

When did Jesus Christ rise?

It is not just his death on the Cross, to consider here.
We must realize it is a package deal.

Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again

 

[runandsew]

Does this partly explain why Catholic doctrine had so evolved over the centuries that they now have such traditions as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

The doctrines were declared at church councils in response to heretics which came up with teachings which had not passed down in the church and which threatened its unity. If these councils the church would have to further define a doctrine which had been passed down, but needed to be more clearly defined as to address the particular heresy.

 

[notsmart]

Does this partly explain why Catholic doctrine had so evolved over the centuries that they now have such traditions as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

Doctrines and Traditions are not the same thing. In all cases.
Papal Supremacy and Papal infalibility are not as hot to trot terms or titles as one first thinks on appearances.
Bishops are there for each and every time any such event would be on the table for discussion. The pope, means the “Papa” he should be presiding in LOVE amoung equals.
This, from what I can see has been a little problem over the years on both sides of the pre-reformation period.
Saints, are in the bible so get over it already.
You must be talking about cannonized saints. Again- do you even know the difference?
You say “propitatory” sacrifice…?
What do you really mean by that?
Transubstantiation is a matter of some stopping to believe that mysteries can happen, just like the Jews grossed out by Jesus who left him AFTER JUDAS stole the purse.
Confession is granted by God alone, even if God himself allowed for men to hear confessions, and the Holy Spirit seals them shut.
Tell me if you think YOUR holy spirit can beat up mine.
I would not try this at home.

All your comments about Mary don’t show any reasons to doubt them.
Gimme a reason to. I will run with it.

 

[rocketrob]

Does this partly explain why Catholic doctrine had so evolved over the centuries that they now have such traditions as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

As someone has already mentioned, there are differences between doctrine, tradition and Sacred Tradition. But regardless, all of the topics mentioned here are discussed in the book that I referenced above: “Catholic and Christian,” by Alan Schreck.

The truth of the matter is that the Church’s teachings on these matters haven’t significantly changed since the first early years of Christianity.

Its easy to argue against beliefs based on ‘straw man’ arguments, ie, what someone ‘thinks’ they are about. But that’s not an honest practice. And once you really know and understand what the Church teaches, it is very difficult to find fault with its teachings.

rocketrob

 

[foundthelight]

Does this partly explain why Catholic doctrine had so evolved over the centuries that they now have such traditions as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

Use the search function. These have been discussed ad nauseum. These questions are so trite they don’t even fall into the straw man catagory.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“Tradition,” according to Catholic teaching, is the handing on of the essentials of apostolic faith and morals of the Church in unwritten form. It is said that “the Catholic concept of Tradition in no way undermines Scripture, but rather strengthens it with a parallel and unwritten source of the word of God” (J. Redford, What Is Catholicism).

My view is that it is not true that Catholic Tradition “in no way undermines Scripture.” There are “Traditions” of the Catholic Church that are contrary to Scripture. One of these is Sunday observance.

It is claimed that Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church that is not expressly taught in Scripture but is not contrary to it. However, the late J. Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our Fathers” frankly admitted that, “The Scriptures ENFORCE the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” He further stated that, “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.”

If “the scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,” then, of course, Sunday observance would be contrary to the teachings in Scripture. How could it not be so?

Your views and comments would be highly appreciated.

Only if Scripture required a religious observance ONLY on Saturday. It does not limit religious observance to Saturday. We observe Sunday because it is the day Christ rose from the dead, because Sunday is the only day of the week He appeared to the Apostles after the Resurrection, prior to the Ascension.

 

[lofktis14kr]

Papal Supremacy and Papal infalibility are not as hot to trot terms or titles as one first thinks on appearances

.
“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

The pope, means the “Papa” he should be presiding in LOVE amoung equals.

“…He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.

This, from what I can see has been a little problem over the years on both sides of the pre-reformation period.

Understandably so.

Saints, are in the bible so get over it already.

Yes, but you’ll never find them being prayed to.

You must be talking about cannonized saints. Again- do you even know the difference?

Ordinary saints (all believers) are defined by biblical standards, cannonized are defined by Rome’s?

You say “propitatory” sacrifice…?
What do you really mean by that?

A sacrifice which satifies God’s wrath and reconciles the worshiper with God.

Transubstantiation is a matter of some stopping to believe that mysteries can happen.

Robbing the bread and wine of their symbolism, robs the true mystery of Christ’s sacrifice. Not to mention Rome’s tradition nullifies the biblical doctrine of “once for all.”(Heb. 10:12)

Confession is granted by God alone, even if God himself allowed for men to hear confessions, and the Holy Spirit seals them shut.

So why not confess them directly to God?

All your comments about Mary don’t show any reasons to doubt them.
Gimme a reason to. I will run with it.

“Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou only art Holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee…” Revelation. 15: 4
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” 1Timothy. 2:5
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [Jesus Christ] under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

 

[AshleyBelle]

.
“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

“…He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.
Understandably so.
Yes, but you’ll never find them being prayed to.
Ordinary saints (all believers) are defined by biblical standards, cannonized are defined by Rome’s?
A sacrifice which satifies God’s wrath and reconciles the worshiper with God.
Robbing the bread and wine of their symbolism, robs the true mystery of Christ’s sacrifice. Not to mention Rome’s tradition nullifies the biblical doctrine of “once for all.”(Heb. 10:12)
So why not confess them directly to God?
“Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou only art Holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee…” Revelation. 15: 4
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” 1Timothy. 2:5
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [Jesus Christ] under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

Hi lofktis

In order to understand the pope’s role in the Church, and to understand the context of the quotes you posted above, you need to delve into the history and significance of Christ handing peter the “keys to the kingdom.”

I highly recommend the articles in the CA library on that subject, as they explain it much better than I can! Christ truly did give peter the power to “loose and bind.” And it has more significance than you may suspect

Also…the pope is given the gift of infalibility by the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean everything the pope says is taken automatically as truth, but that He has the promise of the Holy Spirit to “set straight” the Truth when doctrines and heresies come into question. This is a great gift to the church! Because Christ knew people would always come along trying to find loopholes in doctrine, or interpret the Sacred Scriptures for their own purposes…So through the authority of the Church, we have the promise of Christ that the TRUTH will always remain, steadfast, against all the “slings and arrows” of the evil one.

The pope is not an infallible person. He is not perfect, He has no power of His own. Did you know the pope has to go to confession almost daily? He needs God’s love and forgiveness just as much as all the faithful

 

[foundthelight]

.
“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

"…He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.
Understandably so.
Yes, but you’ll never find them being prayed to.
Ordinary saints (all believers) are defined by biblical standards, cannonized are defined by Rome’s?
A sacrifice which satifies God’s wrath and reconciles the worshiper with God.
Robbing the bread and wine of their symbolism, robs the true mystery of Christ’s sacrifice. Not to mention Rome’s tradition nullifies the biblical doctrine of “once for all.”(Heb. 10:12)
So why not confess them directly to God?
“Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou only art Holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee…” Revelation. 15: 4
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” 1Timothy. 2:5
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [Jesus Christ] under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

When you quote the New York Catechism you are actually quoting Loraine Boettner in his 1962 book Roman Catholicism. It can be reliably said that this Catechism is a figment of Mr. Boettner’s imagination and the only place the quote exists is in his book. That portion of your argument is bogus!

I will look up the Pius quote to see what the true context is.

 

[foundthelight]

.
"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

“…He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.
Understandably so.
Yes, but you’ll never find them being prayed to.
Ordinary saints (all believers) are defined by biblical standards, cannonized are defined by Rome’s?
A sacrifice which satifies God’s wrath and reconciles the worshiper with God.
Robbing the bread and wine of their symbolism, robs the true mystery of Christ’s sacrifice. Not to mention Rome’s tradition nullifies the biblical doctrine of “once for all.”(Heb. 10:12)
So why not confess them directly to God?
“Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou only art Holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee…” Revelation. 15: 4
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” 1Timothy. 2:5
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [Jesus Christ] under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

I do not have a copy of Barclay’s book. Would you be so kind as to check the bibliography and tell what document of Pius V he is quoting?

I have done an extensive search and am beginning to think this quote is as false as Boettner’s. Perhaps you can prove me wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

Does this partly explain why Catholic doctrine had so evolved over the centuries that they now have such traditions as papal supremacy

Was Peter in Rome?
The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
Peter’s Primacy (Fathers*)
Peter’s Roman Residency (Fathers*)

and papal infallibility,

Papal Infallibility

the veneration of statues

Iconoclasm: Or: Catholics Worship Graven Images NOT
Do Catholics Worship Statues?

and praying to the saints,

Communion of Saints

purgatory,

Purgatory
Purgatory
The Roots of Purgatory (Fathers*)

the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice,

Sacrifice of the Mass (Fathers*)
The Institution of the Mass

transubstantiation,

See Eucharist above.

auricular confession,

Catholic Confession
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.

the rosary,

The Rosary

the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception

Immaculate Conception and Assumption
Mary: Full of Grace (Fathers*)

and the Assumption?

Assumption