Catholics Came First

[OneTrueCathApos]

Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes.
For all these Christian believers, sola Scriptura would have appeared as an absurd abstraction and practical impossibility.

 

[JonNC]

Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes.
For all these Christian believers, sola Scriptura would have appeared as an absurd abstraction and practical impossibility.

Why?

In our Lutheran tradition, we mostly learn from “homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes.”

Jon

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Why?

In our Lutheran tradition, we mostly learn from “homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes.”

Jon

Because Scripture does not teach sola Scripture, a concept that constitutes the use of a document (the bible) contrary to the same document’s explicit and implicit testimony, in other words, Scripture alone should lead the impartial seeker TO Tradition and the church, rather than to a disdain of Tradition.

It is foolish for any Christian to disregard what God has taught millions of other Christians throughout the centuries.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes.
For all these Christian believers, sola Scriptura would have appeared as an absurd abstraction and practical impossibility.

Christians AFTER the time of the Protestant Reformation ALSO learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes… because illiteracy rates ran very high, even after the invention of the printing press. So I’m trying to figure out the point you’re trying to make.

Neither I nor my tradition adhere to sola scriptura either. But I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, OTCA.

 

[kalt]

Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes.
For all these Christian believers, sola Scriptura would have appeared as an absurd abstraction and practical impossibility.

For the earliest Christians, it would have been impossible. There was no NT.

So much for getting back to the early Church, huh?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Neither I nor my tradition adhere to sola scriptura either. But I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, OTCA.

The way I took the original poster’s post was that they were referring to those who strictly adhere to “sola scriptura.”

 

[reteeks21]

Christians AFTER the time of the Protestant Reformation ALSO learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and it’s year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected Biblical themes… because illiteracy rates ran very high, even after the invention of the printing press. So I’m trying to figure out the point you’re trying to make.

Neither I nor my tradition adhere to sola scriptura either. But I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, OTCA.

It’s the same point they always try to make: Catholics good, Protestants bad. We are in ignorance, and what Protestants hold to is flawed. THAT"S the point.

 

[GodIsGracious]

reteeks21:
It’s the same point they always try to make: Catholics good, Protestants bad. We are in ignorance, and what Protestants hold to is flawed. THAT"S the point.

It’s not so much that protestants are bad. It’s we want them to come home to the Truth that is the Catholic church. What protestants hold IS flawed. They are protesting the Catholic church.

 

[reteeks21]

It’s not so much that protestants are bad. It’s we want them to come home to the Truth that is the Catholic church. What protestants hold IS flawed. They are protesting the Catholic church.

Okay. I see your point. While I don’t agree with you 100% (I do about 90%), I can accept your cordial way of telling me, and I can work to respond the same way. Thanks.

 

[racing59]

It’s not so much that protestants are bad. It’s we want them to come home to the Truth that is the Catholic church. What protestants hold IS flawed. They are protesting the Catholic church.

I don’t agree.I see beauty in RCC yet I’m not ready to be a member. There are things I have read on these post that I don’t always agree with.That doesn’t make me anti-Catholic, but it puts me under the “Protestant” unbrella.I thing I have learnt racing cars is someone might be the “Best” but they show humility. OTCA seem to want to flant his beliefs. Reading these threads, I have come to understand that there are Byzintines and Orthodox that would beg to differ with him.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I don’t agree.I see beauty in RCC yet I’m not ready to be a member. There are things I have read on these post that I don’t always agree with.That doesn’t make me anti-Catholic, but it puts me under the “Protestant” unbrella.I thing I have learnt racing cars is someone might be the “Best” but they show humility. OTCA seem to want to flant his beliefs. Reading these threads, I have come to understand that there are Byzintines and Orthodox that would beg to differ with him.

Uhm. You’re actually showing my point.

There are things I read here that I don’t agree with either. There are things with the Church I don’t agree with. But does that make me a bad Catholic? No. It makes me human. But if there is one thing I have learned about being Catholic, it is not so much agreeing with what the Church teaches, it is more about obeying.

As I said to someone else: I have to trust that the Holy Spirit is speaking to me through the Catholic Church. While I don’t agree on some things, I will obey on those things as best I can. I will trust that what I have learned and am learning in the Catholic church is the Holy Spirit speaking to me. The Catholic Church came first. Christ promised to protect it and is doing so. So, to me, when a protestant says that the Church is “in apostasy,” that tells me that they’re calling Jesus Christ a liar. That Jesus left His church, His bride that He promised to protect. That actually kind of hurts now that I think about it as I type this.

I’m putting my faith and trust in God by obeying the Catholic Church’s teachings to the best of my abilities. (Because I am by no means perfect.) It’s not easy to obey. Human beings have free will. Human beings have their own wants, needs, desires and are inherently selfish creatures due to their sinful nature.

BTW, don’t confuse “Catholic” to mean only “Roman Catholic.” It also means Byzantines, orthodox, and others (that I cannot think of right now.) The O.P. simply stated “Catholics Came First.” I take it to mean Catholic, regardless of rite. I know what you mean by there are Byzantines that would disagree. I grew up Roman Catholic. I am dating a Byzantine Catholic. It got to the point where I had to tell him to knock it off with the “you guys left us” attitude. We’re Catholic. Period. And he has knocked it off. LOL!

Hope this makes sense.

 

[racing59]

Uhm. You’re actually showing my point.

There are things I read here that I don’t agree with either. There are things with the Church I don’t agree with. But does that make me a bad Catholic? No. It makes me human. But if there is one thing I have learned about being Catholic, it is not so much agreeing with what the Church teaches, it is more about obeying.

As I said to someone else: I have to trust that the Holy Spirit is speaking to me through the Catholic Church. While I don’t agree on some things, I will obey on those things as best I can. I will trust that what I have learned and am learning in the Catholic church is the Holy Spirit speaking to me. The Catholic Church came first. Christ promised to protect it and is doing so. So, to me, when a protestant says that the Church is “in apostasy,” that tells me that they’re calling Jesus Christ a liar. That Jesus left His church, His bride that He promised to protect. That actually kind of hurts now that I think about it as I type this.

I’m putting my faith and trust in God by obeying the Catholic Church’s teachings to the best of my abilities. (Because I am by no means perfect.) It’s not easy to obey. Human beings have free will. Human beings have their own wants, needs, desires and are inherently selfish creatures due to their sinful nature.

Hope this makes sense.

I understand were you are coming from! I just have a problem with were they OP is coming from. It is not what is being said, it is the way it is being said. Some people are here to learn from every one. I don’t object to RCC, but I still have doubts so I don’t think I’m calling Jesus a liar. Thomas had to see Christ wounds for himself, Jesus didn’t just stand there and say" You doubter, you liar, you so and such…"
Get my point?
Peace be with you

 

[GodIsGracious]

I understand were you are coming from! I just have a problem with were they OP is coming from. It is not what is being said, it is the way it is being said. Some people are here to learn from every one. I don’t object to RCC, but I still have doubts so I don’t think I’m calling Jesus a liar. Thomas had to see Christ wounds for himself, Jesus didn’t just stand there and say" You doubter, you liar, you so and such…"
Get my point?
Peace be with you

This definitely makes sense. And yes. I get your point.

There is a difference between doubting (which is not calling Jesus a liar), and saying that the Church is in apostasy (which is what many protestants, maybe not you, do say.) I was relating what I’ve been told by other protestants. I’ve been told by protestants that I was going to hell because I was Catholic. huh?

I think a good majority of us do doubt. I know I used to pray and “demand” of God to show himself to me, to PROVE to me that He existed. ha! Talk about arrogance on my part! For a long time I doubted. For a long time I wondered if He really cared and was really protecting us. Over time I came to believe that He is there.

So, putting in light of “doubting Thomas” does make sense to me and makes it clear to me where you, racing59, are. I was speaking of other protestants, not specifically you. Thank you for reminding me of Thomas. It actually put things in perspective and help me to understand where you are right now regarding the Catholic church.

And by the way, I too can get rather … self righteous. wince I hate admitting that but I know that is how I can be. I need to work on that. I know for me that I can just … SEE it. I can just SEE the truth, but I lack the biblical knowledge background to explain it effectively and thoroughly to help others see. I know that sometimes I just want to grab a person and say, “don’t you SEE?? It’s CLEAR!” hehehe… but then I don’t want to be arrested for assault.

At anyrate, I completely get where you’re coming from now.

 

[racing59]

This definitely makes sense. And yes. I get your point.

There is a difference between doubting (which is not calling Jesus a liar), and saying that the Church is in apostasy (which is what many protestants, maybe not you, do say.) I was relating what I’ve been told by other protestants. I’ve been told by protestants that I was going to hell because I was Catholic. huh?

I think a good majority of us do doubt. I know I used to pray and “demand” of God to show himself to me, to PROVE to me that He existed. ha! Talk about arrogance on my part! For a long time I doubted. For a long time I wondered if He really cared and was really protecting us. Over time I came to believe that He is there.

So, putting in light of “doubting Thomas” does make sense to me and makes it clear to me where you, racing59, are. I was speaking of other protestants, not specifically you. Thank you for reminding me of Thomas. It actually put things in perspective and help me to understand where you are right now regarding the Catholic church.

And by the way, I too can get rather … self righteous. wince I hate admitting that but I know that is how I can be. I need to work on that. I know for me that I can just … SEE it. I can just SEE the truth, but I lack the biblical knowledge background to explain it effectively and thoroughly to help others see. I know that sometimes I just want to grab a person and say, “don’t you SEE?? It’s CLEAR!” hehehe… but then I don’t want to be arrested for assault.

At anyrate, I completely get where you’re coming from now.

Thankyou! I wish more Catholics on these post could understand that (Not all I have seen some good ones). I too pray every night God lead me to truth with love and humilaty.I want to be in “Truth” but I have doubts. I just learn so much from everyone by being open.Doesn’t mean I object to RCC like some have accused me of. Some of us on these threads are Thomas’.

 

[JonNC]

Because Scripture does not teach sola Scripture, a concept that constitutes the use of a document (the bible) contrary to the same document’s explicit and implicit testimony, in other words, Scripture alone should lead the impartial seeker TO Tradition and the church, rather than to a disdain of Tradition.

It is foolish for any Christian to disregard what God has taught millions of other Christians throughout the centuries.

Whoever said I held Tradition in disdain? I don’t, and no Lutheran should. All we ask of Tradition is that it not contradict scripture, and when a teaching is not explicit in scripture, that the consience of a Christian not be bound to believe at the risk of placing salvation in jeopardy.
Example: Transubstantiation. Christ’s words are explicit that the bread and wine are His body and blood. His words are not explicit regarding the accidents and elements of the bread and wine after consecration. So, while I accept Transubstantiation as a reasonable human explanation, a Christian should not be bound to believe or even disbelieve it.
A Christian should be bound to believe “This is my body”. Those words are explicit.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

For the earliest Christians, it would have been impossible. There was no NT.

So much for getting back to the early Church, huh?

You are exactly right, kalt. Sola scriptura only applies to the post-apostolic era. The very early church listened to the apostles themselves.

Jon

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

You are exactly right, kalt. Sola scriptura only applies to the post-apostolic era. The very early church listened to the apostles themselves.

Jon

Tradition, even in the extensive Catholic sense, permeates Scripture. Only an antecedent prejudice against such a notion or an undue concentration on Jesus’ rejection of corrupt human pharisaical traditions, could blind one to the considerable force of the Scriptural data. Put in another way, Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura, the concept that constitutes the use of document (the bible) contrary to the same documents explicit and implicit testimony.
We must do our best to avoid approaching Scripture with a philosophy that is itself not at all biblical, and forcing Scripture (and Christianity) into our own mold.

The bible is not all-inclusive.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

For the earliest Christians, it would have been impossible. There was no NT.

So much for getting back to the early Church, huh?

I said BEFORE the Reformation, meaning anywhere between and dating back from 1517, there WAS in fact the bible, since it was compiled in the year 397.

 

[BrianH]

Tradition, even in the extensive Catholic sense, permeates Scripture. Only an antecedent prejudice against such a notion or an undue concentration on Jesus’ rejection of corrupt human pharisaical traditions, could blind one to the considerable force of the Scriptural data. Put in another way, Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura, the concept that constitutes the use of document (the bible) contrary to the same documents explicit and implicit testimony.
We must do our best to avoid approaching Scripture with a philosophy that is itself not at all biblical, and forcing Scripture (and Christianity) into our own mold.

The bible is not all-inclusive.

I found this on the internet, who are you quoting?

Tradition, even in the extensive Catholic sense, permeates Scripture. Only an antecedent prejudice against such a notion or an undue concentration on Jesus’ rejection of ‘corrupt’ human pharisaical traditons, could blind one to the considerable force of the scriptural data. Put another way, Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura, a concept that constitutes the use of a document (the Bible) contrary to the document’s explicit and implicit testimony. In other words, Scripture alone should lead the impartial seeker to Tradition. G.K. Cheserton called Tradition the “democracy of the dead.” It is foolish for any Christian to disregard what God has taught millions of other Christians throughout the centuries.

We must all do our best to avoid approaching Scripture with a philosophy that is itself not at all biblical, and forcing Scripture (and Christianity) into our own mold. The Bible itself has plenty to say about its own authority vis-a-vis that of Tradition and the Church.

 

[racing59]

I said BEFORE the Reformation, meaning anywhere between and dating back from 1517, there WAS in fact the bible, since it was compiled in the year 397.

Actually the Vulgate did not come together until 417a.d. The Pope Innocent I had St. Jerome put it together. In was not publicaly printed until 1455 which was the Gutenburg(forgive spelling) Bible.