Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[tgGodsway]

Did you not know, tgG, this is how you got the Bible you keep using to whack us ignorant Catholics over the head

Collecting the word of God into one volume was a flawed effort because those who collected it were flawed individuals. However, in their flawed state, God still used them to give us a flawless word of God. By the way, none of them were RC. The Roman Catholic religious system had not yet come into it’s fullness in the second century.

 

[tgGodsway]

Changing subjects slightly. I’ve been doing a little research and found interesting debate on the KEYS given to Peter here in my quote below.

I will quote from the book called: Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner p. 109

“And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Matt. 16:19 Confraternity Version.

Admittedly this is a difficult verse to interpret, and numerous explanations have been given. It is important to notice, however, that the authority to bind and to loose was not given exclusively to Peter. In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew the same power is given to all of the disciples.

Consequently Matthew 16:19 does not prove any superiority on Peter’s part. Even the scribes and Pharisees had this same power, for Jesus said to them:

"But woe upon scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you enter not in yourselves, neither suffer them that are entering in to enter. (Matt.23:13)

And on another occasion He said: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do.
v4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (Matt. 23:2-4)

 

[tgGodsway]

CONTINUED FROM THE BOOK ROMAN CATHOLICSM

Here the expression clearly means that the scribes and Pharisees, in that the Word of God was in their hands, thereby had the power, in declaring that Word to the people, to open the kingdom of heaven to them; and in withholding that Word they shut the kingdom of heaven against people.

That was Moses’ function in giving the law. It was, therefore a declaratory power, the authority to announce the terms on which God would grant salvation, not an absolute power to admit or to exclude from the kingdom of heaven. Only God can do that; and He never delegates that authority to men.

And in Luke 11:52 Jesus says: “Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the KEY of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

Here, the key of the knowledge of the way of salvation, by which entrance into the kingdom of heaven is obtained, was in the hands of the Pharisees in that they had the law of Moses in their possession, and were therefore the custodians of the Word of God. In that sense they possessed the KEY of the kingdom. They took away that key in that they failed to proclaim the Word of God to the people. They were not entering into the kingdom of heaven themselves and they were hindering those who wanted to enter.

Furthermore, we notice that in the words spoken to Peter, it was “things,” not “persons” that were to be bound or loosed, “whatsoever” not “whomsoever” things such as the ceremonial laws and customs of the Old Testament dispensation were to be done away with and new rituals and practices of the Gospel were to be established.

Thus the “keys” symbolize the authority to open, in this instance, to open the kingdom of heaven to men through the proclamation of the Gospel. What the disciples were commissioned to do, given the privilege of doing, was the opposite of that which the scribes and Pharisees were doing, that is, they were to facilitate the entrance of the people into the kingdom of heaven." p. 110

 

[guanophore]

not all of the Church wrote scripture

I am not sure what position you are attempting to bolster with this. It seems to be more of a support for Sacred Tradition, and the fact that the Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

Secondly, whether Matthew, for instance, knew his gospel was the word of God or not, made no difference. It was. All of the N.T. books written was the word of God even before collected into one volume.

Yes, of course. And there may have been inspired books that did not make it into the Canon. Still this seems to be more of a support for the fact that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth. The Church discerned which books were inspired, and should be included in the NT. The Church arranged the books, added chapters and verses, and published the books. This was done using the Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium.

Scripture declares to us only ONE source of divine revelation, holy scripture

I suppose that Scripture declares this to you, because you feel comfortable ignoring the Scriptures that state otherwise.

There is no such thing as sacred tradition. It was an invention that came many years later.

It is amazing that you can read the verses in the NT that refer to these sacred traditions, then ignore them. Sacred Tradition is the source of the NT canon, which also came along “many years later”. What you are saying is that the Apostolic teachings that were not written do not exist.

Any tradition Paul spoke of, was with the understanding that it never contradicted holy scripture.

Well, of course! Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both come from the same Source, so naturally they must complement one another!

And his tradition was never called sacred, implying holy and consecrated.

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

You have made the accurate observation that the Scriptures were inspired as soon as they were penned. The Church just recognized and canonized them as such. In the same way, the teachings that were passed on by word of mouth were also sacred, holy, and consecrated. Why would Paul instruct the believers to stand firm and hold fast to a human tradition?

Jesus warned us about the weaknesses of tradition and compared it to holy scripture.

Definitely, and this should be done with all human traditions. But sacred tradition will always complement scripture.

 

[guanophore]

What you call private is held by millions of believers around the world. You are in denial of these settled matters.

The number of people holding to errors does not make it any less an error.

Nor are they “settled matters” or there would not continue to be such division and separation. Furthermore, there are some non-Catholic communions that also have the three legged stool. Since you deny that, it clearly is not a “settled matter” among non-Catholics.

I came on this forum in response to all of the negative talk about protestants.

There were negative comments about Protestants on the radio?

I came on board this site shocked at all that was being said about the rest of the body of Christ… I hear a lot of hatred from many on this site calling us heretics, deceivers, false prophets and the like… It is the wrong way to unify.

I will agree with you that there are some grossly uncharitable Catholics on here. There are some that do not know or accept the teaching of the Church about our siblings in Christ.
It is the wrong way to unify. In fact, we have much more in common (as you have pointed out more than once) with our siblings in Christ than not.

So if I make a comment or disagree with a piece of your theology, all you can do is get on the ban-wagon of “he’s just a hater”

It is not the comments of disagreement that leads me to that conclusion, it is the disparagement and accusations against ancient Rome.

I have no hatred in my heart toward anyone

No, and I have not said that you do. Your resentment seems to be against the papacy and the role of the Bishop Rome.

 

[guanophore]

lets talk truth verses so-called sacred tradition

There is no separation between the two, tgG. St. Paul would not urge the faithful to hold fast to something that was not true.

Collecting the word of God into one volume was a flawed effort because those who collected it were flawed individuals.

This is what you have been taught to believe. I was taught this also when I attended Protestant Seminary. This doctrine is designed to deny the validity of Sacred Tradition. But it is clear that flawless outcomes can be manifested through flawed individuals. The nature of Scripture as inspired and inerrant is proof of that.

Claiming it is a “flawed effort” is basically denying Jesus’ promise that He would guide the Church into all Truth, and that the HS would reveal everything to them.

By the way, none of them were RC. The Roman Catholic religious system had not yet come into it’s fullness in the second century.

There were as many Latin Catholics involved as there were of other Sees. I am not sure what is meant by “the Roman Catholic religious system” (it sounds like an anti-catholic construction of some kind -Lorraine Boettner?) but the canon was not finalized until 382 AD. This was after the Council of Nicea, and the development of several other doctrines, including the Trinity. The Trinity is also a doctrine that came out of Sacred Tradition, and is a word not found anywhere in the Scriptures.

Instead of a vehement anti-Catholic source such as Loraine Boettner, would you consider using some quotes from the early Church Fathers? It should be easy to find some writings in the first four centuries that will support your ideas. Be cautious, though because to be deep in history is risky…

that the Word of God was in their hands

This also refers to the Sacred Tradition, which was in the custody of the Jews.

Peter, it was “things,” not “persons” that were to be bound or loosed, “whatsoever” not “whomsoever” things such as the ceremonial laws and customs of the Old Testament dispensation were to be done away with and new rituals and practices of the Gospel were to be established.

This also includes Sacred tradition, which includes rituals and practices of the Gospel. Paul even describes one of these rituals in Corinthians, and states how it was received by Him as a sacred tradition.

 

[tgGodsway]

I suppose that Scripture declares this to you, because you feel comfortable ignoring the Scriptures that state otherwise.

Really, please quote which scriptures that tell us that tradition is not only tradition but it is sacred (=consecrated) tradition. … and that it is inspired by God. The only traditions I find spoken of in a positive (which are few) say nothing about their inspiration.

For instance: 1st. Cor. 11:2 “Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

The Corinthian Church kept the traditions Paul taught them, yet he did not expound on just what they were. We only have the two letters to Corinth.

2nd. Thes. 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter.

So… these traditions were either by his literal presence to teach them, or by letter. But again, he doesn’t really get into what that was.
An assumption can be made that these traditions were exactly in line with his letters.

Well,… we have his letters. At least all the Holy Spirit wanted us to have.

So this argument has been puffed up into something more than it is. For Paul, traditions were those things you can find in his letters.

The letters themselves, God has preserved and we call it the word of God.

But having said that, I must point out how the CC also nullifies or destroys the Word. You maintain that alongside of the written Word there is also an unwritten Word, an oral tradition, which was taught by Christ and the apostles but which is not in the bible, which rather was handed down generation after generation by word of mouth.

This unwritten word of God, it is said, comes to expression in the pronouncements of the Church councils and in papal decrees. And it remains as a so-called on-going voice of God after the book of Revelation and the N.T. cannon was completed. In other words, God still speaks through the collective body of councils and papal decrees.

This is kind of like a shadow word of God. It runs parallel to the written word of God, but with major changes in each new generation.

 

[tgGodsway]

The Council of Trent, the most authoritative of all CC councils and the one of greatest historical importance, in the year 1546, declared that the Word of God is contained both in the bible and in tradition, that the two are of equal authority, and that it is the duty of every Christian to give them equal veneration and respect.

Thus, the oral decrees keep the N.T. cannon alive and evolving in each new generation. All of it is at the level of heresy in Luther’s view and mine.

In the same way Cult leaders say they speak for God as they subtly replace the N.T. with a greater revelation, collectively, the CC does the same thing but in a much more subtle and provocative way. Traditions of men become intertwined with sacred scripture. Glued to each bible verse is a footnote of so-called sacred tradition to give a proper interpretation, so that unsuspecting people cannot see any parallel word, they see only one word coming from the collective body, the CHURCH.

This is a terrible tragedy for my Catholic brothers and sisters who cannot see this distinction. The bible’s message, if taken outside of the CC’s influence, has a completely different message. If read innocently, without a C official hovering over your shoulder, the message would look so different than when the CC tells you what it means. That is scary seeing that the N.T. was written in common Greek for common, and uneducated people to easily interpret. This was one of Luther’s issues as well.

 

[guanophore]

The Council of Trent, the most authoritative of all CC councils and the one of greatest historical importance, in the year 1546, declared that the Word of God is contained both in the bible and in tradition, that the two are of equal authority, and that it is the duty of every Christian to give them equal veneration and respect.

How do you determine which is the most authorative of all CC councils? In fact, the Eastern Church only accept the first 7, so there is some contention that it is even an ecumentical council, rather than a local one.

How do you determine that it is the one of most “historical significance”? Have you any idea of the extent of the Arian heresy?

It also needs to be noted that the dogmas do not proclaim anything new (that was not passed down to us as part of the deposit of faith). The concept of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture being equal strands of divine revelation has been received by the Church since the Apostles. If you want to dispute that, you will have to dispute it with the Orthodox, as well as the Catholics.

All of it is at the level of heresy in Luther’s view and mine.

Actually, there is much about Luther’s complaints that was later resolved as being misunderstandings. Some of these are contained in the JDDC

https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf

I am sure this might be considered as heretical by those who have been formed in the Calvanist tradition, but these are doctrines the Church has embraced since the Apostles.

In the same way Cult leaders say they speak for God as they subtly replace the N.T. with a greater revelation, collectively

I suppose this is true, but such a concept is foreign to Catholics. We believe that public revelation was closed at the death of the last Apostle.

 

[guanophore]

Traditions of men become intertwined with sacred scripture.

This can certainly happen, and we would say, has happened with Calvanistic theology.

Glued to each bible verse is a footnote of so-called sacred tradition to give a proper interpretation, so that most people cannot see any difference.

I think this is true also of human tradition. My first exposure to this was the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, and later, the Scofield.

Where the Catholic and Orthodox footnotes reference councils and Fathers, the Protestant bibles reference reformers, but it is the same method.

This is a terrible tragedy for my Catholic brothers and sisters who cannot see this distinction.

Since there is no contradiction between Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it is not so spiritually dangerous. They both come from the same Source, so in that sense, there is no 'distinction". The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and the Holy Spirit protects her from error, as Jesus promised.

Our separated brethren, on the other hand, are often taught to read the scriptures through a doctrinally distinctive lens, so that different references can come to opposite conclusions.

 

[tgGodsway]

Sacred Tradition. B

You have added something to the word of God by calling tradition, sacred. Scripture does not call tradition sacred, implying infallibility. This is a heretical approach. Please show me different from scripture and then you will have a point and I will listen. But you can’t.

 

[tgGodsway]

The concept of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture being equal strands of divine revelation has been received by the Church since the Apo

Yes, please show me the apostles teaching that says that tradition is sacred. You keep throwing this word around as if the concept is found in scripture. I can’t even find the word itself in connection with tradition. Again Jesus teaching was suspicious of tradition as he pointed out the distinctions between it and scripture. It took the church centuries to decide that tradition was equal to inspired scripture. This was a blind man’s mistake.

 

[tgGodsway]

think this is true also of human tradition. My first exposure to this was the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, and later, the Scofield.

I’m not a fan of Scofield nor do I claim what you do on the Protestant side. Any tradition Paul claimed through his word or letter was only expounded in letter. To say that the CC continues his Oral word through today is more than unconvincing, it mirrors the mistakes the Pharisees made in Jesus day.

 

[tgGodsway]

The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and the Holy Spirit protects her from error, as Jesus promised.

The Church is not automatically the pillar and ground of the truth as you say. She must believe and obey God’s sacred word, just ask the 7 Churches of Revelation with all of their faults and weaknesses. There is no guarantee the Spirit will protect her if she becomes unteachable. God resist the proud Church but gives grace to the humble. This includes both Protestant and Catholic.

 

[Buddyroe]

Debate invites a combative nature and brings out the most forceful views of all involved. It is best reserved for special events with prearranged rules.

May I invite you to consider a more prayerful approach of sharing faith on common ground i.e. who is Jesus (The Trinity), or how to curtail abortion and supporting the sanctity of marriage. Once you are amiably working with someone, it is easier to simply demonstrate how your faith has led them to the same conclusion as their faith and that you have other values worthy of consideration.

 

[guanophore]

You have added something to the word of God by calling tradition, sacred

On the contrary, Sacred Tradition was the source of all the NT. In fact, the entire NT was added by Catholics, for Catholics, about the Catholic faith.

The Traditions that were delivered to the Church by the Apostles are Sacred because they came from God, not from man. Jesus instructed the Apostles to "teach all that I have commanded. When they delivered these teachings to the Church, they came from God.

Scripture does not call tradition sacred, implying infallibility.

Some of the tradition referenced in scripture is human tradition, and some of it is Sacred tradition. Only Sacred Tradition can be considered infallible, because it’s origin is in God.

This is a heretical approach.

I think you lost me here. How is following the Apostolic command “heretical”?

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 2Thess 2:15

 

[guanophore]

The Church is not automatically the pillar and ground of the truth as you say. She must believe and obey God’s sacred word, just ask the 7 Churches of Revelation with all of their faults and weaknesses.

It is not “automatic”, tgG, it is so because Jesus says it is so. The Church holds the divine deposit of faith, given once for all to the Apostles.

No matter how many human beings attached to the infallible Church may depart from her Truth, this does not sully the Truth contained in her. Human beings always have weaknesses and shortcomings, and are in need of correction.

The Church has Jesus as her Head, and the Holy Spirit as Her soul. It is these divine elements that prevent her from error, not the fallible human beings who are attached to her.

There is no guarantee the Spirit will protect her if she becomes unteachable.

I think you must believe this construction in order to justify your refusal to be in communion with the Church established by Christ. But this is not a scriptural principle. Those who become unteachable will separate themselves from the Body of Christ, the Church. I agree, the Spirit cannot protect those who leave the Ark.

God resist the proud Church but gives grace to the humble. This includes both Protestant and Catholic.

Amen! But a the idea that the Church is the “believers on earth” is a deficient definition of Church. Those who are proud will separate themselves form Christ, while those who are humble are preserved by His grace.

 

[Darryl_B]

There is no guarantee the Spirit will protect her if she becomes unteachable. God resist the proud Church but gives grace to the humble. This includes both Protestant and Catholic.

I find this statement to be quite awkward, firstly because it proposes that the structure of the Catholic Church is somehow similar in nature to the protestant churches (plural). There is simply no comparison.

It was pride which created protestantism in the first place, and often humility is the facade of pride.

The Catholic Church is, not my words, but someone elses (forget who), a horse galloping through the ages, with a rider in control, Jesus Christ, the horse steers to the left, the rider brings it back in line, the horse steers to the right, the rider brings it back in line. The Catholic Church has readily and humbly admitted that it has veered.

Therefore the Catholic Church has always been open to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, it has even at times listened to protestantism.

 

[guanophore]

For instance: 1st. Cor. 11:2 “Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

The Corinthian Church kept the traditions Paul taught them, yet he did not expound on just what they were. We only have the two letters to Corinth.

This is an excellent example, tgG. So, I guess you are forwarding the theory that Paul delivered human traditions, and is enjoining them to “keep them”? Knowing what he did about the dangers of human traditions, why would he instruct them to follow human customs? The Church is universal, tgG, and traditions are local. When the apostles delivered these Sacred practices to the Church throughout the world, they transcend language, region and ethnicity. This is one of the properties of sacred tradition.

“Just as I delivered them” is a reference to the paradosis. The Holy Spirit protects this deposit of faith in the church.

You rightly note that not all the sacred traditions are specifically described in Scripture there are references to the sacraments and the order of liturgy in the Mass, but not as much detail as we would wish to have today. We can see references to them in the writings of the early fathers, including the Didache.

An assumption can be made that these traditions were exactly in line with his letters.

Certainly there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that contradicts the part of Divine Revelation that is contained in the letters.

So this argument has been puffed up into something more than it is. For Paul, traditions were those things you can find in his letters.

Many of the children of the Reformation have confined themselves to this portion of the Revelation, but there are large communities that have retained Sacred Traditions, including Anglicans and Lutherans. These preserve elements of the liturgy and Sacramental life of the Church that “just as they were delivered”.

So this argument has been puffed up into something more than it is. For Paul, traditions were those things you can find in his letters.

No, tgG, this is not written anywhere. Just like the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not written anywhere. This “assumption” has been applied to abrogate the portion of divine revelation that cannot be received by those who have separated themselves from Apostolic succession.

 

[guanophore]

You maintain that alongside of the written Word there is also an unwritten Word, an oral tradition, which was taught by Christ and the apostles but which is not in the bible, which rather was handed down generation after generation by word of mouth.

I would not go so far as to say it is "not in the Bible’, as you have quoted verses here that make reference to it. The Traditions are contained in prayers, liturgy, and other practices, such as how Scripture is interpreted. At this point, there are no Sacred Traditions about which writing has not occurred. So “word of mouth” falls short of the reality.

This unwritten word of God, it is said, comes to expression in the pronouncements of the Church councils and in papal decrees.

It has in some cases, such as the creation of the term Trinity, the concept of the hypostatic union, the title of Theotokos, the canon of Scripture, and other elements. But those who have received these Teachings will recognize that none of them are “new”. They are part of what was passed down to us from the Apostles, just articulated to prevent heresies.

When you read the NT, you can see the Trinity present, because you have received the Sacred Tradition of the Trinity. Yet there are people who reject this teaching and don’t see it when they read the NT.

And it remains as a so-called on-going voice of God after the book of Revelation and the N.T. cannon was completed. In other words, God still speaks through the collective body of councils and papal decrees.

There is no new public revelation, tgG. The Church believes that public revelation was closed at the death of the last Apostle. God guides His Church through the ages as He promised, based upon the application of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

This is kind of like a shadow word of God. It runs parallel to the written word of God, but with major changes in each new generation.

I can’t see that it is “shadowy” in any way, as the Teachings are made public on the web now for all to read. It does run parallel to the Scripture, because it is also the “Word of God”.

There are also not major changes in every generation. The church is really very slow to change anything and centuries have passed where no Councils were held.

The Church has the duty to make the Word of God applicable to every person in every generation. This is a pastoral practice that is part of what makes the Church universa

Thess 2:15 “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, …”

The sacred tradition is passed by the paradosis. It is received from the Church, and delivered through the Church.