I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[Portrait]

You just agreed with me that no one knows all things perfectly so how does that translate into it being “impossible to determine what the Word of God is trying to tell us”? Scripture is not some spiritual puzzle that we can’t understand until someone deciphers or unravels it for us…aside, of course, from the Holy Spirit.

I agree someone has to teach and we find in the Bible that God in His mercy made provision for teachers. However, we see no provision for an universal interpretive authority.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. I do trust that GreggAlvaraz does not object to me responding to your post.

Even St. Peter said, respecting the Epistle’s of St. Paul, that there were “some things hard to be understood” and the multitude of biblical interpretations within the Protestant ecclesial communions is witness of the fact that all is far from well. As I have said previously, dear friend, the so called ‘perspicuity of Scripture’ is more imagined than real. It is easy to assert that the bible is essentially clear, but experience demonstrates that the contrary is the case because the different Christian groups and individuals appeal to the same bible to make their conflicting points. If it is argued that the Holy Spirit explains the meaning of Scripture to us, then we would say, by way of reply, if that is so then why do you have a multitude of denominations all claiming the Spirit’s work and why do they all disagree? Was the Holy Spirit wrong?; did He lead some men into the truth, but mislead others, hopefully they were all sincere and desirous to know the truth and have a firm spiritual and intellectual basis for their faith? Moreover, if sola scriptura is fine and the bible perfectly clear, then why does Protestantism have this sad perpetual pathological tendency to divide?

To talk of the “provision of teachers” is all well and good but how is a man to know which teachers are speaking the truth and which have the correct biblical interpretations on contested doctrines and morals? Who are we to believe and trust amidst the quagmire of competing opinions? No wonder the modern Protestant theologian must throw up his hands in despair and say with Pontius Pilate, “But what is truth?”. Surely what is needed is an objective, historical and universal interpretative authority to correctly ascertain God’s truth.

Of course I understand and appreciate, as a former Anglican, that Protestants maintain that the bible is to be studied along with the works of competent bible scholars, Christian teachers from the past and present (Protestant Tradition), plus their own reason - all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Notwithstanding this, the bible is still the final authority, which has one funndamental logical problem. If the sole authority is Scripture, then how do we know that that is so? Invariably our Protestant brethren are wont to discharge a magazine of texts which uphold the holiness of Scripture, trying to prove sola scriptura from Scripture. However, this is a classic case of logical tail-chasing or circular reasoning. How do we establish that the Bible is inspired? Because it states that it is inspired, comes the reply. But how does a man know that the Bible is inspired? Because the bible states that it is inspired. That sort of argumentation makes one jolly dizzy, but importantly it illustrates perfectly that for Sacred Scripture to have any authority it must needs have another objective, historical authority to validate it, otherwise we are all tossed about on a sea of uncertainty.

The Catholic decidedly does accept that the bible’s authority is derived from God, but he also believes that the Church’s authority comes from above as well. The logic and biblical support for this is clear and unmistakable. The line of argument works like this: God gave Jesus Christ complete authority in heaven and earth (S. Matt. 28: 18; I Cor. 15: 27; Eph. 1: 20-22). Our Lord had the authority to teach the truth (S. Jn. 13: 13). Jesus shared that same divine authority with His apostles (S. Jn. 17: 18, 20: 21). He commands them to go out with His own authority to teach the truth (S. Matt. 28: 20); Jesus states God will give the apostles the same truth He has given Jesus (S. Jn. 16: 15). Now the apostles’ teaching authority is actually from God, because Jesus says those who listen to them listen to Him and therefore listen to the Father (S. Lk. 10: 16), SS. Peter and Paul both attest that their teaching is from God Himself (I Cor. 11: 23; I Pet. 1: 24-25). St. Peter says the Church is to receive its teaching from the Lord through the apostles (II Pet. 3: 2). Thus we believe, dear friend, that the Catholic Church speaks with apostolic authority because its bishops and the Pope enjoy a continuity of authortity that begins with the apostles and continues unto this day. The bishops most fully bear the same authority that our Lord gave His apostles. Moreover, when one thinks it through carefully, one can see that this is in full accord with God’s high purposes for His Church, for it would have been inconceivable for Him not to have made any provision for the future of the Church which His beloved Son founded, subsequent to the death of the apostles.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[pablope]

Yes, I understand it wasn’t to the entire church. That wouldn’t be the norm since the various Sees were independent of each other. Still, "Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. After the list he declares, “these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.”

No, I didn’t miss it at all. He writes that those books are not inspired Scripture.

“Canonical” as the letter uses it, has a different meaning from “inspired”.

Canonical is an adjective derived from canon. Canon comes from the greek word κανών kanon, “rule” or “measuring stick” (perhaps originally from kanna “reed”, cognate to cane), and is used in various meanings.

In the way Athanasius uses it…it means this…"The word is also often used when describing bodies of literature or art: those books that all educated people have supposedly read, or are advised to read, make up the “canon”,

Athanasius was prescribing a list of books to be read in his diocese…including the books he mentions in part 7 of his letter…**but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; *

He does not make a proclamation of whether these are inspired or not. His was just one opinion.

Here is a cross reference table of the opinions of other bishops…ntcanon.org/table.shtml

And the rest is history, starting with Pope Damasus and the council of Rome, AD382.*

 

[joe370]

Prove that Rome started its own church? Well since neither Scripture or the early church demonstrates an entity such as the RCC or “supreme” papal authority, it certainly seems that it did.

Scripture as well as the early catholic church is silent regarding all protestant churches. However, the early catholic church says a great deal about the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome. I can provide evidence to support that fact if you wish?

No, I didn’t forget. I answered with the above statement…about RCC starting its own church. I truly think that Roman Catholics have little understanding about the biblical churches started at Pentecost.

 

[PRmerger]

I think there are few who actually believe that since the historical record proves otherwise.

Could you please cite a teaching that you believe the Church added, kelman?

Where are these oral words of the Lord and His Apostles? I’d love to read them.

I think you misunderstand what Sacred Tradition is. It is the lens through which we interpret Scripture and its purpose is to discern for us what instruction is for us today.

I know precisely what the doctrine of purgatory involves and yes it does diminish the perfect redemptive work of Christ.

How so?

It is not possible for man to make payment for his own sins - hence the Incarnation.

This is very Catholic of you to say, kelman!

 

[jenetlen]

Nice thread…

 

[PRmerger]

Easy. The historical record demonstrates the early church, or more precisely many early fathers, held a different canon than the one your church decided on.

I don’t think you’re looking at this with a reasoned eye.

Take this analogy: in 2011 I state that my children must read the newspaper online to be informed.

In 1993 my children did not read the newspaper online.

How is it that my children were disagreeing with me in 1993 on something I had not declared until 2011? Through a medium that did not even exist? (Or barely did, but let’s not go there, 'kay? )

Your choices are not mutually exclusive. Worshipping with like-minded people would be at a church which holds to sola Scriptura.

And after church shopping the tens of thousands of churches that use Sola Scriptura to hold thousands of different interpretations, one finds the one that conforms to his own views…until the pastor says something that’s wrong (and he *will, *since he’s FALLIBLE) and the spiritual leader of the household takes his family off into another church shopping expedition…

No, as I mentioned before, I know precisely what the dogma of purgatory teaches.

Perhaps, then, you could explain in your own words what the dogma of purgatory is, as Catholics ought to understand it.

I promise that I will rescind my claim that you are ignorant about this teaching if you do a good job.

And lest you think I am making an empty promise, check this post out in which I retracted my original premise that a poster was grievously uninformed regarding Catholic teaching.

I do make this challenge quite often–as there are many posters here who like to espouse what they think is Catholic teaching–and maybe once or twice I’ve had to retract my statement.

Yes, I understand that. However, His sacrifice didn’t achieve its full purpose which was to pay for the sins of those He came to save, since man must now also pay for his own sins in purgatory. Can’t have it both ways - Jesus paid for all sins(which the Bible insists) yet I must also pay for my own sins in purgatory.

As with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.

(You have a little bit of that, too, in your theology with your belief in faith *and *reason, Jesus’ divinity *and *humanity, no?)

 

[PRmerger]

I said:

Except that the only way you know “what Jesus teaches” is because, well, another entity (read: the Catholic Church) told you what He said.

You responded:

No church has authority over Scripture. It has authority of its own separate from the church.

This is a non-sequitur, kelman.

If you disagree with the statement that the only way you know “what Jesus teaches” is through the CC, then please offer the alternative.

“I [kelman] know ‘what Jesus teaches’ through…” (note: saying “the bible” is begging the question.).

“I know that the child Jesus did not resurrect a boy who fell off a roof, because the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired. I know this because…”

I’ll answer with a question of my own. Which Holy Spirit tells the EO that it is the one true church and also tells RCC that it is the one true church?

This, too, is a non-sequitur. If you’ll address my questions with an honest answer, then I will address your EO question.

 

[PRmerger]

That does not translate to I “do” do that.

Haha! You said “do do”.

That reminds me of a joke.

Knock knock…

Who’s there…

Pylop…

Say it out loud…you know the answer.

(Hope this made you smile, friend.)

 

[PRmerger]

My guess is that you got your misconstrued view of Purgatory from somebody whose view was already misconstrued.

Or, as is often the case with ex-Catholics, they get their misconstrued views from their last catechism class when they were 13 (and were goofing off, to boot!) when Sr. Mary Thomas explained purgatory. They may claim that they heard the dear sister say that Jesus’ atoning death on the cross wasn’t sufficient, and that Fr. Joe confirmed it, but, again, they were 13 and goofing off…and really couldn’t have cared less about the doctrine of purgatory.

 

[pablope]

se.

Where are these oral words of the Lord and His Apostles? I’d love to read them.

My statements are only as “anti-Catholic” as yours are “anti-Protestant”.

Unless you can read minds…or transport in time…I do not see how you can read something oral…

But seriously…you do not have to search or read what Sacred Tradition is…you can actually experience it…by going to Mass…or experiencing a Catholic Liturgy.

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.

Sacred Tradition is handed down “both by word of mouth and by letter.” In Scripture, as today, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 10) so that the Bible is part, not the whole, of the apostolic paradosis. In Scripture, as today, the Bible is materially, not formally, sufficient to reveal the fullness of the gospel of Christ. In Scripture, as today, both written and unwritten Tradition are from Christ and made by him to stand inseparably united like hydrogen and oxygen that fuse to form living water or like the words and tune of a single song. In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.

And all this is because, in Scripture, as today, the Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

 

[kelman]

The Church only teach what was taught from the beginning, nothing added or subtracted.

I think there are few who actually believe that since the historical record proves otherwise.

Yes, we know you believe that, but can you substantiate it?

The substantiation comes in the form of the early church not teaching a papacy, infallibility and most of the Marian doctrines.

Me too… But you have yet to give “reasoned arguments” based on the what we actually believe.

You “actually believe” that sin is paid for in purgatory whereas the Bible says that the Lord Jesus paid for all sin. And since this is the claim of Scripture, evidence needs to be presented which somehow negates this claim.

Exactly, we both use our private fallible judgment with regard to what we believe is true.

No, I don’t do that. I said that I “can” (or was it “could”?) do that. That does not translate to I “do” do that.
I believe whatever the Church believes.

I’m sure you are not claiming infallibility for yourself, therefore, you use your fallible private judgment when you decide to agree with “whatever the Church believes”.

Trivializing the Holy Spirit is exactly what doctrinal interpretation does. We believe that Christ and His Apostles taught everything we need to know. That knowledge (the words of God) is passed down orally and written.

I thought I made it clear that these words were not written… It is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Sorry if I misunderstood, however, it does seem that you’re saying here that the “words of God” were passed down orally. If you mean anything other than the written Scriptures, then again I would have to ask where are these oral “words of God”?

Before the New Testament was written, was it or was it not believed that Christ was God? If yes, then you agree that oral Tradition plays a huge role in shedding light on the Truth. If you still don’t agree, then how is it that they believed it without anything written?

Yes, Jesus and the Apostles preached and many believed. However, we can only know what Jesus and the Apostles taught by virtue of the written Scriptures left for us. We find that when Peter knew the end was in sight for him, his concern was to write down the truth so that we may have “these things always in remembrance” (2Peter 1:15).

No, you don’t know precisely what Purgatory involves.

Obviously I do know what purgatory involves unless you’re going to say that you do not pay for sins there?..or, unless new advent has it wrong when it says: “temporal punishment…not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”

What you say that does “diminish” Christ’s work on the Cross is what you THINK Purgatory is. Again, just take 5 minutes of your time to go look at a legitimate Catholic site like this one. Look for Purgatory and read what it says.

I’ve take a lot more than “5 minutes” reading “legitimate Catholic site”. Purgatory is a place of fiery punishment and torture to fully cleanse the soul before it can enter heaven.

Things you cannot do:

1. Make your own inferences about the doctrine.

However, I can and have argued the implications of certain doctrines.

1. Make a reasoned argument why it is wrong according to what you THINK it says (especially if we correct you on our own beliefs.

I agree - no one should be commenting on a doctrine they know nothing about. However, that is not the case here.

Your post would be much like me saying, “salvation by faith alone means that you don’t believe we are saved by Christ’s good work” and then you correct me and then I say, “I know what you believe and don’t believe.” I know you don’t believe that. In the same way, you should know we don’t believe the things you think we do.

I never said you believe the doctrine of purgatory diminishes the finished work of Christ. I am asserting that the doctrine does precisely that.

My statements are only as “anti-Catholic” as yours are “anti-Protestant”.

Ok, where did I ever knock on Protestant doctrine.

The point being that I have done nothing other than attempt to refute your doctrines. I have not lied about them, nevertheless, you call me “anti-Catholic”. If that’s your belief , if that’s your criteria, then, imo, I’m justified in calling you “anti-Protestant”.

 

[kelman]

Who is this “Rome” of who you post? What would you say of the Melkites and Maronites?

Not sure what to make of this…what do the Melkites and Maronites have to do with the universal jurisdictional claims of the Roman popes?

I admit to knowing little about these two groups so you’d have to explain how they impact my counter that “It might very well be claimed that this is precisely what Rome did - start its own church.”

 

[uni_embrace]

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

Thanks…

Excellent question.
I have met quite a few ëx Catholics"who become evangelical Anglicans/Baptists/Pentecostals who get really angry at any mention of the great tradiiton of the Roman catholic Church and how it is the original church. Yet they provide no hard evidence to discount it. Well it is time they started.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The substantiation comes in the form of the early church not teaching a papacy, infallibility and most of the Marian doctrines.

Again, I ask for the substantiation. We already know you believe that.

What you say is a substantiation, is actually called a “claim”. There must be reasons to back it up. With that said, what are those reasons kelman?

You “actually believe” that sin is paid for in purgatory whereas the Bible says that the Lord Jesus paid for all sin. And since this is the claim of Scripture, evidence needs to be presented which somehow negates this claim.

Let me correct you false understanding of Catholic doctrine. Purgatory is a temporal punishment to pay for oursins. It is only possible because Jesus’ work of the Cross is full.

So, with that said, now you can give reasons why that is not true based on the Catholic doctrine and not kelman’s version of a Catholic doctrine

I’m sure you are not claiming infallibility for yourself, therefore, you use your fallible private judgment when you decide to agree with “whatever the Church believes”.

Nope. That is not a necessary inference. I don’t need to defense myself from somebody who acts like they know what I think.

Sorry if I misunderstood, however, it does seem that you’re saying here that the “words of God” were passed down orally. If you mean anything other than the written Scriptures, then again I would have to ask where are these oral “words of God”?

Good question. Yes, I am saying that. In the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Curch

Yes, Jesus and the Apostles preached and many believed. However, we can only know what Jesus and the Apostles taught by virtue of the written Scriptures left for us. We find that when Peter knew the end was in sight for him, his concern was to write down the truth so that we may have “these things always in remembrance” (2Peter 1:15).

“Only”? Now that needs proof.

Question: how were people supposed to know the Truth of salvation before even the first book of the New Testament?

I think you would agree that special revelation is needed and that the Old Testament contains only the promises, but not the fulfillment.

Obviously I do know what purgatory involves unless you’re going to say that you do not pay for sins there?..or, unless new advent has it wrong when it says: “temporal punishment…not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”

Obviously, you don’t know what Purgatory involves. I will again complete your picture. Purgatory is payment for our sins only because Christ’s sacrifice is full. We are still responsible and accountable for our own sins.

I’ve take a lot more than “5 minutes” reading “legitimate Catholic site”. Purgatory is a place of fiery punishment and torture to fully cleanse the soul before it can enter heaven.

Harsh words for Purgatory but I can accept that. However, it must be added that it is possible only through Jesus’ work.

Take a lot more than “a lot more than 5 minutes” on Purgatory.

However, I can and have argued the implications of certain doctrines.

“Purgatory is a temporal punishment to pay for oursins. It is only possible because Jesus’ work of the Cross is full.” You must tell me HOW it is an implication that Christ’s work and Purgatory are mutually exclusive.

I agree - no one should be commenting on a doctrine they know nothing about.

Agreed

However, that is not the case here.

Yes, it is. I and others have shown you and corrected you, yet you dwell on your misconception.

I never said you believe the doctrine of purgatory diminishes the finished work of Christ. I am asserting that the doctrine does precisely that.

Which translates to you telling me that I believe that. Since I believe the doctrine and you know that, you are telling me what I believe. There is no way around that.

The point being that I have done nothing other than attempt to refute your doctrines. I have not lied about them, nevertheless, you call me “anti-Catholic”. If that’s your belief , if that’s your criteria, then, imo, I’m justified in calling you “anti-Protestant”.

Ok, maybe lie was harsh. I apologize for that. A lie is intentional deception. In this case, however, you are giving false Catholic information. Your deceptions are apparently not intentional since you actually think the doctrine does that, even if that thought is false.

And you did say “imo”. Thanks for that. Opinions are opinions. By the way, what were my criteria again?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Haha! You said “do do”.

That reminds me of a joke.

Knock knock…

Who’s there…

Pylop…

Say it out loud…you know the answer.

(Hope this made you smile, friend.)

Indeed it did. I didn’t get it until I said it out loud!

 

[pablope]

The substantiation comes in the form of the early church not teaching a papacy, infallibility and most of the Marian doctrines.

You “actually believe” that sin is paid for in purgatory whereas the Bible says that the Lord Jesus paid for all sin. And since this is the claim of Scripture, evidence needs to be presented which somehow negates this claim.

 

[CopticChristian]

The substantiation comes in the form of the early church not teaching a papacy, infallibility and most of the Marian doctrines.

You “actually believe” that sin is paid for in purgatory whereas the Bible says that the Lord Jesus paid for all sin. And since this is the claim of Scripture, evidence needs to be presented which somehow negates this claim.

The point being that I have done nothing other than attempt to refute your doctrines. I have not lied about them, nevertheless, you call me “anti-Catholic”. If that’s your belief , if that’s your criteria, then, imo, I’m justified in calling you “anti-Protestant”.

Sorry if I misunderstood, however, it does seem that you’re saying here that the “words of God” were passed down orally. If you mean anything other than the written Scriptures, then again I would have to ask where are these oral "words of God"?

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

“Commandments of men”

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’” Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word “tradition” in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a “tradition” is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[jlhargus]

mark

 

[jlhargus]

Obviously I do know what purgatory involves unless you’re going to say that you do not pay for sins there?..or, unless new advent has it wrong when it says: “temporal punishment…not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” I’ve take a lot more than “5 minutes” reading “legitimate Catholic site”. Purgatory is a place of fiery punishment and torture to fully cleanse the soul before it can enter heaven. I never said you believe the doctrine of purgatory diminishes the finished work of Christ. I am asserting that the doctrine does precisely that.

JL: Purgatory is not a second change nor saves anyone. Those in purgatory are saved otherwise they would not be in purgatory but hell.

[Mt 28:23 Therefore is **THE KINDOM OF HEAVEN LIKENED UNTO A certain KING, which would take account of his servants. … 32 Then his lord … said … I forgave thee …33… Shouldn’t you …34 his lord delivered him to the TORMENTORS till he should pay all due him 35 … LIKEWISE … my heavenly Father WILL DO TO YOU IF ye from YOUR HEARTS FORGIVE NOT every one his brother their trespasses]

LK 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, AS THOU ART IN THE WAY, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into PRISON. 59 I tell thee, THOU SHALT NOT DEPART THENCE, TILL thou hast paid the very last mite.

[1Cor3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 **Every man’s work shall be made MANIFEST: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the FIRE SHALL TRY EVERY MAN’S WORK OF WHAT SORT IT IS. 14 IF ANY MAN’S WORK ABIDE which he hath built thereupon, HE SHALL RECEIVE A REWARD. 15 IF any man’s work shall be BURNED, he shall suffer LOSS: but HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED; YET SO AS BY FIRE.]

 

[jlhargus]

Yes, Jesus and the Apostles preached and many believed. However, we can only know what Jesus and the Apostles taught by virtue of the written Scriptures left for us. We find that when Peter knew the end was in sight for him, his concern was to write down the truth so that we may have “these things always in remembrance” (2Peter 1:15).

JL: [2Pt1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.]

We know what was preached and taught thru TRADITION whether BY word OR epistle. Where does Peter mention scripture alone? There was no NT yet. In fact there was no official canon till about 390AD. You only know scripture is scripture because of Tradition as discerned by the Chruch guided by the Holy Spirit. The apostles never listed in any of their writings which books are inspiried.

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when **ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

The Church was teaching, preaching, converting and faithfully passing on that apostolic doctrine at least twenty years before the first word of the NT was written. Except for John all the apostels were dead before the NT was finished.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

2Thes3:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and **HOLD THE TRADITIONS **which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY word, OR our epistle.] Unless you can post a SCRIPTURE saying ALL TRADITION is now in scripture then you’re following a tradition of men.

All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interprets the SAME scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions. Those very scriptures tell you the Church is the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15.