"It's not biblical"

[Pwrlftr]

I became involved in a conversation along these lines in another thread awhile back. Anything that was brought up was immediately pounced upon by non-catholics as being wrong because it wasn’t in the Bible. I’m not saying you would do this, but it points up the difficulties in “Proving” something like this.

That would be frustrating. But it’s not really so much my contention that “sacred tradition” doesn’t exist as much as it is that using 2Thess2:15 to prove it does is a bad argument.

The problem here as I see it is that you want something that is definatively “provable” and the only way to do that is if it is written down somewhere. Then we come to the problem of it “not being biblical” and therefore not inerrant or somesuch argument.

I fully understand that we are going to disagree on some issue sand frankly, it’s not really worth your time or mine to discuss them.

I am open to even non-biblical support in defining what exactly Paul meant by tradition in 2Thess2;15.

The fact is that “Tradition” as refered to by Paul could mean any number of different things from docrinal issues such as the Orally taught Gospel of the time, to practical issues such as the order of the mass as practiced at that time.

You are correct. It could mean anything from the immaculate conception to the assumption to those things which Paul had already taught them concerning the gospel as we find it in written scripture.

In fact, I will offer the order of the mass as a tradition not recorded in Scripture yet passed down from the Apostles to us unchanged in it’s source and essence. Now this does not mean the the Order of Mass has not changed and evolved over time, certainly it has. But from Pentacost until today we have gathered together for the Holy Mass as Jesus Commanded us and we have done so in a manner, not described in the Bible, but rather developed and evolved by the Apostles and their successor Bishops.

Tradition, singularly put, is the sum total of the workings and teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Church over the course of 2000 years. It simply cannot be adequately summed up in a short paragraph. Particularly to someone who is unfamiliar with the concept.

Peace
James

I am pretty familiar with what your church teaches. It’s councils and catechisms. I had considered becoming a Catholic at one time and read everything I could get my hands on. Obviously I didn’t convert but spent several years investigating your church.

I just don’t find the use of 2Thess2:15 to be convincing at all since there is no way either one of us know exactly what might be indexed under those “tradtions” Paul was talking about.

 

[JRKH]

That would be frustrating. But it’s not really so much my contention that “sacred tradition” doesn’t exist as much as it is that using 2Thess2:15 to prove it does is a bad argument.

The fact that you recognize tradition as existing is really all most apologists are trying to prove with this verse. Often time we find ourselves in discussion with others who simply refuse to recognize ANYTHING outside of the Bible.

I fully understand that we are going to disagree on some issue sand frankly, it’s not really worth your time or mine to discuss them.

I am open to even non-biblical support in defining what exactly Paul meant by tradition in 2Thess2;15.

I too agree. We simply wind up going around in circles most of the time. I appreciate the highly Christian attitude you present in your discussions and points.

You are correct. It could mean anything from the immaculate conception to the assumption to those things which Paul had already taught them concerning the gospel as we find it in written scripture.

Precisely. What the passage does demonstrate in clear terms is that Paul did not write everything down. In fact Oral teaching is by far the prefered method of teaching at this time.
We must remember that the First century Christians excpected the return of Christ very soon. They were far more concerned with spreading the Gospel than with recording things for posterity.

I am pretty familiar with what your church teaches. It’s councils and catechisms. I had considered becoming a Catholic at one time and read everything I could get my hands on. Obviously I didn’t convert but spent several years investigating your church.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to look into The Church. It shows in your posts.
I pray that someday your investigations will lead you into The Church. In God’s time.

I just don’t find the use of 2Thess2:15 to be convincing at all since there is no way either one of us know exactly what might be indexed under those “traditions” Paul was talking about.

As I mentioned above, usually a catholic apologist will use this verse in conversations where someone is totally dismissive of ANY Traditions, thus trying to pin down specifics isn’t the point. You already accept the idea of Tradition as part of our Christian Heritage so you already have a similar understanding of the verse as catholics do.

Thanks for the discussion.

Peace
James

 

[twb1621]

That would be frustrating. But it’s not really so much my contention that “sacred tradition” doesn’t exist as much as it is that using 2Thess2:15 to prove it does is a bad argument.
Ok, I am not ready to give up yet if your not. lets try this… What is it that makes this a bad argument when you have supporting scripture also showing Jesus teaching the Apostles, sending them out to teach the world and the apostles appointing successors and Bishops to carry on the
“…the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter…” (see 2 Thess. 2:15),

I fully understand that we are going to disagree on some issue sand frankly, it’s not really worth your time or mine to discuss them.

It’s worth the time if you want to know the truth and I think you do or you wouldn’t be here.

I am open to even non-biblical support in defining what exactly Paul meant by tradition in 2Thess2;15.

The Traditions Paul referred to include those teachings they received from Christ in how they were to live, teach and to share the knowledge of interpretation of what was being taught to the faithful along with the power and grace of the Holy Spirit which was necessary for understanding and all aspects of discernment in all times of change. This is were Apostolic Tradition through the sacraments come in. The receiving of the Holy Spirit by their Predecessors.

You are correct. It could mean anything from the immaculate conception to the assumption to those things which Paul had already taught them concerning the gospel as we find it in written scripture.

Part of sacred Tradition is the passing of the keys which authorizes the Church to recognize matters such as the Honor of Mary, and I said Honor, not worship. This an example of course.

I am pretty familiar with what your church teaches. It’s councils and catechisms. I had considered becoming a Catholic at one time and read everything I could get my hands on. Obviously I didn’t convert but spent several years investigating your church.

I was raised Catholic and left the Church for over 20 years. My profession was in professional investigations, protection and law enforcement. I searched many Christian faiths looking for the “right one” after being away for so long but found too much corrupted in many ways. I stepped outside of religion all together and used the skills of my profession to truthfully “investigate” the origin and life line of Christianity. I was ashamed of myself to find all the things I disagreed with in the Catholic Church were actually Teachings within the Gospel and the practices of the Catholic Church contained the same doctrines for 2000 years.

I just don’t find the use of 2Thess2:15 to be convincing at all since there is no way either one of us know exactly what might be indexed under those “tradtions” Paul was talking about.

in itself, no probably not. But put it together with all the other evidence, if you have to write them down or type them out on your pc the proof is there but sometimes it takes work to put the pieces together to get the right path.

May The Holy Spirit give us the strength to persevere in the search for truth and knowledge of God.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Well many non-Catholics deny that Peter was chief amongst the Apostles, but it’s right there. There are many other things as well - it’s just that they are using a faulty interpretation of the Catholic bible. The Catholic church has never claimed that everything she believes and teaches is “biblical”. She does maintain that everything is contained in scripture, revelation and tradition - the deposit of faith. John saw Mary in Heaven when he wrote the Apocalypse. She’s in there. Also, the bible tells us in several places that it is incomplete. Therefore, tradition was passed on, both as to Mary’s assumption as well as anecdotes about John in his later years.

Maybe the bible does not say anything specific about Mary’s assumption into heaven, but you can read about other people being assumed, such as Elijah, Enoch, etc. So why is it so difficult to believe Mary was assumed? By the way I come from an evangelical background I went to Catholic church for 7 years before my wife decided she didn’t want to “play Catholic” any more and we left for a non Catholic church. But I feel drawn back to the Catholic Church even though she doesn’t.

 

[JRKH]

Maybe the bible does not say anything specific about Mary’s assumption into heaven, but you can read about other people being assumed, such as Elijah, Enoch, etc. So why is it so difficult to believe Mary was assumed? By the way I come from an evangelical background I went to Catholic church for 7 years before my wife decided she didn’t want to “play Catholic” any more and we left for a non Catholic church. But I feel drawn back to the Catholic Church even though she doesn’t.

Just as a suggestion here, If you can get EWTN on TV or computer, I highly recommend the program the Journey Home. Great Stories from Converts and Reverts. Well done and you can ask questions. If you start watching maybe she will too.

Peace
James

 

[LegoGE1947]

Just as a suggestion here, If you can get EWTN on TV or computer, I highly recommend the program the Journey Home. Great Stories from Converts and Reverts. Well done and you can ask questions. If you start watching maybe she will too.

Peace
James

During our Catholic years Journey Home was one of our favorite programs.

 

[KingAlfred]

No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.

From the death of Christ (AD 30), to approximately AD 328, when the Catholic Church officially established the canon of the New Testament, Christianity itself wasn’t ‘biblical’, in the sense that that phrase is used today. The Church came first, then the New Testament.