non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[Lampo]

We know we have the close to what the originals by the science of the textual criticism. In this discipline scholars take the various manuscripts and compare them and are able to piece together what the originals looked like. We have 99% of what the originals looked like.

We also know that we have the Tradition of the Church that put these writings together in a book called the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

We also know that we have the Tradition of the Church that put these writings together in a book called the Bible.

Do you use the word “Tradition” when you speak of historical secular matters? For example would you say its “Tradition” to say the Alexander the Great conquered the known world by age 27?

 

[Lampo]

Do you use the word “Tradition” when you speak of historical secular matters? For example would you say its “Tradition” to say the Alexander the Great conquered the known world by age 27?

Sometimes I would use the word “tradition” in secular matters. For instance; it is a tradition in baseball to occassionally throw the ball “around the horn” in the infield after the first and second outs.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do you use the word “Tradition” when you speak of historical secular matters? For example would you say its “Tradition” to say the Alexander the Great conquered the known world by age 27?

Yes. For example, traditionally in the USA we love and admire the underdog who stands up against insurmountable odds to prevail in the face of certain defeat. But here is a tradition that has no real historical accounting of this fact. But it is an essential and defining character of one of the things that “we the people” hold dear as Americans.

James

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you use the word “Tradition” when you speak of historical secular matters? For example would you say its “Tradition” to say the Alexander the Great conquered the known world by age 27?

CentralFLJames
Yes. For example, traditionally in the USA we love and admire the underdog who stands up against insurmountable odds to prevail in the face of certain defeat. But here is a tradition that has no real historical accounting of this fact. But it is an essential and defining character of one of the things that “we the people” hold dear as Americans.

James

Then what is the difference between “tradition” and “history”?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Then what is the difference between “tradition” and “history”?

You don’t see the difference???

History is past - gone - fini - done.

Tradition lives.

James

 

[Jimmy_B]

Thanks-- i’ll take a look…

Hello** justaskin4**,

Did you really, “take a look”?..It doesn’t look like it, based on your posts… Here are some links where you might find your answers…This ought to keep yo busy fo a while…

Vatican website

Catholic Answers Home

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Catholic Online

Catholic City (Free CD’s)

On-line Bible

The Catholic Liturgical Library

The Coming Home Network

Dave Armstrong – Catholic Apologetic Books

EWTN (Catholic TV- Radio)

Catholic Radio

Ave Maria Radio

Scripture in the Order of the Mass

Catholic.net

Vivificat

Catholic Links

A Catholic Response

Father John Corapi

Apologetic Articles

The Catholic Calendar Page

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (YouTube)

G.K. Chesterton (Famous Convert)

John Henry Cardinal Newman (Famous Convert)

St. Josemaria Escriva here (videos)

Catholic Tube - Catholic Videos and News

 

[Swan]

You don’t see the difference???

History is past - gone - fini - done.

Tradition lives.

James

Tradition is just another way of saying “we’ve always done it like that”. It doesn’t make it right in and of iteself. There was a time not so long ago when we could say of slavery, “but we’ve always had slaves”, and “but we’ve never let women vote”, or “we’ve always burned heretics at the stake”, or “we’ve always known that blacks were inferior” - I could go on and on but I think you get my drift…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Tradition is just another way of saying “we’ve always done it like that”. It doesn’t make it right in and of iteself…

Hello Swan,
How about the Christian/Catholic (Sacraments) “traditions” of Marriage and Baptism, should we abandon those “traditions” as well?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Tradition is just another way of saying “we’ve always done it like that”. It doesn’t make it right in and of iteself. There was a time not so long ago when we could say of slavery, “but we’ve always had slaves”, and “but we’ve never let women vote”, or “we’ve always burned heretics at the stake”, or “we’ve always known that blacks were inferior” - I could go on and on but I think you get my drift…

Only an utter pessimist and gadfly would seek to cast a shadow of contempt on “tradition” as a whole. Do you have the same negativity about all things in life?

I suppose some people are predisposed to even hate the tradition of recollecting their own birthdays…

James

 

[Lampo]

Hello Swan,
How about the Christian/Catholic (Sacraments) “traditions” of Marriage and Baptism, should we abandon those “traditions” as well?

Should we do away with the Tradition that the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired?

 

[justasking4]

You don’t see the difference???

History is past - gone - fini - done.

Tradition lives.

James

Must tradition have historical facts to back it up for it to be true?

 

[justasking4]

Jimmy B;3478484]Hello** justaskin4**,

Did you really, “take a look”?..It doesn’t look like it, based on your posts…
How would my posts look if i looked at the and used what you recommended i look at look like?

Here are some links where you might find your answers…This ought to keep yo busy fo a while…

There is enough to study in the catholic church to keep one occupied for many life times…

Do you think a Christian must go to Mary to get to Christ?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Must tradition have historical facts to back it up for it to be true?

You frame a lot of your questions as absolutes (“must” etc.) and there are more often than not exceptions to absolutes.

Facts are often hard to establish objectively as well since humanity has not been big on recording all its histories not have we always had honest historians and at times history is revised by those who want to change history to suit their own agendas. Sometimes all we have to go on is tradition when there is no written history or other collaborating evidence.

So no - not always . Sometimes we can know more about the integrity of the people who practised a particular tradition than we know about the precise history of where a tradition originated. In such cases we are trusting in the character and insight of the people who handed a tradition down to us.

James

 

[Jimmy_B]

That is quite aggravating actually. We have the same religion. No.

Hello Hilde89,

I just now saw this post of yours. What do you mean, “that we have the same religions”? You list - “Lutheran-Evangelical” for your religion, in your profile. Righteousone and I are both Roman Catholic. I don’t understand your response here to me.

I know, that if you were properly Baptized, that you are a Christian, is that what you mean? My response to Righteousone’s post, was simple to agree that Protestantism did follow Martin Luther, not that; you were not a Christian. I hope that this helps and I apologize for any misunderstanding. I am also sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

God Bless You.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3479318]You frame a lot of your questions as absolutes (“must” etc.) and there are more often than not exceptions to absolutes.

Facts are often hard to establish objectively as well since humanity has not been big on recording all its histories not have we always had honest historians and at times history is revised by those who want to change history to suit their own agendas. Sometimes all we have to go on is tradition when there is no written history or other collaborating evidence.

Good point. Do you think the catholic church is guilty of this with its own traditions to advance its own agenda?

Secondly, is it wise to base doctrines on “tradition when there is no written history or other collaborating evidence”?

So no - not always . Sometimes we can know more about the integrity of the people who practised a particular tradition than we know about the precise history of where a tradition originated. In such cases we are trusting in the character and insight of the people who handed a tradition down to us.

James

Can you give me an example of this from 7th-8th centuries?

 

[Swan]

Hello Swan,
How about the Christian/Catholic (Sacraments) “traditions” of Marriage and Baptism, should we abandon those “traditions” as well?

I’m not saying all traditions are bad, I’m saying that something isn’t necessarily good just because it is a tradition.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Good point. Do you think the catholic church is guilty of this with its own traditions to advance its own agenda?

The Catholic Church advances God’s agenda. Only somone opposed to God and God’s Truth and God’s Church would frame a question insincerely in terms of guilt. Do you form this sort of question to entrap and are you in doing so not following in the tradition and style of the Pharisees?

Secondly, is it wise to base doctrines on “tradition when there is no written history or other collaborating evidence”?

Can you give me an example of this from 7th-8th centuries?

Why go back only as far as the 7th-8th centuries? Let’s take it back to Genesis and while stepping backwards recollect that Wisdom is fear of The Lord (in the full truth and full scripture Catholic Bible).

Many unknown authors wrote both Old and New Testament scripture. You might as well ask if its wise to follow in the traditions of Christianity if you do not even know the first thing about all these men. Who wrote the account of Genesis? Do you have a shred of parchment, or bone fragment or other evidence that even proves to us who its author was? Do you know the man personally or have any secret records about him that no other has? How do we know that the man who told us of Adam & Eve and Eden really existed and man ever fell from grace? How do we know that this was not some conglomerated story heard by word of mouth and embellished by men who wanted to bring order to a chaotic world full of violence or to make a living selling religion to pagans?

Traditionally, without knowing a thing about the man, we trust that the author of Genesis and many unknown others of scripture like him was a good man who assembled the correct teachings and insights about God. We trust that he did not just assemble them from random pagan beliefs that existed in the large empires and tribes all around the early Jewish people. How is it except by tradition that a lowly people, mere slaves, most completely unknown to us save some key names could compel men thousands of years later to follow their traditions and beliefs?

Be careful of what you ask insincerely or you just might find yourself losing the only traditions that seperate you from pagans and loose what little you think you have.

James

 

[guanophore]

Tradition is just another way of saying “we’ve always done it like that”. It doesn’t make it right in and of iteself. There was a time not so long ago when we could say of slavery, “but we’ve always had slaves”, and “but we’ve never let women vote”, or “we’ve always burned heretics at the stake”, or “we’ve always known that blacks were inferior” - I could go on and on but I think you get my drift…

This is true about tradition, but one must make a distinction between Sacred Traditions and traditions of man. Sacred Tradition is “always done that way” because it comes from the inerrant and inspired Word of God (Jesus).

 

[guanophore]

Must tradition have historical facts to back it up for it to be true?

Sacred Tradition, by defninition (coming from God) is true, just as the Scripture, being part of that Tradition, is true, and was so from the time it was written. Historical facts do testify to that truth, but the Truth is independent of history. Some of the historical facts are lost to us forever. For example, we have no record in the Gospels of Jesus ever saying “it is better to give than receive”. However, we trust that this saying is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith that was passed on, because we have Paul writing it in his letter 20 years later. We don’t know any circumstances around where this teaching occurred because the historical facts are missing.

How would my posts look if i looked at the and used what you recommended i look at look like?

Sometimes I worry that you are drinking to much, or smoking some whacky weed.

There is enough to study in the catholic church to keep one occupied for many life times…

I am glad that we found one more thing about which we can agree.

Do you think a Christian must go to Mary to get to Christ?

Clearly not, as there are so many fervent Christians that have no regard or place whatsoever for Mary, or are even derogatory toward her. However, God chose to come to humankind through Mary.