non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[guanophore]

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?

In fact, this is exactly his modus operandi.

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?

ja4 admits that the Catholic Church “got it right” when the canon was formed. But he seems to believe this happened really in spite of the Catholic church - that it was more an independent act of God.

 

[justasking4]

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).

Does the catholic church define Sacred Tradition as coming from the Word of God?
If so, then the only Word of God are the Scriptures i.e. OT and NT. Sacred Traditions = OT and NT Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3480268]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Good point. Do you think the catholic church is guilty of this with its own traditions to advance its own agenda?

CentralFLJames
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.

Were the Inqusitions that went on for centuries with the full approval of the popes advancing God’s agenda? Was this a Sacred Tradition or just a tradition?

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?

It is absolutely vital we see things in their proper perspectives and in contexts. If catholics want to make claims about their church then its important to look at its traditions and Sacred Traditions and see if they truly are of Christ or men. When we look at the history of the catholic church we do see it was gulity of advancing its own agenda and not God’s at times.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3480268]
Originally Posted by justasking4
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?

CentralFLJames
Why go back only as far as the 7th-8th centuries?

I want to know what “traditions” were after the apostles died. I keep reading about catholic Sacred Traditions and traditions that are not in the Scriptures themselves and i would think a knowledgable catholic would know specifically what these Sacred Traditions and traditions are through history. So far i have been very disappointed with the responses i have been getting. :dts:

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?

There are good reasons to think it was Moses.

Do you know the man personally or have any secret records about him that no other has?

no.

How do we know that the man who told us of Adam & Eve and Eden really existed and man ever fell from grace?

Jesus believed they existed and He was God in the flesh. In fact He attests to the entire OT as being the Word of God.

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?

There is no evidence for this. We have excellent manuscript evidence for these “stories” that were written down and preserved.
If a person wants to say that these things were “embellished by men who wanted to bring order to a chaotic world full of violence or to make a living selling religion to pagans” then that person is going to need to show the evidence for this assertion. Just claiming this might be is not an argument or proof that it was so.

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?

Its not just trusting men to “assemble the correct teachings and insights about God” but in the God Who created the world. If were right about a Being that can create a universe then it would not be difficult if this Being i.e. God could communicate with mankind via something like the Scriptures. I have no problem believing an all powerful God could and has done this very thing.

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

What you need to do as many other catholics need to do is to study deeply what their church is teaching them in light of the Scriptures and see if they are in harmony with them. If not, they are to be rejected as the teachings of men and not God. The Bereans of Acts 17:11 is the model for all Christians to follow in regards to checking out what a church teaches.

 

[PetersKeys]

I could care less about Luther. If it had not been Luther, it would have been someone else and actually history has borne that out.
As far as history, I know mine, that is why I know the early church did not believe in venerating images, emphasize Mary, believe in apostolic succession and so forth. All of those are inventions of man at least a hundred years after Christ rose from the dead.

Umm, the ECF very well did believe in apostolic succession. In fact they talked about it constantly.St. Ireanues and others brought up Peters succesors alot in a list . You really need to read the ECF more before you make a statement like that

 

[ChristianRoots]

I want to know what “traditions” were after the apostles died.

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3484458]

If not, they are to be rejected as the teachings of men and not God.

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3484458]

How many traditions and Sacred Traditions are there in the catholic church?

After the Apostles died there were many books claiming to be inspired by God. (BTW, several New Testament books weren’t even written when Paul penned 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

It is not required that Paul would know what the final canon of scripture would look like for him to say that all scripture is inspired.

Quote:justasking4
i would think a knowledgable catholic would know specifically what these Sacred Traditions and traditions are through history.
ChristianRoots
Unfortunately, no protestant could prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God because the ORIGINALS have been lost to history.

Not true. If you look at the scholarship in this field you will find that even without the orginals we can be very confident we do have the 99.9999% of the original. Also bear in mind that we don’t have the originals of any ancient secular work either.

The Holy Spirit did not promise that copies of the Bible books would be inspired, only the once and for all ORIGINALS.

I agree. However this does not change that fact that your church and mine do accept the Scriptures as inspired-inerrant. Their teachings are binding.

Hmmm, come to think of it, the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire any of the authors to write down that copies of their book should be made.

True.

Quote:justasking4
Jesus believed they existed and He was God in the flesh. In fact He attests to the entire OT as being the Word of God.
ChristianRoots
Jesus does modify some of the Old Testament writings. Does that sit well with you?

Yes. Since He is the author of them only He can change them if He wants to.

Quote::justasking4
There is no evidence for this. We have excellent manuscript evidence for these “stories” that were written down and preserved.
ChristianRoots
Unless you have the ORIGINALS to compare these stories to, there can be no merit whatsoever to “excellent manuscript evidence”, aka fallible evidence.

This is not how scholars approach this. There is more manuscripts for the NT than any other work in ancient history. To doubt that we don’t know what the originals were like would also require a person to reject all the writings of ancient history since we don’t have the originals for those. We would for example have to say we don’t know what Plato said since we don’t have any of his original manuscripts. No scholar in his right mind would ever accept such a conclusion.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Clement wrote a letter to Corinth. So did Paul, his mentor. A lot of people wrote letters.

Polycrate’s letter says they must follow God, not man (Victor).

Hello Rightlydivide

You quoted three “men” in your last post…:banghead:

I think you might be viewing your faith in a far too literal sense and probably out of context.

How can one follow God if he doesn’t know who God is?..Or how to follow God?

Moreover, I think you might be too caught up into all the “Protestant talking points” created by “Protestant men” and all the while “saying” that your focus is on the Bible, put together and approved by “men”, Catholic “men” and worshiping a Christian God that you would be unfamiliar with, if it were not for the Catholic Church…ran by Catholic “men”, “men” who were/are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Most of your “quotes” or “phrases” are from other “men” who preceded you, right? This probably includes the person or persons who introduced you to Christianity. Unless of course, God speaks to you directly and the Bible magically appeared into your hands.

Please explain this “problem” of yours with “men” or “man” being involved with Christianity. Is your issue with all men or just “Catholic men”, be honest.

The focal point of Catholicism is on Jesus Christ, not “men”.

Peace

 

[ChristianRoots]

=justasking4;3484590How many traditions and Sacred Traditions are there in the catholic church?

Just about as many as there are different interpretations of written Scripture.

Why do so many people disagree about so many passages in the Bible? And please don’t say these are only minor differences.

It is not required that Paul would know what the final canon of scripture would look like for him to say that all scripture is inspired.

Agreed. Then how did the final canon of Scripture come about?

Not true. If you look at the scholarship in this field you will find that even without the orginals we can be very confident we do have the 99.9999% of the original. Also bear in mind that we don’t have the originals of any ancient secular work either.

Being very confident is not the same thing as being infallible about what is Scripture and what it isn’t.

I agree. However this does not change that fact that your church and mine do accept the Scriptures as inspired-inerrant. Their teachings are binding.

The Catholic Church does not need to have ORIGINALS in their possession to prove the canoncity of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition does that for us. Since Protestants don’t believe in Sacred Tradition, how can you know with 100% accuracy that the copies of Scripture you have today were the same as the ORIGINALS? (It can’t be done.)

This is not how scholars approach this. There is more manuscripts for the NT than any other work in ancient history. To doubt that we don’t know what the originals were like would also require a person to reject all the writings of ancient history since we don’t have the originals for those. We would for example have to say we don’t know what Plato said since we don’t have any of his original manuscripts. No scholar in his right mind would ever accept such a conclusion.

Don’t get me wrong, ancient manuscript evidence does help shed light on what Plato believed in, for example. But this is very different from stating infallibly what Plato believed in. Big difference. We may be certain about several things that Plato beleived in, but we can never be **100% infallibly certain **about EVERYTHING he believed in.

Now, when you are talking about people’s salvation, the stakes are raised, aren’t they? One must be **100% infallibly certain **about what needs to be done. “Excellent manuscript evidence” doesn’t cut it. If you don’t have the ORIGINALS to compare ancient copies to, how can you know for sure that your copies are inspired by God?

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is not how scholars approach this. There is more manuscripts for the NT than any other work in ancient history. To doubt that we don’t know what the originals were like would also require a person to reject all the writings of ancient history since we don’t have the originals for those. We would for example have to say we don’t know what Plato said since we don’t have any of his original manuscripts. No scholar in his right mind would ever accept such a conclusion.

Let me guess, you imagine that all the scholars are outside of the Catholic Church right?

Do you have clue at all JA4 of just how many tens of thousands of Catholic Scholars that are part of the Catholic Church who have over the many centuries poured over the ancient manuscripts and documents that The Catholic Church has in its hundreds of miles of shelves and archives? Do you? How many Protestant “scholars” do you think exist and how many archives of documents of Church histories and writings do you imagine that Protestants have? Can you point to where the Protestant archives of manuscripts and saintly writings are? Of course not - except for a few manuscripts and writings of post-revolutionary protestant leaders that exist in private libraries, museums and collages. Protestantism has nothing to show for itself - no fruit, very little scholarship, and almost no significant history. Protestantism has no roots and that is why it is blowing around the planet like a tumbleweed with no direction.

James

 

[guanophore]

Does the catholic church define Sacred Tradition as coming from the Word of God?
If so, then the only Word of God are the Scriptures i.e. OT and NT. Sacred Traditions = OT and NT Scriptures?

Yes, the Sacred Tradition comes from the Word of God (Jesus). Catholics recognize that not all of the Teachings of Jesus are found in the Holy Writings.

It is absolutely vital we see things in their proper perspectives and in contexts. If catholics want to make claims about their church then its important to look at its traditions and Sacred Traditions and see if they truly are of Christ or men. When we look at the history of the catholic church we do see it was gulity of advancing its own agenda and not God’s at times.

Since you have made up your mind that Catholicism is false, and based on the “speculations of men”, one wonders why it is so “absolutely vital” for you to see anything here on CAF. It appears to me as though your goal, instead, is to convince Catholics of the falsity of their religion.

You have judged the Catholic Church and found her guilty. You are not seeking any Catholic Answers here, but are seeking indictment.

I want to know what “traditions” were after the apostles died. I keep reading about catholic Sacred Traditions and traditions that are not in the Scriptures themselves and i would think a knowledgable catholic would know specifically what these Sacred Traditions and traditions are through history. So far i have been very disappointed with the responses i have been getting.

I think this is disingenuous for you to say. I don’t think you have any interest at all in the Sacred Traditions. You have already informed us that you don’t believe they exist. You have also repeatedly forwarded this improper dichotomy that “they are not in scripture”. For Catholics, there is only One Divine Deposit of Faith. We find this Deposit present in the Sacred Writing and the Sacre Tradition. We do not separate one from the other, nor do we have some sort of “rule” that each cannot be found in the other. This separation exists only in the mind of ja4.

However, for the sake of the lurkers, I will say that one of the Sacred Traditions is the Mass. We see this in the NT in several places, most commonly referred to as “the breaking of the bread”.

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Cor 11:23-26

The pattern of the Mass is the same as that used by the Apostles prior to the time the NT was written. It parallels the synagogue service from which it is derived.

If a person wants to say that these things were “embellished by men who wanted to bring order to a chaotic world full of violence or to make a living selling religion to pagans” then that person is going to need to show the evidence for this assertion. Just claiming this might be is not an argument or proof that it was so.

Yet, this is exactly what you accuse about the Sacred Traditions. You claim that the Teachings of Jesus could not be protected by Him, and that they became corrupted, just as communications do when children play a game of telephone.

Its not just trusting men to “assemble the correct teachings and insights about God” but in the God Who created the world. If were right about a Being that can create a universe then it would not be difficult if this Being i.e. God could communicate with mankind via something like the Scriptures. I have no problem believing an all powerful God could and has done this very thing.

Yet you cannot believe this about the Catholic Church, when the canon was formed, or that the same Sacred Tradition that formed the canon did not somehow become immediately invalid after this was done. You seem to believe that the Sacred Tradition that produced the Scriptures (by the power and will of God) stopped functioning as soon as this task was completed.

 

[guanophore]

What you need to do as many other catholics need to do is to study deeply what their church is teaching them in light of the Scriptures and see if they are in harmony with them. If not, they are to be rejected as the teachings of men and not God. The Bereans of Acts 17:11 is the model for all Christians to follow in regards to checking out what a church teaches.

No, ja4. First of all, it is inappropriate for you to come to a Catholic forum and instruct Catholics in what we “need to do”. The purveyance of the gospel of ja4 is not the purpose of the forum. Secondly, Catholics know that all the teachings of the Church are compeletely consisentent with the Scriptures, because the NT was written by Catholics and for Catholics, and represent Catholic faith. If there appears to be a contradiction, it is because the reader does not understand one or the other.

I agree, however, the Bereans are a good model. They received the Word of God with eagerness. This Word was delivered to them orally, through the Apostolic Teaching, just as the Word is delivered today. It would behoove all to receive this Teaching from the Apostles with eagerness, and not use the scripture to try to invalidate what is preached.

The Church produced the Scripture, and not the other way around. To separate the two from one another is to commit the error of Sola Scriptura.

How many traditions and Sacred Traditions are there in the catholic church?

I doubt they have ever been counted. What would be the point? That is like asking “how many directives are there in the NT”?

It is not required that Paul would know what the final canon of scripture would look like for him to say that all scripture is inspired.

I agree. Just the same, it is not necessary for Catholics to know the number of Sacred Traditions to know that they are inspired.

I agree. However this does not change that fact that your church and mine do accept the Scriptures as inspired-inerrant. Their teachings are binding.

Scriptures do not “teach” or “bind”. These were duties given by Christ to the Church.

Matt 18:18
8 Truly, I say to you, **whatever you bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt 28:18-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3486438]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How many traditions and Sacred Traditions are there in the catholic church?

guanophore
I doubt they have ever been counted. What would be the point? That is like asking “how many directives are there in the NT”?

This is just another indicator that you really don’t know much about your “Sacred Tradiitons” that you are incapable of answering such a basic question. You can claim that some kind of sacred tradition supports your beliefs but in reality you demonstrate such things really don’t exist… :crying:

 

[KJK80]

This is just another indicator that you really don’t know much about your “Sacred Tradiitons” that you are incapable of answering such a basic question. You can claim that some kind of sacred tradition supports your beliefs but in reality you demonstrate such things really don’t exist… :crying:

Dude, that makes no sense whatsoever.

What church do you belong to anyway? Or do you belong to a computer keyboard religion of some sort?

 

[justasking4]

Dude, that makes no sense whatsoever.

What church do you belong to anyway? Or do you belong to a computer keyboard religion of some sort?

Maybe you can help me. Do you know what all or most of the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church are?

 

[KJK80]

Maybe you can help me. Do you know what all or most of the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church are?

Answer my question first.

What church do you belong to?

I’ll help you with your answer though… Sacred Tradition is singular not plural.

While we’re at it, why don’t you give you’re (name removed by moderator)ut here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=229317 you seem pretty knowledgeable of the Bible… I bet you can help!

 

[justasking4]

KJK80;3487625]Answer my question first.

What church do you belong to?

A protestant church in my area.

I’ll help you with your answer though… Sacred Tradition is singular not plural.

Do you have the specifics of what these Sacred Traditions are through the centuries?

While we’re at it, why don’t you give you’re (name removed by moderator)ut here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=229317 you seem pretty knowledgeable of the Bible… I bet you can help

I’ll check it out

 

[KJK80]

Do you have the specifics of what these Sacred Traditions are through the centuries?

The phrasing of your question shows a lack of knowledge (whether accidental or intentional) as to what Sacred Tradition is.

Per CCC

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[justasking4]

KJK80;3487691]
Originally Posted by justasking4

Do you have the specifics of what these Sacred Traditions are through the centuries?

KJK80;
The phrasing of your question shows a lack of knowledge (whether accidental or intentional) as to what Sacred Tradition is.

Per CCC

Quote:
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures are not the same things. Sacred Tradition is something else and i want to know what the specifics are since it is claimed to be something. Do you know what they all or most are?