Oral Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter PbloPicasso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PbloPicasso

Guest
How can Protestants [mainly fundamentalists] claim to believe in the “underground church” while reject Catholic Sacred Tradition [Oral Tradition]. Sounds hypocritical to me. What say you guys. I used to be confused to before coming back home to the Catholic Church. Such rubish is pushed across the Christian world, yet has no foundation for it since they can’t even present the evidence, which is why they hold to an oral tradition. The problem is that they have no evidence, yet the Catholic Church has an unbroken chain of evidence.

Why not just convert to Catholicism to help me knock some sense into some of my Catholic brethren. It would make a wonderful Church even more wonderful if you came home to where you belong anyway. Help straighten up the Catholics that think their not supposed to read the bible, one example, or the others that accept same sex relationships, premarital sex or abortion… Yikes! Help snuff out the liberal agendas pushed by some of the craziest Catholics out their. Please note that none of what they support in their agenda is permitted, accepted or promoted/taught by the Catholic Church.
 
PbloPicasso said:
How can Protestants [mainly fundamentalists] claim to believe in the “underground church” while reject Catholic Sacred Tradition [Oral Tradition]. Sounds hypocritical to me. What say you guys. I used to be confused to before coming back home to the Catholic Church. Such rubish is pushed across the Christian world, yet has no foundation for it since they can’t even present the evidence, which is why they hold to an oral tradition. The problem is that they have no evidence, yet the Catholic Church has an unbroken chain of evidence.

Why not just convert to Catholicism to help me knock some sense into some of my Catholic brethren. It would make a wonderful Church even more wonderful if you came home to where you belong anyway. Help straighten up the Catholics that think their not supposed to read the bible, one example, or the others that accept same sex relationships, premarital sex or abortion… Yikes! Help snuff out the liberal agendas pushed by some of the craziest Catholics out their. Please note that none of what they support in their agenda is permitted, accepted or promoted/taught by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
There was a guy (Baptist, I think) that wrote a book about the Underground Church and a Protestant Apologist tried taking that approach in a debate with a Catholic apologist.I can’t remember the Authors name, but it turns out the Catholic Apologist was familiar with the guy. Anyways the guy who wrote it, later recanted and admitted he was trying to justify his “churches” schism, he pulled the book and Converted to Catholicism years later. The Protestant apologist after hearing this, had the wind knocked out of his sails, and the debate was a slaughter.

With that being said, often in debates, it is just the better debater that wins and can have little bearing on truth claims!
 
PbloPicasso said:
How can Protestants [mainly fundamentalists] claim to believe in the “underground church” while reject Catholic Sacred Tradition [Oral Tradition]. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Click to expand...
Proof of the ‘underground’ church always eludes fundamentalists. I have asked for it for years on this forum and have yet to get an answer.
 
What is the “underground church” supposed to be. I have never heard of that. Can one of you enlighten me?
 
The beginnings of the “underground church” can be traced back to a 19th century in a book entitled: “A Concise History of Baptists" by G.H. Orchard.” In the 20th century, this was shortened in a booklet called “'The Trail of Blood” by J M Carroll.
Many Baptists to this day believe this is a historically accurate portrayal of history. Though rejected by serious historians, many Baptists understand this largely fabricated historical account to be the story of how Christ established the Baptist church (beginning with John the Baptist) and how it remained the one true church loyal to Christ for the past 2000 years.
Lacking any physical, forensic proof “Dr”. Carroll seeks to identify the Baptist church of today with nearly every medieval and early heretical group. Many of which he cites most often are the Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians, Albegensians, Waldenses, and Anabaptists. His claim is best refuted by simply examining who these heretics were and what they taught. In all cases it is a far cry from what modern Baptists believe.
If the “true Church” was an “underground” Church until the Reformation (which they claim not be a part of anyway), there is a problem with the very words of Christ. He said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” the Church. Trail of Blood history turns Jesus into a liar.
 
PbloPicasso said:
How can Protestants [mainly fundamentalists] claim to believe in the “underground church” while reject Catholic Sacred Tradition [Oral Tradition]. Sounds hypocritical to me. What say you guys. I used to be confused to before coming back home to the Catholic Church. Such rubish is pushed across the Christian world, yet has no foundation for it since they can’t even present the evidence, which is why they hold to an oral tradition. The problem is that they have no evidence, yet the Catholic Church has an unbroken chain of evidence.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it is hypocritical to believe that Protestantism developed before the Catholic Church and to reject Sacred Tradition.

Did Protestantism develop before Catholicism? That’s an historical issue. I also agree there is no evidence for it. But I don’t know how it applies to Sacred Tradition.
Why not just convert to Catholicism to help me knock some sense into some of my Catholic brethren. It would make a wonderful Church even more wonderful if you came home to where you belong anyway. Help straighten up the Catholics that think their not supposed to read the bible, one example, or the others that accept same sex relationships, premarital sex or abortion… Yikes! Help snuff out the liberal agendas pushed by some of the craziest Catholics out their. Please note that none of what they support in their agenda is permitted, accepted or promoted/taught by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Because the Catholic Church has historically never operated that way (nor the Orthodox Church, for that matter), and additionally, the attempt was made, and it failed. When Arians, Gnostics, and other heretics appeared within the Church, the result wasn’t to keep them in, but to cast them out.

The first Reformer, Martin Luther, never intended a separation from the Catholic Church. He wanted a debate within the Church hoping that some practices could be reformed (whether his theological beliefs were correct is a different issue).
 
FabiusMaximus said:
I don’t see how it is hypocritical to believe that Protestantism developed before the Catholic Church and to reject Sacred Tradition.

Did Protestantism develop before Catholicism? That’s an historical issue. I also agree there is no evidence for it. **But I don’t know how it applies to Sacred Tradition.
**
Click to expand...
something’s seriously lacking in that post. I’m in the middle of a power outage and my fingers are getting tied up in a know on this small notebook. So I’ll do my best.

It sounds like you don’t understand the term “sacred tradition”. I’ll allow you to respond before barking up the wrong tree and embarrass myself.
 
PbloPicasso said:
something’s seriously lacking in that post. I’m in the middle of a power outage and my fingers are getting tied up in a know on this small notebook. So I’ll do my best.

It sounds like you don’t understand the term “sacred tradition”. I’ll allow you to respond before barking up the wrong tree and embarrass myself.
Click to expand...
I think he’s questioning what is so hypocritical about a Protestant rejecting sacred tradition and claiming that the Protestants are older than the Catholics. Surely, to hold such a position is historically untenable, but is it hypocritical? I don’t really see the hypocrisy in that either; I just see that it is an indefensible belief in the face of historical evidence to the contrary.
 
JustaServant said:
The beginnings of the “underground church” can be traced back to a 19th century in a book entitled: “A Concise History of Baptists" by G.H. Orchard.” In the 20th century, this was shortened in a booklet called “'The Trail of Blood” by J M Carroll. . .
Click to expand...
For anyone interested; Trail of Blood is online. Link: bryanstation.com/online-media/books/trail-of-blood-english. (I wouldn’t waste money buying a copy.)

"FUNDAMENTAL*DOCTRINES
  1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
  2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are typical and
    memorial, not saving.
  3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the
    church.
  4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
  5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
  6. Its members. Believers only, that are saved by grace, not works, through the
    regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
  7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion,
    then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament Laws.
  8. The various churches separate and independent in their execution of laws and
    discipline and in their responsibilities to God but cooperative in work.
  9. Complete separation of Church and State.
  10. Absolute Religious Liberty for all."
As you can see, the Fundamental Doctrines in Trail of Blood reveal serious problems. In number five, we find Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only. They have, like Marcion in 150 CE, eliminated the Old Testament. Trail of Blood becomes a source of doctrine in its place. Even in their use of the New Testament; they have corrupted what is clearly revealed in Holy Scripture. There is so much wrong with this document; it’s difficult to know where to begin. It is, also, vehemently anti-Catholic.

Peace,
Anna
 
Cavaradossi said:
I think he’s questioning what is so hypocritical about a Protestant rejecting sacred tradition and claiming that the Protestants are older than the Catholics. Surely, to hold such a position is historically untenable, but is it hypocritical?** I don’t really see the hypocrisy in that either;** I just see that it is an indefensible belief in the face of historical evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
I believe my statement makes perfect sense in that protestants want to have their cake and eat it too. first, they deny Catholic/Orthodox being the Church in the beginning and deny that sacred tradition is not valid, yet they make up their own belief and claim that it was passed down through the underground church. Don’t you see the irony in this argument made in lala land? It’s obsured. I was one of thos believers at one time and it took me decades to figure out the rediculousness of my arguments. Now I seem to understand it more than the Catholics and Orthodox. That’s funny to me.

anyway, if its too far over your head, I’m sorry. I don’t have the patience nor the desire to convince you that the sky is blue during the day… maybe not a good analogy, because i also understand geo science. If you don’t see the trees because of the forest, there’s not much that can be done until your eyes focus better…
 
PbloPicasso said:
I believe my statement makes perfect sense in that protestants want to have their cake and eat it too. first, they deny Catholic/Orthodox being the Church in the beginning and deny that sacred tradition is not valid, yet they make up their own belief and claim that it was passed down through the underground church. Don’t you see the irony in this argument made in lala land? It’s obsured. I was one of thos believers at one time and it took me decades to figure out the rediculousness of my arguments. Now I seem to understand it more than the Catholics and Orthodox. That’s funny to me.

anyway, if its too far over your head, I’m sorry. I don’t have the patience nor the desire to convince you that the sky is blue during the day… maybe not a good analogy, because i also understand geo science. If you don’t see the trees because of the forest, there’s not much that can be done until your eyes focus better…
Click to expand...
That was a needlessly condescending remark you made in the final paragraph. It is sad that in seeing that the sky is blue, you have seemingly lost your capacity for humility, instead choosing to respond with arrogance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top