As a Lutheran, I’m a sola scripturist. SS, properly understood and practiced, never rejects Tradition simply because it is Tradition. Tradition is simply accountable to scripture.
Sorry about that; I don’t know what happened. It might be your trial membership, though. I hope you can get it to work soon!
Now as to tradition, it should not be discounted entirely, but it should not be some sort of sacred cow. Take, for example, the authority of the Pope. There is nothing all that conclusive in the Bible about that, though Catholics, of course, can quote scripture indicating that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, etc. Whether or not this made him the vicar of Christ - that can be debated.
Or, even more difficult, at least for me, are some of the traditions that have grown up about Mary. The Bible doesn't even mention the names of her parents, but many churches are named after St. Anne, said to have been her mother. I don't presume that tradition in such instances does much harm, but I'm not sure that Christians should have to believe it.
More serious, I feel, is the absence of veneration of Mary among the earliest Christians. Take St. Paul. He wrote all those letters to the early churches, instructing them in doctrine, but never once mentions Mary. If she should be as central to the Christian faith as Catholicism claims, one would have assumed that he would at least made a couple references to her. Then, as to two of the main doctrines - the immaculate conception and the assumption - it was not until 1864 and 1950 respectively that these two dogmas were defined and made infallible by fiat of the Pope. Perhaps my main problem is believing that Mary lived a sinless life. Nothing in scripture suggests that, but the Bible does say that "all have sinned and fallen short....." That would seem to include Mary. The Bible calls her blessed, as it calls a couple other Biblical woman, but doesn't suggest that she was sinless. I prefer her to be a relatively normal human being myself rather than too much like a goddess.
As far as the gospels are concerned, Mary is mentioned only twice from the trip to Jerusalem until the crucifixion. Even as a child I was troubled that Mary and Joseph had gone a day's journey from Jerusalem before they realized that their 12-year-old son was missing! And in both references to Mary in between - Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4 - Jesus seems a bit dismissive of his mother. Sorry, but that's how those passages sounds to me. The other vague references quoted, as in Genesis and Revelation, hardly are very specific re Mary unless you already believe Mary is just below Jesus. In some churches she even seems to receive more attention than Christ - as, for example, in the Rosary. How many prayers to Mary compared to the "Our Father", taught by Christ himself?
That's all for now. Except to add that I have read the Church Fathers, and they were wise and learned men for their time, but so much of what they wrote is contradicted by what we have learned since - about the heavens, for example. Tradition is fine up to a point, but not when it keeps people believing the unbelievable.I wondered how long it would take for someone to try to attack the Blessed Mother…
never takes long. right up there with attacks on peter…lol! never surprises me.i chose the last one. i think other than a few Lutherans and Anglicans, protestants hate tradition. although there are a few branches who are very much into their own traditions. the Amish, Mennonite, and Beechy come to mind. oh yes, the Hutterites. not so much the Mennonites anymore, but the rest still hold firm. Peace
THEY are far more obsessed with Mary than Catholics are.
I have found among good Catholics different interpretations of Mary. Some modern Catholics revere Mary while, at the same time, expressing concern that Mariology has simply gone too far, that in many instances Mary has been elevated so high that she has become for many the center of their devotion. They seem to view her as a 'goddess' who somehow controls the decisions of her son. How many times have I heard priests use such expressions as this: "Go to Mary as Jesus would not refuse the petitions of his beloved mother." This strikes me as bordering on a religion that is more Greco-Roman 'pagan' than Christian.
Let us revere Mary for what she was and is. She was the mother of Christ, chosen by God for that high honor. Indeed, it is such a high honor that it hardly seems necessary to keep adding to her resume? Personally, I have to wonder if Mary is offended when she takes any attention away from her son.
But, I am pleased to live in a society where one can express this opinion without being tried and executed as some sort of evil heretic. That wasn't always a safe thing to do 500 years ago or so. Praise be to God, our strength and our redeemer.You disrespect her by relegating to nothing more than a vessel. She is the Mother of the Church. She is the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom. She is the model of humanity.
Really? And to what are you referring?
Except for without Tradition there would be no Scripture to use.
I’ll bet he’s referring to executions of people like St. Thomas More, Bishop John Fisher, and St. Edmond Campion. You know, the Catholics who were executed for ‘treason’ by the Protestant English State; the ‘treason’ being that they were professed Catholics who refused to accept the English King or Queen as being Head of the Church, though perfectly willing to accept said King or Queen as ruler and obeying all the laws except that one law which conscience denied.
I've read that as many 50,000 women were slaughtered in Europe during medieval times because they were found to be 'witches' (see Ex. 22:18). And various reform-minded people were executed, among them Jon Hus, etc. Thousands of Huguenots were put upon suddenly and killed in the massacre of St. Bartholmew. The Pope ordered a Te Deum to celebrate this. And Martin Luther was blacklisted in such a manner that (like Salamon Rushdie) it would have been approved by the Vatican if he had been murdered on sight. And that great Doctor of the church, St. Thomas Aquinas, said that the church should not execute heretics. No, the church's responsibility was to turn them over to the civil authorities to be put to death.
But the Protestant record is poor, also, so no one should boast. However, the USA became a refuge for heretics of many kinds, where no state religion was established, not so much because of Protestant tolerance but because there were too many sects for any one to rule supreme. Aren't we happy to live here and engage in such discussions as these on CAF? It would not have been possible in much of the Christian world 500 years ago.In that hopefully we may once again ‘become one’, yes, I am glad of discussion.
What I had in mind with that category was things like the 39 Articles and the Book of Concord. The kinds of things that are well-known sources of tradition, and easily associated with certain non-Catholics.
I apologize if you feel left out. I made this with the intent of focusing on the range of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Independents, and Evangelicalism (the last three overlap in different ways). I didn’t have restorationist movements in mind. Sorry about that.