Look, you keep telling us that “Traditions” atleast some of them, cannot be found in the Bible. (the NT). Lets hear just three of them. tell us what three of them are, or if that’s too much; just give us one or two “traditions” that would not be in the NT. Surely you can manage that? Your avoidance of an answer here speaks volumes.
Perhaps it is only simple to the simple minded? I have studied martial arts for the better part of two decades, and the deeper one goes into the art, the more one learns about the world view. I think it is impossible for someone to learn these things apart from the daily practice of the art. It comprises a culture and a world view. No one could learn the art that I study by way of a “list”. Such a suggestion seems absurd to me.They won’t give you a specific list. I have been asking them for a long time. But they have admitted how that some “tradition” is NOT found in the NT. Very curious reaction to a simple question indeed.
You might try by starting with a more open mind, say for example, that something may exist that you don’t know? You might also consider taking a non-pejorative approach. Your posts are so full of insulting attitude and language it is difficult to believe that you really want to have a discussion. Then, there is the conversion agenda you have as well.
I disagree. I think people can be easily misled. This happened to me, as I was a cradle Catholic, and left to wander in fundamental/evangelical circles for a long time before I realized I had been misled. You may not believe this, but I even read Chick Tracts!
The presence of truth does not prevent one from falling into error.Your opinion is anything but humble! However, since the Catholic Church wrote the NT, and it was taken from the Sacred Oral Tradition, there is nothing in it that contradicts what the Church teaches. The both come from the same Source. The catechism does not claim to be infallible-inerrant.Yes, and all they will do is say: “read the Catechism,” because that of course is what they want people to be doing. But the long and short of it is that they simply will not/cannot give us a list, for they know that scripture will denounce their tradition and their catechism. (IMHO).
I would certainly commend anyone who undertook such a study. It was this study that led be back home. I took a course at seminary (Protestant, mind you) in historical theology. I came out more Catholic than I had ever been.
i know Holy Tradition does not come in lists. What i’m asking is that do you or anyone else know Sacred Tradition well enough to make such a list? For example if you wanted a list of all the sins mentioned in Scripture i could do that. Why can’t this be done for Sacred Tradition?
No, I don’t believe so. But we have given you some lists you rejected already.
justasking4;3438023:
This is a sad fact about Catholics.i know Holy Tradition does not come in lists. What i’m asking is that do you or anyone else know Sacred Tradition well enough to make such a list? For example if you wanted a list of all the sins mentioned in Scripture i could do that.
Why can’t this be done for Sacred Tradition?
i’m suprised by your last comment. All the older catholics i know are not very knowledgeable of catholicism. Maybe its just my limited expierence but most catholics i know only go to mass and that is about it. Getrting into deeper discussions on catholic theology can be dicey and highly emotional. Just like here
Mine and countless protestants. If i’m not mistaken a few church fathers also said something like this including Jerome.
If Holy Scripture alone were sufficient as a medium of divine revelation, we wouldn’t have had all the major heresies and schisms in Christendom; nor would the Protestant tradition be a divided house. Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition, as it initially was by the apostles. Scripture is materially sufficient but formally insufficient.
Here are 73:
* Genesis
* Exodus
* Leviticus
* Numbers
* Deuteronomy
* Joshua
* Judges
* Ruth
* 1 Samuel
* 2 Samuel
* 1 Kings
* 2 Kings
* 1 Chronicles
* 2 Chronicles
* Ezra
* Nehemiah
* Tobit
* Judith
* Esther
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* Job
* Psalms
* Proverbs
* Ecclesiastes
* Song of Songs
* Wisdom
* Sirach
* Isaiah
* Jeremiah
* Lamentations
* Baruch
* Ezekiel
* Daniel
* Hosea
* Joel
* Amos
* Obadiah
* Jonah
* Micah
* Nahum
* Habakkuk
* Zephaniah
* Haggai
* Zechariah
* Malachi* Matthew
* Mark
* Luke
* John
* Acts
* Romans
* 1 Corinthians
* 2 Corinthians
* Galatians
* Ephesians
* Philippians
* Colossians
* 1 Thessalonians
* 2 Thessalonians
* 1 Timothy
* 2 Timothy
* Titus
* Philemon
* Hebrews
* James
* 1 Peter
* 2 Peter
* 1 John
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* RevelationLets take item # 4 & 5 in your little list. It would be simplest, since I am also taking part in another, related discussion here at CA. Where in the Bible does it say communion needs to be held atleast once a week? Even with all the rantings here about the presence, and how the priests in catholicism change Jesus into a piece of bread; you have utterly failed to prove anything. Giving web site links to places like “Scripture Catholic” is just a smoke screen. Barely one scripture there is quoted in context. That site makes the scriptures so confusing, one could never sort out what is really the point. It’s called “wresting the scriptures.”
Also, we DO NOT have a once saved always saved doctrine. 
Since you and “countless protestants” are fallible, your interpretation and their’s could be wrong, correct?
Now you are playing games. You & countless others have stated time and again how that “Tradition” is verily “the word of God,” and you know full well that this list is not such. What Catholic Tradition can you name, that is not found in the NT? (as many here have already claimed?) Name one, since two is also too much.
This list you gave is only “tradition” with a lower case “t”Just because their are differences about what the scriptures may mean does not mean that they are insufficent in which to ground doctrine on. Look at the catholic church itself. Even with a supposedly infallible leadership it still has all kinds of different beliefs and practices throughout it. Take the understanding of the Scriptures themselves. Many catholics not only have different views that conflect with each other but there are also different beliefs among them on a broad range of issues and doctrines.
Your church fails at this point in that they interpret some scriptures in ways that the apostles never did. Secondly, how do you interpret Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition when catholics i have talked to can’t even give a list of what these Sacred Traditions are? Maybe you know what they what they are. If so, can you give me a couple of examples?
What do you mean here?
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Yes. Since all men are fallen then anyone including the pope and magesterium could be and have been wrong. Only One Who has lived was truly infallible in interpreting the Scriptures.
It would be an extremely long list.
Could you? I actually doubt that - even if you were using an on-line concordance to locate every instance of the word “sin” in the Bible, you’d still miss a few that aren’t actually designated with the word “sin”, unless you knew in advance what sins to look for (in which case, you wouldn’t need the list - you’d already know what is a sin - and what do you do with situations where it looks to us like a sin, but there is no mention in the text that God considered it a sin, at the time - such as the slaughter of women and children, or instances of human sacrifice prior to the coming of Abraham? Do you count these, or not?).
Easier, but this would still pretty time-consuming - and it would exceed the character limit on CAF.
Not really, no.
I believe what I gave is Tradition. It is Tradition that those are the 73 inspired books of the Bible. The Bible didn’t tell us this. The Tradition of the Catholic Church did.Now you are playing games. You & countless others have stated time and again how that “Tradition” is verily “the word of God,” and you know full well that this list is not such. What Catholic Tradition can you name, that is not found in the NT? (as many here have already claimed?) Name one, since two is also too much.
If this is true (thank God it isn’t!), then how can the Church be the pillar and bullwark of truth?
It’s also the Holy Tradition that indicates the existence of a Bible, at all.
Do you deny all men are fallen? Do you deny your popes and magesterium has been wrong at times?
Whe the church is faithful to Christ and His Word then if fulfills this. When its not, it is not the support of the truth.
Do you then consider all the 73 books in your Bible to be all the Traditions of your church?
OK then. I won’t argue about this one for now; it would be a separate topic, but you have just proved that Tradition (so called) is NOT in the Bible; yet you say that your Tradition is “the Word of God??”
Because the written word is infallible; NOT people, including the Pope.!!
The Bible contains the Word of God, but it is not the whole thing. The remainder of the Word of God comes to us via the Holy Tradition (such as the information that there is, in fact, such a thing as the Bible, and the list of the books that belong in the Bible).
OK then. I won’t argue about this one for now; it would be a separate topic, but you have just proved that Tradition (so called) is NOT in the Bible; yet you say that your Tradition is “the Word of God??”
Of course I do not deny this.
I don’t know what the Magisterium has been wrong on. I’m sure popes have been wrong. Neither one has been wrong on matters of faith and morals when declared ex cathedra.
How do you know when the Church is or is not “faithful to Christ and His Word”? What do you base it on? Your fallible interpretation of Scripture?