Protestant saying hello

[Protestant101]

What does that mean “meet the scrutiny of the Bible”? Of course there are Traditions not included in the Bible. The Catholics that composed the NT had no intention of making it a complete work in the doctrine of the faith. You don’t even accept that the contents of the Bible you are attempting to use as a standard comes from Sacred Tradition! What good are more lists?

So; OK, now you have finally come out and said it, how that you will not give us a list of teachings from Tradition, which in fact are not in the NT. You leave Protestants no choice but to speculate why Catholics continually have this attitude, and the laughable part is that you will then turn on us with venomous accusations of “anti-catholic” or “hatred.”

I, as a Protestant, have good reason to believe that Catholics, on an official basis, actually are anti-Bible. They outright do not like the Bible!

Papal Rome’s opposition to pure Bible truth is a historical fact, plus it remains to this day. Note these historical statements:

At the Council of Toulouse (1229 A.D), papal church leaders ruled: “We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament … We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular.” “'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.”

Pope Gregory IX, Council Tolosanum, 1229 A.D.
The Roman Catholic Council of Tarragona also ruled that: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned.” D. Lortsch, Histoire de la Bible en France, 1910, p. 14.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: “That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.”

“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people, D.R.) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good…” Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274.

J.A. Wylie, an authority on Romanism in the Reformation era, dedicated two chapters of his book The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects (London: Hamilton Adams, 1888) to Rome’s attitude toward the Bible. Wylie states:

“The Latin Vulgate is the authorized standard in the Church of Rome, and that to the disparagement of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. These are omitted in the decree [by the Council of Trent], and a translation is substituted. All Protestant translations, such as our authorized English version, Luther’s translation, &c. are prohibited” The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects, p. 181.

Rome’s attempt to keep the Bible from people has continued to more recent times:

Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced Bible Societies and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. This Pope declared, “It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed: “against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.”

Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the “Gospel of the Devil” in an encyclical letter of 1824. In January 1850, he also condemned Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.”

Pope Leo XIII declared, “As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused…” Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413.

On December 8, 1866, after European Bible societies had been formed to translate and spread the Word of God, Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical Quanta Cura, issued this amazing statement:

“Socialism, Communism, clandestine societies, Bible societies… pests of this sort must be destroyed by all means.”

Rome’s efforts have been unsuccessful,for Jesus Christ Himself declared:

“Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35)

And today; when you start touting “Tradition” as superior to the Bible, as something to “consult” to “see” if the Bible is true, people are only left to think one thing.

 

[Deconi]

“Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35)

And today; when you start touting “Tradition” as superior to the Bible, as something to “consult” to “see” if the Bible is true, people are only left to think one thing.

It is truly a shame Protestant101, that of all the voluminous writings of all The Fathers of Christianity, ** you nitpick selectively so as to take matters out of context to ‘prove’ your ignorance, JUST AS YOU DO TO HOLY SCRIPTURES!!**

Sacred Tradition and The Bible are the SAME for one bears witness to the other. Without Tradition, you cannot define Scriptures correctly. Without Scriptures, you cannot define Sacred Tradition correctly.

Given the multiple versions of ‘Bibles’ now in existence, those who are 20centuries removed from The ULTIMATE Revelations of God to man, Himself Appearing, cannot decipher ‘deceptions’ and error from The Truth! The splintering of our faith in Christ, aptly demonstrated by the multitude of denominations who search for Him, are like shafts of light through shattered crystal !!

Search your denomination and find it’s source. Was it spoken into existence by Our Lord, or ‘awakened’ by The Holy Spirit when someone encountered Holy Writ? Both are quite legitimate and one can find God simply by answering His call. But you have to understand what it means to be in The Church that was ‘SPOKEN INTO EXISTENCE’ by God. Like creation itself, His word is eternal.

Nevermind the 2000 years lapsed. What do you see in the future? Two milleniums from now, should He Will our existence to continue that long, The Catholic Church will still be here, IN THE SAME FORM THAT IT IS IN NOW! Can you say the same of your denomination for the coming 100years? The evidence is that it will not, because history says NO.

The Bible IS NOT INFALLIBLE. That’s why there’s many versions of it now. What’s a searching Christian to do amidst all the confusion of multi-denominational practices? EASY! Find The Trinity! As there is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Three but in One, so it is in The Church He established. Sacred Tradition, Holy Writ and Magisterium. Three but in One.

Why does He do things this way?? ** I DON’T KNOW!**

He just does! Now hurry up and empty yourself and…

**C O M E

H O M E !**

 

[Lampo]

I, as a Protestant, have good reason to believe that Catholics, on an official basis, actually are anti-Bible. They outright do not like the Bible!

What does “official basis” mean? I’m Catholic and I love the Bible. Why wouldn’t Catholics like a book that was developed by their own Church? I assure 100% that the Catholic Church loves the word of God - written and spoken!

 

[guanophore]

"… you will not give us a list of teachings from Tradition, which in fact are not in the NT. You leave Protestants no choice but to speculate why Catholics continually have this attitude, and the laughable part is that you will then turn on us with venomous accusations of “anti-catholic” or “hatred.”

On the contrary, I have provided multiple lists on this forum. In each of them is the Canon of scripture. But Jesus did not teach in “lists”. He taught a lifestyle, and a world view. This is what we have preserved in the Sacred Tradition. Most of it is not “things that are not found in the bible”, which is a worthless distinction, but in how to understand the written portion of Divine Revelation. This is what Jesus taught that it found in the Apostolic teaching. I do not have venom of your rejection and hatred of the Authority Jesus appointed for the Church. On the contrary, when I read these things, I am filled with sadness.

I, as a Protestant, have good reason to believe that Catholics, on an official basis, actually are anti-Bible. They outright do not like the Bible!

Well, I don’t think you will find any Catholics like that here. All the Catholics I know on CAF love the scripture, and believe that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. However, as a cradle Catholic who had to leave the Church to find the wealth of the Scriptures, I do understand how it is that you could meet a lot of Catholics that do not seem to like the Bible. I grew up among them myself.

Papal Rome’s opposition to pure Bible truth is a historical fact, plus it remains to this day. Note these historical statements:

That is because we don’t believe there is any such thing as “pure biblical truth”. We believe that the Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. Separating it as has been done has resulted in so many errors of interpretation that they cannot be counted.

At the Council of Toulouse (1229 A.D), papal church leaders ruled: “We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament … We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular.” “'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.”

Well, you left out some important parts of this promulgation. All Catholics were encouraged to posess, pray, and reverence the scriptures within the teaching of the Church. The Church was trying to prevent the misuse of the Holy writings, which is exactly what has occurred.

The Roman Catholic Council of Tarragona

I am not familiar with this council, so if you give me a reference I will read up on it. I cannot find any reference to in in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was a local council, so it’s decisions were only binding in the locale it served. I am sure if such a decree existss, it was to address local problems with the abuse of the Bible. You have to take into account that the Bible is a Catholic book, an the Catholic Church had the copyright on it. Of course all efforts were going to be made to preserve it intact.

 

[guanophore]

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

This is a lie that you are perpetrating. It did not happen. That is why I call this “anti-Catholic”. It is an excuse used by Reformers to separate the Sacred Writings from the Sacred Traditions.

“… there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good…” Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274.

This is a sad fact, and history has surely borne this out. What the Church was most concerned about was mistranslations (unauthorized). The Church already had produced approved versions in the vernacular languages, and was constantly working on new ones. The problem was that people were translating the scriptures according to new wave doctrines, not according to the Apostolic Teaching.

All Protestant translations, such as our authorized English version, Luther’s translation, &c. are prohibited" The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects, p. 181.

Prohibited because they had not been authorized. It was known that they contained errors. It is the duty of the Church to preserve the Truth, and speak against error.

Rome’s attempt to keep the Bible from people has continued to more recent times:

Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced Bible Societies and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. This Pope declared, “It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.”

Amen to that, Pius VII! We can see from the plethora of erroneous translations (some even called "paraphrases) and the multitude of interprestatins that this has certainly come to pass. However, it has nothing to do with “keeping the Bible from the people” as you have been obviously led to believe. It has to do with separated the scriptures from the Authority that Jesus appointed to teach them to the people.

Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the “Gospel of the Devil” in an encyclical letter of 1824. In January 1850, he also condemned Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.”

What else would you expect? These were mistranslations, butchered collections that did not contain the canon of Nicea! The more the error is spread, the more damage occurs. This is true with every heresy. It is the duty of the Church to stand up against heresy, and speak against it.

Pope Leo XIII declared, “As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused…” Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413.

Indeed. And we see the fruit in the lack of unity in the Protestant communities to this day.

Rome’s efforts have been unsuccessful …And today; when you start touting “Tradition” as superior to the Bible, as something to “consult” to “see” if the Bible is true, people are only left to think one thing.

No, Tradition is not ‘superior’. But it is the Source of the Scripture, and has never been “discontinued” by God. The two were never meant to be separated. Separating them causes division and confusion. That is why such behavior is called “the work of the devil” by the Holy Fathers. It is the fruit of rebellion.

 

[jmcrae]

I must have missed it in my refuting of so many of your false ideas. The only Word of God that I’m aware of are the written Scriptures. If there was some kind of “Word of God” between Adam and Moses I don’t know what it was. Do you know?

How do you think Moses knew the stories of Genesis, in order to write them down, and to write the Book of Genesis?

We say that it was the Oral Tradition. What do you say?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3432541]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I must have missed it in my refuting of so many of your false ideas. The only Word of God that I’m aware of are the written Scriptures. If there was some kind of “Word of God” between Adam and Moses I don’t know what it was. Do you know?

jmcrae
How do you think Moses knew the stories of Genesis, in order to write them down, and to write the Book of Genesis?

We say that it was the Oral Tradition. What do you say?

It could be part tradition and also revelation that God gave Moses at this time. However, i would not call this a “Word of God”.

 

[jmcrae]

It could be part tradition and also revelation that God gave Moses at this time.

How would God have given Moses a revelation about the Book of Genesis, other than through the Oral Tradition?

However, i would not call this a “Word of God”.

Genesis is not the Word of God?

Or are you saying that the Genesis account only became the Word of God after it was written down?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3432976]

Originally Posted by justasking4
It could be part tradition and also revelation that God gave Moses at this time.

jmcrae
How would God have given Moses a revelation about the Book of Genesis, other than through the Oral Tradition?

Moses had direct contact with God over the course of 40 years and its not inconcievable that God revealed these things to him during this period.

Quote: justasking4
However, i would not call this a “Word of God”.

jmcrae
Genesis is not the Word of God?

It is the Word of God.

Or are you saying that the Genesis account only became the Word of God after it was written down?

Only when it was written down.

 

[Protestant101]

It is truly a shame Protestant101, that of all the voluminous writings of all The Fathers of Christianity, **you nitpick selectively so as to take matters out of context to ‘prove’ your ignorance, JUST AS YOU DO TO HOLY SCRIPTURES!! **

The “Fathers” of Christianity started all the way back in the OT; but to say I made the quotes above “out of context” without a shred of proof, only makes people think one thing.

 

[Protestant101]

From this passage, it appears that you think that men are the source of Sacred Tradition instead of God. If it were men, though, I agree with all this.

Men are indeed the source for “Tradition.” As many forum members have posted already, not all of the points in “Tradition” can even be found in the Bible.

 

[jmcrae]

Only when it was written down.

What was it before that?

For example, Abraham, who didn’t read or write as far as we know, knew and passed on the stories of Genesis 1-11. Should he have believed that these stories were not the Word of God? And if he was not supposed to believe that they were the Word of God, then what would his motivation be, for passing them on (and thus making it possible for Moses, living generations later, to hear them and write them down)?

 

[Protestant101]

The Bible IS NOT INFALLIBLE. That’s why there’s many versions of it now. What’s a searching Christian to do amidst all the confusion of multi-denominational practices? EASY! Find The Trinity! As there is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Three but in One, so it is in The Church He established. Sacred Tradition, Holy Writ and Magisterium. Three but in One.

Why does He do things this way?? I DON’T KNOW!

He just does! Now hurry up and empty yourself and…**C O M E **
**H O M E ! **

The Bible is indeed infallible; God’s Word, again, here in your post is being denigrated to something that has to be “correctly” “approved” or “interpreted” by man. (in this case, the Catholic Church). When we lessen the need for God’s Word, we commit a grave sin. The Supremacy of Scripture is not something the Catholic Church will ever be able to erase by “Tradition” or “Magisterium:” for Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work. I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! … For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned to fables.” 2 Tim. 3:15,16; 4:1,3,4.

Here we are told that the written Scripture defines doctrine, not the Church. The Scripture is to “correct” us [the Church] when we stray. Through the Scriptures we can be “perfect.” In the light of Christ’s return, we are to “Preach the word!” not the doctrines of men. Paul said many will turn from the truth to fables. How can we tell what is “truth” and what is a “fable”? *By the written Word. *Jesus wants to "cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word." Eph. 5:26.

 

[holy_wood]

The Bible is indeed infallible; God’s Word, again, here in your post is being denigrated to something that has to be “correctly” “approved” or “interpreted” by man. (in this case, the Catholic Church). When we lessen the need for God’s Word, we commit a grave sin. The Supremacy of Scripture is not something the Catholic Church will ever be able to erase by “Tradition” or “Magisterium:” for Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work. I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! … For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned to fables.” 2 Tim. 3:15,16; 4:1,3,4.

Here we are told that the written Scripture defines doctrine, not the Church. The Scripture is to “correct” us [the Church] when we stray. Through the Scriptures we can be “perfect.” In the light of Christ’s return, we are to “Preach the word!” not the doctrines of men. Paul said many will turn from the truth to fables. How can we tell what is “truth” and what is a “fable”? *By the written Word. *Jesus wants to "cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word." Eph. 5:26.

The Bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth!

So if the Church is the one the upholds the truth and the defender of the truth then shouldn’t one listen to the Church in order to know the proper interpretation of scripture?

We Catholics will preach God’s word in all its forms written and unwritten. You will be the one to give an account for your pride and bigotry against Holy, Mother, Church.

And I must ask to ensure that you are not guilty of hypocrisy. Do you believe that within marriage contraception is ok?

 

[Deconi]

The Bible is indeed infallible; God’s Word, again, here in your post is being denigrated to something that has to be “correctly” “approved” or “interpreted” by man. (in this case, the Catholic Church). When we lessen the need for God’s Word, we commit a grave sin. The Supremacy of Scripture is not something the Catholic Church will ever be able to erase by “Tradition” or “Magisterium:” for Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work. I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! … For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned to fables.” 2 Tim. 3:15,16; 4:1,3,4.

Here we are told that the written Scripture defines doctrine, not the Church. The Scripture is to “correct” us [the Church] when we stray. Through the Scriptures we can be “perfect.” In the light of Christ’s return, we are to “Preach the word!” not the doctrines of men. Paul said many will turn from the truth to fables. How can we tell what is “truth” and what is a “fable”? *By the written Word. *Jesus wants to "cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word." Eph. 5:26.

I’m sorry, P-101. (If I may?)

God’s Word is infallible, for God is Infallible. But, Bibles are not! That is why man have made MANY VERSIONS of it saying different things, instead of being the same!

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. St John reiterated that. In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God. This is not a referrence to a Bible.

Now if the Bible is infallible, WHICH version is infallible? How can men change biblical texts and make several versions of it and teach it as ‘The word of God’ and still be an infallible publication? Does God speak with forked tongue?

Your citations of St Paul are applicable. Now just for a moment, for argument’s sake, will you not see that the position is vice versa. St. Paul was Catholic! Yeah, I know, I know. But he was! Now who do you think he was speaking to with his forewarnings??

You keep lauding the mistaken view that Catholics do not revere or adhere to the Bible. Many times, you will have seen on CAF that this is a fabrication. But you choose to maintain that view, which is intellectually dishonest and intentionally so.

Sure. There are multitudes upon multitudes of Christians in all denominations who continue the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to all corners of the world. This is what The Catholic Church is charged to do and has been doing it for 2000…aww, you know!

But as you know, it will be for naught if you do not have all the answers. The souls who truly search for God, in the age of technological advancement and religious enlightenment will be making enquiries sooner or later. The secular world and analytical searchers of God cannot be satiated wth LIMITED ANSWERS or pointed to a book that has several thousand different interpretations of the same passages.

Catholics do not have all the answers and many have views that tempt my ‘dark side.’ But it is The Church that has ALL the answers! As Catholics we profess what The Church holds and teaches about Our Lord since we are able to prove from Scriptures and temporal facts, that it is FROM Our Lord. We are also free to opine on all matters. Yes FREE! Including Scriptures. Sometimes, five hundred Catholics will have 500 versions of any passage or chapter of Scriptures.

Unlike protestant freedom though, when we need the correct interpretation, we end up with only 2-choices! Accept the definition given, or not accept it! What you won’t find is 500 different splinters resulting from it!

 

[guanophore]

Men are indeed the source for “Tradition.” As many forum members have posted already, not all of the points in “Tradition” can even be found in the Bible.

Men are the source of (t)radition. These are customs and ways of doing things. However, God is the Source of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. Of course not all of it can be found in the Bible. Apostolic faiths are not “bible based”, so it is not surprising that their beliefs may not be able to be “proved” from Scripture.

The Bible is indeed infallible; God’s Word, again, here in your post is being denigrated to something that has to be “correctly” “approved” or “interpreted” by man. (in this case, the Catholic Church).

The Bible cannot be “infallible”. This word applies only to entities capable of action. The Church is “infallible”. The Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. Scripture is not “denigrated” when properly interpreted. On the contrary, it reaches it’s fullest Purpose when it is properly interpreted. Scripture does not read and interpret itself. Every time a person reads it, it is read through the lens of their perceptions.

When we lessen the need for God’s Word, we commit a grave sin. The Supremacy of Scripture is not something the Catholic Church will ever be able to erase by “Tradition” or “Magisterium:” for Paul wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture was never intended to have “supremacy”, and no where does it testify of itself in this manner. The Catholic Church produced, preserved, and promulgated the Scripture, so you are right, we woudl never want to see the value of it “erased”. Tradition is the Source from which Scripture was drawn, and the Magesterium are charged with interpreting it according to the Teaching of the Apostles. The three sources all work togehter, and never against one another.

Here we are told that the written Scripture defines doctrine, not the Church.

No, that is not what the passage says. The scripture is profitable. It was never intended to supplant the Church that Jesus founded.

The Scripture is to “correct” us [the Church] when we stray. Through the Scriptures we can be “perfect.”

Sorry. What the passage says is that scripture trains us in righteousness, so that we can be perfect. But perfection cannot come from the Scripture. It can only come through Christ. It is statements like this that give us the impression that evangelicals make an idol out of the Scripture.

In the light of Christ’s return, we are to “Preach the word!” not the doctrines of men. Paul said many will turn from the truth to fables. How can we tell what is “truth” and what is a “fable”? *By the written Word. *Jesus wants to "cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word." Eph. 5:26.

Paul was a Catholic, writing to Catholics. He commended them for “keeping the Traditions, just as I have delivered them to you”. Scripture was never meant to be separated from these Sacred Traditions. I agree, we do not need to preach “the doctrines of men”. Among these are Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, OSAS, and a number of other concepts not taught by Jesus, and unknown to the Apostles.

you are adding words to the scripture here. Jesus cleansed the CHurch by the Word. He never limited His Word to writing. In fact, the NT did not exist when this passage was written.

 

[Protestant101]

Men are the source of (t)radition. These are customs and ways of doing things. However, God is the Source of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. Of course not all of it can be found in the Bible. Apostolic faiths are not “bible based”, so it is not surprising that their beliefs may not be able to be “proved” from Scripture.

you are adding words to the scripture here. Jesus cleansed the CHurch by the Word. He never limited His Word to writing. In fact, the NT did not exist when this passage was written.

Apostolic faiths are not “bible based”, so it is not surprising that their beliefs may not be able to be “proved” from Scripture.

I rest my case.

It is hilarious that you think by adding a capitol “T” that it is all of a sudden holy or something. BTW, I never once said anywhere that Jesus “limited His Word to writing.”

 

[Lampo]

It is hilarious that you think by adding a capitol “T” that it is all of a sudden holy or something.

Just because *you *don’t recognize the difference doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference.

 

[guanophore]

I rest my case.

It is hilarious that you think by adding a capitol “T” that it is all of a sudden holy or something. BTW, I never once said anywhere that Jesus “limited His Word to writing.”

I use the change in case to affirm that there is a difference between customs of men, and the Sacred Teaching that has been passed on to us through the Apostles. Those customs of men are fallible, and subject to Change, but the Word of God is infallible, and not subject to change. Those in the Apostolic Tradition have received the Word of God from the Apostles:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thess 2:13-14

This is Sacred Tradition. We are commanded to “hold fast” to it, and this is what we have done. There are no commandments to abandon the Sacred Tradition after the NT was formed.

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” 2 Thess 3:6

(thems that works, eats)

The bishops have the most solemn charge to preserve the Apostolic Teachings intact:

" O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." 1 Tim 6:20

This is called the Divine Deposit of Faith. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Although the NT represents this Deposit, it was never intended to be a full expression of it, but only an aid to faith, and a reminder of what was taught by the Church.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I rest my case.

It is hilarious that you think by adding a capitol “T” that it is all of a sudden holy or something. BTW, I never once said anywhere that Jesus “limited His Word to writing.”

Forgive me if I sound crass. For I am short on patients today. I do not understand how you can even begin to doubt the Holy Traditions held By Christ Catholic Church when you as A SDA holy to a tradition of Saturday Sabbath as the only correct day for sabbath worship. Which goes contrary to New Testament writings of observance of the Lords day which is Sunday. this is though in both Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition.

To reject the Holy Traditions of the Church is to reject Holy Scripture and to reject those is to reject Christ. I pray that my brother and sister in the protestant churches will have the blinders removed from their eyes to be able to see the On Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Until that day you live in darkness with only select truth by the one who founded your sepreated faith sometime in the last 500 or less years.