Protestants ARE Catholics

[M_Oliver]

Catholic Priest T. Enright, one-time president of Redemptorist Father’s College (Kansas City), in one of his lectures, as published in the Industrial American, Harlan, Iowa, referred to this decision made at the Council of Laodicea in the following excerpt:

"My brethren, look about the various wrangling sects and denominations. Show me one that claims or possesses the power to make laws binding on the conscience. There is but one on the face of the earth -the Catholic Church -that has the power to make laws binding upon the conscience, binding before God, binding under the pain of hellfire. Take, for instance, the day we celebrate - Sunday. What right have the Protestant churches to observe that day? None whatever. You say it is to obey the commandment, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ But Sunday is not the Sabbath according to the Bible and the record of time. Everyone knows that Sunday is the first day of the week, while Saturday is the seventh day, and the Sabbath, the day consecrated as a day of rest. It is so recognized in all civilized nations.

I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who will furnish proof from the Bible that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. If any person in this town will show any Scripture for it, I will tomorrow evening publicly acknowledge it and thank him for it. It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, anathematised those who kept the Sabbath and urged all persons to labour on the seventh day under penalty of anathema. “Which church does the whole civilized world obey? Protestants call us every horrible name they can think of - anti-Christ, the scarlet-colored beast, Babylon, etc., and at the same time profess great reverence for the Bible, AND YET BY THEIR SOLEMN ACT OF KEEPING SUNDAY, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE POWER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” (December 19, 1889). (Emphasis are mine-Ray Smith).

I found this quite interesting!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholic Priest T. Enright, one-time president of Redemptorist Father’s College (Kansas City), in one of his lectures, as published in the Industrial American, Harlan, Iowa, referred to this decision made at the Council of Laodicea in the following excerpt:

"My brethren, look about the various wrangling sects and denominations. Show me one that claims or possesses the power to make laws binding on the conscience. There is but one on the face of the earth -the Catholic Church -that has the power to make laws binding upon the conscience, binding before God, binding under the pain of hellfire. Take, for instance, the day we celebrate - Sunday. What right have the Protestant churches to observe that day? None whatever. You say it is to obey the commandment, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ But Sunday is not the Sabbath according to the Bible and the record of time. Everyone knows that Sunday is the first day of the week, while Saturday is the seventh day, and the Sabbath, the day consecrated as a day of rest. It is so recognized in all civilized nations.

I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who will furnish proof from the Bible that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. If any person in this town will show any Scripture for it, I will tomorrow evening publicly acknowledge it and thank him for it. It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, anathematised those who kept the Sabbath and urged all persons to labour on the seventh day under penalty of anathema. “Which church does the whole civilized world obey? Protestants call us every horrible name they can think of - anti-Christ, the scarlet-colored beast, Babylon, etc., and at the same time profess great reverence for the Bible, AND YET BY THEIR SOLEMN ACT OF KEEPING SUNDAY, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE POWER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” (December 19, 1889). (Emphasis are mine-Ray Smith).

I found this quite interesting!

Despite the small tiny fonts, I can read it. It is interesting

 

[Truthstalker]

Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Col. 2:16-17

 

[Mannyfit75]

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

 

[Truthstalker]

It is on the basis of Scripture that we worship on Sunday. On the basis of something written. If it is written, it is not unwritten, so it is Scripture not Tradition that informs us.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is on the basis of Scripture that we worship on Sunday. On the basis of something written. If it is written, it is not unwritten, so it is Scripture not Tradition that informs us.

It is in written tradition and unwritten traditions. The Early Christians in historical records worship on Sunday…

 

[Truthstalker]

It is in written tradition and unwritten traditions. The Early Christians in historical records worship on Sunday…

If it is written it is not unwritten. The New Testament qualifies for historical records. If it is written then it is not oral tradition. An appeal to Scripture is sufficient, so the priest’s claim in the OP is false.

 

[kleary]

gotta get my glasses for this one

Right after I read up on the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the "Great Dissapointment.

Error #1 in the post is “Find from Scripture alone”. I suggest I should offer $1000 to the OP to find the Canon of the NT in Scripture alone as well.

Ken

 

[Jennifer_J]

It is on the basis of Scripture that we worship on Sunday. On the basis of something written. If it is written, it is not unwritten, so it is Scripture not Tradition that informs us.

When the early Christians were first worshiping there were no NT scriptures written down. They weren’t written for many years, right? So the oral tradition of the early church were recorded in the scriptures as well as those traditions followed that weren’t written down in the scriptures but handed down by the apostles and their successors. So Sunday worship would fall under both, oral and written tradition…
Jennifer

 

[Truthstalker]

When the early Christians were first worshiping there were no NT scriptures written down. They weren’t written for many years, right? So the oral tradition of the early church were recorded in the scriptures as well as those traditions followed that weren’t written down in the scriptures but handed down by the apostles and their successors. So Sunday worship would fall under both, oral and written tradition…
Jennifer

Some epistles were fairly early. I have been told the sermon on the mount has a rhythym in Aramaic that suggests it was designed for memorization. I think a number of Jesus’ sermons were repeated in many places and were known by heart by many and found their way into the canon. The book of Acts contains several letters that certainly precede Luke’s work. I suspect there were some documents written by the apostles that they used when they wrote the Gospels, and that these were incorporated into the written work. But they did have the Old Testament; they were not without a written Word.

Oral means it was not written. Something cannot be both oral and written. Or am I missing something?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Some epistles were fairly early. I have been told the sermon on the mount has a rhythym in Aramaic that suggests it was designed for memorization. I think a number of Jesus’ sermons were repeated in many places and were known by heart by many and found their way into the canon. The book of Acts contains several letters that certainly precede Luke’s work. I suspect there were some documents written by the apostles that they used when they wrote the Gospels, and that these were incorporated into the written work. But they did have the Old Testament; they were not without a written Word.

Oral means it was not written. Something cannot be both oral and written. Or am I missing something?

Why couldn’t it have been oral first, then written??? That was my point. The NT wasn’t written yet, there were some letters, but they would have not been published in the local church bulletin or xeroxed and passed around, they would have been passed on orally. I would guess many of the letters might have been lost over time as well, so they info was passed orally. Sermons would have been passed on orally. The oral tradition is what they had to pass on info until it could be written down at some point.

Jennifer

 

[Tom]

Not to be argumentative, but, this is a which came first the chicken or the egg question. The written Word came from the oral tradition, not the other way around.

Some epistles were fairly early.

As I’m sure you know, most of the epistles were not written for a decade after the resurrection. So we have a decade, at least, of the Church following oral tradition and written (Old Testament) tradition.

I have been told the sermon on the mount has a rhythym in Aramaic that suggests it was designed for memorization. I think a number of Jesus’ sermons were repeated in many places and were known by heart by many and found their way into the canon.

That would strengthen oral tradition, not written. The ancient languages were mainly spoken, not written. That’s one of the many reasons we have such a hard time with accurate translations.

The book of Acts contains several letters that certainly precede Luke’s work. I suspect there were some documents written by the apostles that they used when they wrote the Gospels, and that these were incorporated into the written work.

Paul did not become a follower for at least six years after the Church was formed. The first half century of Church history reveals following oral tradition.

But they did have the Old Testament; they were not without a written Word.

In this case the oral tradition would have contradicted the written Word would it not? It seems the oral tradition was followed.

Oral means it was not written. Something cannot be both oral and written. Or am I missing something?

Actually during the first years of the Catholic Church it was both. There is strong evidence that during the first three decades of the Church the Jewish converts actually followed both the written (Old Testament) of meeting at synagogue on the Sabbath, and the new oral tradition of meeting on Sunday for the Eucharist. It wasn’t until after the second destruction of the temple around 70 a.d. that the Christians were no longer allowed to join the Jewish community.
According to Catholic Church teaching, Protestants are indeed members, although not particapants of, the Catholic Church. Check the Catechism.

 

[Truthstalker]

Much of the New Testament is quotation of the Old.

I will not dispute that there was a time when the NT was not written, but was oral. But they wrote it down for a reason, and that was to make sure that it would not be lost. It is reasonable to assume that the important stuff was all written down and made it into the New Testament.

I will agree that according to Catholic teaching, Protestants are Catholic.

 

[Tom]

It is reasonable to assume that the important stuff was all written down and made it into the New Testament.

The NT states more than once that all was NOT written down. The point is oral tradition, according to Scripture itself is to be followed.

 

[Truthstalker]

The NT states more than once that all was NOT written down. The point is oral tradition, according to Scripture itself is to be followed.

True, not all was written down. Never though, is it stated that anything that was important was not written down. If I were going to leave someone clear instructions on something, I would write it down. So would anyone. By its nature you cannot prove anything oral was spoken during apostolic times, because it was not written down, and we do not have tape recordings. They would have written the important stuff down, and the Holy Spirit would have seen to it that it made it into the Bible.

There was an initial paradosis (tradition) Paul and John mention. There is no indication that anything that was to be followed would not be written down.

This thread is way off its original intent.

 

[Tom]

True, not all was written down. Never though, is it stated that anything that was important was not written down.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to put the “not” in that sentence “was not written”. LOL. I don’t recall anywhere in Scripture reading that everything that was important was written down. Could you give me some help here? Some reference?

If I were going to leave someone clear instructions on something, I would write it down. So would anyone.

Are you saying God must follow what you would have done? Remember Jesus was with His disciples for 40 days between the resurrection and His ascension, yet where is all that He spoke of during those 40 days. Or did He just remain silent?

By its nature you cannot prove anything oral was spoken during apostolic times, because it was not written down, and we do not have tape recordings.
They would have written the important stuff down, and the Holy Spirit would have seen to it that it made it into the Bible.

According to your reasoning He must have remained silent during those 40 days, or was His teaching unimportant?

There was an initial paradosis (tradition) Paul and John mention. There is no indication that anything that was to be followed would not be written down.

But it is specifically indicated that NOT all was written isn’t it? So Scripturally speaking your reasoning is at fault, or else you think that some things that Jesus taught and said were meaningless and not important? During those 40 days between His resurrection and His ascension He formed His Church, He taught His disciples, for one thing we know, He opened up all Scripture that referred to Him, where is this teaching written? I’d love to read His own words about all Scripture of the OT that referred to Him, wouldn’t you think that was important? But it isn’t written is it? It was orally transmitted, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit from day one to today, it rests in the teachings of His Catholic Church. You are correct, this is getting off subject, pardon me.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

 

[Sixtus]

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Mr Oliver, I think the name you need to write on your cheque is 'Mannyfit 75