Protestants DENY Tradition?

[pablope]

Well I thought he named you before you were born and you might get a new name in heave per revelations. Anyways, if we use name change as benchmark we are all in trouble. Last name I heard God changed was Saul.

In case you forgot…aside from the name change, Peter was also charged with building the Church…you and I were not given that charge.

Saul adopted his other name Paul…God did not change His name.

There is scriptural evidence that says what enabled Peter to rightly call the Lord Lord is what happens to anyone who rightly does so. Otherwise you are saying our flesh and blood can reveal it to us, but not for Peter.

 

[benhur]

You want scripture alone to be your model

As final authority yes.

along with the rest that oppose mother church

Well there was a time when scripture was used heavily, even supremely, by good Catholics against heresy or error (eg.Anthanasius). There was a time before the reformation when one could give Scripture 51% authority and councils/tradition 49% and you would be OK and not much was affected.

You have not commented on Paul also using mythology and “all things”.

 

[benhur]

In case you forgot…aside from the name change, Peter was also charged with building the Church…you and I were not given that charge.

then you are not a disciple ? Are you not to be a living stone built on that foundation, per Peter ?

Saul adopted his other name Paul…God did not change His name.

Thank you.

Can you be more specific? When did Peter cry out Lord Lord?

Sorry i said “call” not call out. I meant to name Him properly , as to who Jesus is , the Messiah, Son of the living God discourse.

 

[Jubilarian]

As final authority yes.Well there was a time when scripture was used heavily, even supremely, by good Catholics against heresy or error (eg.Anthanasius). There was a time before the reformation when one could give Scripture 51% authority and councils/tradition 49% and you would be OK and not much was affected.

You have not commented on Paul also using mythology and “all things”.

Why wasn’t the Torah the final authority when it existed as the only authoritative
scripture? No one at that time knew that the NT was awaiting in the future.

Jesus did innumerable things outside of scripture. We’re those acts irrelevant? No.

 

[KjetilK]

Any Christian PROTESTING the Catholic Church is a PROTEST-TANT. Don’t run from it.

So the Orthodox are Protestants? They also protest the Roman Catholic Church.

If they aren’t, can you give me a definition of ‘Protestant’ that is actually is applicable?

 

[Jubilarian]

So the Orthodox are Protestants? They also protest the Roman Catholic Church.

If they aren’t, can you give me a definition of ‘Protestant’ that is actually is applicable?

I will take blame for assuming. I assumed that you understood Protestantism as being connected to the Reformation. The reason the Eastern Ortodox were not included in my thread title is because they strongly embrace tradition , and that’s putting it lightly. Tradition is divine revelation to the Orthodox.

Yes, the Orthodox do not follow most Catholic teachings but they are not categorized as Protestants because they differ in a multitude of ways from Protestantism as a whole, and most of those ways could never be accepted by a Protestant church.

So, with some added clarity ,there was no reason for me to include the Eastern Orthodox in my question. My definition of Protestantism was an attempt at conveying to you what the name “Protestant” ultimately means in relation to the thread question. If you want a better “bigger picture” definition, Google is at your fingertips.

 

[adf417]

Why wasn’t the Torah the final authority when it existed as the only authoritative
scripture? No one at that time knew that the NT was awaiting in the future.

Jesus did innumerable things outside of scripture. We’re those acts irrelevant? No.

 

[benhur]

Why wasn’t the Torah the final authority when it existed as the only authoritative
scripture?

I think you are asking about the canon being “closed” in OT days. it was never closed. In fact I am not sure Jews consider it closed today. That is a Christian paradigm. Some say they “canonized” their Hebrew Bible early 2nd century, partly in response to these new holy writings held by the new Jewish sect, Christianity.

No one at that time knew that the NT was awaiting in the future.

Right .That is why they did not consider it closed .That is why NT writers had no problem thinking what they wrote was Holy Writ, just as much as OT books (even adding to it).

Jesus did innumerable things outside of scripture. We’re those acts irrelevant? No.

Right,especially to those he affected, touched ,healed.

Do you really think anything would change, or we would have added revelation of any import, if Jesus were on Twitter /Facebook back then ?

 

[KjetilK]

I will take blame for assuming. I assumed that you understood Protestantism as being connected to the Reformation.

Well, my point is that the term ‘Protestant,’ as applied to everyone who belong to a tradition emerging from the Reformation (or Reformations, to be precise) is too broad. It is just as applicable as ‘American’ or ‘European.’ It tells you nothing more than that the person in question is in some sense or other connected to the Reformation(s) of the 16th century. I asked you to give me a definition of ‘Protestant’ that was applicable. Do you have one?

The problem is that you think you know what you are talking about. The most telling part is when you first ask why ‘Protestants’ do not follow Tradition, then go on trying to point out the ‘irony’ by pointing out that “Lutherans and Anglicans celebrate Christmas on December 25th,” even though that exact date cannot be found in Scripture, but is celebrated “because of tradition.” This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Lutherans and Anglicans have never rejected Tradition. And have never made the claim that they rejected Tradition.

It is a bit like being asked why I have never eaten Surströmming, nor seen a can of it IRL, even though I’m Scandinavian.

The fact is that Lutherans never rejected Tradition. Read the Augsburg Confession.

To take an example from real life. I’m Lutheran, and am therefore deeply opposed to Anabaptism. Lutheranism has been so throughout its existence. Yet I am often asked by (mostly American*) Catholics why I, being ‘Protestant,’ do not believe in baptismal regeneration. (*The reason for this, it seems to me, is that in the US, the most vocal ‘Protestants’ are Evangelicals of the Reformed and Zwinglian type, while this is not the case in Europe.) If these Catholics had bothered to, you know, actually study what the Lutheran Churches teach on baptism, such a stupid question would never have been asked.

Yes, the Orthodox do not follow most Catholic teachings but they are not categorized as Protestants because they differ in a multitude of ways from Protestantism as a whole, and most of those ways could never be accepted by a Protestant church.

Such as? If the examples are of a multitude, then some examples would be easy to come up with.

So, with some added clarity ,there was no reason for me to include the Eastern Orthodox in my question. My definition of Protestantism was an attempt at conveying to you what the name “Protestant” ultimately means in relation to the thread question. If you want a better “bigger picture” definition, Google is at your fingertips.

What definition? You gave no definition. “Being connected to the Reformation” is not a definition, unless you actually believe that, say, Cardinal Cajetan was ‘Protestant.’ He was ‘connected to the Reformation.’ Please post a definition of ‘Protestant’ that can actually be applied.

 

[Jubilarian]

I think you are asking about the canon being “closed” in OT days. it was never closed. In fact I am not sure Jews consider it closed today. That is a Christian paradigm. Some say they “canonized” their Hebrew Bible early 2nd century, partly in response to these new holy writings held by the new Jewish sect, Christianity.Right .That is why they did not consider it closed .That is why NT writers had no problem thinking what they wrote was Holy Writ, just as much as OT books (even adding to it).

The word “canon” itself implies a definitive work, the ultimate “measuring rod”. History bears out a closed Hebrew scriptures.You would be correct that there is some debate (rather minor) as to whether the Tankah was closed, but it was the decision of Christians to reopen the canon for a moment, and to place the New Testament within it, that created one of the basic disagreements separating Judaism from Christianity. The concept of a canon, with the attendant notions of authority and sanctity, endowed the Hebrew scriptures with their enduring place in the history of Judaism. Consider Jannes and Jombres, two names that appear in the NT but not in the OT. The writer of the NT mixed Jewish tradition with scripture. Very Catholic.

Right,especially to those he affected, touched ,healed.

Yes, and why are we told in scripture about things that Jesus did, without it being recorded in scripture? We don’t see the bible telling us about the early “missing years” of Jesus, yet scripture makes a point of telling us to look outside of the written word. The bible implores you to adhere to what you have heard …as well as what you have read.

Do you really think anything would change, or we would have added revelation of any import, if Jesus were on Twitter /Facebook back then ?

What people do changes things. The great saints that have lived (which Protestants rarely preach about) caused much change. Jesus is the same yesterday and today, but traditions based on acts shape thought.

 

[Jubilarian]

Well, my point is that the term ‘Protestant,’ as applied to everyone who belong to a tradition emerging from the Reformation (or Reformations, to be precise) is too broad. It is just as applicable as ‘American’ or ‘European.’ It tells you nothing more than that the person in question is in some sense or other connected to the Reformation(s) of the 16th century. I asked you to give me a definition of ‘Protestant’ that was applicable. Do you have one ?

Are you incapable of looking this up? To satisfy you though, I will apply my original “definition” and add, “but Eastern Orodox is not Protestant.”

The problem is that you think you know what you are talking about. The most telling part is when you first ask why ‘Protestants’ do not follow Tradition, then go on trying to point out the ‘irony’ by pointing out that “Lutherans and Anglicans celebrate Christmas on December 25th,” even though that exact date cannot be found in Scripture, but is celebrated “because of tradition.” This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Lutherans and Anglicans have never rejected Tradition. And have never made the claim that they rejected Tradition.

That depends on what traditions we are referring to, doesn’t it, number one. Anglican ministers can marry, this rejects Catholic tradition . Catholic tradition is for men to be bishops, not so with Anglicans. “Never” is not correct.

The fact is that Lutherans never rejected Tradition. Read the Augsburg Confession.

To take an example from real life. I’m Lutheran, and am therefore deeply opposed to Anabaptism. Lutheranism has been so throughout its existence. Yet I am often asked by (mostly American*) Catholics why I, being ‘Protestant,’ do not believe in baptismal regeneration. (*The reason for this, it seems to me, is that in the US, the most vocal ‘Protestants’ are Evangelicals of the Reformed and Zwinglian type, while this is not the case in Europe.) If these Catholics had bothered to, you know, actually study what the Lutheran Churches teach on baptism, such a stupid question would never have been asked.

You must understand that this is a Catholic forum, so when I say" Protestants reject tradition", I mean as opposed to Catholic traditions in most cases.The reason Luther broke away is because he saw practices (many traditions such as celibacy, the intermediary role of priests, the Latin bible) he believed did not line up with scripture. So, for it to be said that Lutherans don’t reject Catholic traditions is odd.

Such as? If the examples are of a multitude, then some examples would be easy to come up with.

Yes, it’s quite easy. christianityinview.com/comparison.html

What definition? You gave no definition. “Being connected to the Reformation” is not a definition, unless you actually believe that, say, Cardinal Cajetan was ‘Protestant.’ He was ‘connected to the Reformation.’ Please post a definition of ‘Protestant’ that can actually be applied.

I gave it above.

 

[benhur]

T
Yes, and why are we told in scripture about things that Jesus did, without it being recorded in scripture?

The more important question is, why were things put in writing in the first place ?

“so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

This is what we had before "Writing":

-things believed amongst us
-delivered orally by its ministers who were eyewitnesses from the beginning
-with perfect understanding of things from the beginning

Luke put down (in writing) all that was taught, by the witnesses, ministers of the oral word and believed in.

**There is nothing to suggest that Luke left out of his writing any oral teaching or belief. **

Consider Jannes and Jombres, two names that appear in the NT but not in the OT. The writer of the NT mixed Jewish tradition with scripture. Very Catholic.

“In 405 AD, John Chrysostom concluded that the names came from direct inspiration, and not tradition. This agrees with us exactly! “Who are these? The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.” (John Chrysostom, Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:8, Homily 8)” bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tradition-refuted-jannes-jambres-2-timothy-3-8.htm

Again, Paul uses all things (even tradition/legends,myths) to advance his point and win souls. It is wrong logic to then say these things are authoritative in themselves.

We don’t see the bible telling us about the early “missing years” of Jesus, yet *scripture makes a point of telling us to look outside of the written word. * The bible implores you to adhere to what you have heard …as well as what you have read.

With the one catch as noted above, it had to be believed by the first church delivered by eyewitnesses, who have perfect understanding.

You have gone beyond the context of scripture, and the context of the times (transition from strictly oral to written also).

 

[Jubilarian]

The more important question is, why were things put in writing in the first place ?

“so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

This is what we had before "Writing":

-things believed amongst us
-delivered orally by its ministers who were eyewitnesses from the beginning
-with perfect understanding of things from the beginning

Luke put down (in writing) all that was taught, by the witnesses, ministers of the oral word and believed in.

**There is nothing to suggest that Luke left out of his writing any oral teaching or belief. **“In 405 AD, John Chrysostom concluded that the names came from direct inspiration, and not tradition. This agrees with us exactly! “Who are these? The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.” (John Chrysostom, Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:8, Homily 8)” bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tradition-refuted-jannes-jambres-2-timothy-3-8.htm

Again, Paul uses all things (even tradition/legends,myths) to advance his point and win souls. It is wrong logic to then say these things are authoritative in themselves.
With the one catch as noted above, it had to be believed by the first church delivered by eyewitnesses, who have perfect understanding.

You have gone beyond the context of scripture, and the context of the times (transition from strictly oral to written also).

You don’t have to sell me on the “written word” part, I believe scripture by faith. I do see though that you neglected to quote scripture in regards to what is “heard”.

And where did Luke get his information to compile his gospel? Much of it was word of mouth.

Yes, Paul did not use scripture when introducing people. He used tradition. That’s what Catholics do.

Is it your contention that if something is not written down , it is of less importance? If that were the case, you wouldn’t have the gospel of Luke. Can you see that?

 

[benhur]

You don’t have to sell me on the “written word” part, I believe scripture by faith.

Amen and quite Catholic to rely on it’s authority.

I do see though that you neglected to quote scripture in regards to what is “heard”.

You neglected them also, but not because they were not “before” us We both know of said scriptures.

And where did Luke get his information to compile his gospel? Much of it was word of mouth.

Totally implied and even explicit in my post (“ministers of the oral word”)

Yes, Paul did not use scripture when introducing people. He used tradition. That’s what Catholics do.

??? yes , little "t’ in tradition.

Is it your contention that if something is not written down , it is of less importance? If that were the case, you wouldn’t have the gospel of Luke. Can you see that?

We have a contextual problem. With your logic my present thought in my brain of what to type next is less important because I have not typed it out yet ! Rather I type it out so that the conveyance is assured. And yes it is more assured than oral (unless you have a tape recorder).

No, it is all our contention that if it is important, it its written down for purpose of “certainty”. The CC, or any good church, does not take the position that Luke wrote unimportant things nor without certainty.

 

[Jubilarian]

Totally implied and even explicit in my post (“ministers of the oral word”)

What’s implied? Can you tell me if the gospel of Luke was written according to what he saw with his eyes or if he RELIED on otherpeople’s stories?

??? yes, little "t’ in tradition.

Degrees of tradition?

We have a contextual problem. With your logic my present thought in my brain of what to type next is less important because I have not typed it out yet ! Rather I type it out so that the conveyance is assured. And yes it is more assured than oral (unless you have a tape recorder).

Paul and others waited hundreds of years to “assure” what wasn’t even written in scripture. In addition, the bible tells us to hold to practices and what we have heard. Sometimes it comes down to when it was written down.

No, it is all our contention that if it is important, it its written down for purpose of “certainty”. The CC, or any good church, does not take the position that Luke wrote unimportant things nor without certainty.

Was the story of Jesus’ birth of less value because it languished orally until Luke wrote it down?

 

[benhur]

Is it your contention that if something is not written down , it is of less importance? If that were the case, you wouldn’t have the gospel of Luke. Can you see that?

I think we all understand our tradition. Yes their is oral transmission as there still is today. Yes there is written transmission also which came later to reflect perfectly the oral.

I liken it to a space rocket with it’s several stages. The primary stage(Oral Word) does the heavy lifting, getting the manned capsule (Final Written Word) off the ground. The second and third stages(continued oral plus beginning of writings, and their distribution and acceptance), continue the thrust and direction forward. Each stage is jettisoned for the next to be effective and so on till you are in space with a capsule only. The capsule is primarily set on it’s course and now with only a miniscule amount of effort to "tweak it’s position form time to time.

To me it is wrong to think that the primary stage is just as relevant to the manned capsule in outer space already.

Nothing will ever equal the oral tradition of the apostles. The primary is stage is unique !

It is like you are bringing up the primary stages out of the ocean where they initially fell to launch up what, another “word” ,or a different trajectory for the same Word in space ?

My analogy does not cover for the fact that oral transmission still occurs, just that we all agree that for sure it matches the written Word and therefore matches the original oral message of the apostles.

 

[Jubilarian]

I think we all understand our tradition. Yes their is oral transmission as there still is today. Yes there is written transmission also which came later to reflect perfectly the oral.

I liken it to a space rocket with it’s several stages. The primary stage(Oral Word) does the heavy lifting, getting the manned capsule (Final Written Word) off the ground. The second and third stages(continued oral plus beginning of writings, and their distribution and acceptance), continue the thrust and direction forward. Each stage is jettisoned for the next to be effective and so on till you are in space with a capsule only. The capsule is primarily set on it’s course and now with only a miniscule amount of effort to "tweak it’s position form time to time.

To me it is wrong to think that the primary stage is just as relevant to the manned capsule in outer space already.

Nothing will ever equal the oral tradition of the apostles. The primary is stage is unique !

It is like you are bringing up the primary stages out of the ocean where they initially fell to launch up what, another “word” ,or a different trajectory for the same Word in space ?

My analogy does not cover for the fact that oral transmission still occurs, just that we all agree that for sure it matches the written Word and therefore matches the original oral message of the apostles.

You can’t get off the ground without the primary stage. That is why the primary must be equal to the final stage. The CC does just that. Sacred tradition is equal with sacred scripture.

 

[clem456]

I think we all understand our tradition. Yes their is oral transmission as there still is today. Yes there is written transmission also which came later to reflect perfectly the oral.

I liken it to a space rocket with it’s several stages. The primary stage(Oral Word) does the heavy lifting, getting the manned capsule (Final Written Word) off the ground. The second and third stages(continued oral plus beginning of writings, and their distribution and acceptance), continue the thrust and direction forward. Each stage is jettisoned for the next to be effective and so on till you are in space with a capsule only. The capsule is primarily set on it’s course and now with only a miniscule amount of effort to "tweak it’s position form time to time.

I understand your analogy.
The problem with applying it is we are dealing with God and human beings. The primary stage is Christ. Christ is a living person. Still he lives, now. The initial stage, the living breathing teaching dying rising Christ, living in community, cannot be discarded. What he established among humanity in a living manner endures, just as he lives.

Your analogy proposes Scripture as a destination or a final product. But Christ must be the destination. He is God’s full and final revelation. He is the Word embodied. Scripture serves Christ, not the other way around. The end of our journey is to be one with him, not to have a great book. This entails unity with a community, by definition.

 

[Jubilarian]

I understand your analogy.
The problem with applying it is we are dealing with God and human beings. The primary stage is Christ. Christ is a living person. Still he lives, now. The initial stage, the living breathing teaching dying rising Christ, living in community, cannot be discarded. What he established among humanity in a living manner endures, just as he lives.

Your analogy proposes Scripture as a destination or a final product. But Christ must be the destination. He is God’s full and final revelation. He is the Word embodied. Scripture serves Christ, not the other way around. The end of our journey is to be one with him, not to have a great book. This entails unity with a community, by definition.

Solid!

 

[benhur]

What’s implied? Can you tell me if the gospel of Luke was written according to what he saw with his eyes or if he RELIED on otherpeople’s stories?

Oral transmission was implied and explicit.
Luke was one of us, a gentile convert, and saw nothing of the gospel firsthand save firsthand testimony, yet it is more “complete” than any of the other gospels. Again he relied on the Holy Spirit to use firsthand testimony.

Degrees of tradition?

I think so .’'Tradition" capital ‘T’ is a paradigm and within it are many traditions small “t” even practices. I will have to find that Catholic’s post that i saw on all of this.

Was the story of Jesus’ birth of less value because it languished orally until Luke wrote it down?

No but the writing of it down sure helped discern from possible fable such as ST.James Protoevangelium birth story, condemned by CC.