Protestants DENY Tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jubilarian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KjetilK said:
They never have been united, and has never claimed to be. What needs to be done is to take each Church for itself. And that would be honest. Then one would be comparing one Church - the Roman Catholic Church - with one Church (say, the Church of England).
Click to expand...
What, then you would have one unified church compared to another unified church.

We might as well all pack up and just go home.

Kidding aside, good point.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
KjetilK said:
I have said what I mean. ‘Protestant’ has become so broad that it is useless. It simply means ‘Christiam person who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.’ But that doesn’t tell you a thing about that person.
Click to expand...
I don’t like your answer . Its a “throw up your hands” response. If it’s a “useless” term , then a “Christian person who is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox” means nothing as well .

Furthermore, I want you to search the internet to find a comprehensive and reputable source that tells us that Eatern Orthodox and Protestants are the same . Report back to me when you have it. I will then concede to a portion of your point.
 
Jubilarian said:
I explained it but you don’t like it. Dont be afraid, give me your definition of Protestant.
Click to expand...
Sure. “Those who represented the Evangelical churches at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who issued a formal protest of the decision of the Holy Roman Empire to enforce the Edict of Worms, which restricted religious activity of said Evangelical churches.”

IOW, it has nothing to do with “Tradition”, or sola scriptura, or the pope, at least not directly. It has to do with a protest of government restriction of religious practice and activity. So today, we as LCMS Lutherans join with the Catholic Church in their** protest** of the HHS Mandate! 👍

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Sure. “Those who represented the Evangelical churches at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who issued a formal protest of the decision of the Holy Roman Empire to enforce the Edict of Worms, which restricted religious activity of said Evangelical churches.”

IOW, it has nothing to do with “Tradition”, or sola scriptura, or the pope, at least not directly. It has to do with a protest of government restriction of religious practice and activity. So today, we as LCMS Lutherans join with the Catholic Church in their** protest** of the HHS Mandate! 👍

Jon
Click to expand...
Whew! Thank you:thumbsup: I tried once with Jube on this but not as concise as your post here.

Actually just reread it and can you tell me a little more about CC protesting HHS mandate .have not heard of this. Thanks in advance.
 
JonNC said:
Sure. “Those who represented the Evangelical churches at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who issued a formal protest of the decision of the Holy Roman Empire to enforce the Edict of Worms, which restricted religious activity of said Evangelical churches.”

IOW, it has nothing to do with “Tradition”, or sola scriptura, or the pope, at least not directly. It has to do with a protest of government restriction of religious practice and activity. So today, we as LCMS Lutherans join with the Catholic Church in their** protest** of the HHS Mandate! 👍

Jon
Click to expand...
Been waiting.

GKC
 
=Jubilarian;12712073]
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.
Click to expand...
Recognizing that you used lower case “tradition”, my understanding is that the celibate priesthood in the Latin Church is a disciple, but that there are indeed married Catholic priests.
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.
Click to expand...
It is true that there are some traditions within the CC that Lutherans do reject, but it is doctrine, not traditions, that are the center of our division. I’m not sure what you mean by “intermediary role of priests”, but we do accept that priests act in persona christi in granting absolution after confession. We do not reject the Latin Bible, though our view of the deuterocanon is different. And the Reformation did not happen because of priestly celibacy.

Jon
 
Jubilarian said:
That depends on what traditions we are referring to, doesn’t it, number one. Anglican ministers can marry, this rejects Catholic tradition
Click to expand...
I hope someone doesn’t tell him about Eastern Catholics.
 
Jubilarian said:
I responded to a question about the Protestant faith. Eastern Catholics are not categorized as Protestants.
Click to expand...
You were attempting to use the fact that Anglican and Lutherans having married priests as evidence of not following tradition.

My remark is that Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
benjohnson said:
You were attempting to use the fact that Anglican and Lutherans having married priests as evidence of not following tradition.

My remark is that Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests.
Click to expand...
An exception was made for Eastern Rite Catholics because they were ALREADY married upon ordination. Tradition still supports that Catholic men remain celibate and unmarried as priests. The issue is following tradition, not exceptions the Pope has made in non typical situations.
 
KjetilK said:
They never have been united, and has never claimed to be. What needs to be done is to take each Church for itself. And that would be honest. Then one would be comparing one Church - the Roman Catholic Church - with one Church (say, the Church of England).
Click to expand...
Yes. There are some generalities, but it is more precise to speak of each denomination individually when possible.
 
JonNC said:
Sure. “Those who represented the Evangelical churches at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who issued a formal protest of the decision of the Holy Roman Empire to enforce the Edict of Worms, which restricted religious activity of said Evangelical churches.”

IOW, it has nothing to do with “Tradition”, or sola scriptura, or the pope, at least not directly. It has to do with a protest of government restriction of religious practice and activity. So today, we as LCMS Lutherans join with the Catholic Church in their** protest** of the HHS Mandate! 👍

Jon
Click to expand...
And all that demanding for a definition by another CAF member . Try squeezing your definition into a thread title question.😉
 
benjohnson said:
Instead of digging deeper, it’s fine to admit that you made a mistake around here.
Click to expand...
I admit mistakes quite regularly around here, but you wouldn’t know that since your not following my every move. The only mistake is yours. Tradition dictates that Catholic priests remain unmarried. Eastern Rite Catholics and Protestant converts already married were granted special permission by the Pope.
 
Jubilarian said:
I admit mistakes quite regularly around here, but you wouldn’t know that since your not following my every move. The only mistake is yours. Tradition dictates that Catholic priests remain unmarried. Eastern Rite Catholics and Protestant converts already married were granted special permission by the Pope.
Click to expand...
Sigh…

Celibate priests are a discipline not a doctrine from tradition according to your own communion:

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-are-eastern-rite-married-men-allowed-to-be-ordained-priests
 
Jubilarian said:
Yes, scripture certainly does use sources outside of written scripture, it is called tradition. Sounds like you are in line with Catholic thinking. This absolutely removes the possibility for a “bible alone” mentality.

Paul and others used rabbinic tradition that was not in the OT. Were they wrong to do this? The OT at that time was the only scripture read and just as valid as both the old and new are today. Catholics hold tradition to be as valid as scripture itself, and scripture points to the fact that this acceptable.
Click to expand...
The OT had JEWISH practices and believes. Some were right while others were no.
Jesus contended with many of them eg the marriage after resurrection, working on Sabbath, etc
If we take the words of Paul that the Rock moved with Israelites in the wilderness as a tradition. It just reinforces the more important understanding that they were supplied with water from a rock.
The 1st Christians of Jesus time had only the OT scriptures and other sketchy oral traditions. Their Christianity was still valid. Even the gentiles who did not know anything about Jewish traditions had a valid Christianity.
 
adf417 said:
Greetings Chong and welcome to CAF.

👍 another way of saying this is the Word of God is not limited to the written Word only. Never was and never will be.

There maybe historical events that are carried from one generation to the other orally. Though, the validity of that information is as good as the memory of the transmitter, if personal biases makes the content change then the message loses originality.

Can you provide a reference to this? Even a circular reference would be sufficient for now.

1Tim 2:11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

:hmmm: Lets see, would that be scripture itself, thus nullifying this point? If everything you say were true then the OT would have to be sufficient for salvation and the NT would be subordinate to it, something the Jews would agree with you on.

Now if you want to confess that all of scripture only became scripture after Christianity began, then I could see your point, but I don’t think you want to agree to that, right?

The OT was a preparation of the NT. The NT would have focused ONLY on Jesus and nothing else. But it is expanded to include the 1st apostles of Jesus as the people entrusted with the Good News by Jesus himself.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top