Protestants, How Do You Understand Scripture Without The Knowledge of Traditions?

[Hajnalcsillag]

Catholics, however, would not need to change the stations of the cross, because they admit the testimony of history and of tradition.

I was referring to the accompanying iconography more than the actual stations.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I was referring to the accompanying iconography more than the actual stations.

Understood.

 

[Reuben_J]

I actually went back to read the CCC. It seems to me that ultimately valid tradition is what the Catholic Church says is valid tradition.

The CCC is a good summary and compilation. Of course it does not come out of the blue but supported by evidence and records. Valid traditions are what the church accepted from the very beginning. This may sound rude but the Catholic Church is from the very beginning.

I honestly think I can understand why you believe this. At the same time, anyone who is not Catholic needs something more than “because we say so”.

Ok it’s a fair statement considering you have been ‘developed’ from different perspective through Protestantism. It is not within the scope of my ability to show that ‘something more’ though I can assure you they are all there. The most I can show you are the Early Church Father’ writings pertaining to traditions mentioned which you also can refer to in many of the threads here.

But you do have disagreements with the Orthodox also (filioque, different understanding of the Bishop of Rome, different understanding of the Immaculate Conception). Aren’t these differences based on a different understanding of tradition.

Yes, but as I have said, we have more in common with them than we are not.

Well that is interesting because you are the first Catholic to state this. From everything I have read thus far, I have the distinct impression that the written Word of God, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium have equal footing within Catholicism.

Forgive me, I was in a hurry to state that and I might sound insincere. Basically I was saying Scripture does not contradict history, as it does not contradict tradition. On that score I would agree with Wesley.

What I was saying is that I have never believed in the “Real Presence”, but this is one example where I might be persuaded if I find convincing evidence this belief can truly be traced back to the apostles and if I do not find convincing evidence this belief is really not Scriptural. Then the issue would be whose “Real Presence”.

I can understand how you feel. I don’t know you will be convinced though, even if ‘evidence’ is being presented to you. The Biblical verses I quote would be enough for me as far as scriptural confirmation is concerned. But then again, I am already a Catholic. As I said, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was celebrated by the early Christians. The essence has not changed until today.

I think the first 1500 years would be considered common history.

Obviously not for Protestants though I am glad if they accept those as such. But then they would be Catholics, wouldn’t they?

 

[Reuben_J]

I can understand how you feel. I don’t know you will be convinced though, even if ‘evidence’ is being presented to you. The Biblical verses I quote would be enough for me as far as scriptural confirmation is concerned. But then again, I am already a Catholic. As I said, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was celebrated by the early Christians. The essence has not changed until today.

If you believe in miracles - there are many incidences where the hosts (the bread after consecration) were found to be incorruptible even after many years.

 

[Cinette]

An example of a relevant traditon would be the traditional Christian teaching of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. The Trinity is clear in tradition but not so clear in scripture itself. Sure, we who have the benefit of the relevant tradition do believe scripture teaches the Trinity, but JW’s and Unitarians believe scripture does not teach the Trintiy at all, and they are very good at convincing millions of people of that.

Another relevant tradition is that of Sunday worship.

Did Jesus die on a cross? Tradition teaches that He did, but scripture does not.

Is hell real or metaphorical? Is Christ’s resurrection physical or spiritual? What is baptism? What does it do? These are questions that are answered in tradition, but of are of sufficent ambiquity in scripture that there is controversy among Christians over these topics. And these certainly are not trivial questions.

What an extraordinary statement! Or have my eyes failed me??

I notice I am not the only person to comment. Have I missed something?:doh2: :doh2:

 

[With_Questions]

Obviously not for Protestants though I am glad if they accept those as such. But then they would be Catholics, wouldn’t they?

One comment on this observation.

Why does it necessarily follow that accepting the first 1500 years of church history mean that you will be Catholic.

For example there appears to be a church historian (who seems to be quite a sharp guy) who posts regularly here who is not Catholic.

For that matter my wife went to a fundamentalist Bible college and had a church history course. She is not Catholic the last I checked.

 

[mackbrislawn]

What an extraordinary statement! Or have my eyes failed me??

I notice I am not the only person to comment. Have I missed something?:doh2: :doh2:

The statment that the bible does not say that Jesus died on a cross sounds extraordinary all right, but if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct, the Greek word traditionally translated as cross in our bibles does not mean cross, but upright stake.

Hence, tradition coming from those who witnessed the event is how we know the shape of the instrument Jesus died on.

Of course history and archaeology are on the side of the cross, if tradtition is denied.

The main point is that both Catholics and Protestants rely on tradition while reading the bible more than they realize.

 

[Cinette]

The statment that the bible does not say that Jesus died on a cross sounds extraordinary all right, but if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct, the Greek word traditionally translated as cross in our bibles does not mean cross, but upright stake.

Hence, tradition coming from those who witnessed the event is how we know the shape of the instrument Jesus died on.

Of course history and archaeology are on the side of the cross, if tradtition is denied.

The main point is that both Catholics and Protestants rely on tradition while reading the bible more than they realize.

OK I understand now.

You know, when I meditate the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary and get to the 4th where Jesus carries his Cross, I try to imagine the scene and realise that the Cross was not a structure of smooth wood as one sees in images. It must have been a tree trunk covered in bark and I imagine how this must have rubbed the skin off Jesus’ shoulders opening more wounds and I think of the salty perspiration going into the wounds. It must have been a terrible thing.

Thank you

 

[mackbrislawn]

OK I understand now.

You know, when I meditate the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary and get to the 4th where Jesus carries his Cross, I try to imagine the scene and realise that the Cross was not a structure of smooth wood as one sees in images. It must have been a tree trunk covered in bark and I imagine how this must have rubbed the skin off Jesus’ shoulders opening more wounds and I think of the salty perspiration going into the wounds. It must have been a terrible thing.

Thank you

Cinnette,
Thank you for the wonderful thoughts.

 

[jblake]

Reuben J;:

I like to see how your mechanism works by the demonstration of its application there.

Lay out your axioms.

xan

jonathon

 

[Reuben_J]

Lay out your axioms.

xan

jonathon

Funny how we kick this back and forth. I was asking you to tell me what is your interpretation of the verses I have given you. I do not use your methodology to understand
/ interpret scripture so I would not know where to start even.

Here are the verses again. Though you have to take them in context, I highlight for you a few what I think are important for consideration – the axioms if you may.

John 6:53-56
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11:23-29
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed,** took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Lk 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, **“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.​

 

[Cinette]

Funny how we kick this back and forth. I was asking you to tell me what is your interpretation of the verses I have given you. I do not use your methodology to understand
/ interpret scripture so I would not know where to start even.

Here are the verses again. Though you have to take them in context, I highlight for you a few what I think are important for consideration – the axioms if you may.

John 6:53-56
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11:23-29
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed,** took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Lk 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, **“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.​

John 5:56 “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them…”

This ties in nicely with John 15:4

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me”

(New Revised Standard Version)

These are passages which offer food for contemplation.

 

[Cinette]

1 Cor 11:29 should make people think especially those pro-choice “Catholics”.

If they understand this passage they will do either one of two things: they will go to Confession and abandon any idea of being pro-Abortion or they will stop going to Holy Communion.

We cannot be “Cafeteria Catholics”. “Give me the Menu and I shall pick the teaching which I will follow”:nope:

Faith is not a matter of opinion and we cannot DECIDE what we like or don’t like. We have to obey the 10 Commandments. Very basic. If we believe in the 10 Commandments we cannot be pro-Abortion.:yup: :yup:

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Which Ten Commandments are those?

 

[Cinette]

Which Ten Commandments are those?

THE Ten Commandments of course.

Anyone who lives in this world should know what I am talking about.

 

[Reuben_J]

John 5:56 “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them…”

This ties in nicely with John 15:4

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me”

(New Revised Standard Version)

These are passages which offer food for contemplation.

I mentioned that the Sacraments are tools (in layman term; gifts/graces in spiritual term) to sustain the gift of salvation. We recieve the Sacraments to experience the graces of God building us up spiritually.

What you point to us above is the profit that the Sacrament (in this case the Holy Eucharist) generates. Beautiful.

 

[dougfreed]

Reuben,
It’s exactly what it says. When you break bread and drink from the cup remember I died for you so you could receive the gift of salvation from my Father.

Funny how we kick this back and forth. I was asking you to tell me what is your interpretation of the verses I have given you. I do not use your methodology to understand
/ interpret scripture so I would not know where to start even.

Here are the verses again. Though you have to take them in context, I highlight for you a few what I think are important for consideration – the axioms if you may.

John 6:53-56
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11:23-29
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed,** took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Lk 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, **“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.​

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben,
It’s exactly what it says. When you break bread and drink from the cup remember I died for you so you could receive the gift of salvation from my Father.

Huh, just to remember? And what bread you break and how do you break it?

What about this? Why did he say this?

**Jn 6:55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”.

1 Cor 11:24 “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Jn 6:53 “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you**”.

Ok, dougfreed, I think I’m being unfair. I shouldn’t quiery you. After all I ask you how you understand the verses and you gave them to me. Thanks.

 

[Reuben_J]

I was thinking, why Jesus was also called the High Priest?

 

[dougfreed]

Anytime Anywhere Everywhere. I don’t think the kind of bread or how you break it is really the point. The point is do this to show me that you remember and I will reward you with eternal life.

Huh, just to remember? And what bread you break and how do you break it?

What about this? Why did he say this?

**Jn 6:55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”.

1 Cor 11:24 “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Jn 6:53 “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you**”.

Ok, dougfreed, I think I’m being unfair. I shouldn’t quiery you. After all I ask you how you understand the verses and you gave them to me. Thanks.