Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[RainDown]

Why do people always think that we only follow tradition? The Church follows Scripture as much as Tradition (with an intentionally big T).

 

[mlchance]

Why do people always think that we only follow tradition?

Because that’s what their man-made traditions tell them?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[paul_c]

I have only been corresponding in this catholic forum for a short time. My intent in joining this forum was to inject the bible into any conversation that I may have to further the kingdom of Christ,that is to let God do the speaking through His word. I am convinced at this point that Roman catholics value “tradition” taught by the Roman catholic church as being more correct than scripture and therefor tend to follow that teaching. I came out of the Roman catholic church after I started reading the bible and found out what Christ required of me and now I try to live by His word. I will leave you with a few verses that I believe you should read and pray that god will open your eyes. Read Matthew Chap 15:verses 1-9. And may God bless you. Ralph

Ralph, the reality is that both Catholics and Protestants have a set of traditions that govern how they read and interpret scriptures among other things.

And your understanding of Catholics is surprising considering that you say you spent 43 years as a Catholic. Catholics don’t value tradition as more correct than scripture… Scripture is a subset of tradition and the two are never in conflict. We use tradition to correctly interpret scripture and to put it in context. What you see as a conflict between tradition and scripture is actually a conflict between Catholic interpretation of scripture and your own.

 

[Tomster]

Why do people always think that we only follow tradition? The Church follows Scripture as much as Tradition (with an intentionally big T).

Yes we do!

If you take a close look at it all non-Catholic Christians have their own form of tradition, that is, the propagation of the Gospel orally. Hence the need for pastors, preachers, evangelists, etc. None of these, however, would claim to be infallible in their interpretation of Holy Scripture. Non-Catholic Christians, however, having established, as their fundamental principle, that the Holy Scripture contains all divine revelation logically denied the existence of Tradition and restricted themselves to the Bible as the sole rule of faith. It is easy to the contradiction here.

On the one hand, they will usually believe how their pastor interprets Scripture and on the other deny the reality of Tradition. Why they accuse Catholics of neglecting Holy Scripture and then tell us we rely solely on Tradition is a question that must addressed to the person making the accusation. There are various reasons why they do it. In most cases, at least on this forum, it is to further their agenda by trying to disprove Catholicism.

 

[Christian7801]

ralphy, Catholics revere the bible and also teach that it is inspired. But we know this because Jesus told us that “the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church” and because we know that He also promised us the Holy Spirit and because we Catholics are the ones who actually wrote and assembled the bible. But how do you know that the Holy Bible was written by the Holy Spirit and not by man? Is there a verse in the bible that tells you it is inspired and which explains what books belong in the bible? If you believe the bible is inspired you might want to come into the Catholic Church since we believe this too. You do know that it is important to be in Christ’s One Church right?

James

James, with all due respect, how do you understand that Catholics wrote the Bible? Certainly the OT was written by Jews and we know Matthew was a Jew and James and Peter and Paul etc were all Jews. Furthermore; the author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit…would you agree with that? Doesn’t the Catholic Church include the Apocrypha? It is common knowledge that it contains geographical and historical errors, which means it is not infallible or inerrant and therefore is not inspired. This would beg the question as to which assemblage of the Bible is correct; I would have to go with the Bible that contains the books that are without error, since the Holy Spirit is the author and is without error. This is my opinion. perhaps you use the Apocrypha as a devotional and historical text…I don’t know.

 

[Christian7801]

Yes we do!

If you take a close look at it all non-Catholic Christians have their own form of tradition, that is, the propagation of the Gospel orally. Hence the need for pastors, preachers, evangelists, etc. None of these, however, would claim to be infallible in their interpretation of Holy Scripture. Non-Catholic Christians, however, having established, as their fundamental principle, that the Holy Scripture contains all divine revelation logically denied the existence of Tradition and restricted themselves to the Bible as the sole rule of faith. It is easy to the contradiction here.

On the one hand, they will usually believe how their pastor interprets Scripture and on the other deny the reality of Tradition. Why they accuse Catholics of neglecting Holy Scripture and then tell us we rely solely on Tradition is a question that must addressed to the person making the accusation. There are various reasons why they do it. In most cases, at least on this forum, it is to further their agenda by trying to disprove Catholicism.

Hi Tomster,

I believe you misunderstand what some churches teach, the basis of “Bible alone” does not negate traditions that are in harmony with the teaching of Scripture, but rejects traditions that are not in harmony with Scripture. The Bible is used as the measuring stick to which all things in the practice of Christian faith are measured against.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Tomster,

I believe you misunderstand what some churches teach, the basis of “Bible alone” does not negate traditions that are in harmony with the teaching of Scripture, but rejects traditions that are not in harmony with Scripture. The Bible is used as the measuring stick to which all things in the practice of Christian faith are measured against.

That’s STILL Bible alone. There’s no admission of tradition by your comment here.

You only acknowledge “tradition” if it fits into some specific interpretation of Scripture, which is another way of saying the Bible is the SOLE authority. That’s not tradition. Tradition is what comes BEFORE Scripture is even written, and certainly BEFORE it is ever READ. It’s not a by-product of some random interpretation of Scripture.

Tradition is God-inspired humans teaching God-inspired truths (oral and written)…nothing more. It is NOT uninspired men who follow and teach an uninspired interpretation of Scripture.

The claim that the Holy Spirit is the author and ultimate interpretor of Scripture is quite accurate. In both instances, authorship and translation, He works through men to manifest it in the world. But there’s one other key role of the Holy Spirit…it is SO key, that it is both INCIPIENT to, and completely ENCOMPASSES the other two…and that is REVELATION OF TRUTH. You can’t have authorship, NOR interpretation without the gift of revelation given to HUMANS. This INSPIRATION of revelation happened BEFORE any inspired human author put ink to paper, and at the same time, it gave these humans the proper translation and interpretation of what they would later write. That is true Tradition.

This is why you can’t have Bible-alone (even with a weak acknowledgement of subsequent ‘tradition’). Because HUMANS are the ones who were inspired FIRST. But, it’s not Tradition - ALONE. Scripture remains an integral, equally authoritative sanctuary of the Truth, harmoniously guiding the Church along with inspired human teaching authority (Magisterium).

The Church Herself says it better. Click here

God Bless

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, with all due respect, how do you understand that Catholics wrote the Bible? Certainly the OT was written by Jews and we know Matthew was a Jew and James and Peter and Paul etc were all Jews. Furthermore; the author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit…would you agree with that? Doesn’t the Catholic Church include the Apocrypha? It is common knowledge that it contains geographical and historical errors, which means it is not infallible or inerrant and therefore is not inspired. This would beg the question as to which assemblage of the Bible is correct; I would have to go with the Bible that contains the books that are without error, since the Holy Spirit is the author and is without error. This is my opinion. perhaps you use the Apocrypha as a devotional and historical text…I don’t know.

Let me take this reply in two major steps.

1. History tells us clearly that The Catholic Church discerned (with the Holy Spirit operating through The Church) which of the hundreds of fake and real texts were the correct 27 NT teachings of Christ and the apostles. Reference Pope Damascus at the Council of Rome in 382 AD declaring the official cannon and having St. Jerome translate the various texts into a single “bible” called the Vulgate (Latin). No one on the planet can make a similar claim nor can anyone refute that Pope Damascus was not Catholic. This cannon list was again ratified at least 3 more times over the course of Church History. The Septuagint was included in the OT since again it was discerned from inspiration and the Church Traditions that many quotes used by Jesus and the apostles came from this text. The author of the OT was the Holy Spirit who worked through the Jewish Prophets. In that sense the Jews were custodians of the OT but they all had competing standards even among themselves.

Since the disposed Jews themselves rejected both the NT and Septuagint after God let The Romans destroy their temple and disperse them (a clear indication of lack of Divine Favor) Catholics are the only ones on the planet left to declare ownership of it - the OT by rights of inheritance (and abandonment by the disposed Jews) and the NT by rights of explicit authorship and possession. Note here that Protestants followed the Jews in part and rejected the Septuagint while not trusting the Jews in their decision to reject the entirety of the NT and Christianity - an remarkable and irrational double standard.

1. All the apostles and their apostolic assigns and disciples through the apostolic succession were Catholic. The term “Catholic” shows up in very early church father writings and has been in the possession of the apostolic priesthood for 20 centuries. Those apostles that were Jews converted to “the Way” when they followed Jesus - which was early Catholicism. They no longer followed Jewish worship norms and so can be called “Jewish” in the practical religious sense but only in the fraternal sense. Further, there is NO other sect on the planet that claims a seperate apostolic succession from the early Catholic Church. Again - Catholics get it hands down uncontested since we are the only ones except the Orthodox who dare to make this claim and can point to continuous succession and archaeological and artifact evidence to prove it. Note too that Catholics consider The Orthodox our brothers who follow substantially the same faith but who are just in a regrettable schism at this point in history but have an identity that traces directly to Catholics. There is not a single Protestant or non-Catholic on the planet who can point to the early Church and claim they have any linkage whatsoever to it without ignoring the fact they first came out of the Catholic Church. But to admit succession from Catholics is to admit the Catholicity of the bible since all agree the NT authorship is by men who were not practising Jews and most certainly where the earliest Christians (which history again proves are Catholic). To deny this fact is to deny history.

QED - The Bible is Catholic. What Protestants call the bible is a “Protestant Book” which is a plagiarism of the Catholic Bible and an innovated work that has been revised along protestant doctrinal lines and deprecated (a full 10% lite of God’s word removed from it).

James

 

[RainDown]

1. History tells us clearly that The Catholic Church discerned (with the Holy Spirit operating through The Church) which of the hundreds of fake and real texts were the correct 27 NT teachings of Christ and the apostles. Reference Pope Damascus at the Council of Rome in 382 AD declaring the official cannon and having St. Jerome translate the various texts into a single “bible” called the Vulgate (Latin). No one on the planet can make a similar claim nor can anyone refute that Pope Damascus was not Catholic. This cannon list was again ratified at least 3 more times over the course of Church History. The Septuagint was included in the OT since again it was discerned from inspiration and the Church Traditions that many quotes used by Jesus and the apostles came from this text. The author of the OT was the Holy Spirit who worked through the Jewish Prophets. In that sense the Jews were custodians of the OT but they all had competing standards even among themselves.

James

The Septuagint contains the “Apocrypha”, right? So that means that Jesus Himself was teaching about its contents, like purgatory? Using and teaching from books that Protestants don’t even use…

 

[Crimson_Knight]

First of all, my catholic bible does not say anything about preistly in Romans 15: 16, it says" sanctifying the Gospel of God.

Ralphy, of course it does say. You have to delve into the underlying Greek in order to understand the context. Sometimes the simple English reading is insufficient. It requires some study.

Rom 15:16 That I should3165 be1511** the minister3011** of Jesus2424 Christ5547 to1519 the3588 Gentiles,1484 ministering2418 the3588 gospel2098 of God,2316 that2443 the3588 offering up4376 of the3588 Gentiles1484 might be1096 acceptable,2144 being sanctified37 by1722 the Holy40 Ghost.4151

G3011
λειτουργός
leitourgos
li-toorg-os’
From a derivative of G2992 and G2041; a public servant, that is, a functionary in the Temple or Gospel, or (generally) a worshipper (of God) or benefactor (of man): - minister (-ed).

G2418
ἱερουργέω
hierourgeō
hee-er-oorg-eh’-o
From a compound of G2411 and the base of G2041; to be a temple worker, that is, officiate as a priest; minister.

Minister is just a synonym for Priest. Strong’s Concordance does have it’s Strong Points

 

[Crimson_Knight]

The Septuagint contains the “Apocrypha”, right? So that means that Jesus Himself was teaching about its contents, like purgatory? Using and teaching from books that Protestants don’t even use…

**You got that right. But the proper term is Deuterocanonicals not Apocrypha which is a derogatory Protestant term. **

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Septuagint contains the “Apocrypha”, right? So that means that Jesus Himself was teaching about its contents, like purgatory? Using and teaching from books that Protestants don’t even use…

We Catholics call those books the deuterocanonicals. The term “Apocrypha” was invented out of thin air just like thier theology (actually their theology was plagiarized and innovated as well from earlier heresies). This term was meant perjoratively as texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the authorship is questioned. When used in the specific context of Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the Protestant belief - which essentially comes down to one mans opinion (The infallable “Oracle” of Luther ).

Yes - Jesus quoted the Septuagint but some scholars claim that there were different versions of it floating around but Catholics know they go it right. The reason Luther gutted them from the Protestant Book was because they all directly contradicted his new academic theories and because they did not play well with his 95 thesis he constructed against The Church – a Church that was already in the process of self-reforming itself to correct some abuses. What is profoundly ironic is that Protestants despise the power and authority of the popes yet fully embraced the dictatorial and arrogant teachings of a single man and others of his ilk who break with 1400 years of Church teaching and tradition to redefine it all according to their own whims. And not a single Protestants objects to the double standard of these men making an implicit claim on infallibility while mocking the popes for having the same. Then they revise history by taking over the publishing houses - a classic revolution of straw that can’t possibly sustain itself.

James

 

[RainDown]

**You got that right. But the proper term is Deuterocanonicals not Apocrypha which is a derogatory Protestant term. **

Yeah, I know. That’s why I put it in quotes.

 

[sodak]

I have only been corresponding in this catholic forum for a short time. My intent in joining this forum was to inject the bible into any conversation that I may have to further the kingdom of Christ,that is to let God do the speaking through His word. I am convinced at this point that Roman catholics value “tradition” taught by the Roman catholic church as being more correct than scripture and therefor tend to follow that teaching. I came out of the Roman catholic church after I started reading the bible and found out what Christ required of me and now I try to live by His word. I will leave you with a few verses that I believe you should read and pray that god will open your eyes. Read Matthew Chap 15:verses 1-9. And may God bless you. Ralph

We value Scripture, Tradition, and the Teaching Authority (Magesterium) of the Church equally. And, as you have found out, there are some folks on this forum who are quite well versed in all 3.

Stick around so you can learn, that’s what I’m doing. But coming here to prostelytize is against the forum rules, as I’m sure you’ve read. This forum exists to teach people about the Catholic faith.

As for the verses, I prefer to read the entire Bible, thanks anyway!

 

[cazayoux]

First of all, my catholic bible does not say anything about preistly in Romans 15: 16, it says" sanctifying the Gospel of God. as for the other verses, you are correct, it does say priests. If you read Rev 1:5, you will see that these people are saved, “to Him who loved us and washed us from our sin in His own blood”, that is salvation. We then become a royal priesthood, as certain old testament priest could go right into the Holy of Holies, as we who are saved can do also, right to the throne of grace. Ralph

My quote was from a protestant version of the bible… RSV.

So you recant your statement that there is no priesthood in the new covenant?

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I have only been corresponding in this catholic forum for a short time. My intent in joining this forum was to inject the bible into any conversation that I may have to further the kingdom of Christ,that is to let God do the speaking through His word. I am convinced at this point that Roman catholics value “tradition” taught by the Roman catholic church as being more correct than scripture and therefor tend to follow that teaching. I came out of the Roman catholic church after I started reading the bible and found out what Christ required of me and now I try to live by His word. I will leave you with a few verses that I believe you should read and pray that god will open your eyes. Read Matthew Chap 15:verses 1-9. And may God bless you. Ralph

Hehehehe … so you read Matt 15:1-9 as against all tradition.
It is actually against man-made tradition that is contrary to the Word of God.

Tradition as a whole is not forbidden.
In fact Paul tells us to hold to the traditions that we have learned from him.

1 Cor 11:2
[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thes 2:15
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thes 3:6
[6] 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.

What Catholic Tradition can you name that is (1) man-made and (2) against the Word of God?

We ARE discussing scripture.
You keep stating what Catholics believe … but are wrong in your statements.
It is possible that as a Catholic, you have not learned what the church ACTUALLY teaches about many, many things.
I don’t mind you disagreeing with what the church teaches … but disagree with what the church ACTUALLY teaches, not your incorrect understanding of what the church teaches.

You are pretty much stating that tradition should not be MORE important than scripture.
CATHOLICS AGREE!!!
So your beef with the church in this regard is misplaced … you and I are actually on the same side of the table for this point.

… and I doubt that you only read the bible yourself to find out what Christ wants of you … at least in that ONLY the bible told you this. I’ll bet that you had a guide of some sort SHOW YOU what the bible is telling you. In other words, you are looking at scripture through somebody else’s eyes and therefore, THEIR INTERPRETATION of that scripture. The points you bring up are from a very overused list of typical (misplaced) beefs with the Catholic Church.

If you ARE a scripture lover … then let’s get at it.
You are surrounded by Catholics that are neck deep in scripture … SURPRISE.
We are all here because we LOVE God.

When you bring up scripture… we will address it.
When we bring up scripture … please address it.

You might find that some of the interpretations of scripture that you have learned are not actually 100% correct.

It is obvious that you love scripture and Jesus.
Let’s dive in!!!

Cheers!

michel

 

[Christian7801]

**You got that right. But the proper term is Deuterocanonicals not Apocrypha which is a derogatory Protestant term. **

I have a 1611 KJV and it contains the “Apocrypha” and stated as such.

 

[Christian7801]

That’s STILL Bible alone. There’s no admission of tradition by your comment here.

You only acknowledge “tradition” if it fits into some specific interpretation of Scripture, which is another way of saying the Bible is the SOLE authority. That’s not tradition. Tradition is what comes BEFORE Scripture is even written, and certainly BEFORE it is ever READ. It’s not a by-product of some random interpretation of Scripture.

Tradition is God-inspired humans teaching God-inspired truths (oral and written)…nothing more. It is NOT uninspired men who follow and teach an uninspired interpretation of Scripture.

The claim that the Holy Spirit is the author and ultimate interpretor of Scripture is quite accurate. In both instances, authorship and translation, He works through men to manifest it in the world. But there’s one other key role of the Holy Spirit…it is SO key, that it is both INCIPIENT to, and completely ENCOMPASSES the other two…and that is REVELATION OF TRUTH. You can’t have authorship, NOR interpretation without the gift of revelation given to HUMANS. This INSPIRATION of revelation happened BEFORE any inspired human author put ink to paper, and at the same time, it gave these humans the proper translation and interpretation of what they would later write. That is true Tradition.

This is why you can’t have Bible-alone (even with a weak acknowledgement of subsequent ‘tradition’). Because HUMANS are the ones who were inspired FIRST. But, it’s not Tradition - ALONE. Scripture remains an integral, equally authoritative sanctuary of the Truth, harmoniously guiding the Church along with inspired human teaching authority (Magisterium).

The Church Herself says it better. Click here

God Bless

What are these specific traditions?

 

[Christian7801]

Yes we do!

If you take a close look at it all non-Catholic Christians have their own form of tradition, that is, the propagation of the Gospel orally. Hence the need for pastors, preachers, evangelists, etc. None of these, however, would claim to be infallible in their interpretation of Holy Scripture. Non-Catholic Christians, however, having established, as their fundamental principle, that the Holy Scripture contains all divine revelation logically denied the existence of Tradition and restricted themselves to the Bible as the sole rule of faith. It is easy to the contradiction here.

On the one hand, they will usually believe how their pastor interprets Scripture and on the other deny the reality of Tradition. Why they accuse Catholics of neglecting Holy Scripture and then tell us we rely solely on Tradition is a question that must addressed to the person making the accusation. There are various reasons why they do it. In most cases, at least on this forum, it is to further their agenda by trying to disprove Catholicism.

What are these extra biblical traditions you and others speak of?

 

[Church_Militant]

What are these specific traditions?

What are these extra biblical traditions you and others speak of?

Start with the Bible itself and the New Testament in particular, which even the New Testament refers to as traditions.

Consider the very list of inspired books in the canon, which cannot be found within the Bible itself and exist as they do because of tradition. All this just for starters.