Scripture and the Catholic Church - Human tradition?

[CompSciGuy]

As part of my daily prayers today I was going through the daily readings. If anyone else has read it today, the gospel is from Mark. It reads as follows:

When the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem
gathered around Jesus,
they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals
with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews,
do not eat without carefully washing their hands,
keeping the tradition of the elders.
And on coming from the marketplace
they do not eat without purifying themselves.
And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed,
the purification of cups and jugs and kettles and beds.)
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him,
“Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders
but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”
He responded,
“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites,
as it is written:

This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.

You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
He went on to say,
“How well you have set aside the commandment of God
in order to uphold your tradition!
For Moses said,
Honor your father and your mother,
and Whoever curses father or mother shall die.
Yet you say,
‘If someone says to father or mother,
“Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’
(meaning, dedicated to God),
you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
You nullify the word of God
in favor of your tradition that you have handed on.
And you do many such things.”

When I read this I heard a number of voices of opposition in my head. For some background, I grew up Protestant.

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure):

“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

This is just one example. I kind of see a parallel there in regard to sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of the people following it. I actually remember learning of a man who left the Church because he and his wife followed NFP and became pregnant still when his wife had some serious health issues; she ended up dying in childbirth. The man and his children are now Episcopalian.

I would be interested to hear any discussion on this subject.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey CSG, check this out and see if it helps any. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Church_Militant]

Almost forgot. Have a look at this one too. Tradition? No way!

 

[MaryT777]

…subscribed. Good question.

 

[Stephen_says]

I was going to try and summarize something I found, but I think I’ll just post it. Hope it helps:

TLDR: The traditions of the Jewish Elders are different than the Traditions of the Holy Catholic Church because God did not bestow on them the same Divine teaching authority as he did the Apostles.

haydock1859.tripod.com/id33.html

Ver. 2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition. The Pharisees had various traditions delivered down from their ancestors, called deuterseis, of which some were works of supererogation, others were contrary to the law. (Estius) —

It is a great proof of malice in the Pharisees, and of irreproachable character in our Lord, that they should be reduce to notice triffles, no ways connected with either piety or religion. …

They moreover betrayed their superstition, by insisting on the observance of these outward ceremonies, as essential parts of piety, which were not commanded by any law, (were certainly of no divine origin) and which, at most, were duties of civility, or emblems of interior purity. (Jansenius) —

The tradition of the ancients? They do not say the written law, which did not prescribe these washings of hands, cups, pots, beds, &c. These traditions came only from the doctors of their law, who are called elders, which is a name of dignity, as was that of senator among the Romans, and so, in English, are the names of major, alderman, &c. See Acts v.[xv.?] 6. &c. (Witham)

Ver. 9. In vain they worship, or think they worship God, who neglect the divine commandments to observe the commands of men.

We must not here suppose that Christ censures the commands of the Church, or the tradition of the apostles, because these are in nowise contrary to the divine law, but rather serve to enforce it, and reduce it to practice; nor are they so much the commands of men, as of God, delivered to us by his ambassadors.

Christ censures such as are merely human, such as those mentioned here, which are vain and futile, as the superstitious washing of hands; or erroneous, as that the soul is defiled by meat; or openly contrary to natural and divine law, as the defrauding parents of their just support. (Tirinus) —

It is evidently erroneous to argue from this text against apostolic traditions. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word of mouth or by epistles. (2 Thessalonians ii. 14.) —

The doctrines and commandments here reprehended, are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, &c. without regard to the purity of the heart.

But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, &c. these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God’s holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority, but from that which Christ has established in his Church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. (Luke x. 16.; Matthew xviii. 17) (Challoner)

 

[mattp0625]

Evangelicals use a fundamentalist approach to bible interpretation which places emphasis on specific passages and applies a specific meaning to arrive at an intended conclusion.

The RCC interprets the bible contextually, meaning the entirety of scripture is taken into account to arrive at an interpretation.

We all agree that the new covenant eliminated Jewish laws regarding how to eat and wash, etc.

Evangelicals use a fundamentalist, yet amorphous, definition of “traditions of men” against the RCC that includes the Catholic sacraments yet excludes the Protestant Reformation.

This fundamentalist definition of tradition ignores scripture about oral traditions (2 Thess 1 and 2), the authority of the Church (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:17, 1 Tim 3:15), and the sacraments (John 20:22, Matt 26:27, James 5:14, James 5:16).

It also ignores historical proof that these traditions have existed since the beginning.

 

[PJM]

As part of my daily prayers today I was going through the daily readings. If anyone else has read it today, the gospel is from Mark. It reads as follows:

When I read this I heard a number of voices of opposition in my head. For some background, I grew up Protestant.

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

“Human traditions” as meant here are precisely and exclusivey that.

MEANING of ONLY human Origin [not Divinely inspired, guided and approved] AS ARE Church Teachings on Faith beliefs AND Moral issues.

Mt 16:18-19
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU-Peter] this rock I will build my church [singular] , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give to THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and **whatsoever thou shalt loose **upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"

For those who perhaps do not understand the terms “bind” & “loose” in this application; it means Jesus therein granted to Peter and Successors [Mt 10:5-26 compared to Mt 28:19-20] UNLIMITED Powers & authority of Governance that will exost untl the End Times

John 17: 17-20
Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And FOR THEM do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20]** And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;**

Mt 28: 19-20
Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am **with YOU **all days, even to the consummation of the world".

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure)
:
Mark 1: 8-13
You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother'; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."

This is to be understood in the sense of a Moral Parable:

Jesus is saying that by using [AND ABUSING] “the Law” you place your own goals above GOD”S & thee Laws. [Effectively doing away with the 4th Commandment: HONOR YOUR FATHER & YOUR MOTHER]

GOD could NOT command to the Temple to REPLACE and negate one’s MORAL obligation tot he 4th Commandment.

“Honor here implies the strict MORAL obligation to care for one’s parents , even though Old Age and death.

This teaches NOT one or the other; BUT BOTH are Godly commands.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[myway]

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17 (Revised NAB)

 

[myway]

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not sorrow, for that would be of know advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17 (Revised New American)

 

[crai7]

As part of my daily prayers today I was going through the daily readings. If anyone else has read it today, the gospel is from Mark. It reads as follows:

When I read this I heard a number of voices of opposition in my head. For some background, I grew up Protestant.

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure):

“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

This is just one example. I kind of see a parallel there in regard to sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of the people following it. I actually remember learning of a man who left the Church because he and his wife followed NFP and became pregnant still when his wife had some serious health issues; she ended up dying in childbirth. The man and his children are now Episcopalian.

I would be interested to hear any discussion on this subject.

Keep in mind that the Pharisees were in fact ‘imposters’, they were not descendants of Aaron. They were appointed by foreign powers. Herod was not Jewish, but a descendant of a Syrian governor. It was all about power and control for them. I suspect many of the ‘add ons’ are often about power and control over people. The more rules, the more opportunity to find fault, so when the time comes to deal with political enemies it is easy to find evidence against them.

For example, Christening is practised in many churches - Protestant and Catholic - yet there is no scriptural basis for this practice. When you examine the practice more closely, you realise it is about getting people at a young age into the church. It is about control.

The only defense against ‘creeping’ human tradition, which seems to accumulate continually, is knowing the bible thoroughly. Too many ‘theologies’ and ‘doctrines’ - even in Protestant churches - are based on human traditions. The only reason they get away with it is that most people don’t read the bible much outside of church, I suspect. Fragments of text read in church are not of much help; without the broader context which can only be gained through diligent study on your own.

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” John 6:29

Note the word John uses is ‘work’… belief doesn’t just fall into our laps.

 

[808Catholic]

As part of my daily prayers today I was going through the daily readings. If anyone else has read it today, the gospel is from Mark. It reads as follows:

When I read this I heard a number of voices of opposition in my head. For some background, I grew up Protestant.

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure):

“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

This is just one example. I kind of see a parallel there in regard to sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of the people following it. I actually remember learning of a man who left the Church because he and his wife followed NFP and became pregnant still when his wife had some serious health issues; she ended up dying in childbirth. The man and his children are now Episcopalian.

I would be interested to hear any discussion on this subject.

Sorry to hear that man you know left the Catholic Church over the death of his wife during child birth. How does being an Episcopalian help him or his children? Will his children grow up praying for the repose of their deceased mother’s soul? Will they receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ every Mass? Will they find respite in the Confessional? How does leaving the Church make it better for him or his children???

 

[808Catholic]

Keep in mind that the Pharisees were in fact ‘imposters’, they were not descendants of Aaron. They were appointed by foreign powers. Herod was not Jewish, but a descendant of a Syrian governor. It was all about power and control for them. I suspect many of the ‘add ons’ are often about power and control over people. The more rules, the more opportunity to find fault, so when the time comes to deal with political enemies it is easy to find evidence against them.

For example, Christening is practised in many churches - Protestant and Catholic - yet there is no scriptural basis for this practice. When you examine the practice more closely, you realise it is about getting people at a young age into the church. It is about control.

The only defense against ‘creeping’ human tradition, which seems to accumulate continually, is knowing the bible thoroughly. Too many ‘theologies’ and ‘doctrines’ - even in Protestant churches - are based on human traditions. The only reason they get away with it is that most people don’t read the bible much outside of church, I suspect. Fragments of text read in church are not of much help; without the broader context which can only be gained through diligent study on your own.

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” John 6:29

Note the word John uses is ‘work’… belief doesn’t just fall into our laps.

Perhaps to the point: what does washing hands prior to eating a meal do for your spiritual well being? Maybe nothing but it may show reverence if you believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Would you hold your newborn son/daughter without washing your hands or changing out of your work clothes? The faith that drives our lives/actions is what is as important as our lives/actions themselves.

Knowing the entire Bible is very admirable. I join you in encouraging all to read it, study it, consume the Wisdom of God, and to live it as much as possible. Like any feast, we can enjoy the entire meal piece by piece. Yes, it takes longer but God gave us eternity. He also sent the Holy Spirit so we can learn from this feast. We are not to eat of it by ourselves but bring others to the Paschal Altar so they may eat and live. The eating of the Ever Living Bread of Life is not a once a week event or even a daily event; it’s a lifetime of continuous joy! You may see bringing young people to the church as a control issue: I see it as inviting others to the party! Jesus started this party 2,000 years ago and invited us all. I’m just sending out the invitations.

 

[TomFromMD]

For example, Christening is practised in many churches - Protestant and Catholic - yet there is no scriptural basis for this practice.

Debatable. But there is evidence that infant baptism was practiced very early on.

When you examine the practice more closely, you realise it is about getting people at a young age into the church. It is about control.

Certainly it’s about getting people at a young age into the church. But I’d argue it had to do more with the parents’ concern for the souls of their children than ecclesial control. One has to jump through a bunch of theological hoops to arrive at salvation for non-baptized infants - especially if one accepts sola scriptura.

The only defense against ‘creeping’ human tradition, which seems to accumulate continually, is knowing the bible thoroughly.

And to have an understanding of the history of the church, its practices, and its teachings. There are people that ignore history and come up with all kinds of novel interpretations. So if a JW says “Christ didn’t die on a cross, he died on a stake” and can make some argument about the meaning of the word stauros, I can point to the fact that from the earliest days of the Church, we have extra-biblical writings indicating that the Church believed that Christ died with his arms spread out on a cross. And if someone tries to tell me that Catholic baptism is invalid because we don’t always do full immersions, I can point to the Didache, showing that pouring was considered an acceptable practice in the first century.

 

[Abu]

CompSciGuy #1
I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure):
“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

Are you not aware of Natural Birth Regulation (NBR), usually referred to as Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

To refuse total obedience to Christ, God the Son, in His Church when She defines dogma or doctrine is to ridicule Christ who mandated: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

crai7 #9
The only defense against ‘creeping’ human tradition, which seems to accumulate continually, is knowing the bible thoroughly. Too many ‘theologies’ and ‘doctrines’ - even in Protestant churches - are based on human traditions.

The errors here are common ones.
Christ did not give us the Bible, He gave us His Catholic Church, and you can have a Bible only because the Catholic Church has declared which written books are to be included, and no others.

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” John 6:29

Which is why the Christ has clearly founded His Catholic Church for all of mankind.
**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus no other Church has Christ’s authority through St. Peter and his legitimately chosen successors.

 

[Della]

As part of my daily prayers today I was going through the daily readings. If anyone else has read it today, the gospel is from Mark. It reads as follows:

When I read this I heard a number of voices of opposition in my head. For some background, I grew up Protestant.

First I would like to address this on a superficial level. Jesus refers to “human tradition,” and distinguishes them from God’s commandments. I am wondering what he could mean by human tradition and how one would respond when a Protestant uses such a verse as this to accuse Catholics of following human tradition. Is there any way that I could prove to a Protestant (or myself, for that matter) that our traditions are anything less than human traditions, as were the ceremonial washings in this text? Whether it’s going to confession, observing Lent, or the like.

Going to confession and observing Lent are not mere traditions of men. Confession is a sacrament, which Jesus established. Lent is a time of penitence and self-discipline. Neither takes away from the truth worship of God but rather drives us to examine ourselves in truth so that God may heal us. Wherever did you get the idea that they are anything less than that?

On a deeper level, Jesus brings up a rather poignant example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with regard to honoring your father and mother. It sounds like he is saying that the Pharisees are going to the poor and demanding that they give up whatever means they have to support their parents because what they have is qorban (dedicated to God). The pharisees are following a traditional law at the expense of this person’s father or mother. Perhaps this is a stretch, I don’t know, but I imagine having the following conversation with my parents (it wouldn’t be too far from reality, to be sure):

“I know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception, but there are circumstances when a woman should not become pregnant because it is dangerous for her. In these cases the rule should not be so strict as it would endanger the life of the woman. To demand total obedience in this case would be putting the letter of the law above the human person.”

Contraception has always been against God’s law. It was not “made up” by men. Again, where did you get the idea that it isn’t from God and God’s law?

This is just one example. I kind of see a parallel there in regard to sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of the people following it. I actually remember learning of a man who left the Church because he and his wife followed NFP and became pregnant still when his wife had some serious health issues; she ended up dying in childbirth. The man and his children are now Episcopalian.

I would be interested to hear any discussion on this subject.

It is very sad indeed that she died, but she didn’t die in vain, if that’s what your driving at. She died giving birth–many women do–it’s the risk any woman takes when conceiving a child. It’s no reason to take her children away from Christ’s Church and the sacraments. I highly doubt she would have wanted that. Grief can make people do things they wouldn’t do otherwise. It’s not “proof” that the law against contraception is man-made or a mere keeping of the “letter of the law”. It shows me that she was willing to risk her life to not kill another human being to save her own. I call her a hero, not a victim, God bless her soul.

 

[TimothyH]

“Traditions of men” were shortcuts to get around having to obey God’s law and using technicalities to justify not obeying the ten commandments.

The main human tradition Jesus was talking about was qorban or corban.

For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother'; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do." (Mark 7:10-13)

Money was “Dedicated to God” by depositing it into the temple treasury. When your mother and father died you then withdrew it. This is how many Jews, not just Pharisees, avoided having to care for their elderly parents.

It was against God’s law to work on the Sabbath so they paid others to do work for them, essentially paid others to break Gods law. They used technicalities to break God’s law and held themselves up as holy.

Chik-fil-A does this today. They are closed on Sunday in obedience to God’s word but they pay others to work on Sunday - paint their restaurants, clean the grease traps, landscape and re-stripe the parking lot.

-Tim-

 

[mikekle]

“Traditions of men” were shortcuts to get around having to obey God’s law and using technicalities to justify not obeying the ten commandments.

The main human tradition Jesus was talking about was qorban or corban.

For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother'; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do." (Mark 7:10-13)

Money was “Dedicated to God” by depositing it into the temple treasury. When your mother and father died you then withdrew it. This is how many Jews, not just Pharisees, avoided having to care for their elderly parents.

It was against God’s law to work on the Sabbath so they paid others to do work for them, essentially paid others to break Gods law. They used technicalities to break God’s law and held themselves up as holy.

Chik-fil-A does this today. They are closed on Sunday in obedience to God’s word but they pay others to work on Sunday - paint their restaurants, clean the grease traps, landscape and re-stripe the parking lot.

-Tim-

Great points! I agree, I also think that verse about “giving Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods” is HIGHLY ‘abused’ and used to justify many things that should not be.

 

[PJM]

Evangelicals use a fundamentalist approach to bible interpretation which places emphasis on specific passages and applies a specific meaning to arrive at an intended conclusion.

The RCC interprets the bible contextually, meaning the entirety of scripture is taken into account to arrive at an interpretation.

We all agree that the new covenant eliminated Jewish laws regarding how to eat and wash, etc.

Evangelicals use a fundamentalist, yet amorphous, definition of “traditions of men” against the RCC that includes the Catholic sacraments yet excludes the Protestant Reformation.

This fundamentalist definition of tradition ignores scripture about oral traditions (2 Thess 1 and 2), the authority of the Church (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:17, 1 Tim 3:15), and the sacraments (John 20:22, Matt 26:27, James 5:14, James 5:16).

It also ignores historical proof that these traditions have existed since the beginning.

Excellent!

Thanks,

PJM

 

[CompSciGuy]

Going to confession and observing Lent are not mere traditions of men. Confession is a sacrament, which Jesus established. Lent is a time of penitence and self-discipline. Neither takes away from the truth worship of God but rather drives us to examine ourselves in truth so that God may heal us. Wherever did you get the idea that they are anything less than that?

There are three legs on which the church stands. One is scripture, the second is tradition, and the third is the magisterium. Lent and confession as they are formally defined come from tradition. There is scriptural support for confession but the whole sacrament itself isn’t formally laid out in scripture.

Contraception has always been against God’s law. It was not “made up” by men. Again, where did you get the idea that it isn’t from God and God’s law?

If I understand correctly, the mandate against contraception came from the magisterium, which represents church tradition. A non-Catholic Christian would likely view the magisterium as they did the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who placed heavy burdens on the people but themselves would not lift a finger to help them.

It is very sad indeed that she died, but she didn’t die in vain, if that’s what your driving at. She died giving birth–many women do–it’s the risk any woman takes when conceiving a child. It’s no reason to take her children away from Christ’s Church and the sacraments. I highly doubt she would have wanted that. Grief can make people do things they wouldn’t do otherwise. It’s not “proof” that the law against contraception is man-made or a mere keeping of the “letter of the law”. It shows me that she was willing to risk her life to not kill another human being to save her own. I call her a hero, not a victim, God bless her soul.

You do know that not all contraceptives are abortifacients, right?

By the way I am not questioning the Catholic teachings myself, though I struggle with defending them against opposing views because in many ways when people point out parallels with the Pharisees and teachers of the law it kind of strikes a chord within.

 

[Abu]

CompSciGuy #14
There is scriptural support for confession but the whole sacrament itself isn’t formally laid out in scripture.

As Christ gave His Church His authority on dogma and doctrine, in the Sacrament of Penance He needed only to give the power to men to exercise in His Name. [CCC 1441, Jn 20 21-23].

If I understand correctly, the mandate against contraception came from the magisterium, which represents church tradition. A non-Catholic Christian would likely view the magisterium as they did the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who placed heavy burdens on the people but themselves would not lift a finger to help them.

Actually, the Magisterium is the third essential to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

CCC 95: "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62
Note:
62 DV 10 § 3.

Thus, without the Magisterium, no wonder so much of Christ’s teaching is ignored or changed in the multitude of sects.