The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anna is signed off, but as her friend I can tell you she left because she disagreed with much of the Calvinist TULIP baggage along with the fact she discovered the Early Church Fathers and a desire for the Eucharist.

blessings, T.J.

Can you please explain to me why you left the Baptist church?

 

[Timothy_James]

First, what does sola scriptura mean to you? Second, how does quoting scripture equate to a belief in sola scriptura? I quote scripture all the time. The Catechism is filled with scriptural quotes. Unless you definition of sola scriptura is simply quoting scripture I don’t see the connection.

You have asked this same exact question of other Protestants on this site. Is this some kind of tactic designed to put a Protestant into a corner, by which you plan to win the argument using pure semantics?

Sola Scriptura…Wow…what does it mean to me. The faith of Jesus and the Apostles is contained in the Bible and the Bible alone.

But wait, I know what your next move will be. You’re now going to ask where in the Bible are the 66 books which are in their spelled out? How do we know which books are the real inspired books of the Bible? So then your next move is to try to show that its tradition which determined that. NO! God determined that. The authors of the 27 books of the New Testament knew they were writing scripture. I refuse to believe for one second that there was no NT canon till the church councils of the 4th century decided on them. You’ve used this tactic before. Like someone else on here said: the 27 books of the NT canon were known about, there were a few disputes over some of them, but they were recognized from the start. The church did not function for nearly 4 centuries without a NT canon. The various quotes I posted about sola scriptura just a short while ago proves that the ECF recognized a canon early on, even if they didn’t totally agree on every single book.

**Now, please tell me, what does tradition mean to you? Do you ever quote tradition?
**

 

[Timothy_James]

I’m now going to ask what I know will get me banned, because no one can answer it. One person tried to do it on here before, and the next thing you know someone on here says he was banned.

This is it:

1. Where in the ECF, or more specifically, as John1968 asked, where in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) do you find annulments?
2. Where in the ANF do you find indulgences?
3. Where in the ANF do you find Marian veneration?
4. Where in the ANF do you find graven images in churches?
5. Where in the ANF do you find interdicts?
6. Where in the ANF do you find Papal infallibility?
7. Where in the ANF do you find the Immaculate Conception?
8. Where in the ANF do you find prayers to angels and saints?
9. Where in the ANF do you find a canon of saints?
10. Where in the ANF do you find 7 sacraments listed as such?

This is the death blow to any Protestant who comes on here. I saw John’s posts and the moment he began to question these topics he got canned. Because the answer for all these is no where.

 

[cfrancis]

Tertullian became a Montanist. How much tradition could the Montanists have? If he became a Montanist, then he obviously rejected papal primacy and authority, because he joined another church. He left the unity of the Catholic Church. So why do you quote him to back your arguments? I don’t have a problem with Tertullian, because I’m not a Catholic, but you are a Catholic, and he obviously left your Church and your pope to join another group. Essentially, he could not have been talking about tradition in the same way as you see it, because he rejected the traditions concerning the Catholic pope and everything else that makes Catholic tradition what it is. (That’s if you believe that in that time period the Catholic church had the traditions that it claims today).

Tim, Tim, TIm…if Tertullian had been a heretic from day one, perhaps your logic would make sense. Just so I am clear: you have no problem with the Montanist heresy, as that is the reason you cite for you yourself using Tertullian.

I don’t have a problem with traditions. Even my baptist denomination has traditions. The Lutherans have plenty of traditions. They even have a liturgical church, with liturgical services, and a calendar of saints. Tradition is not bad. But like many have said on this site before they got banned, when you put tradition up on a pedestal, where it is equated with scripture, or where it is more important than scripture, and it even contradicts scripture, then that tradition is bunk.

Good thing Catholic Tradition doesn’t contradict Scripture!

What did Paul say to the Galatians? “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8.

Paul also told us:
1Cor.11:2 - I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2Thes.2:15 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2Thes.3:6 - 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.

And when it comes to that Protestant site you use to quote from the ECF, the people who put that together were Protestants. They read the ECF in detail, and yet they remain Protestant, because they don’t let a method of rationalizing ancient documents, so that they fit the RC definition, cloud their thinking. The things they have written in the margins are the true way of interpreting the ECF.

It’s not my first rodeo, Tim. I am fully aware that CCEL is a protestant site, which is why I use it; if I did not use it, you would tell me that I am using a Catholic site and not a Protestant site.
Let’s see how the shoe fits, eh Tim:

Catholic scholars have read the ECF in detail, and yet they remain Catholic, because they don’t let a method of rationalizing ancient documents, so that they fit the Protestant definition, cloud their thinking. The things they have written in the margins are the true way of interpreting the ECF.

See, I can do it too!

 

[cfrancis]

Sola Scriptura…Wow…what does it mean to me. The faith of Jesus and the Apostles is contained in the Bible and the Bible alone.

Thank you for your definition, Tim. So, given your definition, you believe that neither Christ nor the Apostles believed in or used sola Scriptura since the Bible is post-dates Christ and the Apostles. Interesting.

The authors of the 27 books of the New Testament knew they were writing scripture.

Ya know, we asked John1968 to provide the Scripture to support this statement…he never did do that. Will you?

Like someone else on here said: the 27 books of the NT canon were known about, there were a few disputes over some of them, but they were recognized from the start…the ECF recognized a canon early on, even if they didn’t totally agree on every single book.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction within this statement?

**Now, please tell me, what does tradition mean to you? Do you ever quote tradition? **

Here is the Catechism, #75-95. This is we mean by Sacred Tradition. And yes, we quote Tradition - every time we quote Scripture.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You have asked this same exact question of other Protestants on this site. Is this some kind of tactic designed to put a Protestant into a corner, by which you plan to win the argument using pure semantics?

No. Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. To a Lutheran Sola Scriptura is far different than Sola Scriptura is to a fundamentalist. I wanted to know what it meant to you so I can speak to your belief on it instead of someone else’s.

Sola Scriptura…Wow…what does it mean to me. The faith of Jesus and the Apostles is contained in the Bible and the Bible alone.

What does this mean? How does it work? When there are disputes about scripture, where does someone go then?

But wait, I know what your next move will be. You’re now going to ask where in the Bible are the 66 books which are in their spelled out? How do we know which books are the real inspired books of the Bible? So then your next move is to try to show that its tradition which determined that. NO! God determined that.

Tim don’t put words or arguments into my mouth. I have not done this to you and I would expect the same courtesy. Since you brought it up, since you believe that our beliefs are only found within the Bible, could you show scriptural support this, “God determined the canon”.

The authors of the 27 books of the New Testament knew they were writing scripture.

Scriptural support for this? The author of Revelations says as much but what about the others? Where do you get the scriptural support for this belief?

You’ve used this tactic before. Like someone else on here said: the 27 books of the NT canon were known about, there were a few disputes over some of them, but they were recognized from the start.

There is no tactic, they are questions. You may run into the same problems that John ran into if you come here with this mind set. We are not out to get you. We are not out to use “tactics” to try to “trap” you. They are questions. Question like what we Catholics get asked all the time by our family members, friends and or co-workers. We understand why someone would get so defensive when someone asks so many questions about our faith, trust us, we’re Catholics.

Now, please tell me, what does tradition mean to you? Do you ever quote tradition?

From the CCC:

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33

• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

Continued here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’m now going to ask what I know will get me banned, because no one can answer it. One person tried to do it on here before, and the next thing you know someone on here says he was banned.

Here are your answers. Happy reading.

Where in the ECF, or more specifically, as John1968 asked, where in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) do you find annulments?

scripturecatholic.com/divorce_remarriage.html

Where in the ANF do you find Marian veneration?

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

1. Where in the ANF do you find Papal infallibility?

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I

Where in the ANF do you find the Immaculate Conception?

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

Where in the ANF do you find prayers to angels and saints?

scripturecatholic.com/saints.html#tradition-I

Where in the ANF do you find 7 sacraments listed as such?

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-I

scripturecatholic.com/confession.html#tradition-I

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I

scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html

scripturecatholic.com/anointing_of_the_sick.html

This is the death blow to any Protestant who comes on here. I saw John’s posts and the moment he began to question these topics he got canned. Because the answer for all these is no where.

We are not supposed to speculate on members being banned but I would hazard a guess that he was banned for presenting his misinformation about Catholicism as actual teaching even after being corrected.

Now, there are your answers. They are there if you wish to read them however, since this is a thread about Protestantism and the ECFs I would encourage you to open a thread on each specific issue so that we do not derail this thread.

God bless you

 

[ddarko]

I’m now going to ask what I know will get me banned, because no one can answer it. One person tried to do it on here before, and the next thing you know someone on here says he was banned.

This is it:

1. Where in the ECF, or more specifically, as John1968 asked, where in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) do you find annulments?
2. Where in the ANF do you find indulgences?
3. Where in the ANF do you find Marian veneration?
4. Where in the ANF do you find graven images in churches?
5. Where in the ANF do you find interdicts?
6. Where in the ANF do you find Papal infallibility?
7. Where in the ANF do you find the Immaculate Conception?
8. Where in the ANF do you find prayers to angels and saints?
9. Where in the ANF do you find a canon of saints?
10. Where in the ANF do you find 7 sacraments listed as such?

This is the death blow to any Protestant who comes on here. I saw John’s posts and the moment he began to question these topics he got canned. Because the answer for all these is no where.

I am afraid John 1968 was being rather illogical. Judging by your questions above, it seems that even you are being unreasonable.

Now the following is a logical discourse of your problem. You should have no difficulty in following it since it is just logic. It involves NO scriptural interpretations.

Scripture and Tradition together provide you with axioms. The more you understand the role of each the better. The problem with your denomination and of many others is that they start from the erroneous view that Scripture is everything. (I will shortly show why it doesn’t logically work)

On the contrary, Scripture presents to you a collection of truths. It is like a bunch of dots. How do you draw the lines now?.. That is where Tradition comes in. Tradition simply tells you how to draw the lines.

So Scripture is like a set of true propositions. Tradition is the rule set for connecting those propositions.

What happens when you throw out the rule set? Bingo, you have infinite possible interpretations. That is what many protestants don’t realize although evidence stares them in the face. The reason for having 10000+ denominations and counting is not because some Protestants are illogical in connecting dots. Their beliefs are in most of the time 100% consistent with Scripture. The problem is that they are simply connecting dots in ways that their present denomination might not. So they split and make their own denomination. Do you see the problem?

Now with this in mind, lets address the above questions you ask. What you don’t seem to realize is that the foundation for those things you question exist in Scripture and Tradition. The objects that you question of are simply the deductive conclusions of those propositions/premises.

So to give you an example, its like saying since at one point in history we had axioms of additions and multiplications and we did not have Pythagorean theorem, that theorem can’t be part of that same mathematics. Thats obviously crazy talk. Pythagorean theorem is simply a derivation from those axioms. The theorem is TRUE as much as the AXIOMS are true.

Therefore in the case of Marian veneration for an example, the church fathers like Iraneus spoke of how Mary is the new Eve from Scriptural evidence. There are more from other church fathers which I am sure others have provided. So using foundations such as these, Marian devotion and veneration follows Deductively. So they do not need to even explicitly say “You shalt venerate Mary”. You seem to forget that in a deductive argument, although the conclusion is not explicitly mentioned, the conclusion itself is TRUE just AS MUCH as the Premises are true.

So in short, you have been looking at everything the wrong way. You need to first understand the logic that you’ve been using properly and see if it makes any sense. Instead you’ve chosen to verify your logical methodology through your methodology itself. Thats obviously useless because that only proves that you have a logically consistent interpretation at best. It does not say if you have the CORRECT logical interpretation.

God Bless

 

[NotWorthy]

That all sounds so nice. But the New Testament says that the way people act shows you what is in their hearts. It shows you what they are and who their real father is. So if this many former Catholics are bitter against the church, it’s telling you something is wrong there. You don’t get so many bitter people if the organization is just swell. These bad Catholics might be Catholics, but they are not Christians.

No, what you get is people who are bitter because they don’t like what the Church teaches…

IOW, the Church is right until it disagrees with them!

 

[mark_a]

I think it’s just wonderful that SS Protestants were around to preserve the works of the ECF.

And the books of the tbd bible!!

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m now going to ask what I know will get me banned, because no one can answer it. One person tried to do it on here before, and the next thing you know someone on here says he was banned.

This is it:

1. Where in the ECF, or more specifically, as John1968 asked, where in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) do you find annulments?
2. Where in the ANF do you find indulgences?
3. Where in the ANF do you find Marian veneration?
4. Where in the ANF do you find graven images in churches?
5. Where in the ANF do you find interdicts?
6. Where in the ANF do you find Papal infallibility?
7. Where in the ANF do you find the Immaculate Conception?
8. Where in the ANF do you find prayers to angels and saints?
9. Where in the ANF do you find a canon of saints?
10. Where in the ANF do you find 7 sacraments listed as such?

This is the death blow to any Protestant who comes on here. I saw John’s posts and the moment he began to question these topics he got canned. Because the answer for all these is no where.

Timothy James,

First of all, I find your comments, about Protestants being “banned” when they begin to question certain Catholic beliefs, to be both untrue and offensive. There are many non-Catholic forum members who have been here for years.

I’ve been posting here for almost two years; and I’ve had some very “heated” discussions with Catholics. I’ve never even received a warning. If you follow the forum rules, as all are required to do, you will not be banned. If you continue to post insulting things about those who believe differently than you, as you’ve already done in some of your posts, you may not fair so well.

Also, you are hijacking this thread, just as John1968 did, by turning this thread into what appears to be an anti-Catholic platform to serve your own personal agenda. This may not be the case, as I do not know your thoughts or intentions; but your posts seem to be heading in that direction.

Once again, the topic of this thread, as defined by the Original Poster in the Original Post is as follows:

I am just learning about the Early Church Fathers and came across an article on another website which respond to a protestant’s view of the Early Church Fathers and how in his opinion, they were proponents of sola scriptura, NOT tradition, as is really the case. I found this fascinating.

Has anyone ever encountered, or been in discussions with, people who are convinced that the Early Fathers were, in fact, pro sola scriptura and not Catholic?

**Do you have any more support for the ECF’s being Sola Scriptura proponents, who did not consider tradition in the interpretation of Scripture?
**
Annulments, indulgences, Marian veneration, graven images in churches, interdicts, Papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, prayers to angels and saints, canon of saints, and the 7 sacraments, all deserve threads of their own. There are already some open threads on some of these topics, but you many want to start your own thread.

To start a new thread:
Click “Forums” on the Catholic Answers tool bar at the top of the page.
Scroll down and Click “Non-Catholic Religions.”
Click “New Thread” which is on the left side of the page, just above “Threads in Forum : Non-Catholic Religions.”
A box will open. Enter your Thread Title, then enter your original post explaining the purpose of your thread.
Click “Submit New Thread” at the bottom. Or Click “Preview Post” to check your content before submitting.

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I once heard this joke. What is an Anglican? A bobtail Catholic. Got everything but the pope.

Sorry, I didn’t invent the joke. I’m just quoting it.

Timothy James,
If I knew you better and knew this really was a joke, I might find this post humorous. But at this point, I’m not laughing.

Anna

 

[Timothy_James]

Good thing Catholic Tradition doesn’t contradict Scripture.

Matthew 6:7: “And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.”

What do you think the Rosary does?

Exodus 20:4: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."

Have you been in a Catholic Church lately? How many statues are there which people bow down before and pray to?

 

[Timothy_James]

Paul also told us:
1Cor.11:2 - I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2Thes.2:15 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2Thes.3:6 - 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.

It’s not my first rodeo, Tim. I am fully aware that CCEL is a protestant site, which is why I use it; if I did not use it, you would tell me that I am using a Catholic site and not a Protestant site.
Let’s see how the shoe fits, eh Tim:
See, I can do it too!

Please tell me what tradition means to you? And then I’ll tell you how what you refer to as tradition is not the same as what Paul is referring to. Same word, different implications, due to an evolution of theology over the centuries.

Like I and other Protestants on this website have said, traditions are not bad, as long as they are treated as tradition, and not the word of God. As John pointed out, Christ condemned the Pharisees for their traditions which contradicted scripture.

The traditions Paul is referring to is certain customs and probably the Gospel he taught them, most likely because the Gospels hadn’t been completed yet, or were still not in circulation. Also Paul hadn’t finished all his epistles yet. The customs can come and go, but the Gospel is the same. Yet once the Gospel was written down, the traditions no longer held the same position, because traditions are usually by word of mouth, and so they can change easily. The Bible is written down. It’s harder to change that.

The Bible is inspired by God, while traditions and the ECF are not.

BTW, my father prefers to use the Catholic Encyclopedia when he reads the ECF. Not because it’s Catholic, but because he finds it easier to follow. But when you use the Protestant website, it’s easy to see what the real meaning was, because the Protestant editors put the meanings in the margins.

 

[cfrancis]

Really? This is your reply? I thought we were talking about sola Scriptura and the ECFs. This reads like it came right from Boettner or Hyslop!!! I feel like I’m the third grade

Matthew 6:7: “And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.”

What do you think the Rosary does?

What do I think the Rosary does? Easy - it calls us to meditate on the life of Christ, from Conception to Ascension.
Oh wait - you’re thinking that the repetition of the prayers is vain. I suppose they could be, but they are not inherently so. I guess you consider heaven to be full of vain repetition:
Rev.4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Or maybe you’ll pull out the 10 Hail Mary’s to one Our Father angle…yeah, never got that one. After all, 100 pennies = one dollar and I’ve never heard anyone claim the penny is greater than the dollar!!

Exodus 20:4: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."

Have you been in a Catholic Church lately? How many statues are there which people bow down before and pray to?

No carved image…no carved image…you mean like the bronze serpent, or the carvings on the Ark of the Covenant, or the carvings that adorned the Temple? Like those carvings?
And I don’t believe you really think people are praying to the statues; you don’t seem to be that obtuse. Rather, I think that in the past you’ve found it an effective tool with which to bludgeon unprepared or uneducated Catholics.

 

[Timothy_James]

Thank you for your definition, Tim. So, given your definition, you believe that neither Christ nor the Apostles believed in or used sola Scriptura since the Bible is post-dates Christ and the Apostles.
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction within this statement?

You’re twisting my words. Of course Jesus used Sola Scriptura. You say the “Bible is post-dates Christ and the Apostles”. No it doesn’t. The Old Testament existed in Jesus’ day. Why do you think that Jesus constantly quoted from scripture. How could he do this if it only came after his time? You are the one making no sense. Jesus always used scripture, and condemned the Pharisees who taught traditions who contradicted scripture. The OT is scripture. It is most of the Bible.

The New Testament, on the other hand, had not been written in Jesus time. As far as we know Jesus never wrote anything that has been handed down to us. **The Apostles and some of their followers wrote the New Testament. And while they wrote it they knew they were writing scripture. Do you think God would inspire them to write something, and they don’t know that God is doing it? **

When it comes to Jesus and the Gospels, how can someone write the Gospels as they are happening? Do you think Jesus was going to write the Gospel of Luke and write about the events of his death and resurrection before these events happened? Yet in a way Jesus did write scripture, the Gospel came out of His mouth. He also predicted the events which were to happen. His words are the ones recorded in the Gospels. He is the one the NT is all about.

Your statement is silly and really quite ridiculous. Of course Jesus and the Apostles were sola scriptura. The Old Testament is part of the scriptures. That’s why Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees, because they contradicted scripture. And they NT hadn’t been written yet. How can you write the Gospels and the Acts before they happen? How can Jesus quote from the gospel of Luke if the events recorded in the Gospel were still happening? How could the Epistles of Paul have been written before he even became a convert to Christianity? The NT is not just a collection of spiritual books. It’s also a collection of books that tell a story based in history. That history has to happen before it can be written about.

Till the inspired books are written down I guess you can call the events a history, and not so much a tradition. But you are using the term tradition in a completely different sense. Roman Catholic Tradition is not tradition in the same sense. It is the collection of all dogmas that the church has acquired over the last 2,000 years. It is also supposed to be other matters, such as the decisions of Church councils, and papal statements, and the writings of the fathers and doctors of the church. But the problem here is that they often contradict each other. And so to balance out the contradiction, the RCC says that unless something is an official dogma it can be discarded or altered. John said that and it is the point of view of the RCC from my understanding. That is not the same sense as the word tradition has in the Bible. The Roman Church’s “tradition” is more complex than what Paul was referring to. It’s a definition that was developed over time.

 

[cfrancis]

Please tell me what tradition means to you? And then I’ll tell you how what you refer to as tradition is not the same as what Paul is referring to. Same word, different implications, due to an evolution of theology over the centuries.

Did you miss this in my post? You want to know what Tradition is to me, a Catholics? Well, here it is: Catechism, #75-95. This is what we mean by Sacred Tradition.

The traditions Paul is referring to is certain customs and probably the Gospel he taught them, most likely because the Gospels hadn’t been completed yet, or were still not in circulation. Also Paul hadn’t finished all his epistles yet.

I thank you for your opinion, with which I do not agree.

But when you use the Protestant website, it’s easy to see what the real meaning was, because the Protestant editors put the meanings in the margins.

Again with this? Here, let me join in:

But when you use the Catholic sources, it’s easy to see what the real meaning was, because the Catholic editors put the meanings in the margins

Tim, come on, man! You’ve got to do better than this! Where’s the support for you argument?!?!

 

[cfrancis]

You’re twisting my words. Of course Jesus used Sola Scriptura. You say the “Bible is post-dates Christ and the Apostles”. No it doesn’t. The Old Testament existed in Jesus’ day. Why do you think that Jesus constantly quoted from scripture. How could he do this if it only came after his time?

So to you, the Bible is only the OT??? Now you’re confusing me, Tim. No one disputes that Christ cited the OT; but as we’ve said before in this thread, citation of SCripture DOES NOT EQUAL sola Scriptura.

The OT is scripture. It is most of the Bible.

“most of the Bible” but not the Bible, right? And as many Protestants smarter than you and I have stated in these forums, the OT canon at the time of Christ was not fixed as it would be for the Christians.

The New Testament, on the other hand, had not been written in Jesus time. As far as we know Jesus never wrote anything that has been handed down to us. **The Apostles and some of their followers wrote the New Testament. And while they wrote it they knew they were writing scripture. **

SUPPORT, TIm. Your assertion that the writers of the NT knew they were writing SCripture needs to be supported. Show us the proof!!!

Of course Jesus and the Apostles were sola scriptura. The Old Testament is part of the scriptures…But you are using the term tradition in a completely different sense. Roman Catholic Tradition is not tradition in the same sense. It is the collection of all dogmas that the church has acquired over the last 2,000 years. It is also supposed to be other matters, such as the decisions of Church councils, and papal statements, and the writings of the fathers and doctors of the church. But the problem here is that they often contradict each other. And so to balance out the contradiction, the RCC says that unless something is an official dogma it can be discarded or altered. John said that and it is the point of view of the RCC from my understanding. That is not the same sense as the word tradition has in the Bible. The Roman Church’s “tradition” is more complex than what Paul was referring to. It’s a definition that was developed over time.

You know, I have no doubt that you’ve had great success using such poorly formed and unsupported arguments with Catholics who had no idea what being Catholic was about.
In this case, your ramblings are drivel to be ignored until you actually know about that which you attack. Two of us have provided links to the Catechism to help yo learn what the Catholic Church means by Sacred Tradition. If you refuse to read the source and learn it and then address it, you will continue to joust straw-men in full view of all who read this thread; in short, you’ll continue to look foolish.
So, read, learn and then come back with some support for your position!

 

[cfrancis]

BTW, here’s a link to some ECFs and their thoughts on Tradition: Apostolic Tradition

 

[NotWorthy]

Matthew 6:7: “And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.”

What do you think the Rosary does?

What is “vain” about the Rosary?

Was Jesus “vain” when he went and repeated the same prayers 3 times in the Garden of Gethsemane?

I think you need to look up the mean of “vain repetitions as the heathens do” before you call Catholics who pray the rosary (including yours truly) guilty of such things. :tsktsk:

Also, do you find the repeating of Scripture “Hail, Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee”… “Blessed are you among women”… and “blessed is the fruit of your womb” a wrong thing? All of this is Scriptural.

Exodus 20:4: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."

Have you been in a Catholic Church lately? How many statues are there which people bow down before and pray to?

As far as praying to in worship, I’ve seen none. As far as praying to in requesting for petitions to be offered up, I’ve seen many.

BTW, was Jesus guilty of this when He left his image on the Veil of Veronica during His passion? Was Mary guilty of this when she left her image on the cloak of Juan Diego’s at Guadalupe?

And how do we finish the “Hail Mary”? With a request for her to pray for us. “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death, Amen”.

Let’s see, quoting Scripture and then acknowledging our sinfulness and asking someone to pray for us doesn’t sound very vain to me.

And did you realize that the 20 mysteries are a trip through the Gospels? What can be wrong about that?