Things Catholics base on Tradition and not scripture.

[googie]

Such as?

That Kingdom already exists and has existed since before the foundation of the world. Hence it cannot be some future millennial earthly kingdom.I could answer the “such as” question if there were enough hours in the day, however I can mention a few things: Praying to the saints, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, Christ in the tabernacle in the church, the pope, sacrifice of the mass, succession of the apostles, hierarchy in the RCC, the RCC necessary for salvation. There are so many things based on tradition, they are too many to count which I don’t have time to write. The next statement, " and you know that because you heard it through…word of mouth" is not the way I received it. I received it from the written word of God. Blessings.

 

[RBK]

The Table of Contents (list of books) in your Bible is a Tradition.

 

[Church_Militant]

That Kingdom already exists and has existed since before the foundation of the world. Hence it cannot be some future millennial earthly kingdom.I could answer the “such as” question if there were enough hours in the day, however I can mention a few things: Praying to the saints,

I’m glad the mod split this off because it has nothing to do with the Rapture (a teaching of men dating to about 1825 in Ireland by John Nelson Darby)
The Rapture?

As for the intercession of saints…you’re dead wrong. Read my article on The Intercession & Communion of Saints

the assumption of Mary,

Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

Purgatory,

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

confessing sins to a priest,

Catholic Confession"
I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.
Scriptures About Penance
Also, Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest, rather than going directly to God?

Christ in the tabernacle in the church, sacrifice of the mass,

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

the pope,

Catholic Answers has good articles on this.
Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter’s Primacy (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)

succession of the apostles,

Peter’s Successors (Fathers*)
Apostolic Succession (Fathers*)

hierarchy in the RCC,

There were no bishops an deacons and priests in the Early church? I suggest you reread the New Testament without your errant agenda.

the RCC necessary for salvation.

The Necessity of Baptism (Fathers*)
Salvation Outside the Church (Fathers*)
Are Catholics Born Again
Assurance of Salvation?
Grace: What It Is and What It Does
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

There are so many things based on tradition, they are too many to count which I don’t have time to write.

Consider yourself duly answered. Every article there refutes from the scriptures and historical fact the modern errant teachings of men that you have believed because someone else taught you to accept them based on man’s interpretation of certain scriptures.

The next statement, " and you know that because you heard it through…word of mouth" is not the way I received it. I received it from the written word of God.

Like I said…that’s not true.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Table of Contents (list of books) in your Bible is a Tradition.

Exactly right.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

“That Kingdom already exists and has existed since before the foundation of the world. Hence it cannot be some future millennial earthly kingdom.” I could answer the “such as” question if there were enough hours in the day, however I can mention a few things: Praying to the saints, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, Christ in the tabernacle in the church, the pope, sacrifice of the mass, succession of the apostles, hierarchy in the RCC, the RCC necessary for salvation. There are so many things based on tradition, they are too many to count which I don’t have time to write. The next statement, " and you know that because you heard it through…word of mouth" is not the way I received it. I received it from the written word of God. Blessings.

You have any particular goal here? Do you want to know why we believe what we believe? Do you want to know why we don’t believe Sola Scriptura? Or would you prefer us to demonstrate why we don’t believe some of things you consider scriptural, but seem more like man made beliefs to us?

The poster Church Militant has provided a wealth of information for you, but I’m not entirely sure where we’re supposed to be heading now. At the moment it seems to be a general Catholic vs. Protestant post, which is a bit broad.

Unless you want to focus on the authority of the Catholic Church? Because answering that question is really enough - the Church is what it says it is (in which case we know its teachings are true even if it would take us centuries to understand them), or it is not. A proof that the Church is the Church is sufficient, and not much more complicated than “you are rock,” plus maybe some explanation about why there must be a rock.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Most of those things you mentioned ARE in the bible!!
I guess it depends on how you interpret it. Obedience to the church is a tradition (we trust in its interpretation) but that’s also biblicaly rooted.

Ineed, the Bible itself is a tradition, and was soley tradition before it was a book!

 

[Shannon9791]

That Kingdom already exists and has existed since before the foundation of the world. Hence it cannot be some future millennial earthly kingdom.

I could answer the “such as” question if there were enough hours in the day, however I can mention a few things: Praying to the saints, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, Christ in the tabernacle in the church, the pope, sacrifice of the mass, succession of the apostles, hierarchy in the RCC, the RCC necessary for salvation. There are so many things based on tradition, they are too many to count which I don’t have time to write. The next statement, " and you know that because you heard it through…word of mouth" is not the way I received it. I received it from the written word of God. Blessings.

Could you please tell us how you received the written word of God?

 

[FightingFat]

That Kingdom already exists and has existed since before the foundation of the world. Hence it cannot be some future millennial earthly kingdom.

I could answer the “such as” question if there were enough hours in the day, however I can mention a few things: Praying to the saints, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, Christ in the tabernacle in the church, the pope, sacrifice of the mass, succession of the apostles, hierarchy in the RCC, the RCC necessary for salvation. There are so many things based on tradition, they are too many to count which I don’t have time to write. The next statement, " and you know that because you heard it through…word of mouth" is not the way I received it. I received it from the written word of God. Blessings.

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

 

[googie]

Consider yourself duly answered. Every article there refutes from the scriptures and historical fact the modern errant teachings of men that you have believed because someone else taught you to accept them based on man’s interpretation of certain scriptures.Like I said…that’s not true.

This method of passing me of onto someones else’s answers, which you will not answer yourself is a way of saying that you do not know the answer yourself. How about giving me some scripture concerning the statements I made in my quote, so I can study them and then I would see if they are clear to me. Thank you. Blessings.

 

[googie]

You have any particular goal here? Do you want to know why we believe what we believe? Do you want to know why we don’t believe Sola Scriptura? Or would you prefer us to demonstrate why we don’t believe some of things you consider scriptural, but seem more like man made beliefs to us?

The poster Church Militant has provided a wealth of information for you, but I’m not entirely sure where we’re supposed to be heading now. At the moment it seems to be a general Catholic vs. Protestant post, which is a bit broad.

Unless you want to focus on the authority of the Catholic Church? Because answering that question is really enough - the Church is what it says it is (in which case we know its teachings are true even if it would take us centuries to understand them), or it is not. A proof that the Church is the Church is sufficient, and not much more complicated than “you are rock,” plus maybe some explanation about why there must be a rock.

I have a simple question for you. What is the church of God . Blessings.

 

[Stephentlig]

We do not just listen to the Bible. We listen to the Church. For it is from the church that we receive the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Both references as proof for what I just stated can be found in the Bible. St.Paul tells us to keep to the traditions that they have passed down to us either by letter or word of mouth.

He also calls the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth. If Paul believed in scripture alone theology why did he not say the Bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth? this is because God gave us a church in which we receive both our Bible and Tradition from.

It does not have to be in the Bible therefore.

Pax
Stephen

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

The Table of Contents (list of books) in your Bible is a Tradition.

I’d say that’s only half correct. The books in the Protestant Cannon are books that authorities deemed are authentic, not because of tradition but because of analysis of evidence. One example is if the early church fathers quoted from it, as if it were scripture. They quoted from them before there was any “tradition”. They quoted from them because they held them as authentic. Protestants reject the Apocrypha not because tradition rejects them, but because of the evidence of non-inspiration. I recall reading, I believe Maccabees, and the author said something about he did his best to get the details right in the book but he wasn’t sure. That alone is reason not to have the book in the Bible. It may be a valuable supplement to scripture, but it was not written by a prophet.

 

[curlycool89]

It may be a valuable supplement to scripture, but it was not written by a prophet.

Neither was 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles. For that matter, neither is Deuteronomy (obviously Moses didn’t write it because his death is chronicled in it). The Book of Psalms has a great many authors and none of them claiming to be prophets or anything really, and yet the Psalms have some of the most beautiful imagery in the Bible.

And how exactly is that any “better”? Do you have an entire almanac of everything the Early Church Fathers ever said? Usually, they had to set out to correct heresies that had developed and were speaking to a very specific issue. I can say in all certainty that they did not write on every possibly issue because there was no point. That is where Tradition comes from, everyone already knew the Tradition and so there was no need to speak about it.

The essential truth that’s missed with “Bible only” is that if you go “Bible only” then you have to throw out the Bible. The Bible is a product of Tradition itself. It’s especially hilarious to think that everything was written down at a time when the early Church was under constant persecution and writings such as that would have been an instant death sentence. There was no “Bible” until the Vulgate came out.

 

[Haliit]

I’d say that’s only half correct. The books in the Protestant Cannon are books that authorities deemed are authentic, not because of tradition but because of analysis of evidence. One example is if the early church fathers quoted from it, as if it were scripture. They quoted from them before there was any “tradition”. They quoted from them because they held them as authentic. Protestants reject the Apocrypha not because tradition rejects them, but because of the evidence of non-inspiration. I recall reading, I believe Maccabees, and the author said something about he did his best to get the details right in the book but he wasn’t sure. That alone is reason not to have the book in the Bible. It may be a valuable supplement to scripture, but it was not written by a prophet.

What about the fact that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint as the translation that they used when quoting the Old Testament?

Protestants did not reject the Deuterocanonical books because of any “evidence of non-inspiration”. They decided to follow the lead of Rabbis instead of over a thousand years of Christian tradition and practice.

 

[ddarko]

That Kingdom already exists and has existed since before the foundation of the world. Hence it cannot be some future millennial earthly kingdom.I could answer the “such as” question if there were enough hours in the day, however I can mention a few things: Praying to the saints, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, confessing sins to a priest, Christ in the tabernacle in the church, the pope, sacrifice of the mass, succession of the apostles, hierarchy in the RCC, the RCC necessary for salvation. There are so many things based on tradition, they are too many to count which I don’t have time to write. The next statement, " and you know that because you heard it through…word of mouth" is not the way I received it. I received it from the written word of God. Blessings.

And how exactly do you know the Bible is the written word of God ?

Is it because the Bible says so? Oh wait, the Koran says the same thing… so… how do you know the Bible is the written word of God ?

(Hint: This basically means that you do know that the Bible is the written word of God from some source OUTSIDE of the Bible. But… that means you LIED that you only believe in the written word of God )

God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

This method of passing me of onto someones else’s answers, which you will not answer yourself is a way of saying that you do not know the answer yourself.

You just made a very rash assumption that is dead wrong.

The fact is that about half (or more) of the links I gave you are to articles that I wrote and posted to my blog. Do you think we Catholics are too stupid to read the Word of God and study to show ourselves approved unto God in order to rightly divide the word of truth? If so, you are in for a serious shock. :manvspc:

I have studied every single topic that I linked you to and gave you the links because I happen to know from personal study that they are accurate. So it falls to you to do your own homework and carefully read and study what I have handed on to you.

But don’t try to play that “ignorant Catholic” stuff on me because, (as you’ll soon discover as you read my articles), I probably know the Word of God as well (or better) than you do, and I know what the early church wrote about what they believed as well.

After all, I spent over 35 years as a non-Catholic. My Testimony

How about giving me some scripture concerning the statements I made in my quote, so I can study them and then I would see if they are clear to me. Thank you. Blessings.

The scriptures are there for you to see. Abundant scriptures in fact.

Moreover, nowhere in the Bible does it ever state that everything that Christians believe and practice has to have it’s basis in the Bible. We did 2 whole threads on that and no one could provide any such scriptures, so that idea is itself unscriptural.

It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

 

[Church_Militant]

And how exactly do you know the Bible is the written word of God ?

Is it because the Bible says so? Oh wait, the Koran says the same thing… so… how do you know the Bible is the written word of God ?

(Hint: This basically means that you do know that the Bible is the written word of God from some source OUTSIDE of the Bible. But… that means you -]LIED/-] that you only believe in the written word of God )

God Bless

DD, I wouldn’t have phrased that that way. It’s not a lie if the person has been deceived into believing it, and that is very likely the case here.

So many of the n-Cs that I have encountered have been taught this stuff from the pulpit and books by others with a Bible in hand, so it comes across as accurate and correct even though it’s not. Just like 1st Peter 3:15-17 says, we have to “…Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; 16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. …”

 

[ddarko]

DD, I wouldn’t have phrased that that way. It’s not a lie if the person has been deceived into believing it, and that is very likely the case here.

So many of the n-Cs that I have encountered have been taught this stuff from the pulpit and books by others with a Bible in hand, so it comes across as accurate and correct even though it’s not. Just like 1st Peter 3:15-17 says, we have to “…Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; 16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. …”

You are right… sorry about that.

I was sort of going for a bit humour by making him realize the irony that he was doing something unbiblical by trying to say that he believes in the Bible alone But I see how it can be taken in an offensive manner.

Thanks for pointing that out.

God Bless

 

[Blinky]

We know who the Gospel authors are from Tradition and not Scripture.