To Protestants: Why aren't you Catholic?

[Mickey]

There is no "Apostolic Traditions of Mary"

Hey Da! He got that from me. I meant that many of the successors of the Apostles taught veneration of Our Lady. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[kujo313]

Mickey:

Hey Da! He got that from me. I meant that many of the successors of the Apostles taught veneration of Our Lady. Sorry for the confusion.

What would the Apostles say to their “successors” about your lady? They heard, they saw, some wrote, all preached.
In all that, Paul rebuked Peter for being a hyprocrite. Peter, after Jesus and after being filled with the Holy Spirit, STILL needed to be corrected.
Are you saying that the successors had it right and the Apostles overlooked your lady?

 

[Doreen]

Eden:

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the Traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show:

Pope Clement I

Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults. (*Letter to the Corinthians *11 [A.D. 80])

Papias

Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their Traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from Tradition. (Fragment in Eusebius, *Church History *3:39 [A.D. 312])

Eusebius of Caesarea

At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from Tradition. (Church History 4:21)

Irenaeus

As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless,** the authority of the Tradition is one and the same** (*Against Heresies *1:10:2 [A.D. 189])

Irenaeus

That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the Tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? (ibid., 3:4:1)

Irenaeus

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times-men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who . . . assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree-that is, all the faithful in the whole world-and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition. (ibid., 3:3:1-2)

More here: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104frs.asp

Up 'til now, I could not comprehend these writings of the “early fathers”…but as I was reading this selection of excerpts, I realized that there may simply be a misunderstanding—that is MISINTERPRETATION of what THEY meant by “the Tradition of the apostles”…

Think of this: Tradition is defined in Webster as:

**1. the handing down of statements, beliefts, legends, customs from generation to generation by word of mouth or by practice

1. something that is so handed down
2. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting
3. a) a body of laws and doctines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Moses and orig. handed down orally from generation to generation
4. b) (among Christians) a body of teachings, or any one of them, held to have been delivered by Christ and His apostles but not orig. committed to writing**

Hmmm…makes you wonder if this might explain the question…How can the early fathers have thought that “traditions” might have meant “things we do” over “things we believe and know to be true.”

Just a revelation this morning…to make us think.

 

[Mickey]

kujo313:

Are you saying that the successors had it right and the Apostles overlooked your lady?

Nope. They learned it from the Apostles.

 

[St.Eric]

Doreen:

Hmmm…makes you wonder if this might explain the question…How can the early fathers have thought that “traditions” might have meant “things we do” over “things we believe and know to be true.”

Just a revelation this morning…to make us think.

Help me out. I dont see the revelation here. I always thought that the “things we do” are a result of the things we beleive and know to be true." If you love me (beleive in me and know that I am true) you will keep (read: DO) my commandmanets.

 

[kujo313]

St.Eric:

Help me out. I dont see the revelation here. I always thought that the “things we do” are a result of the things we beleive and know to be true." If you love me (beleive in me and know that I am true) you will keep (read: DO) my commandmanets.

Sometimes I want to quote a Scripture for somebody and they will ask me where it is. At that particular moment, I don’t know. I can tell them, “I don’t know off the top of my head, but I KNOW it’s in there.” I would then be subject to look it up.

 

[kujo313]

Mickey:

Nope. They learned it from the Apostles.

If it was taught by the Apostles, then why can’t anybody find it anywhere in their writings?

 

[kujo313]

Doreen:

Up 'til now, I could not comprehend these writings of the “early fathers”…but as I was reading this selection of excerpts, I realized that there may simply be a misunderstanding—that is MISINTERPRETATION of what THEY meant by “the Tradition of the apostles”…

Think of this: Tradition is defined in Webster as:

**1. the handing down of statements, beliefts, legends, customs from generation to generation by word of mouth or by practice

1. something that is so handed down
2. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting
3. a) a body of laws and doctines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Moses and orig. handed down orally from generation to generation
4. b) (among Christians) a body of teachings, or any one of them, held to have been delivered by Christ and His apostles but not orig. committed to writing**

Hmmm…makes you wonder if this might explain the question…How can the early fathers have thought that “traditions” might have meant “things we do” over “things we believe and know to be true.”

Just a revelation this morning…to make us think.

The problem with verbally-handed down “traditions” is this: take a room full of people, having then sit in a semi-circle. Whisper something in the first person’s ear and tell them to pass it on. By the time it gets to the last person, it’s entirely different.
If you go by what is written in the Bible, then it cannot be changed. (be careful to check different translations and other things.)

 

[Mickey]

Doreen:

Up 'til now, I could not comprehend these writings of the “early fathers”…but as I was reading this selection of excerpts, I realized that there may simply be a misunderstanding—that is MISINTERPRETATION of what THEY meant by “the Tradition of the apostles”.

Are you saying that the successors of the Apostles were misinterpreted?

Whenever there was a heresy in the Church, councils were called to deal with it. It was a big deal because it was contrary to the known teachings of the Church from Jesus to the Apostles to their successors. So when the arians, novatians, donatists, etc set forth their heresies, it was tested against Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of Christianity. It was a big stink! It caused an outrage.

Now if the Early Church always taught believer’s baptist, and suddenly the Church began baptizing babies, why was there no outrage? If the early Church always taught a symbolic Lord’s supper and suddenly began the doctrine of the Real Presence, why no outrage? If the early Church always taught that there were two ordinances and suddenly begann teaching seven sacraments, why no outrage? If the early Church always taught “Bible alone” and suddenly added Sacred Tradition, why no outrage. Etc., etc., etc…

These are things to ponder my dear friend.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Sometimes I want to quote a Scripture for somebody and they will ask me where it is. At that particular moment, I don’t know. I can tell them, “I don’t know off the top of my head, but I KNOW it’s in there.” I would then be subject to look it up.

I am assuming you would like a proof text for my paraphrase:

here it is:

John 14:15 TNIV • “If you love me, keep my commands.”

 

[Mickey]

kujo313:

The problem with verbally-handed down “traditions” is this: take a room full of people, having then sit in a semi-circle. Whisper something in the first person’s ear and tell them to pass it on. By the time it gets to the last person, it’s entirely different.

Ah, the old circle theory.

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

The problem with verbally-handed down “traditions” is this: take a room full of people, having then sit in a semi-circle. Whisper something in the first person’s ear and tell them to pass it on. By the time it gets to the last person, it’s entirely different.
If you go by what is written in the Bible, then it cannot be changed. (be careful to check different translations and other things.)

You are assuming that there is no hand of providence, i.e., the Holy Spirit guiding the church- keeping her from teaching error.

Without the Holy Spirit guiding the church, you are correct.

 

[kujo313]

St.Eric:

I am assuming you would like a proof text for my paraphrase:

here it is:

John 14:15 TNIV • “If you love me, keep my commands.”

Nope, that wasn’t it.

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Nope, that wasn’t it.

Spell out plainly what you are getting at then. Please.

 

[DARichards]

kujo313:

The problem with verbally-handed down “traditions” is this: take a room full of people, having then sit in a semi-circle. Whisper something in the first person’s ear and tell them to pass it on. By the time it gets to the last person, it’s entirely different.

This analogy that you are using is inaccurate and doesn’t represent what the Church teaches as Apostolic Succession. Once again, this analogy DOES NOT take into consideration the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. By also denying this factor, you are basically saying that God would simply put the Bible into the hands of men and have it translated in any manner that they see fit. This is not the case. God keeps His Word. He protects His Word. His Word is alive. He protects the correct interpretation of His Word through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

kujo313:

If you go by what is written in the Bible, then it cannot be changed. (be careful to check different translations and other things.)

This would obviously account for the fact that when one disagrees with the theology of one’s pastor, that he can then start his own church and design and model it to fit his thoughts on what the Bible actually says.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

Our enemy, Satan, has appeared as a serpent and as an angel of light. He can take on all forms… including the form of Mary. He is cruel and heartless.

I always laugh when anti-Mary posters say this. Umm. Why would Satan direct us to Christ? It looks like kujo has never read even one account of an approved apparition.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

Where does it say that we should follow the “Apostolic Traditions” of Mary and nobody else?

I agree. Where does it say that?

Check my link to the Catechism in my signature on the teachings of Mary. See how much time is spent on teachings about Our Lady versus how much is about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Better yet, go to Mass and see how many times her name is mentioned.

You are the one who has put Mary as the dominate theme in the Church. She’s just about all you talk about in fact.

 

[Eden]

Doreen:

Hmmm…makes you wonder if this might explain the question…How can the early fathers have thought that “traditions” might have meant “things we do” over “things we believe and know to be true.”

Just a revelation this morning…to make us think.

You don’t understand what Tradition with the capital “T” means. It does mean “things we believe and know to be true” meaning teachings of the Church that were handed down but are not in the Bible.

You are confusing Tradition, with small “t” tradition, which is “things we do”.

This will help you clarify if this continues to confuse:

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp

 

[valient_Lucy]

I just want to reiterate that the “telephone analogy” for Tradition is flawed. First of all, it assumes that Tradition is passed on in secret, from the apostles to their successors, and not in the context of the larger community. In reality, Tradition are not whispered in someone’s ear, but proclaimed. In other words, it would be like playing telephone where the first person says the message out loud before the group, and then the second person repeats the message out loud in front of the group as well as the original messenger, and so on.
I would also like to add a note that historians have found that oral traditions, such as the Icelandic Sagas, can often be very accurate. Why not Sacred Tradition, which would be guided by the Holy Spirit? Why is the Holy Spirit incapable of doing His job?

 

[Mickey]

valient Lucy:

I just want to reiterate that the “telephone analogy” for Tradition is flawed. First of all, it assumes that Tradition is passed on in secret, from the apostles to their successors, and not in the context of the larger community. In reality, Tradition are not whispered in someone’s ear, but proclaimed. In other words, it would be like playing telephone where the first person says the message out loud before the group, and then the second person repeats the message out loud in front of the group as well as the original messenger, and so on.
I would also like to add a note that historians have found that oral traditions, such as the Icelandic Sagas, can often be very accurate. Why not Sacred Tradition, which would be guided by the Holy Spirit? Why is the Holy Spirit incapable of doing His job?

Bravo, valient Lucy! :clapping: