Tradition and tradition

[Truthstalker]

And this is where your argument is flawed.

What we actually have is Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium or teach authority of the Catholic Church.

Fallible interpretation is what’s problematic. The Magisterium is able to correct and guide as needed.

Fallible interpretation is not a problem. It can be corrected. God in His grace and timing will lead us into all truth.

What is problematic is the possibility that the traditions of men are being mistaken for the Tradition of God. Is it tradition or Tradition that the Magisterium is able to correct and guide as needed?

And as needed? Simple observation will show a large number of priests who do not believe the Gospel they raise above their heads in the Mass, who don’t believe there is body and blood when they pronounce the words of institution, etc., need to be cleaned out of the Church yet remain in office. There are liberal bishops, there have been corrupt bishops, and what does the Church do? Does it guard the flock or allow it to be ravaged by wolves?

 

[Truthstalker]

False
Isa 59: 20 And there shall come a, redeemer to Sion, and to them that return from iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord. 21 This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Here we see God promising to Preserve His Word by word of mouth, Forever. Lets be clear here. God promised that the Messiah would send His Spirit and as a result His Word would be passed on from one generation to the next, forever, via Oral Tradition.

Unless GOD has failed then the Oral and Written Apostolic Traditions are BOTH Gods Word and therefore fully reliable.

From this point the rest of your argument falls flat.

Take a look at the surrounding context in Isaiah 59. This may well refer to the Second Coming.

Even if it is referring to the church age, there is not a promise of infallibility of tradition here. Nor that there will not be something else in their mouth, nor that the Word would even be preserved intact, or complete, or correct. It is a long way from this passage to the idea that the Church has an infallible Oral Tradition distinct from the traditions of men.

If you take this passage your way, you would conclude that one must have children in order to have the Word in one’s mouth. Curious for a church with celibate clergy. This conclusion is as valid as yours.

You would also have to assume that EVERYTHING those who receive this promise speak is infallible, basd on your idea that they have only the divine Word. We know that is not the case, or in response to “Pass the butter, please,” no one could tell them they were pointing at the cheese.

 

[Techno2000]

Fallible interpretation is not a problem. It can be corrected. God in His grace and timing will lead us into all truth.

What is problematic is the possibility that the traditions of men are being mistaken for the Tradition of God. Is it tradition or Tradition that the Magisterium is able to correct and guide as needed?

And as needed? Simple observation will show a large number of priests who do not believe the Gospel they raise above their heads in the Mass, who don’t believe there is body and blood when they pronounce the words of institution, etc., need to be cleaned out of the Church yet remain in office. There are liberal bishops, there have been corrupt bishops, and what does the Church do? Does it guard the flock or allow it to be ravaged by wolves?

Then do as they say, don’t do as they do.

 

[Bishopite]

Sorry, I thought I made that clear. I am using “Tradition” as the authentic teaching of the Church as revealed by God and “tradition” as anything else that simply has been around awhile in the Church. The divine Tradition versus the traditions of men.

Not a problem. I asked you earlier what you meant by “Church?” and you answered tautology, I believe was the word. Thanks for the new word of the day, but I’m really not trying to be redundant and I would honestly like to know what you mean by “Church” since Tradition word is used in such a broad range of meanings.

 

[Bishopite]

Fallible interpretation is not a problem. It can be corrected. God in His grace and timing will lead us into all truth.

That will happen when we all die. But what about the mean time?

What is problematic is the possibility that the traditions of men are being mistaken for the Tradition of God. Is it tradition or Tradition that the Magisterium is able to correct and guide as needed?

The Magisterium can’t change sacred Tradition, tradition can be altered, however tradition differs from tradition of men.
We can know what is Tradition by reason when we see the evidence of a Church (1 Tim 3:15) that not only claims to be directly established from Jesus, but shows the evidence and antiquity; this is what Catholicism claims and for which it gives a plethora of evidence e.g., councils which are Catholic bishops and authoritative.

And as needed? Simple observation will show a large number of priests who do not believe the Gospel they raise above their heads in the Mass, who don’t believe there is body and blood when they pronounce the words of institution, etc., need to be cleaned out of the Church yet remain in office. There are liberal bishops, there have been corrupt bishops, and what does the Church do? Does it guard the flock or allow it to be ravaged by wolves?

For those in the Catholic church (and other Christian churches as well) Jesus had an answer in Mt 13:25-30 as to why we don’t pluck every liberal priest and bishop out of the flock.

“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’
He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.” Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”

What appears on the outside isn’t what is happening on the inside.

 

[guanophore]

He left us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Heart attitude is more important than the veil. I’m not saying the Catholic Church has not done good work in this area, as well as many others. But nothing should trump what the Bible says. The Bible is sure, the Tradition is nebulous.

What are you saying?! Do Presbyterians wear the veil in church?!

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Holy Spirit has plenty of authority to settle disputes. I wonder sometimes if this criticism concerning differences among Protestants, so prevelant among Catholics, might not be construable as some sort of slam against Him. You seem to say He is incapable of guiding the Church, so we must step in and do it for Him. He cannot speak, so send the Pope instead.

When two Protestants disagree, they are to take it to the Church according to scripture. Which one? If they are from different denominations, who has the authority to settle their dispute?

In fact, who has the authority to decide between you and me right now?

Do you know that everything your priest says is right? Do you check out the homily every week? Is everyone at Mass encouraged to check out what the priest says against the Catechism? I doubt it. On the other hand Protestants can check out the sermon against the Bible.

Why is it that Protestants can check their pastor’s sermon against the Bible but I cannot? And why can’t I check out what my pastor says against the Catechism or even by calling Catholic Answers Live (the radio show) for that matter?

Finally, I think you have read enough of my posts to know that if my pastor says something that I don’t think is right, he’s gonna hear about it!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fallible interpretation is not a problem. It can be corrected. God in His grace and timing will lead us into all truth.

Well, God’s timing sure is interesting because some people believe infants should be baptized while others do not. Some people believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine of communion while others do not. Some people believe in eternal security while others do not. I sure wish God would hurry up and settle these matters.

What is problematic is the possibility that the traditions of men are being mistaken for the Tradition of God. Is it tradition or Tradition that the Magisterium is able to correct and guide as needed?

A tradition is something like genuflecting before the tabernacle or eating meat on Friday. Tradition is the living transmission of the faith.

And as needed? Simple observation will show a large number of priests who do not believe the Gospel they raise above their heads in the Mass, who don’t believe there is body and blood when they pronounce the words of institution, etc., need to be cleaned out of the Church yet remain in office. There are liberal bishops, there have been corrupt bishops, and what does the Church do? Does it guard the flock or allow it to be ravaged by wolves?

How many priests do you think actually deny the doctrine of transubstantiation? Cite a source, please.

 

[metal1633]

there is not a promise of infallibility of tradition here. Nor that there will not be something else in their mouth, nor that the Word would even be preserved intact, or complete, or correct. It is a long way from this passage to the idea that the Church has an infallible Oral Tradition distinct from the traditions of men.

This shows your true colors. The utter Faithlessness of your heart. GOD has placed His Spirit and His Word within the Church. Engraved on our hearts. And you think there is no guarantee that it will remain intact? Ye of little faith. GOD is the guarantee.

If you take this passage your way, you would conclude that one must have children in order to have the Word in one’s mouth.

Are WE not to become as Children? Are we not BORN again? The passage deals with the Church THEREFORE it is Spirit and Life, not the flesh. Your utter faithlessness is showing again, You are thinking after the flesh.

You would also have to assume that EVERYTHING those who receive this promise speak is infallible, basd on your idea that they have only the divine Word.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. One must never assume. Since the Apostolic Tradition EXISTS and has done so for 2000 years UNCHANGED, then any novelty brought forth is clearly discernible to those who have eyes to see.

It is YOU who refuse to see and intentionally try to confuse Apostolic Tradition, which is the very WORD of GOD, with mere human customs and are attempting to sow that confusion here in this thread. You have accused your brethren of following traditions of men which usurp the Word of God. Who is it that accuses the brethren?

 

[MariaG]

And is the Church not made of individuals, all of whom, on earth at least, are sinners? If all are unworthy, then how can you trust any of them? You make my argument.

No, I don’t. I make the argument that the promises in scripture mean something. Since we KNOW that individuals will always err, the only way the promises in scripture about being led to all truth, the church being a pillar and foundation of truth, are if God supernaturally keeps His Church free from doctrinal error.

Otherwise scripture is a lie.

No. Not at all. I am not sure you can even draw that from what I posted. If you compare what is taught against Scripture, it is one thing. If you compare it against a nebulous and untestable Tradition which you do not know but your teacher claims to know, then either you believe your teacher or your don’t. As we have seen that the teachers are not necessarily telling the truth, then there must be some other standard than the teacher that we must go to.

Again, I agree. And that is why the Catholic Church interpretation makes so much sense. Individuals err. The Church, united, will not.

Why do you feel compelled to defend Tradition by attacking Sola Scriptura? This really puzzles me. It is as if to say you have ‘A’ or ‘B’. ‘A’ stinks. Therefore ‘B’ is true. What if neither is true? You make no case for Tradition by attacking SS. I am pointing out a flaw in Tradition/tradition and what I get back is an attack on Sola Scriptura.

Because it is how I came to the conclusion that sola scriptura is wrong.

Scripture tells us to follow tradition whether oral or by letter. But nowhere in scripture does it tell us to it has all been written down now, only follow the written.

Scripture itself give lie to the idea of scripture alone. Once scripture alone falls, one must look for the truth.

My argument is that we have Scripture and we have Tradition/tradition. The latter is problematic, so we are stuck with the former, warts and all. This should not be an argument about whose warts are bigger. There should be a discussion of why they are gems, not warts

No. The latter is not problematic because of the promises in scripture itself. Either we can trust scripture and all its promises or we can’t. Either the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth or it isn’t. If the Church is not, then scripture lies, why bother being a Christian at all.

The warts are the people in the church who imperfectly act out.

The Gem is the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, the promise to be led to all truth. And the Catholic Church is the only one that even believes this is possible.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

How do you know this is not a tradition that crept in?

Because scripture promises the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Why is it that Catholics have more faith in scripture and the promises in scripture than Protestants who are supposed to believe in it alone?

Maybe that is it. Faith. My God is big enough to preserve a whole church, not just an individual. My God does not make lie to any part of scripture, including that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Or :

Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth

Or

Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything

 

[MariaG]

Sola Scriptura points to the Scriptures, which points to Christ.

Tradition/tradition seems to point to itself at times. In its better moments it points to Christ. But then I think its better moments seem to be when it resembles SS…

But where in scripture does it teach sola scriptura?

You wish to use scripture alone and throw out Tradition, but where in scripture does it tell you to do this?

And whose interpretation of scripture alone will you use? Oneness pentecostals? JW’s?

 

[Truthstalker]

Then do as they say, don’t do as they do.

What they say is wrong: things like the Scriptures are not correct.

 

[Truthstalker]

Not a problem. I asked you earlier what you meant by “Church?” and you answered tautology, I believe was the word. Thanks for the new word of the day, but I’m really not trying to be redundant and I would honestly like to know what you mean by “Church” since Tradition word is used in such a broad range of meanings.

“Church” has a broad meaning, too broad for this thread. Catholics strive to confine its meaning to adherents of what is now the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome. There are many Christians outside the Catholic Church who nevertheless are in the church. I would rather not get drawn into this argument because I think it is off the topic of this thread. Show me how it relates and maybe we can go somewhere with it.

 

[Truthstalker]

That will happen when we all die. But what about the mean time?

God judges us for what we know, not what we do not know. He is just and merciful.

The Magisterium can’t change sacred Tradition, tradition can be altered, however tradition differs from tradition of men.
We can know what is Tradition by reason when we see the evidence of a Church (1 Tim 3:15) that not only claims to be directly established from Jesus, but shows the evidence and antiquity; this is what Catholicism claims and for which it gives a plethora of evidence e.g., councils which are Catholic bishops and authoritative.

These things are authoritative because Tradition/tradition says they are. Now you are telling me that an individual Catholic is free to pick and choose what is Tradition and what is tradition on the basis of reason and discerning the evidence of a Church, instead of on the basis of the authority of the Church? Sounds pretty Protestant to me.

For those in the Catholic church (and other Christian churches as well) Jesus had an answer in Mt 13:25-30 as to why we don’t pluck every liberal priest and bishop out of the flock.

“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’
He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.” Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”

What appears on the outside isn’t what is happening on the inside.

I’m not exactly sure how your last point relates. But the parable can also relate to the Tradition/tradition problem: both Tradition and tradition exist, and will be separated at harvest. So you don’t really know what you should believe?

 

[Truthstalker]

What are you saying?! Do Presbyterians wear the veil in church?!

You can do better than this. I’ve read many admirable posts from you.

 

[metal1633]

What they say is wrong: things like the Scriptures are not correct.

Who says the Scriptures are incorrect?

 

[Truthstalker]

When two Protestants disagree, they are to take it to the Church according to scripture. Which one? If they are from different denominations, who has the authority to settle their dispute? The Holy Spirit

In fact, who has the authority to decide between you and me right now? The Holy Spirit

Why is it that Protestants can check their pastor’s sermon against the Bible but I cannot? What is preventing you?? And why can’t I check out what my pastor says against the Catechism or even by calling Catholic Answers Live (the radio show) for that matter? Go ahead. I won’t stop you.

Finally, I think you have read enough of my posts to know that if my pastor says something that I don’t think is right, he’s gonna hear about it! true.

 

[Truthstalker]

Well, God’s timing sure is interesting because some people believe infants should be baptized while others do not. Some people believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine of communion while others do not. Some people believe in eternal security while others do not. I sure wish God would hurry up and settle these matters.

I think the “wheat and tares” parable is applicable.

A tradition is something like genuflecting before the tabernacle or eating meat on Friday. Tradition is the living transmission of the faith. Are you changing the definition of terms in the middle of the thread or are you agreeing with mine? I’m not sure.

How many priests do you think actually deny the doctrine of transubstantiation? Cite a source, please.

One would be enough. I’ve never, personally, asked one and I have no survey data. I have heard this from Catholics, that their priest denies it, and I have read that historically this is a problem. I think there are threads active now on CAF concerning the problem of lack of belief in transubstantiation. Are you telling me you have never heard of any priest ever denying this doctrine?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please don’t type in the middle of a quote as you have done in red below…it makes it difficult to respond to you.

Originally Posted by Randy Carson forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*When two Protestants disagree, they are to take it to the Church according to scripture. Which one? If they are from different denominations, who has the authority to settle their dispute? The Holy Spirit *I think Paul says to take it to the Church. But yours or mine?

In fact, who has the authority to decide between you and me right now? The Holy Spirit

See above

Why is it that Protestants can check their pastor’s sermon against the Bible but I cannot? What is preventing you??

And why can’t I check out what my pastor says against the Catechism or even by calling Catholic Answers Live (the radio show) for that matter? Go ahead. I won’t stop you.I think I’m illustrating a double-standard on your part.