Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[po18guy]

Yes. They both can be twisted.
My problem with tradition is it is unreliable. I cannot know what was real and what was not. That is a different thread though.

Rd, there was tremendous pressure on the early church to adopt the beliefs of heretics, such as Marcion and Arius. Since this was pre-NT, only faithful adherence to the Traditions that had been “handed on” saved Christianity for us today. Tradition is hands-on teaching which is passed from generation to generation. Scripture, while the word of the living God, is dead letters on paper. Without rock-solid and Spirit-lead interpretation, its words are easily distorted into grotesque images of Christ. The Apostle Peter wrote specifically of this danger in 2 Peter 3:16 “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction”.

Unity was a major concern of the early church. Since division is the offspring of the ego, it remains an even larger problem to this day. So, the inflexible Catholic church that will not change, is the One which cannot change, because it holds fast to both Tradition and Scripture - the right and left hands of faith. Without Tradition, the improper and private interpretation of scripture has lead to the thousands of denominations in Protestantism. Without Tradition to bind the faithful together, see what happened over the centuries? Luther would be horrified to see the state of the church he founded.

 

[po18guy]

What you don’t see in scripture is the celebration of the mass. We don’t see a priest etc doing all that is involved. What is amazing that something that is so central to the catholic church is not shown in scripture.

JA4, how can you expect Catholicism to look and act exactly like Protestantism? You are expecting the big brother to look and act just like the smaller brother in the same family. Christ commanded the Twelve “Do this, as often as you do it, in memory of me” He then handed them His Body and gave them His Blood to drink. How is that supposed to make sense to you? That’s what the priest does at mass, and it sure is in scripture!

The first HALF of the mass IS scripture (the Liturgy of the Word). Isn’t scripture in the bible? The second half of the mass is the celebration of the Eucharist (Liturgy of the Eucharist). Scripture talks about both. Mass consists of:

1. Scripture itself (mentioned frequently in, uh, scripture)
2. Making Calvary present in the sacrifice. (also in there)

We have told you this time after time. This argument has become almost surreal! What if we change the name of the church to: “Success in Life Fellowship”? Since everything it practices is in the bible, would you convert then? Or, is it just that horrible term “catholic”?

 

[sterryfamily]

Do you happen to know what the Sacred Traditions are? Is there a list somewhere that we can look at?

There is no list of “Sacred Traditions”. Sacred Tradition (singular) is the FULL DEPOSIT OF FAITH as handed down to the Church by the apostles. (See 2 Thess 2:15). Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition - that part of Tradition which Catholics over time wrote down and which the Church (as guided into “all truth” by the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise) collected into the New Testament in the late fourth century.

At the first Church council as recorded in the book of Acts, the apostles and bishops got together to settle some issues that had arisen among the faithful. At future councils, when the successors to the apostles got together to settle other issues (including the determination of the canon of the Bible), the question always asked was, “what was handed down to us by the apostles through their successors?”. In other words, “What has the whole Church believed from the beginning?” This is where we get the name ‘Catholic’. It comes from two Greek words meaning, “According to the whole”.

 

[AgnosTheist]

actually the bible is much more misleading than traditions.

 

[sterryfamily]

Yes. They both can be twisted.
My problem with tradition is it is unreliable. I cannot know what was real and what was not. That is a different thread though.

Not if you believe in Jesus Christ. He said He would be the builder of the Church. He promised to send His Spirit to guide His Church into “all truth” and He promised to be with His Church until the end of time.

In the Old Testament, didn’t God use fallible, sinful men to convey His infallible word to His people? Weren’t David, Moses, Abraham, et al, all sinners? Did their sinfulness in any way invallidate the word of God?

It is the same in the New Testament - the Church. God promised He would not leave us orphans. And His word, spoken through His Church, of which He is the builder, is infallible. - He promised.

Just trust in Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

Dr. Scott Hahn, a brilliant Protestant theologian, remembers the time during one of his theology classes, when one of his students stood upand asked him: “Show me where in the bible that it says that scripture alone is sufficient?” He could not answer the student. This was one of the important realizations that precipitated Hahn’s conversion to the Catholic church…

The way Dr. Hahn puts it, when asked by a student “Where does the bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith?” He responded, “What a stupid question!” The student, pressing, fired back, “Well, then, give me a stupid answer!” This was the beginning of the end of the sola scriptura house of cards.

Without Tradition, 2 Timothy 3 has been twisted from: “All scripture is (profitable, sufficient, etc.)” into “Scripture is all that is…(profitable, sufficient, etc.)” Big change and an example of the big lie. This entire line of reasoning has produced a generation which hopes, not in Christian unity, but in being able to enter the Kingdom of God without having to be Catholic.

Christ’s peace to all.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What if we change the name of the church to: “Success in Life Fellowship”? Since everything it practices is in the bible, would you convert then? Or, is it just that horrible term “catholic”?

How about, “Apostolic Bible Fellowship?”

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3098527]Scripture (as we know it today) was compiled by the Catholic Church, specifically Pope St Damasus I newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm who requested St Jerome, newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm his secretary to translate from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into Latin, the comon language (vulgate) beginning approx 382. Before this time, many writings, including Eusebius, etc. newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm were available. Which were inspired? This was decided at several Councils Hippo, etc 390, 393,

Sacred Tradition shows us the earliest Christians “broke bread” as Jesus instructed them to do. Read the following for how the mass was celebrated by the Apostles and their followers:

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

It is one thing to claim that these early Christians “broke bread” and another to show that some priest or bishop was invested with some kind of power to change the bread and wine in Christ. Who is the first one who is recorded to have done this by saying words over the bread and wine thereby changing it?

MATTHEW 26:26-28

26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Even in this passage Jesus not even hinting that His apostles would be able to change the bread and wine into His body and blood.

I would have liked to post all this information but for posting limits, I have supplied links. Although these links are from Catholic sources (because they were easier to find), you will find them substantiated by Wikipedia.

In the end, it is faith, Do you believe the words Jesus spoke?

Yes. What i don’t believe is unsound interpretations of the Scriptures. There are so many problems with the interpetations of Scripture by the catholic church.

Who preserved all this literature without error during the times of the Barbarian attacks?

Monks.

When all was well, and freedom of ideas were abounding safe from persecution, some felt free to spring forth with new interpretations, beginning with ML, who sadly was followed by Zwingli and Calvin. All heretical to the Church Jesus promised to protect from the gates of Hell.

All men are capable of teaching error including the catholic church.

True Catholicism is marked by understanding and learning not blind faith,.

Its the understanding of scripture coupled with its claims that is troubling. It has led many people astray.

 

[alanjeddy]

The way Dr. Hahn puts it, when asked by a student “Where does the bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith?” He responded, “What a stupid question!” The student, pressing, fired back, “Well, then, give me a stupid answer!” This was the beginning of the end of the sola scriptura house of cards.

Without Tradition, 2 Timothy 3 has been twisted from: “All scripture is (profitable, sufficient, etc.)” into “Scripture is all that is…(profitable, sufficient, etc.)” Big change and an example of the big lie. This entire line of reasoning has produced a generation which hopes, not in Christian unity, but in being able to enter the Kingdom of God without having to be Catholic.

Christ’s peace to all.

When Luther broke from the Church he was a guilt obsessed sinner who no longer could find salvation within the tenits of the Catholic Church. Of course the selling of indugences also played a role. He believed that justification came through the salvic death of Jesus on the cross. Works are not necessary to get to heaven.
Thank God we have the grace to know otherwise.

Wasn’t Luther the author of the great lie of Sola Scriptura?

 

[po18guy]

Tell me then what are the “Traditions” that all catholics have believed for the past 2000 years?

It’s apparently happened. He’s become JustKidding4

My offer still stands: A FREE copy of Mark P.Shea’s By What Authority. The only thing to fear is truth.

Did you ever get a Catholic bible? We are taught from the fullness of scripture, not from the reformer’s censored edition. How about trying “sola scripture catolica” for a start?

Christ’s peace, and may the Holy Spirit answer your questions.

 

[JoeyWarren]

It is one thing to claim that these early Christians “broke bread” and another to show that some priest or bishop was invested with some kind of power to change the bread and wine in Christ. Who is the first one who is recorded to have done this by saying words over the bread and wine thereby changing it?

That is because you are a Protester against God’s true Church. A Protester that has an explicit mentality which is looking for a those magic explicit verses that spell it out in black and white. That is how the Bible can be so misleading. The Catholic looks at the Bible as a whole and the message as a whole. When you step back and look at it as a whole and see all the scriptures not just the ones that have been pointed out to you, only then can you see the truth.

Even in this passage Jesus not even hinting that His apostles would be able to change the bread and wine into His body and blood.

True but that passage is not the whole Bible.

Yes. What i don’t believe is unsound interpretations of the Scriptures. There are so many problems with the interpetations of Scripture by the catholic church.

Yet you want us to believe your unsound interpretations. Why should we believe your interpretation over those that stood from the beginning"

Monks.

And those Monks were Catholic just as they are today.

All men are capable of teaching error including the catholic church.

men are capable yes. The church no. Jesus promised to protect and guide the church.

Its the understanding of scripture coupled with its claims that is troubling. It has led many people astray.

And you are just another of the vast growing millions to go astray.

 

[AgnosTheist]

My offer still stands: A FREE copy of Mark P.Shea’s By What Authority. The only thing to fear is truth.

I LOVE FREE STUFF!

 

[po18guy]

When Luther broke from the Church he was a guilt obsessed sinner who no longer could find salvation within the tenits of the Catholic Church. Of course the selling of indugences also played a role. He believed that justification came through the salvic death of Jesus on the cross. Works are not necessary to get to heaven.
Thank God we have the grace to know otherwise.

Wasn’t Luther the author of the great lie of Sola Scriptura?

Him, or in concert with fellow deformers. I can’t say who fueled his ego, but I know satan is laughing at all of the Christians fighting one another in stead of evil.

Christ’s peace.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is one thing to claim that these early Christians “broke bread” and another to show that some priest or bishop was invested with some kind of power to change the bread and wine in Christ. Who is the first one who is recorded to have done this by saying words over the bread and wine thereby changing it?

Luke 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; **do this **in remembrance of me.”

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

I thought Protestants knew their Bible so well…

Even in this passage Jesus not even hinting that His apostles would be able to change the bread and wine into His body and blood.

Matthew 28:18-20

18
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

He is handing His power to the Apostles, same as in Matthew , Except Peter gets the keys there, because Peter is the head guy see below:
Matthew 16:17-19
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e]
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

John 17:18-19
18
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.

And here He gives the power to the Apostles

Matthew 18:15-18
15"If your brother sins against you,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven

Yes. What i don’t believe is unsound interpretations of the Scriptures. There are so many problems with the interpetations of Scripture by the catholic church.

So, for 1500 years the CC was in error, until ML, an unfallible man figured it out.

monks

And they must have erred too, because they included too many books

All men are capable of teaching error including the catholic church.

I guess Jesus lied when He said He would be with the Church even until the end of time?

Its the understanding of scripture coupled with its claims that is troubling. It has led many people astray.

Exactly how are they claims of the Church any more “astray” than OSAS, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura, which are nowhere found in Scripture?

I gave you links on what the first successors to the apostle practiced. You apparently did not read them, or you would not be saying any of this. Plus, all this evidence has been given to you ad nauseum on various other threads, yet you ask the same questions. Just admit you can’t accept the full truth, like the disciples who left Jesus when he told them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to obtain everlasting life.

Jesus did not say, “hey wait, I know that’s a really weird thing to say, let me rephrase that.” No, he repeated several times and the showed them how it was to be done at the last supper.**

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3101870]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It is one thing to claim that these early Christians “broke bread” and another to show that some priest or bishop was invested with some kind of power to change the bread and wine in Christ. Who is the first one who is recorded to have done this by saying words over the bread and wine thereby changing it?
qui est ce
Luke 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

I thought Protestants knew their Bible so well…

The passage you refer doesn’t answer the question. I know Jesus did this. What i’m asking is who was the first recorded instance after Jesus did this who also took bread and wine and changed it to the body of Christ?

Since Paul is the only one who mentions the Lord’ supper he doesn’t give any “formula” on how a person was to change the bread and wine into the body of Christ. So who came up with the “formula” that the priest uses to change the bread and wine?
Where is this found in history?

 

[po18guy]

The passage you refer doesn’t answer the question. I know Jesus did this. What i’m asking is who was the first recorded instance after Jesus did this who also took bread and wine and changed it to the body of Christ?

Since Paul is the only one who mentions the Lord’ supper he doesn’t give any “formula” on how a person was to change the bread and wine into the body of Christ. So who came up with the “formula” that the priest uses to change the bread and wine?
Where is this found in history?

Well, it would have been the next Shabbat, silly! Of course, that would have likely occurred on the following Sunday, since Christ rose from the dead that day, and I imagine there was some celebration amongst the Apostles.

JA4, one of these days, you’ll find that you have expended so much energy running in theological circles, that you will collapse and admit that Christ was right in doing what he did. He knew the future, being a prophet, and still gave all power to the Apostles, to do with as they were lead by the Spirit. Oh yeah, He gave them the Spirit, too!

Christ’s peace, brother.

 

[po18guy]

I LOVE FREE STUFF!

This was meant for JA4, you moocher!!! Actually, if it would help lead you to the truth of Christ, I will send one to the Phillipines. It is the story of an Evangelical who looked into Christian history to see how the bible proved itself - and found that Catholicism, to his absolute horror :bigyikes: was, indeed, the original church.

 

[guanophore]

Do you happen to know what the Sacred Traditions are? Is there a list somewhere that we can look at?

Still trying to nail this jello to the wall, ja4? This is a disingenuous question. you have already made it clear on these threads that you don’t believe in Sacred Traditions, that you believe they are just the erroneous speculations of men, and you goal here is just to try to convince unwitting Catholics of the same, so that they will leave the Church.

Couple of things here. Who is to say these fathers speak for the entire church?

The writings of the Fathers reflect the beliefs of the time.

What do you do if they contradict one another?

This happens in several places. The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, proclaims the valid teaching of Jesus Christ.

How do you know what is a Sacred Tradition? What is the criteria for it?

This is a disingenuous question, since you have already madeup your mind it does not exist.

 

[guanophore]

What you don’t see in scripture is the celebration of the mass. We don’t see a priest etc doing all that is involved. What is amazing that something that is so central to the catholic church is not shown in scripture.

You don’t see it because you have you anti-Catholic blinders on, ja4. Those who embrace Apostolic Faith see it quite clearly.

 

[guanophore]

It is one thing to claim that these early Christians “broke bread” and another to show that some priest or bishop was invested with some kind of power to change the bread and wine in Christ. Who is the first one who is recorded to have done this by saying words over the bread and wine thereby changing it?

I think that would be Paul:

1 Cor 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

This was “delivered” in the doing. Amaneusis.

Even in this passage Jesus not even hinting that His apostles would be able to change the bread and wine into His body and blood.

I doubt the Apostles even understood what He was doing when He commanded them to “do this in rememberance of me”. However, they had learned to obey, even if they did not understand. Their understanding increased as they obeyed, and especially after Pentecost.

Yes. What i don’t believe is unsound interpretations of the Scriptures. There are so many problems with the interpetations of Scripture by the catholic church.

You have problems with it because you are reading the scriptures out of context. The Catholic Church IS the context of the scriptures. She wrote them, they represent what she teaches and believes. When you separate them from their Source, they make less and less sense.

All men are capable of teaching error including the catholic church.

This represents a thinking error. The Catholic church is the Bride of Christ, and her Soul is the Holy Spirit. The HS is God, and that is why She cannot err. While individual men within her may err, the Church cannot, because she is One with her Head, and Her head is Christ, who is God, and incapable of error.

Its the understanding of scripture coupled with its claims that is troubling. It has led many people astray.

So, what is your purpose in participating on the fora, ja4? Are you here to point out how Catholics have gone astray? Do you wish to pursuade the participants here that the Catholic Church is leading people into error?