Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[montanaman]

The Catholic notion of Tradition is often dismissed with an upturned nose and a haughtily proclaimed “Traditions can be twisted.” This is usually followed by “I go by the Bible ALONE.”

Just how do anti-Catholics manage to presume that the Bible ALONE can’t also be twisted? I see it all the time–the Bible is and has been used to support every crazy thing under the sun.

I think the answer is simple: it’s just another double-standard applied to Catholics. Discuss.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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.

 

[montanaman]

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.

I don’t know what you mean by “unreliable.” But like you said, that’s beside the point.

I assert that scripture can be unreliable, too. Sure, one person can be absolutely certain that such-and-such a passage means XYZ, but a lot of people out there are “proving” things such as no such thing as the Trinity–with scripture.

Basically I’ve come to believe that the Bible is merely raw material to prove a whole raft of late-millenial assumptions and man-made traditions.

 

[justinthemartyr]

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.

well, you rely on the greatest form of Tradition, which is the canon of scripture itself, of which God had the Catholic church decide by the power of the Holy Spirit working through them. Not to mention they protected it and studied it for almost 400 years before the canonization occurred.

So why not listen to that same exact church that Christ established and had canonize scripture? What, did He use it for this and then throw the church out of the picture and say “lets have man interpret scripture for himself and watch the chaos begin!” ???

of course He did not.

 

[Rightlydivide]

well, you rely on the greatest form of Tradition, which is the canon of scripture itself, of which God had the Catholic church decide by the power of the Holy Spirit working through them. Not to mention they protected it and studied it for almost 400 years before the canonization occurred.

So why not listen to that same exact church that Christ established and had canonize scripture? What, did He use it for this and then throw the church out of the picture and say “lets have man interpret scripture for himself and watch the chaos begin!” ???

of course He did not.

I have answered this before. Just do a search.

 

[AllSaints1631]

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.

I agree with this. Scripture never changes and the Bible has been around for 2,000 years. Traditions do change and their meanings or purposes change ever so slowly, but over the centuries the meanings change adversely. If you put a frog in hot water, he will jump out immediately. If you put him in warm water and heat it ever so slowly, he will be boiled to death eventually.

 

[LittleDeb]

Scripture never changes and the Bible has been around for 2,000 years.

Actually translations change the meaning of Scripture all the time. One example is a teaching on divorce. Many sola Scriture folks claim the Bible teaches an “exception clause” for allowing divorce. Upon deep review it is noted that mistranslations of the original words have completely changed the meaning of that particular passage. One person’s Bible gives a different exception than another person’s, and a Catholic Bible, using the original wording, shows that no exception exists.

But on another front, Scripture has been used for centuries to teach against contraception. Now, even though those passages condemning contraception haven’t changed, many non-Catholic Christians say the Bible is “silent” on contraception. The early Comstock laws here in the US, (making contraceptive devices illegal) were started by Protestant lawmakers who used the Bible as their sole rule of faith.

I don’t bring up those examples to debate them in particular, but to show that Scripture has changed through inaccurate translations. And in cases where it hasn’t changed, the interpretation has changed without reason. In these examples, the teaching from non-Catholic Christians is now the opposite of what it used to be using the very same ‘unchanging Scripture.’

 

[Atemi]

The Catholic notion of Tradition is often dismissed with an upturned nose and a haughtily proclaimed “Traditions can be twisted.” This is usually followed by “I go by the Bible ALONE.”

Just how do anti-Catholics manage to presume that the Bible ALONE can’t also be twisted? I see it all the time–the Bible is and has been used to support every crazy thing under the sun.

Yup.

Anything can be twisted…even the Scriptures.

And, no, the Scriptures are not “unreliable” and neither are they “misleading.”

They can be twisted, however.

The problem with “Tradition” is not so much that it can be twisted, but even if it is, none of us could know. At least as far as Scripture is concerned, we all can open the books and see for ourselves like good Bereans.

"Tradition" (‘Word of God’ outside of Holy Writ) cannot be cited, quoted, collected into an edition, linked to, or confirmed by anyone.

A church’s particular “tradition” is only an ethereal, vague concept that is exactly what that church says it is at the moment. Nothing more and nothing less.

I wish “Tradition” could be twisted, for at least then we can see it and verify it has been so mangled.

…

 

[AllSaints1631]

Actually translations change the meaning of Scripture all the time. One example is a teaching on divorce. Many sola Scriture folks claim the Bible teaches an “exception clause” for allowing divorce. Upon deep review it is noted that mistranslations of the original words have completely changed the meaning of that particular passage. One person’s Bible gives a different exception than another person’s, and a Catholic Bible, using the original wording, shows that no exception exists.

But on another front, Scripture has been used for centuries to teach against contraception. Now, even though those passages condemning contraception haven’t changed, many non-Catholic Christians say the Bible is “silent” on contraception. The early Comstock laws here in the US, (making contraceptive devices illegal) were started by Protestant lawmakers who used the Bible as their sole rule of faith.

I don’t bring up those examples to debate them in particular, but to show that Scripture has changed through inaccurate translations. And in cases where it hasn’t changed, the interpretation has changed without reason. In these examples, the teaching from non-Catholic Christians is now the opposite of what it used to be using the very same ‘unchanging Scripture.’

?? I guess I don’t agree. Divorce is even in the apocrypha. Sirach 25:26 says to divorce your wife if she doesn’t obey you. I read from the NIV which does not contain the apocrypha. I have never read anything in Scripture that would suggest not using contraception.

 

[paarsurrey]

the Bible is and has been used to support every crazy thing under the sun.

Hi

I am an Ahmadi a peaceful faith in Islam.

The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 has told us that whenever any guidance has come to any nation or revealed religion from GodAllahYHWH, three sources of guidance were provided:

First, the Scriptures, the pristine Word of GodAllahYHWH.

Second the Sunnah or the **Acts of the DivineGuide **performed by him which were explicity mentioned in the Scriptures and it was required of him to perform them manifestly and on regular intervals, daily or weakly, or monthly or yearly whatever the nature of the matter, continuously.
Naturally, these must be according to the scriptures as these are in fact a part of the scriptures.

Third comes the **Sacred Tradition **or Hadith or sayings of the DivineGuide or the account described by his disciples, these must be linked to the DivineGuide, these have not been performed on regular intervals or continuously, neither were these designed for this purpose, these consist of the sayings or historic life accounts etc. These must neither be against the Scriptures nor against the Acts of the DivineGuide.

This is in short.

I think it is reasonable.

Thanks

 

[LittleDeb]

?? I guess I don’t agree. Divorce is even in the apocrypha. Sirach 25:26 says to divorce your wife if she doesn’t obey you. I read from the NIV which does not contain the apocrypha.

That’s OT. Sorry I was not clearer. (And it is called the Deuterocanon, BTW. It has only been rejected by some Christians in the past couple of hundred years after it was appendixed following the Reformation. Not to be confused with the apocrypha which has never been part of canonized Scripture.) I was talking about Jesus speaking in Matthew. It is mistranslated in some Bibles to imply an exception clause.

I have never read anything in Scripture that would suggest not using contraception.

Exactly. And yet if you had been in your same denomination prior to 1930 your minister would have been quoting all sorts of passages from Scripture which say exactly that. There, the interpretation made a 180 and yet the Scripture on it remained the same.

 

[sterryfamily]

Yes, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Sripture can and will be twisted. But the Holy Spirit cannot. That’s why Jesus promised to send the Spirit to guide His Church into all truth until the end of time. Chirst heads the Church. It’s teachings, therefore, are infallible so we don’t have to wonder.

 

[AllSaints1631]

That’s OT. Sorry I was not clearer. (And it is called the Deuterocanon, BTW. It has only been rejected by some Christians in the past couple of hundred years after it was appendixed following the Reformation. Not to be confused with the apocrypha which has never been part of canonized Scripture.) I was talking about Jesus speaking in Matthew. It is mistranslated in some Bibles to imply an exception clause.Exactly. And yet if you had been in your same denomination prior to 1930 your minister would have been quoting all sorts of passages from Scripture which say exactly that. There, the interpretation made a 180 and yet the Scripture on it remained the same.

what?

 

[LittleDeb]

what?

Nevermind.

Here’s a link that might explain it better: scripturecatholic.com/divorce_remarriage.html

Matt. 5:31-32 - the Lord permits divorce only for “porneia.” This Greek word generally means unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. The Lord does not permit divorce for “moicheia” (adultery). It is also important to note that in these cases, a marriage never existed in the first place, so the Lord is not actually permitting divorce, but a dissolution of the unlawful union.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Sripture can and will be twisted. But the Holy Spirit cannot. That’s why Jesus promised to send the Spirit to guide His Church into all truth until the end of time. Chirst heads the Church. It’s teachings, therefore, are infallible so we don’t have to wonder.

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

 

[qui_est_ce]

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

Read ECF, Ignatius of Antioch, Iranaeus. These all existed before the finalized version of OT and NT.

*St. Ignatius of Antioch
Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of AntiochSt. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves (“Hom. in St. Ig.”, IV. 587).

To decide this question one has only to examine the oldest Liturgies of the Mass, whose essential elements date back to the time of the Apostles (see articles on the various liturgies), to visit the Roman Catacombs, where Christ is shown as present in the Eucharistic food under the symbol of a fish (see EARLY SYMBOLS OF THE EUCHARIST), to decipher the famous Inscription of Abercius of the second century, which, though composed under the influence of the Discipline of the Secret, plainly attests the faith of that age. And thus the argument from prescription carries us back to the dim and distant past and thence to the time of the Apostles, who in turn could have received their faith in the Real Presence from no one but Christ Himself. *

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

*On the Eucharist, Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“ Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 ” *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

There is no list, Sacred Tradidition is ALL of what early Christians practiced. It would be impossible to cite them all here, which is why I provided links. Please read them.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sometimes I wonder if denial that the Holy Spirit can reveal through Tradition is bordering on blasphemy against the Spirit, or at least the scope of the Spirit.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sometimes I wonder if denial that the Holy Spirit can reveal through Tradition is bordering on blasphemy against the Spirit, or at least the scope of the Spirit.

I would not call it willful…given all the evidence, it is hard to understand why people refuse to believe in the full Truth. I think American culture of Anti-Catholicism play a big role in this. This country was founded on anti-Catholicism by the Puritans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#Nineteenth_century

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-Nothing_Party

It is the last acceptable bigotry in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_Street_Fair

 

[SolaFide]

Yup.

Anything can be twisted…even the Scriptures.

And, no, the Scriptures are not “unreliable” and neither are they “misleading.”

They can be twisted, however.

The problem with “Tradition” is not so much that it can be twisted, but even if it is, none of us could know. At least as far as Scripture is concerned, we all can open the books and see for ourselves like good Bereans.

"Tradition" (‘Word of God’ outside of Holy Writ) cannot be cited, quoted, collected into an edition, linked to, or confirmed by anyone.

A church’s particular “tradition” is only an ethereal, vague concept that is exactly what that church says it is at the moment. Nothing more and nothing less.

I wish “Tradition” could be twisted, for at least then we can see it and verify it has been so mangled.

…

Yes, cults like JWs and the Mormons have twisted Scripture to the point that a pretzel would look straight in comparison.

But in the RCC the problem with tradition is defined in one fundamental question: Who judges the judges?

In the RCC, tradition can be infallibly defined by the magisterium based on revelation passed down in unwritten form by-what else-tradition. Tradition uses tradition to validate itself.

Tradition is whatever the church says it is. No one can examine or refute it based on an outside objective source. So if you can’t use the Scriptures to judge what it is that the church is doing because the church has elevated tradition to the same level as the Holy Scriptures (which was breathed by God) then how do you know that the church is what she claims herself to be?

If the sole ability to interpret Scripture is entrusted to the Magisterium alone then they’ve effectively even taken out the ability for the common person to judge the teachings of the church by the Bible.

So, the church determines tradition which also determines how the Bible, the only objective source to judge tradition, is to be interpreted, based on tradition. In this you have a great set-up for abuses of power and authority.

Are we to submit to the authority of the RCC simply because the Vatican tells us to? Absolutely not!

As I’ve said before, with the Holy Spirit as our teacher, each true believe a holy priesthood and saint, and the Holy Scriptures as our text we CAN know the truth.

I’ll say it again. If Paul the apostle who was called, commissioned and taught by Jesus Christ Himself was not threatened or upset when the Bereans double-checked everything they were taught by Paul against Scripture…why should the church?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, cults like JWs and the Mormons have twisted Scripture to the point that a pretzel would look straight in comparison.

But in the RCC the problem with tradition is defined in one fundamental question: Who judges the judges?

In the RCC, tradition can be infallibly defined by the magisterium based on revelation passed down in unwritten form by-what else-tradition. Tradition uses tradition to validate itself.

Tradition is whatever the church says it is. No one can examine or refute it based on an outside objective source. So if you can’t use the Scriptures to judge what it is that the church is doing because the church has elevated tradition to the same level as the Holy Scriptures (which was breathed by God) then how do you know that the church is what she claims herself to be?

If the sole ability to interpret Scripture is entrusted to the Magisterium alone then they’ve effectively even taken out the ability for the common person to judge the teachings of the church by the Bible.

So, the church determines tradition which also determines how the Bible, the only objective source to judge tradition, is to be interpreted, based on tradition. In this you have a great set-up for abuses of power and authority.

Are we to submit to the authority of the RCC simply because the Vatican tells us to? Absolutely not!

As I’ve said before, with the Holy Spirit as our teacher, each true believe a holy priesthood and saint, and the Holy Scriptures as our text we CAN know the truth.

I’ll say it again. If Paul the apostle who was called, commissioned and taught by Jesus Christ Himself was not threatened or upset when the Bereans double-checked everything they were taught by Paul against Scripture…why should the church?

You are wrong. Tradition is based on the beliefs and practices of the Early Church, those that knew the Apostles first hand. These are found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp. Their is no list, but there is plenty of writing, too much to put here, so I will provide you a link.
newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm

This will give you a good beginning of Sacred Tradition.

Any repsonse, please base on what you have read, not what you think. Please provide links and evidence for your post with credible references. thank you.