Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;3101628]

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?
JoeyWarren
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.
It is important to look at the Scriptures as a whole but it is just as important to study the details. Things may look right from the “big picture” perspective but break down on the details. Its at the detail level that we can really see either the truth or the lie. If the details don’t match the big picture then your understanding is flawed. It will do you no good to berate me if your understanding fails the tests. Study the Scriptures and hold your teachers accountable to be faithful to them.

Quote:justasking4
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.
JoeyWarren
True but that passage is not the whole Bible.

True. Now where does Jesus give His apostles to turn the bread and wine into His body and blood?

Quote:justasking4
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.
JoeyWarren
Yet you want us to believe your unsound interpretations. Why should we believe your interpretation over those that stood from the beginning"

For one the understanding on these issues and doctrines has not always been agreed upon. If your interpretations are indeed correct then they should be able to deal with what i’m saying. To defend the catholic position is an extremely difficult proposition since it involves so much reading into the texts of scripture instead of letting the scriptures speak clearly.

Quote:justasking4
Monks.
JoeyWarren
And those Monks were Catholic just as they are today.

Quote:justasking4
All men are capable of teaching error including the catholic church.
JoeyWarren
men are capable yes. The church no. Jesus promised to protect and guide the church.

Problem is that Jesus never made such a promise. He did say that the hell would not prevail against it but that does not mean it could never teach error. If anything Scripture warns that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. History shows this to be true not only the catholic church but protestant churches as well.

Quote::justasking4
Its the understanding of scripture coupled with its claims that is troubling. It has led many people astray.
JoeyWarren
And you are just another of the vast growing millions to go astray.

How so? Is it because that i challenge the catholic church and point out its weakness in interpretations that condemns me?

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;3101516]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Tell me then what are the “Traditions” that all catholics have believed for the past 2000 years?
po18guy
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.

Forget the book. What are the Traditions that the catholic church has believed for the past 2000 years?

If you can i’d like to see the origin and dates for these Tradiitons. This is a big area and it is continually claimed by many catholics to be an asset. It would be a valuable resource to know exactly what all these Traditions are so that i can see exactly what is entailed in this claim.

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?

I have looked at a couple of catholic study bibles to see if they support many of the claims on these forums and in many cases they don’t jive together.
Does the catholic church put out an offical infallible interpretation of the Scriptures for catholics? That would be one i would like to have.

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

 

[guanophore]

Forget the book. What are the Traditions that the catholic church has believed for the past 2000 years?

Strange you would ask this, ja4, since you have already stated that these, in your opinion, are baseless “speculations of men”. What is the point of the question? Are you trying to lead your reader to reach the same conclusion.

If you can i’d like to see the origin and dates for these Tradiitons. This is a big area and it is continually claimed by many catholics to be an asset. It would be a valuable resource to know exactly what all these Traditions are so that i can see exactly what is entailed in this claim.

You have already admitted in another post that the Bible was in oral form at one time. The Bible is a great representation of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Hand in hand with that is the interpretation of that Bible, which you have rejected. As an unbeliever, you would not be privy to such teachings. You would be required to leave after the liturgy of the Word. Only those who approach in faith, willing to be catechized, are taught the weighty matters.

I have looked at a couple of catholic study bibles to see if they support many of the claims on these forums and in many cases they don’t jive together.

You mean the Catholic Bible studies don’t agree with what individual posters here say, or that the Studies don’t agree with what the Church teaches?

Does the catholic church put out an offical infallible interpretation of the Scriptures for catholics? That would be one i would like to have.

You have asked this very disingenuous question many times,ja4. You have been repeatedly told that the Magesterium interprets scripture within the light of the Teaching of Jesus Christ that was handed down by the Apostles. You have rejected this. Why are you trolling on this subject again? What do you hope to accomplish?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Forget the book. What are the Traditions that the catholic church has believed for the past 2000 years?
If you can i’d like to see the origin and dates for these Tradiitons. This is a big area and it is continually claimed by many catholics to be an asset. It would be a valuable resource to know exactly what all these Traditions are so that i can see exactly what is entailed in this claim.

This question has been answered many times TO YOU on various threads and here. The answers are so lengthy that links have been provided. It is obvious you have not read them, or you would not expose your ignorance like this.

I have looked at a couple of catholic study bibles to see if they support many of the claims on these forums and in many cases they don’t jive together.

?? give me an example

Does the catholic church put out an offical infallible interpretation of the Scriptures for catholics? That would be one i would like to have.

You already know that the CC does not interpret the Bible verse for verse, Catholics are free to interpret verses in context of Magesterium. You know this, this has been told to you in several other threads. You are indeed a stiff-necked person.

 

[po18guy]

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

JA4, what caused some books to be included in the canon of the NT and others to be excluded? Why aren’t the Gnostic Gospels in there? Why was there such debate over Hebrews, which was not signed? Without a bible, how could the early church fathers ever know? They had no table of contents - they were writing it! TRADITION. What they were taught - that which was handed on to them. The oral teachings were Tradition. The bible exists as written documentation of much of the oral Tradition, but it’s not all. You want to know where it all is? You know the answer to that one already.

The table of contents of the bible is a tradition. If you do not believe in Tradition, just where in the bible does it spell out what the table of contents should be? Where is the written instruction for including or excluding books? You trust Luther with 66 books. Where in the bible does it say that? But, Luther trusted the ECFs with 73 until his ego lead him astray and he started ripping out the scripture (quoted by the Apostles!) that looked, well, a little too catholic.

If you really look into church history,if you really desire to know the early faith, you will run headlong into catholicism. If you ignore the Early Church Fathers, if you ignore faith history before the reformation, you have what you have now. Thousands of private interpreters all disagreeing with one another over the same words! Where in the bible does it say that is correct? You gotta have Tradition, with a capital T. Otherwise, it’s fair game and you end up with preachers claiming that God wants you to be successful, and that baptism is not needed.

Peace, brother.

 

[sterryfamily]

Problem is that Jesus never made such a promise. He did say that the hell would not prevail against it but that does not mean it could never teach error.

“upon this rock I will build my church.”

“I will send my Spirit to guide you into all truth”

“and, lo, I am with you to the end of time”

 

[JoeyWarren]

“upon this rock I will build my church.”

“I will send my Spirit to guide you into all truth”

“and, lo, I am with you to the end of time”

Thank you Sterry for answering that for me. These are those verses when read by Protestants causes the mind’s eye to glaze over with spiritual cataracts.

 

[sterryfamily]

The Bible is PART OF Sacred Tradition.

You guys are in a real pickle - without Tradition and the Magisterium, you have no Bible. You cannot go about proclaiming one and rejecting the other.

Why does your Bible not include the Gospel of Peter; The Gospel of Judas; The epistles of Clement; The Didache; The Shepherd of Hermas; The Gospel of Mary Magdalene; The protoevengelium of James? All these were writings cherished by many ancient Christians.

The answer is; because Tradition and the Magisterium, as guided by the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised to the Church, determined infallibly which of the ancient Christian writings were inspired and thus belong in the Bible.

It is by the authority given to His Catholic Church that you have a Bible, my friend. You cannot reject Tradition or the authority with which our Lord endowed His Church and still accept the Bible. After all, every author and writer of the New Testament books was a bona fide member of the Catholic Church who remained faithful to the Magisterium and the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

And why would it be any other way? God used fallible men in the Old Testament to convey His message to His people. Jesus affirmed the authority of those who succeeded Moses and the prophets (Matt 23:2). David, Moses, Abraham, Joshua all were sinful men. Yet, theirs sins in no way negated the validity of God’s word issued through them. The Old Testament is preparation for the New.

 

[alanjeddy]

The Bible is PART OF Sacred Tradition.

You guys are in a real pickle - without Tradition and the Magisterium, you have no Bible. You cannot go about proclaiming one and rejecting the other.

Why does your Bible not include the Gospel of Peter; The Gospel of Judas; The epistles of Clement; The Didache; The Shepherd of Hermas; The Gospel of Mary Magdalene; The protoevengelium of James? All these were writings cherished by many ancient Christians.

The answer is; because Tradition and the Magisterium, as guided by the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised to the Church, determined infallibly which of the ancient Christian writings were inspired and thus belong in the Bible.

It is by the authority given to His Catholic Church that you have a Bible, my friend. You cannot reject Tradition or the authority with which our Lord endowed His Church and still accept the Bible. After all, every author and writer of the New Testament books was a bona fide member of the Catholic Church who remained faithful to the Magisterium and the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

And why would it be any other way? God used fallible men in the Old Testament to convey His message to His people. Jesus affirmed the authority of those who succeeded Moses and the prophets (Matt 23:2). David, Moses, Abraham, Joshua all were sinful men. Yet, theirs sins in no way negated the validity of God’s word issued through them. The Old Testament is preparation for the New.

To us Catholics much has been given and much is expected. Many of us have not been living our spiritual lives in the fullness of our faith. Disunity is rampant. As high as 75% don’t even go to Mass. Over half of us don’t think abortion is a sin. The same pecentage of us don’t believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.
The devil whispers in our ear, "These are not sins, you don’t have to go to confession and we listen to him and not only kill our consciences but our immortal souls in the process.

The Protestants are doing the best with what they have and a good Protestant who practices his/her faith to the fullest is better than a bad Catholic.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To us Catholics much has been given and much is expected. Many of us have not been living our spiritual lives in the fullness of our faith. Disunity is rampant. As high as 75% don’t even go to Mass. Over half of us don’t think abortion is a sin. The same pecentage of us don’t believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.
The devil whispers in our ear, "These are not sins, you don’t have to go to confession and we listen to him and not only kill our consciences but our immortal souls in the process.

The Protestants are doing the best with what they have and a good Protestant who practices his/her faith to the fullest is better than a bad Catholic.

I have seen the figures to which you are referring and they are pretty close. It’s very sad. They don’t even care to seek the truth.

 

[justasking4]

[po18guy;3103552]JA4, what caused some books to be included in the canon of the NT and others to be excluded? Why aren’t the Gnostic Gospels in there? Why was there such debate over Hebrews, which was not signed? Without a bible, how could the early church fathers ever know? They had no table of contents - they were writing it! TRADITION. What they were taught - that which was handed on to them. The oral teachings were Tradition. The bible exists as written documentation of much of the oral Tradition, but it’s not all. You want to know where it all is? You know the answer to that one already.

The table of contents of the bible is a tradition. If you do not believe in Tradition, just where in the bible does it spell out what the table of contents should be? Where is the written instruction for including or excluding books? You trust Luther with 66 books. Where in the bible does it say that? But, Luther trusted the ECFs with 73 until his ego lead him astray and he started ripping out the scripture (quoted by the Apostles!) that looked, well, a little too catholic.

The formation of the canon is a complex subject that would require pages to explain.

If you really look into church history,if you really desire to know the early faith, you will run headlong into catholicism. If you ignore the Early Church Fathers, if you ignore faith history before the reformation, you have what you have now. Thousands of private interpreters all disagreeing with one another over the same words! Where in the bible does it say that is correct?

Are you aware that your church has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses? Think what this means for you. It means you as protestants must rely on “private interpreters” since you have no certainty what those verses not interpreted mean. There are literally thousands of different interpretations in the catholic church.

You gotta have Tradition, with a capital T. Otherwise, it’s fair game and you end up with preachers claiming that God wants you to be successful, and that baptism is not needed.

Peace, brother.

If that is the kind of interpretations you have heard i agree with you that this kind of thing is incorrect.

 

[justasking4]

“upon this rock I will build my church.”

“I will send my Spirit to guide you into all truth”

“and, lo, I am with you to the end of time”

Now where in these verses do you get the idea that the church would be kept from error? In all cases with these verses it does not necessarily follow that error would be impossible.
Look at Peter when he confessed Christ under the influence of the Spirit and in the next instance he denies Christ. All under the influence of the Spirit. I could bring up other examples to make my point.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The formation of the canon is a complex subject that would require pages to explain.

You have the floor. But you don’t have to explain it to us, because we already know. We have history, theologians, archeologists to prove how the Bible was compiled, and how it was agreed to which books were inspired and which were not. I don’t find it complex, but then I love history.

Are you aware that your church has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses? Think what this means for you. It means you as protestants must rely on “private interpreters” since you have no certainty what those verses not interpreted mean. There are literally thousands of different interpretations in the catholic church.

That’s because Catholics don’t cherry pick verses out of context. The Bible is to be understood as a whole, according to the teachings of the Magesterium, which compiled Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Catholics are not free to speculate on the meaning of John 6, where Jesus says we must eat His body and drink His blood, for example. But some verses speak more to some than others. As long as it does not contradict doctrine. I happen to love the Gospel of Matthew. Some like John better.

 

[po18guy]

The formation of the canon is a complex subject that would require pages to explain.

I can do it in three: Holy Spirit, Tradition.

Are you aware that your church has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses? Think what this means for you. It means you as protestants must rely on “private interpreters” since you have no certainty what those verses not interpreted mean. There are literally thousands of different interpretations in the catholic church.

New to me. You should study the Catholic faith more - from a Catholic source. There is one teaching, regardless of how many follow it, and infallible teachings come about only in response to heresies. Ideally, nothing should have to be infallibly defined. The fact that it is tells you that someone has been disobedient and it trying to lead the faithful astray…

If that is the kind of interpretations you have heard i agree with you that this kind of thing is incorrect.

“Some” Evangelicals believe that no baptism is necessary, and have gone so far as to assert that the amniotic fluid is baptism by water. See what I mean about private interpretation?

Christ’s peace.

 

[sterryfamily]

Now where in these verses do you get the idea that the church would be kept from error? In all cases with these verses it does not necessarily follow that error would be impossible.
Look at Peter when he confessed Christ under the influence of the Spirit and in the next instance he denies Christ. All under the influence of the Spirit. I could bring up other examples to make my point.

Sir, the Spirit is completely incapable of error. Do you not consider the Scriptures to be error free?

Your contention is WAY out of line from what the early Christians beleived - what they were taught by the apostles. Your ideas come from modern traditions invented by men who want to oppose Christ’s Church. Investigate the Early Church Fathers and you will find the truth.

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3108556]Sir, the Spirit is completely incapable of error.

I agree. However men do error. It happens in protestant churches and catholic. There is no way around this fact.

Do you not consider the Scriptures to be error free?

In the original autographs not in our translations.

Your contention is WAY out of line from what the early Christians beleived - what they were taught by the apostles. Your ideas come from modern traditions invented by men who want to oppose Christ’s Church. Investigate the Early Church Fathers and you will find the truth.

Have you read the fathers works? I’m not talking about quotes but the actual works themselves?

What little i do know about the early church is that there were all kinds of ideas about things.

 

[davidv]

Are you aware that your church has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses? Think what this means for you. It means you as protestants must rely on “private interpreters” since you have no certainty what those verses not interpreted mean. There are literally thousands of different interpretations in the catholic church.

Yes I am aware of that. It means I can explore, in a very large sandbox, how the written word of God can apply to my life. It also means that the Church is not the “oppressive rule maker” that it is often made out to be.

And if the thousands of different interpretations are in line with the teachings of the Church (and this highly possible, I believe) then all is well and good.

 

[sterryfamily]

I agree. However men do error. It happens in protestant churches and catholic. There is no way around this fact.

In the original autographs not in our translations.

Have you read the fathers works? I’m not talking about quotes but the actual works themselves?

What little i do know about the early church is that there were all kinds of ideas about things.

Again, your interpretations come from your particular tradition - what you were taught by your parents, pastors and friends as well as books you may have read, etc.

Your interpretations and understandings differ vastly from what the apostles taught. You really must reflect honestly on this.

Do you believe that God is not capable of protecting His people from erroneous teachings like He promised? Like He demonstrated in the Old Testament? Do you really believe He left us orphans against his promise and that he would allow the gates of hell to prevail against the Church he told us he came to establish?

The apostles and all Christians for the first 1500 years did not believe this. Think about where you got your ideas.
Seriously think about it.

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3108832]Again, your interpretations come from your particular tradition - what you were taught by your parents, pastors and friends as well as books you may have read, etc.

Your interpretations and understandings differ vastly from what the apostles taught. You really must reflect honestly on this.

Can you give me a couple of examples of “Your interpretations and understandings differ vastly from what the apostles taught”?

Do you believe that God is not capable of protecting His people from erroneous teachings like He promised?

Being capable of and doing so are 2 different things. In the case of protecting from error He never promised that. If anything He warned that false teachers would come into the church and decieve many. Thats the issue.

Like He demonstrated in the Old Testament?

How so?

Do you really believe He left us orphans against his promise and that he would allow the gates of hell to prevail against the Church he told us he came to establish?

He did not leave us orphans but that does not mean we are protected from error. There have been times when “hell” has gotten the best of the catholic church. Just read its history.

The apostles and all Christians for the first 1500 years did not believe this. Think about where you got your ideas.
Seriously think about it.

i have and i hope you do the same for your church. There are some very serious errors in the catholic church that are not being addressed.

 

[sterryfamily]

Being capable of and doing so are 2 different things. In the case of protecting from error He never promised that. If anything He warned that false teachers would come into the church and decieve many. Thats the issue.

.

That’s your interpretation and it differs greatly from what the early Church understood and taught. You have been mislead, my friend. Read history