Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[justasking4]

Okay, forget the Tradition part. You can search that yourself. Could you please just tell us what you find to be “a lot of support” for the truth of the Bible?

Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking how we know its inspired-inerrant or why we believe its from God?

 

[CTA1967]

Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking how we know its inspired-inerrant or why we believe its from God?

How do you know that the Bible is more reliable than all other religious books? How do you know that you aren’t just living a huge lie?

 

[justasking4]

How do you know that the Bible is more reliable than all other religious books? How do you know that you aren’t just living a huge lie?

This is a huge topic and one that i can’t go into much depth here. There are a number of ways to know if it is more reliable than other religious books. For example the Bible has better manuscript evidence than any other ancient book in the world. The Bible has been shown via archeology to be incredibly accurate. It has life changing power for those who beleive it and put into practice its teachings.
I could also point out that Jesus thought it was true. This is significant in that He was God in the flesh and He would be our highest authority.
In terms of it being a huge lie doesn’t follow when you understand what the Scriptures teach. It gives us a true view of reality that cannot be denied rationally. Take for example the question: why is the world so full of pain, suffering and evil. It tells us that man fell and brought evil and sin into the world.
It tells us why there is the world and where did it come from. I think the best explaniation is that we are not from random forces but from a Creator who is absolute genius. No way you can get a living cell without a creator.

Try this. Read the Gospels this week. Pray for Christ to reveal Himself to you. Ask for something in prayer and look for His answer.

These things are just the beginnings. You must persist and keep seeking. You will probalby still have doubts and if so, come back and ask more questions.

Does this help? If not, let me know.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry it tooke me so long to get back to you, I was sick yesterddy.

Not so. The apocryha was considered deutrocanical and did not have the same authority as the other 66 books. Luther had some serious problems not only with some the theology in them but some were just plain wrong on historical facts.

So you admit that these were considered have the same authority until the time of Luther? All authorized Bibles since the Latin Vulgate contained all 73 books, until Martin Luther tried to remove books which did not agree with his doctrine of Sola Fide. This is a fact.
"justasking4:

The deutrocanical books were in dispute in the church and thats why they were put in at a “secondary status”.

Not true, see above

How do you reconcile this

The church is made of these fallen men though and comprise part the whole. If the parts are faulty then so is the whole.

Posted by justasking4:

This in itself should lead you to believe that they can and have erred.

qui est ce:

I know the Apostles were sinners, yet I accept the inerrancy of their teachings regarding teachings of Jesus.

with this

justasking4:

i do to.

justasking4:

i know catholics like to claim they cannot err because they are somehow protected by the HS from doing so.

qui est ce:

“what some catholics say” is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches.

justasking4:

the catholic church does teach this though. Doesn’t it?

Your post was inaccurate- it is the CHURCH, not men which cannot err in faith and morals.

justasking4:

I agree the HS does lead the church into error but men do.

Exactly, this is why manmade churches which split from the Catholic Church are in error.

justasking4:

How do you know when an individual person like the pope being led by the HS? What are the “signs”?

When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, from the Chair of Peter, he is under the influence of the HS. It’s in the Bible, the keys, etc.
qui est ce:

St. Iranaeus would not agree
""Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because** they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,** which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. …give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But **avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils **

justasking4:

i don’t see how this quote disproves my contention that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Can you show me where?

Heretics were false teachers see highlighted that as early as the 2nd century, “false teachers” preached against the Eucharist as geing the flesh of our Saviour. False teachers caused divisions, which is a grave heresy

1 Cor 1:10-13, 17

“I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters,
by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
I mean that each of you is saying,
“I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,”
or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
Is Christ divided?”

It is clear the Protestantism is divisive. Below, a few examples.

Baptism
Some denominations believe in infant Baptism as the washing away of original sin, some believe in a Baptism of Repentance, some believe Baptism is not necessary at all.

Eucharist,
Some believe it to be the Real Presence, some symbolic, some don’t do it at all

Salvation
Some believe “Faith Alone,” some Grace of God, some predestination.
Yet all base their beliefs on the Bible

justasking4:

Can you give me a couple examples of the things that Jesus did that are not in the NT?

I can give you Traditions that Jesus passed on:
Mass
Reconciliation
Veneration of his mother
Sunday worship

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

qui est ce;3249148]

Sorry it tooke me so long to get back to you, I was sick yesterddy.

hope you feel better today

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. The apocryha was considered deutrocanical and did not have the same authority as the other 66 books. Luther had some serious problems not only with some the theology in them but some were just plain wrong on historical facts.

qui est ce;
So you admit that these were considered have the same authority until the time of Luther?

No they did not have the same authority. It wasn’t until Trent that the catholic church brought them up to full canon status. The great Jerome was even against them until the church said otherwise.

All authorized Bibles since the Latin Vulgate contained all 73 books, until Martin Luther tried to remove books which did not agree with his doctrine of Sola Fide. This is a fact.

This is true in part. See my previous reponse for the differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The deutrocanical books were in dispute in the church and thats why they were put in at a “secondary status”.

qui est ce;
Not true, see above

How do you reconcile this

I just did above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The church is made of these fallen men though and comprise part the whole. If the parts are faulty then so is the whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Posted by justasking4
This in itself should lead you to believe that they can and have erred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui est ce
I know the Apostles were sinners, yet I accept the inerrancy of their teachings regarding teachings of Jesus.

with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i do to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i know catholics like to claim they cannot err because they are somehow protected by the HS from doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui est ce
“what some catholics say” is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
the catholic church does teach this though. Doesn’t it?

qui est ce;
Your post was inaccurate- it is the CHURCH, not men which cannot err in faith and morals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree the HS does lead the church into error but men do.

qui est ce;
Exactly, this is why manmade churches which split from the Catholic Church are in error.

Was the catholic church in error in when the pope and Tetzel sold indulgences to fiance the building a church in Rome?

 

[justasking4]

Part 2
qui est ce;3249148]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do you know when an individual person like the pope being led by the HS? What are the “signs”?

qui est ce;
When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, from the Chair of Peter, he is under the influence of the HS. It’s in the Bible, the keys, etc.

Anyone can say this. In fact the head of the Mormon church says essentially the same kind of thing at times.
Does this mean that unless the pope is speaking Ex Cathedra he is not being led by the HS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui est ce
St. Iranaeus would not agree
""Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. …give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i don’t see how this quote disproves my contention that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Can you show me where?

qui est ce;
Heretics were false teachers see highlighted that as early as the 2nd century, “false teachers” preached against the Eucharist as geing the flesh of our Saviour. False teachers caused divisions, which is a grave heresy

Actually there were already false teachers during the time of the apostles. See Philippians for example.

qui est ce;
1 Cor 1:10-13, 17

“I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters,
by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
I mean that each of you is saying,
“I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,”
or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
Is Christ divided?”

It is clear the Protestantism is divisive. Below, a few examples.

Baptism
Some denominations believe in infant Baptism as the washing away of original sin, some believe in a Baptism of Repentance, some believe Baptism is not necessary at all.

Eucharist,
Some believe it to be the Real Presence, some symbolic, some don’t do it at all

Salvation
Some believe “Faith Alone,” some Grace of God, some predestination.
Yet all base their beliefs on the Bible

It is true that we base our primary beliefs on the Bible and that there are differences of opinion on various doctrines and how they apply. Notice in your list that all protestant church believe in baptism, faith in Christ, sin etc. The difference is in how these should be worked out in the life of the church. That should be expected since the scriptures are not as clear on some things as on others.
Now lets look at a church that claims to have an infallible Magesterium and lets see if there is unity there.
1- Since the Magesterium has interpreted less than 20 verses infallibly you have multiple understandings on what various passages mean among catholics.

2- Along those lines what is a catholic to believe about creation;
was it mythical, done in 6 days or millions of years?

3- Is Mary the medatix of all graces?

4- Does divine revelation come only from the Scriptures or part of tradiition and Scripture?

5- What is the gospel? (i have talked to many on what it is and i get a variety of answers)

6- Must a person belong to the catholic church to be saved. One catholic document says you must and the other says no.

I could go on but hopefully you can see your church is not as unified as you may think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Can you give me a couple examples of the things that Jesus did that are not in the NT?

qui est ce;
I can give you Traditions that Jesus passed on:
Mass

Where did Jesus or His apostles teach the details of how the mass was to be done? For example did the church of the NT celebrate the “mass” the way it is done to in the catholic church?

Reconciliation

Veneration of his mother

Where did Jesus teach this?

Sunday worship

 

[guanophore]

That was the canon that the Jews had.

Do you realize that these were the Jews that rejected Jesus?

What is ST? Yes I rely on the early church of the 4th century that was used by God to determine the canon. I don’t reject all that the catholic church teaches. Do you accept all that your church teaches and has done?

Sacred Tradition, remember that dreaded word? The early church used Sacred Tradition to determine the authenticity of the books. That is why there is nothing in the NT that contradicts the scriptures. What is contradictory is your perception of them, becuase you do not read them the way Jesus and the Apostles taught.

The problem is that being without sin all her life is not part of the definition. That’s reading something into the word that is not there. It misleads people.

Why should that bother you, ja4? If you are not misled, then you are safe, right? What is your purpose in coming to a Catholic forum to champion the point that the Catholic Church is misleading people? What do you hope to accomplish?

Look for the historical evidence for her assumption. Look for it in scripture. What you will find in both cases there is none. Now ask yourself; how can this be true if there is no evidence for it?

You are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you choose, ja4. Catholics accept the sacred history that has been handed down to us through the Apostolic Succession. It seems to me that you are trying to pursuade Catholics to abandon this Tradition, and the beliefs that come from it.

I remember listening to Scott Hahn who tells about his coming to the catholic church and he said the marian doctrines were the most difficult to overcome. My question to him would be why? Why was this so difficult to overcome?

You can probably answer that better than anyone here! It has to do with trust. It is very hard to trust people, and the idea of trusting that God appointed fallible men to carry on His infallible Kingdom is just beyond the ability of some people, such as yourself.

 

[guanophore]

For Christians we can answer which is the right canon by what Jesus and the apostles quote from. That goes along way in answering this question.

I am glad we found something else we can agree on.

If only that were true that the catholic church cannot err. You have just admitted that its leaders are sinners and fallen.

You say these kinds of things because you don’t perceive the difference between the HOly Bride of Christ, whose soul is the HS, and the fallible members that belong to Her.

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.Eph 5:25-27

In denying the Holiness of the church, you deny the sacrifice of Christ. You accuse HIm of being either a weakling, or a liar, since He was unable to cleanse her, and present her to Himself.

This in itself should lead you to believe that they can and have erred.

ja4, it is not appropriate for you to come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics what they “should” and “should” not believe. It is clear that you are trying to lead members here to believe things other than what the Church teaches.

You have stated that you respect the truth, and that you don’t believe the Church teaches the truth. This places you in a position to violate the forum rules"

“Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.”

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

You have made it clear about your agenda, and that you don’t respect the faith of Catholics or the Church to which they belong.

i know catholics like to claim they cannot err because they are somehow protected by the HS from doing so. The problem is that Jesus never made such a promise to the church.

I challenge you to produce any such Catholic. Otherwise, I think this is just one more blatant falsehood, a slander created for the purpose of demeaning Catholics.

Third the scriptures actually warn of the possiblity and the reality of error in the church by warning that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. If Christ had promised He would protect the church from error this warning would be unnecssary and absurd.

This is not the case ja4. The fact that you are here on the forum promoting your own understanding of the Christian faith is a good case in point. Your views do not in any way change what the Catholic Church teaches. Both things can be true.

Teachings things about her that the scriptures never do and contradicting the scriptures clear teaching that all men are sinners.

Ok, ja4, it is clear that you are not in agreement with Catholic doctrine. What is your goal here? You beleive your understanding of the Scriptures is the right one, why not go your way in peace? What is it you hope to accomplish?

Each of these doctrines must stand on its own and see what the scriptures teach by looking at verses, contexts and word meanings. All these things would help to see which interpretation is right.

You are free to use whatever method your heart desires to help you understand what Christianity is all about. You believe that “scriptures teach”. Catholics believe that scriptures document, and people teach. Since you have already made up your mind what is right in your own eyes, what keeps you here?

 Are you aware that Jesus and His followers never taught that she was assumned? There is not one verse to support this for her supposed assumption. What this means is that your faith is not based on what the apostles taught in this regards.

This is a blatant effort to pursuade Catholics to ignore the Sacred Traditions, and to adopt your Sola Scriptura doctrine as authoritative. I think it is a form of evangelism.

In some cases i do in others i don’t. I reject the assumption of Mary on the grounds that the Scriptures never mention such a thing nor is there any historical support.

Here you have clearly stated that you reject the doctrine. You are not here to discuss, but to promote your agenda.

 

[guanophore]

Not so. The apocryha was considered deutrocanical and did not have the same authority as the other 66 books. Luther had some serious problems not only with some the theology in them but some were just plain wrong on historical facts.

The purpose of scripture is not to teach historical facts, but spiritual realities. Luther took out books that Jesus used. Jesus is shown in the gospels to be at the Feast of Lights, which is from the Maccabean times. Why would He recognize this feast, if it were not correct?

The church is made of these fallen men though and comprise part the whole. If the parts are faulty then so is the whole.

This is faulty reasoning, ja4. By this reasoning, Jesus is also faulty, because He is the Head of the Church. No, the faulty persons connected to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church do not change the nature of the church. On the contrary, the Church purfies the people, so that they can join the already purified members of the Body who are in heaven.

the catholic church does teach this though. Doesn’t it?

No. The Catholic Church teaches that the Charism of infallibility belongs to the Church, not the individual members thereof. I know you have trouble with this because you don’t distinguish between the two, and you have been taught hateful prejudice toward the Catholic Church.

I agree the HS does lead the church into error but men do.

Men are not the Head of the Church. Jesus is the Head. By sayings things like this, you are calling Jesus a weakling, or a liar. You are saying that the HS is incapable of accomplishing His plan to lead the Church into all truth.

How do you know when an individual person like the pope being led by the HS? What are the “signs”?

There are very few Catholics that actually have personal contact with the pope, and can see his manner of life.

In any case, his personal errancy does not nullify the gift of infallibility.

i don’t see how this quote disproves my contention that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Can you show me where?

People such as yourself, who attempt or succeed in pulling Catholics away from the One True Faith, do not change that Faith. You cannot stop the Church from teaching the truth, just because you want to teach something opposite. Those that persist in error are no longer part of the Church. The Church continues without such persons.

Can you give me a couple examples of the things that Jesus did that are not in the NT?

What Jesus taught is how to understand the scriptures correctly. Those who have separated from the Apostolic Faith do not have this teaching, and misinterpret what is written.

 

[guanophore]

What do you do when its shown the authority of your church has erred?

The authority does not err because it cannot. When persons who are in positions of authority err they are dealt with by church disciplines. Some of these are found in the canon law, others are pastoral in nature.

So you agree they never taught anything about it? So you agree its not in scripture?

No, just that it does not appear plain in the NT.

I agree that the Source of the Teaching is much more found in Tradition than the Scripture.

Let me encourage if you have not already done so but to read the NT thoroughly. See if you find anything on it.

What you are doing here is encouraging forum members to fall into what Catholics consider error. This is part of that “agenda” I was telling you about that violates the forum rules. You are encouraging forum members to look at the scripture the way you do (in isolation of Church teaching) and to reject doctrines that they cannot “find” in there, as you have done. This is a form of evangelism.

 

[guanophore]

No they did not have the same authority. It wasn’t until Trent that the catholic church brought them up to full canon status. The great Jerome was even against them until the church said otherwise.

.
I just did above.

No, you did not.

Was the catholic church in error in when the pope and Tetzel sold indulgences to fiance the building a church in Rome?

No. Peoples personal sins and errors do not cause the Church to fall into error any more that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus invalidates anything that Jesus taught.

Does this mean that unless the pope is speaking Ex Cathedra he is not being led by the HS?

This is just anti-catholic slander, ja4. Why would you say this about anyone who called themselves a Christian? This is an example of what I was talking about when I said you tear at the Body of Christ.

Notice in your list that all protestant church believe in baptism, faith in Christ, sin etc. The difference is in how these should be worked out in the life of the church. That should be expected since the scriptures are not as clear on some things as on others.

This is not true, ja4. Not all protestants do believe in baptism. If you doubt me, search “tabcom” and you will find some threads on that.

We do agree that the scriptures are not as clear on some things as others. This is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority to clarify, and commanded that disputes should be taken to the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Now lets look at a church that claims to have an infallible Magesterium and lets see if there is unity there. I could go on but hopefully you can see your church is not as unified as you may think.

You are apparently trying to find and emphasize division within the Body, ja4, and I can only guess as to the source of this behavior, as I have an idea who the prince of dissention is. Unity is based on doctrine, not on people’s personal opinions about it. All those who are in union with what Jesus and the Apostles taught are Catholic. Those that are not in unity with these teachings are not. Your efforts to find and expose people who are not in unity with the Apostolic faith do not in any way detract from that unity, any more than the Pharisees rejecting the purpose of God for themselves invalidates what Jesus taught.

Where did Jesus or His apostles teach the details of how the mass was to be done? For example did the church of the NT celebrate the “mass” the way it is done to in the catholic church?

The Mass is developed from the synagogue service, which is clearly attended by Jesus and the Apostles throughtout the NT. Jesus added the Last Supper, and this is what has been passed down from that day until this.

Where did Jesus teach this?

Where veneration of HIs mother is taught should be addressed on the Mary thread.

It looks like your “list” comes from one of those anticatholic websites. Can you tell us which one?