Tradition, I want to know why you (those that do) reject it.

[JudeT]

I was reading 2 Thessalonians 2 today and I came across a passage I found this

13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you** to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

16May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

Now this seems to me like its saying, respect sacred tradition. So I pose a question to you, protestants who deny catholic teachings and traditions such as purgatory, and the Marian doctrine ect.

Martin Luther and all of the reformers believed in these basic teachings (purgatory, Marian doctrines) and had no problem with them.

If you would like to see some of these quotes I am speaking about, check out this site,

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

My question is, why do you (those that do) reject all of this plus an infinite amount of texts supporting sacred tradition, and who is your authority? I hate to be blunt but my perception is- is it is"Some Guy" from the 1800’s colonial America?

If you haven’t read anything on sacred tradition, I would like you to possibly please read some of St. Catherine’s writings on tradition from 1906 years ago, and various quotes from Luther and other reformers.

And Please Please don’t turn this into a Sola Scriptura argument or try and twist that verse into some symbolic meaning, it says what it says.

Thanks and am eager for answers **

 

[teancum79]

To put it short and sweet I trust God to keep his word always revel things to prophets (Amos 3:7). I’ve yet to see anything in the catholic traditions that could not have been faked including but not limited to making up popes to connect them to Peter. I see vast differences between the Church Christ set up and the one that has been and is run by popes. And finally the Holy Spirit guides.

Traditions are nice, but they get trumped by scripture and continuing revelation every time.

 

[vocatio]

Teancum,
Sacred Tradition is differnt that man made tradition. And no where in the scriptures does sacred tradition teach different than scripture. The problem is that non-Catholics…let me qualify this…even uninformed Catholics…are not interpreting the scriptures correctly. I know…that comes across smug. But my point is that I used to mix up the two. But once I clearly heard this stated I knew a little better what to look for to 'catch those Catholic lies". Well, I’ve been back to Catholicism after a 17 year sabatical . The main question that I came up with after all those years beleiving in bible eventually led to “how do we know what the early Christians after the apostles practiced Christianity?” The second question that haunted me once I realzied some other problems dealing with the “Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown is “if all of those documents existed in the history of Chrisitianity, then how do we know which scriptures are inspired?” What makes a text inspired. I had all kinds of twisted ideas. So I started playing with the texts to see if I could eliminate texts to those that would be the right texts. The reason is because I saw Catholic believes that trumped the Protestant faith I was practicing…which really stirred me. I was literally scared. I thought, maybe I made a mistake. By the time I finished I had only Apostles, Matthew, John, Peter, James. But since John was crazy - evidenced by him writing the book of Revelation - he couldn’t be trusted. So I scratched John’s texts. Now I have Matthew, Peter and James. I really had issues with this idea and knew that this was just not logical or made any real sense.

That’s when I discovered the “Didache” and the early church fathers… Mainly Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and a few others. I quickly realized that the church beleived in apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, priests, Bishops, deacons, etc. I looked up the Greek words to find that I felt duped by my non-Catholic bibles. I had an enormous library of commentaries, Lexicons, dictionaries, other non-scripture texts [Philo, Josephus], and many translations of the scriptures. I studied and studied and kept running into one difference or inconsistency after another. So after seeing that the church was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, I knew that it must be the Eastern Orthodox Church. I conversed with several priests. It wasn’t what I’d expected. I knew that no one could possibly believe in that Mary stuff - rosaries, praying to dead people, Pope, Celibate Priests and some other things. As I learned more and more about Orthodoxy I discovered the many beleifs that were in reality the same as the Catholic Church only with a slight twist. So after discussing the matter with my wife for weeks I said I beleive we need to look into the Episcopal Church. Why? Married Priests. And they don’t get into that Mary stuff. While I’m looking at local churches and studying their beleifs I learned that Orthodox go as far back as the Catholics. Then I realized that their Bishops are Celibate. I also discovered that their deacons and priests if married at the time of their ordination are never available to marry if their wife dies. I also discovered that they have a chikoti, similar to a rosary, that they use to pray the Jesus Prayer. Theay also believe that Mary is the “Mother of God”, Recite the Nicene Creed, Believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, have all the same sacraments as the Catholic Church. In fact, I didn’t realize this at the time but I discovered that they were in union with each other before “the Great Schism” of 1052. I was shockec. They even prayed to Saints and Mary. I learned a lot of my Cahtolic faith by studying the Orthodox faith.

So what does this mean. That if you study history in depth you will find what the early Christians really believed and how they worshiped. We are the same today as they were then. That floored me… I nearly panicked and ran to find a priest to talk it over. Another week or two later I went into confession weeping like a baby.

The same scriptural reference used on this thread to show signs of “Sacred Tradition” or just tradition is part of the series of discoveries that shocked me. And I thought I was pretty good at scripture. But that’s another thread.

Just something to think about…“am I being honest by studying the many online documents available now on the internet or am I ignoring it and sticking my head in the sand?”

Pax

 

[dosdog]

To put it short and sweet I trust God to keep his word always revel things to prophets (Amos 3:7). I’ve yet to see anything in the catholic traditions that could not have been faked including but not limited to making up popes to connect them to Peter. I see vast differences between the Church Christ set up and the one that has been and is run by popes. And finally the Holy Spirit guides.

Traditions are nice, but they get trumped by scripture and continuing revelation every time.

The Oral Law and Our Own Opinions - Moses came down from the mountain, and began teaching the Torah to the Children of Israel. And whenever the Children of Israel came to ask a question, Moses was able to supply the answer. Yet we find that despite having studied the Torah directly from Hashem, there were at least three points of information that Moses did not know. In each of those three cases, the Torah makes it clear that they asked Hashem, and that Hashem very clearly told them the Law. beingjewish.com/mesorah/notchaotic.html

Although observing Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22). In many instances, the Torah refers to details not included in the written text, thus alluding to an oral tradition (Deut. 12:21).This oral tradition is now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim. aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

613 Mitzvot
Laws of Rebels include nine commandments, three positive commandments and six negative commandments, which are: (1) to act according to the Torah as the Great Rabbinical Court declares it; (2) not to deviate from their words; (3) not to add to the Torah either in the commandments of the Written Law or in the interpretation that we have learned from tradition; (4) not to take away from either of them; (5) not to curse one’s father or mother; (6) not to strike one’s father or mother; (7) to honor one’s father and mother; (8) to fear one’s father and mother; (9) that a son shall not be stubborn and rebellious against the voice of his father and mother.
jewfaq.org/613.htm

 

[dosdog]

To put it short and sweet I trust God to keep his word always revel things to prophets (Amos 3:7). I’ve yet to see anything in the catholic traditions that could not have been faked including but not limited to making up popes to connect them to Peter. I see vast differences between the Church Christ set up and the one that has been and is run by popes. And finally the Holy Spirit guides.

Traditions are nice, but they get trumped by scripture and continuing revelation every time.

Private Revelations

Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued.
catholic.com/library/private_revelation.asp

"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.

When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says:

“It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)” (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).

Since the Church herself has no providential protection in the area of private revelations, the bishop could be in error. We are not obliged to believe him, or even the Pope himself in such a case.
catholic-pages.com/bvm/private_revelations.asp
catholicplanet.com/apparitions/discernment.htm