Tradition of men and catholic dogma

[Mintaka]

Cathoholic said:

Tell me about all the Baptists that founded hospitals due to TB, Leprosy, and other chronic incurable diseases before profits were to be made off of this as today.

Just a word to the wise – actually, there are a fair number of Baptist hospitals down South or out West, many of which were originally charity or very low cost hospitals. Many US denominations founded hospitals in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

Obviously, the Catholic Church has founded a lot more hospitals and for a lot longer. St. Fabiola founded the first charity one back in ancient Roman times. (St. Jerome has an interesting letter about how Fabiola was much more practical than intellectual, which didn’t get her much respect among all the St. Paulas of Jerome’s Bible study friends. Nobody including him thought it would work. But St. Fabiola made it work, with her own hands, which is one for all the St. Marthas of the world.)

But there’s no need to overstate our case in regard to other Christian groups.

 

[pablope]

In the NT many times Jesus says to people he is speaking with, you have herd it said but I tell you it is written, or you follow the traditions of men added rules regulations as Catholics do etc] than quotes the bible.

My question to Catholics is is not the catholic church a great example of mans traditions? many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture. Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men.

what would the catholic response be thanks.

Well…let me ask…how about those adhering to the tradition of Sola Scripture…borne out of the 1500s…are those adhering to Sola Scriptura following the traditons of men or a Biblical tradition?

If you say Biblical tradition…where is the the tradition of SS in the Bible, to begin with?

And how about those who have discarded the Divine Liturgy as the manner of worhship for Christians after the 1500s…are they following the traditions of men also?

How about those who have adopted a Bible with 66 books…are they following the tradition of men who chose to disregard 7 books in the OT sometime in the 1800s following traditions of men?

On this…My question to Catholics is is not the catholic church a great example of mans traditions? many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture…when you read and cite the interpretation of your pastor, author, on a certain passage, cite books, confessional documents (like the Westminster, the Baptist Confessions here { en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_confessions }…are you not doing the same thing?

 

[Ignatius]

jjsmity, you are mixing up scripture. Jesus does not speak of tradition many times. Jesus speaks of traditions exactly once.

The formula “You have heard that it was said” followed by “But I say you” is only in Matthew 5. Jesus says this five times. Each time he is taking some point of the mosaic law and elevating it, raising the bar for Christians. This has nothing to do with traditions but about the Law of Moses.

Jesus speaks about tradition exactly one time. This is recounted in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Here he is speaking of the hypocritical tradition of dedicating money to the temple when it was supposed to be for the care of your elderly parents. Money dedicated to the temple was called corban. People did this to avoid spending money on their parents and later withdrew the money from the temple after their parents died. Jesus is talking about the tradition of corban and of tithing small sums to the temple but neglecting to care for the poor.

The other time tradition is spoken of negatively is Colossians 2:8. Tradition is spoken of positively in 2 Thessalonians.

No mention of tradition in the Bible can be traced to anything Catholics do.

-Tim-

Excellent correction of the OP. This is very concise and clear. Thank you and may God richly Bless you.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

In the NT many times Jesus says to people he is speaking with, you have herd it said but I tell you it is written, or you follow the traditions of men added rules regulations as Catholics do etc] than quotes the bible.

My question to Catholics is is not the catholic church a great example of mans traditions? many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture. Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men.

what would the catholic response be thanks.

You have received some good responses regarding the flaw in your argument about “traditions of men”, but I have to respond to your comments about the Bible. The Catholic Church is highly focused on God and Bible. So much so that we actually organized our Scripture readings so that** the entire body of a billion Catholics receives the same message each week out of the Scriptures**. If one attends Mass for three years (including daily Mass) they will hear nearly the entire Bible read and expanded upon by the priest in His homily. It isn’t some pastor picking his favorite verses willy nilly. We have a missal which covers the readings for the Sunday Mass. And there is certainly no Imperial Guard at the door confiscating Bibles should someone want to bring one in. It’s just that it is not needed because of the highly organized unified manner of presenting Scripture. We dedicate half of our liturgy to the Word-- generally reading an OT passage, a Psalm, a NT passage from one of the letters and a Gospel reading. And they are generally tied together in a theme. The Catholic Church has taken greater care with making sure the entire Bible is heard than any protestant church I have ever studied or been a part of. Here is more of what the Church teaches about Sacred Scripture. To believe that the Catholic Church does not place an importance on Scripture is to believe a lie… three guesses who I think would just love for you to continue to believe that lie? Hint: Jesus saw him fall from the sky like lightning. Lk 10:18.

Most Catholics would say that most protestants do not follow Biblical doctrine or God because they do not believe Jesus words regarding the reality of His presence in the Eucharist (Jn 6:54-56), the authority of the Church He founded (Mt 16:18), and ignore the reality of the sanctifying grace conferred by baptism (Ti 3:5, Jn 3:5, 1 Pt 3:21) and the necessity for confession (Jn 20:23, Jas 5:16). All these are addressed in the Scriptures and handed down through His Church, unfortunately they were discarded by the traditions of men starting in the 1500’s.

 

[Mystophilus]

Just a word to the wise – actually, there are a fair number of Baptist hospitals down South or out West, many of which were originally charity or very low cost hospitals. Many US denominations founded hospitals in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

I do not know about the US situation, but Dissenters (non-Anglican Protestants) in the UK were instrumental in the formation of public libraries, the state school system, the public health system, the abolition of slavery, and a whole host of other socialist reforms.

 

[Erich]

25 posts later, but no response from the OP. Wonder if he’s even reading these responses?

 

[jjsmity]

wow allot here, thanks for taking time, when i have more of it i will respond and ask more questions, thanks.

 

[Mystophilus]

All Protestants believe in at least some variation of Sola Fide

Nope.

and look to the “God-breathed Word of God” in attempts to settle disputes and to know what to believe

Not only to that.

and all claim to be led to the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible.

Nope.

Anglicans alone are a motley crew; Protestantism as a whole is kaleidoscopic.

 

[jmcrae]

Nope.

Not only to that.

Nope.

Anglicans alone are a motley crew; Protestantism as a whole is kaleidoscopic.

Good point. The only thing that can be said about “all Protestants” is that they differ in at least one deal-breaker belief with the Catholic Church.

 

[TimothyH]

wow allot here, thanks for taking time, when i have more of it i will respond and ask more questions, thanks.

You mixed up a lot of verses Bible verses in your original post JJ.

-Tim-

 

[ptisme]

Well i am due to be received into the Catholic Church this Easter and i was given a free and beautiful Bible by the Church last Sunday and through the classes i go to each week we are encouraged to read it. When i started to really research the Catholic Church from my Baptist background i was very surprised at how my previous view of Catholicism (which was much like the OP) was completely wrong. The doctrines are biblical, the tradition does not replace God with men and the early Church was Catholic in my opinion. It’s the ancient Church, not a Church but THE Church.

This post made my day!

 

[steve_b]

in the NT many times Jesus says to people he is speaking with, you have herd it said

5 times it appears
biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=you+have+heard+that+it+was+said&version=RSVCE&searchtype=phrase&bookset=2

that tradition obviously refers back to what we call the OT
jj:

but I tell you it is written,

25 times it appears. biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=it+is+written&version=RSVCE&searchtype=phrase&bookset=2
And “it was written”, would have come from what we call OT writings. The NT was not only NOT written yet, the NT books wouldn’t be collected and canonized till 382 A.D. at the council of Rome. Meaning there WAS no difinitive NT for almost the first 400 years.
jj:

or you follow the traditions of men added rules regulations as Catholics do etc] than quotes the bible.

tradition of men is mentioned 1 time
Mark 7:8

Let me turn the question around. Do you think Baptists, started by John Smyth an ex Anglican in ~1609, aren’t a manmade tradition?
jj:

My question to Catholics is is not the catholic church a great example of mans traditions?

Take a look at this quick timeline.
The Catholic Church has been here in every age. And we see it “in writing”. It is the one and only Church Jesus said He would build, and give all His promises to. #34 please open up the internal links for context

Knowing who the Baptists come from, and when they were started, certainly you wouldn’t deny, that by definition, baptists are a manmade tradition. As is all of protestantism regardless of stripe, ALL are 100% manmade traditions.
jj:

many **outside **see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture. Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men.
what would the catholic response be thanks.

You as a baptist protestant, obviously haven’t been told in your tradition, where you got the bible from. The NT was written in, by, for the Catholic Church. Look at the timeline above. In every age there is the Catholic Church. And you see it “in writing”. Therefore, all the writers of the NT scripture are Catholics. They are writing to Catholics. And the Catholic Church selected only 27 books for the NT canon and canonized 46 books of the Septuagint for the OT canon. The canonization OT & NT took place in 382 at the Council of Rome. 73 books make up the bible that we have today. Which means for almost the first 400 years, there was no official bible.

I’ll stop there because I know this will start lots more questions

 

[ptisme]

wow allot here, thanks for taking time, when i have more of it i will respond and ask more questions, thanks.

Please don’t take this as rude but as a favor… In the future, could we all please start posts at a time when we can engage in the followups? Otherwise it comes across as a drive by…I think there were some well thought out responses to the OP and I was interested in the OP’s take on these responses… Thanks in advance. PT…

 

[ptisme]

In the NT many times Jesus says to people he is speaking with, you have herd it said but I tell you it is written, or you follow the traditions of men added rules regulations as Catholics do etc] than quotes the bible.

My question to Catholics is is not the catholic church a great example of mans traditions? many outside see the church see Catholicisms as far removed from biblical doctrine, quoting popes/bishops as authoritative instead of scripture. Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible, no bibles for the laity just what is read by priest. relying on traditions of men.

what would the catholic response be thanks.

My answer to you is this: Things are fine right now… But there may come a day in the future where you find yourself in the same fox hole as us Catholics… My suggestion is all these questions regarding the Catholic faith be honestly asked (like you did). If you can trust that we aren’t going against the Bible than you will feel comfortable being backed into that corner with us by your side.
regarding your OP I would suggest 2 Tim 3:14 points strongly at tradition. In the same letter Timothy is informed on how to pass on Christ’s teachings: 2 Tim 2:2. If that wasn’t enough there is this from St Paul: “So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2]

 

[Cathoholic]

Mintaka. You said (concerning my post here):

Just a word to the wise – actually, there are a fair number of Baptist hospitals down South or out West, many of which were originally charity or very low cost hospitals.

This is exactly WHY I also factored out today’s degree of profit-motive saying . . .

. . . . before profits were to be made off of this as today.

You cited the quote, but only emphasized part of what I was saying.

And there HAVE been some Baptist health facilities before a modern profit motive factor. And “very low cost” healthcare facilities today too. And I am not implying some of these Baptist health facilities are motivated by anything less than charity.

But in proportionality and duration, Baptist “saints” and Catholic Saints involved in health care are not comparable.

So when I see a statement like (from jjsmity) saying. . . .

QUOTE:
Having saints and men as leaders with little focus on god and bible,

. . . . . I will adamantly defend the Catholic Saints from being besmirched. I will also point out there are seeable tangible differences in health care around the world with Catholics and Baptists, AND I will likewise point out the seeable tangible differences in DURATION of this type of life, as well as the continued extolling of this type of life (hagiography), to serve as role models for us.

Baptists just don’t possess this array and duration of such living testimony.

You could merely limit yourself to looking at the late Mother Teresa or Saint Father Damien of Molokai, or go way back long before St. Vincent de Paul from the 1500’s (or his “Daughters” who are nuns that to this day devote their whole lives to this to this very day) and just keep going back for 2000 years of this.

They can read Butler’s Lives of the Saints daily and see Saint after Saint after Saint having such love for humanity that they ignore self-gain, and profit (and some Baptists recently do too) for the love of God in this area.

We mustn’t minimize the love these great Saints had and have for God . . . . especially when it has been called into question as jjsmity has here. (I am not suggesting you want to "minimize this incidentally)

We owe it to our Patrimony who have been exemplars of virtue, to contrast and show this kind of anti-Catholic shenanigans for what it is—inappropriate and at times dishonest criticisms of the Catholic Saints.

There is no Baptist patrimony that is comparative to these great Saints.

There are no Baptist monasteries that I am aware of where people offer their whole lives in prayer for the good of others, and there is no history of Baptist education passing on the torch of civilized society (as the Irish Catholics have) through the “dark ages” as the Baptist tradition wasn’t invented yet.

There was no 3-Catholic-Monk years of the handing down of Sacred Scripture in the Baptist tradition in pre-printing press days, as again, the Baptist tradition hadn’t been invented yet.

Meanwhile throughout the ages, Catholic monks were devoting their whole lives to passing on Sacred Scripture to ungrateful Catholics (like me) and other Christians.

 

[dcana]

Following are Mystophilus’ responses to these three of my assertions:

1, All Protestants believe in at least some variation of Sola Fide
2. All look to the “God-breathed Word of God” in attempts to settle disputes and to know what to believe.
3. All claim to be led to the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible.

1. Nope.
2. Not only to that.
3. Nope. Anglicans alone are a motley crew; Protestantism as a whole is kaleidoscopic.

1. Oh, my. I meant to say Sola Scriptura. I assume you caught my error, given the context, and responded accordingly. If so, then I stand corrected. Would it be accurate to say that this is true for all Protestants minus the Anglicans and Episcopalians? I know many A/E don’t consider themselves Protestants. IMO, they are, but if you accept that they are not Protestants, then would it be accurate to say that, in fact, all Protestants do believe in some version of *Sola Scriptura?
2. *They not only look to it, they give it a place in formulating doctrine that it does not, and cannot, have. Books don’t interpret themselves. It is literally impossible to read anything and not interpret the meaning in one’s mind. That should go without saying but many Protestants act as if the Bible were somehow “self-interpreting”. I believe Martin Luther came up with the idea of the so-called “perspicuity of Scripture”. According to good ol’ Wikipedia, quoting the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith:

The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that “…those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.**”

OK, “Westminster Assembly of Divines”, is baptism necessary for salvation or not? Is an explicit faith in Christ absolutely necessary for salvation or not? Is the Sacrament of Confession necessary for salvation (as, some would believe, mortal sins are forgiven through it) or not? Does the Sacrament of Confession even exist? Is receiving the Eucharist necessary for salvation or not? Jesus said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you.” Is he being literal or “symbolic?” What is the role of good works in salvation? Are they “filthy rags”, as some Protestants believe, or something else? Can one lose one’s salvation or is it eternally secure? I could go on, and on. It should be obvious that these things are most definitely NOT “so clearly propounded and opened in…Scripture” that "not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."** If they were, then we all would agree on the answers to the questions above and we most certainly do not, your excellencies. You all say one thing, other Protestants, and I, say another. Why are you right and they wrong? How is it even possible that you disagree over any one matter which is “necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation,” given your assertion? Are they not educated enough? It doesn’t matter one way or the other, since you say, “not only the learned, but the unlearned”. Are they insincere? They are just as sincere as you are. Did they not make “due use of…ordinary means?” I tell you, they did. Then what is the problem? Your man-made tradition of the Perspicuity of Scripture is the problem. It is of the devil, not of God. We see what it has led to and God is not the author of confusion. Ergo…

If only you could know what would happen over the next centuries, you would be appalled.
**
Most** Protestants do look to the Bible as the sole source of doctrine.

1. ok… It seems to me they do, or at least should. Do you not claim to be led by the Holy Spirit when you read the Bible? I hope and pray that I am.

God bless

 

[dcana]

Some might find the next paragraph in the Wikipedia article useful. It quotes St. Augustine and St. Vincent of Lérins, who express the true Catholic teaching, over and against the idea of the “Perspicuity of Scripture” and “Scripture Alone”:

This doctrine is in contrast to other Christian positions like that of Augustine (+430), who wrote in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus that he “should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” and in On Christian Doctrine, says “Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church…” Vincent of Lérins (+445) concurs, “Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”

Good night, all

 

[Mystophilus]

1. Oh, my. I meant to say Sola Scriptura. I assume you caught my error, given the context, and responded accordingly. If so, then I stand corrected. Would it be accurate to say that this is true for all Protestants minus the Anglicans and Episcopalians? I know many A/E don’t consider themselves Protestants. IMO, they are, but if you accept that they are not Protestants, then would it be accurate to say that, in fact, all Protestants do believe in some version of Sola Scriptura?

I *was *responding to what you said, rather than presuming what you might mean.

As for sola scriptura, the answer is still “nope”: Anglicans and Methodists (and I would include us under Protestantism on the simple basis that we split from Catholicism) have the articulated formula of Scripture+Tradition+Reason(+Experience). I think that at least some Lutherans use a similar formula. Many other Protestants actually *operate *on the basis of Scripture+Reason+Experience, but do not *articulate *it as such.

The same applies to your #2, for the same reason: the universalisation (“all”) is the problematic part. See also jmcrae’s comment on Protestantism.

Most

 

[dcana]

Thank you, Mystophilus, for your reply. Have a blessed Lent - do I ever need it this year!

God bless you and yours in these tumultuous times in which we live

 

[dcana]

Not sure where the OP went.