Tradition vs Sola Scriptura

[AFollower]

I’m trolling, so have fun.

We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible. Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.

Walk through some history with me and explain where the inerrent traditions were when…

The Crusades happened:

Let’s go and put together a large army and go kill Muslims and say the Lord told us to. Let’s not go on one trip to kill them, not two trips, but more! The last time we go, let’s not even attack the Muslims, let’s kill our Christian orthodox brothers and take their city of Constantinople.

Political popes and their nefarious deeds:

A crooked pope decides to be remembered for building St. Peter’s basilica, the only problem is he has no money to do so. No problem, let’s have cock fights and sell indulgences… brilliant.

The traditions of the church have blemishes, and of course the have blemishes because it is man made. People who are supposedly the vicars of Christ making absolutely appalling decisions and you want me to take the traditions at face value?

I simply cannot do so.

(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

 

[expectthebest]

I’m trolling, so have fun.

We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible. Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.

Walk through some history with me and explain where the inerrent traditions were when…

The Crusades happened:

Let’s go and put together a large army and go kill Muslims and say the Lord told us to. Let’s not go on one trip to kill them, not two trips, but more! The last time we go, let’s not even attack the Muslims, let’s kill our Christian orthodox brothers and take their city of Constantinople.

Political popes and their nefarious deeds:

A crooked pope decides to be remembered for building St. Peter’s basilica, the only problem is he has no money to do so. No problem, let’s have cock fights and sell indulgences… brilliant.

The traditions of the church have blemishes, and of course the have blemishes because it is man made. People who are supposedly the vicars of Christ making absolutely appalling decisions and you want me to take the traditions at face value?

I simply cannot do so.

(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

I think that you perhaps do not have a good understanding of what Tradition really is. The things you mentioned are not Tradition. These are bad decisions taken by Popes who were bad men. Tradition come in to play when talking about infallible matters. There are very specific circumstances for something to be declared infallible and free from error. The Church will argue that there has never been an instance where an infallible teaching, whether from Scripture or Tradition, has been changed by the Church. The Church teaches that a Pope or the Church in general cannot assent a belief to infallibility unless the belief is without error. The Church has not contradicted itself on anything after it has been declared infallible.

 

[Gamera]

Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.

And Catholics agree.

We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible.

Two different things: “tradition” with a small “t” is man-made and fallible, whereas “Tradition” with a capital “T” means the preaching of the Apostles (the “Apostolic Tradition”). The Bible says that the Apostles’ preaching constituted the word of God, not of men (1 Thes. 2:13).

The traditions of men are fallible. But Apostolic Tradition is the word of God.

 

[po18guy]

:yawn:

I asked my family and they said: :whacky:

 

[AFollower]

That is my whole point though. It is only part of the tradition of the Catholic Church when it supports the doctrine that the Catholic Church says is valid. Weird…

 

[po18guy]

That is my whole point though. It is only part of the tradition of the Catholic Church when it supports the doctrine that the Catholic Church says is valid. Weird…

Dude, you are on the other side of the world! What you describe is not tradition. Who told you this?

 

[vanillae]

You Protestant-thinking people always miss it. Crusades and “political popes” have nothing to do with Faith and thus in the Sacred Tradition. The word “Tradition” when it refers to the Catholic Faith is not how you understand it, but simply look at a reliable dictionary and you will have an idea.

This definition is from hyperdictionary.com:
That body of doctrine and discipline, or any article thereof, supposed to have been put forth by Christ or his apostles, and not committed to writing.

This one is from an epistle of Paul:
Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. --2 Thess. ii.

It only has something to do with salvation and not about trivial things that is not concerned with the revelation of God – the plan of salvation.

 

[Gamera]

That is my whole point though. It is only part of the tradition of the Catholic Church when it supports the doctrine that the Catholic Church says is valid. Weird…

Catholics believe that God’s word consists of two things: (1) Scripture, and (2) the Apostles’ preaching (1 Thes 2:13). The Apostles’ preaching is referred to as “Apostolic Tradition,” “Sacred Tradition,” or sometimes just by the shorthand “Tradition” (with a capitol T). It has nothing to do with traditions of men (small “t”).

Nothing can ever be added to Tradition (capitol T) because the Apostles aren’t around to preach anymore. God’s general revelation to humanity closed with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing new can be added to God’s word (Apostolic Tradition and Scripture). Therefore, by definition, anything said or done after the close of the Apostolic age is outside the scope of Tradition.

 

[clmowry]

These things have nothing what so ever to do with apostolic tradition vs. sola scriptura.

This is alot like arguing that SS is false because some protestant ministers have been known to engage the services of prostitutes.

People do good things and bad things.

These things neither validate nor disprove the belief system which they reportedly profess.

Chuck

I’m trolling, so have fun.

We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible. Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.

Walk through some history with me and explain where the inerrent traditions were when…

The Crusades happened:

Let’s go and put together a large army and go kill Muslims and say the Lord told us to. Let’s not go on one trip to kill them, not two trips, but more! The last time we go, let’s not even attack the Muslims, let’s kill our Christian orthodox brothers and take their city of Constantinople.

Political popes and their nefarious deeds:

A crooked pope decides to be remembered for building St. Peter’s basilica, the only problem is he has no money to do so. No problem, let’s have cock fights and sell indulgences… brilliant.

The traditions of the church have blemishes, and of course the have blemishes because it is man made. People who are supposedly the vicars of Christ making absolutely appalling decisions and you want me to take the traditions at face value?

I simply cannot do so.

(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

 

[quasimodo]

By the way, regarding the crusades: several points

1. most of the land that is now Muslim and that was Muslim at the time of the crusades once had thriving Christian cultures in them and many were predominately Christian. Islam invaded and subjugated and eliminated those Christian cultures. When all that was gong on Christendom did … nothing. They did not go to war.
2. Islam conquers by the sword and subjugates those whom they conquer.
3. Christendom only reacted when the Christian Eastern Emperor begged for help to save Christianity in its home land.
4. the Pope called on the kings, nobles and people to save Christianity from the continuing advance of Islam and their bloody sword.
5. the excesses of the Crusades were the result deeds of the kings and nobles and people who responded. Some the worst deeds were explicitly forbidden by the Pope and the Church prior to the event under the worst penalty the church could hand down - they happened anyway.
   I am not white washing the crusades - I am adding context. The fact that AFollower is not a Muslim today is due almost entirely to the Church and the people who answered her call for the defense of Europe so many times over the centuries. At one battle, early protestants sided with the Muslim forces. Had they won the day, AFollower would likely be Muslim and not Christian.

Regarding “Tradition:”
Typically, Afollower has decided what tradition means (i.e. he creates a strawman) and then attacks his creation, defeats it in his own mind and declares victory :extrahappy:

The only problem is Catholics do not use Tradition the way AFollower does. But, typically, Afollower ignores any attempts made to correct his (deliberate?) misunderstanding.

He said he is a troll. We should take him at his word.

(I wonder if he knows that the scripture he claims to cherish is a product of tradition … and that that scripture warns against bearing false witness. Apparently not)

 

[JimO]

I’m trolling, so have fun…
(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

If you are trolling, then you are using bait, so this is really a baiting exercise. If you really want to understand what “Sacred Tradition” is rather than traditions of men, then there are many Catholic resources that describe what Catholics believe regarding this issue. We can provide them if you like. You could start with this from the Catholic Answers library:

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

However, if you simply think it’s “fun” to troll, well then, let’s just say that’s probably not what Jesus would do and leave it at that.

 

[elvisman]

I’m trolling, so have fun.

We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible. Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.

Walk through some history with me and explain where the inerrent traditions were when…

The Crusades happened:

Let’s go and put together a large army and go kill Muslims and say the Lord told us to. Let’s not go on one trip to kill them, not two trips, but more! The last time we go, let’s not even attack the Muslims, let’s kill our Christian orthodox brothers and take their city of Constantinople.

Political popes and their nefarious deeds:

A crooked pope decides to be remembered for building St. Peter’s basilica, the only problem is he has no money to do so. No problem, let’s have cock fights and sell indulgences… brilliant.

The traditions of the church have blemishes, and of course the have blemishes because it is man made. People who are supposedly the vicars of Christ making absolutely appalling decisions and you want me to take the traditions at face value?

I simply cannot do so.

(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

The Catholic Church NEVER sold indulgences. Certain people within the Church did at different times but it was NEVER sanctioned by the Church.
**That kind of blanket statement holds no water - never has. I challenge you to prove it. **
**Happy hunting . . . **

 

[MarcoPolo]

That is my whole point though. It is only part of the tradition of the Catholic Church when it supports the doctrine that the Catholic Church says is valid. Weird…

Let me be another voice telling you your description of Tradition is in error. The Crusades are not “Tradition.”

If you think the behavior of members of the Church is indicative of a false church, do you then throw out Christianity because one of Christ’s hand-picked apostles was a traitor? I’m guessing no…

 

[JimO]

If you think the behavior of members of the Church is indicative of a false church, do you then throw out Christianity because one of Christ’s hand-picked apostles was a traitor? I’m guessing no…

So true. Our pastor is fond of saying that we shouldn’t judge the Faith by the poor practice of it by others.

 

[mercygate]

Cock fights?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m trolling, so have fun.

We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible. Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.

Walk through some history with me and explain where the inerrent traditions were when…

The Crusades happened:

Let’s go and put together a large army and go kill Muslims and say the Lord told us to. Let’s not go on one trip to kill them, not two trips, but more! The last time we go, let’s not even attack the Muslims, let’s kill our Christian orthodox brothers and take their city of Constantinople.

Political popes and their nefarious deeds:

A crooked pope decides to be remembered for building St. Peter’s basilica, the only problem is he has no money to do so. No problem, let’s have cock fights and sell indulgences… brilliant.

The traditions of the church have blemishes, and of course the have blemishes because it is man made. People who are supposedly the vicars of Christ making absolutely appalling decisions and you want me to take the traditions at face value?

I simply cannot do so.

(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

First of all - isn’t trolling and baiting considered a bannable offense?

As for traditions having the same authority as the bible - absolutely. The Teaching and oral tradition of The Catholic Church is what brought us the bible. But without teaching and tradition from The Catholic Church one is like using a 2 edged sword that can cut and harm them just as easily as it can be used for spreading God’s word. Get a license to use scripture before one starts swinging it - become Catholic through Catholic teaching. Anything else is very dangerous and probably self defeating and libel to harm you and others. But of course Protestants do not see this “do it yourself” self-study as a tradition of man either since hubris is always blind to itself. None in the early church ever believed in a self teaching bible - this is a tradition that Luther and the reformers started 1500 years after Christ. And Christ warned us that there would me such deluded men.

On Crusades:
Get a historical perspective - The Church was very slow at getting the kings and monarchs of Europe to come together to help defend Christendom of the invading Muslim hordes. Re-read history - the Crusades came centuries after the Muslims devastated the Holy Lands, turned holy places into public urinals and enslaved and brutalized Christians as second class citizens. The Muslims used live captured Christians to forge their swords on and anneal their steel by thrusting them with hot iron to extract the nitrogen from their bodies. The crusades were largely fielded by mercenaries who were not even true Christians and where under the control of corrupt kings seeking to expand their lands through the moral imperative of the pope’s call for help. These same kings even hired MUSLIM mercenaries to fight fellow Muslims that all did not get along.

Your fundamental problem is you have a very shallow knowledge of history and are buying into the popular anti-Catholic lies. Worse, you are admittedly trolling - this is not Christian behavior.

James

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m trolling, so have fun…(And these are just two issues that call into question the integrity of the Catholic Church and its teachings, there are many, many, many, more)

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Crusades happened:

Let’s go and put together a large army and go kill Muslims and say the Lord told us to. Let’s not go on one trip to kill them, not two trips, but more! The last time we go, let’s not even attack the Muslims, let’s kill our Christian orthodox brothers and take their city of Constantinople.

The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
http://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm.html

“From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.”

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

 

[po18guy]

The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
http://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm.html

“From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.”

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

The OP, being a self-admitted troll, has apparently done the manly thing and run away.

Protesting successors of Pilate, who repeat his mantra, “Qui est veritas?” employ pliable history and scripture that has become worthless as a rubber check.

Lord, have mercy!

 

[Catholicdeacon]

I’m trolling, so have fun.

“We know the bible is God’s word. We can agree on that. Where we differ is that the Roman Catholic church believes their traditions have the same authority as the bible. Protestants believe that the traditions of men do not have the same authority as the bible.”

Protestants choose to ignore one important historical fact. The bible came from the traditions of the church. Therefore their reliance on “traditions of men” is inevitable to get an authoritative “Word of God”. This is not just “Catholic propaganda” any reliable history book will corroborate this fact.

In His love

Catholic deacon