why do all non-Catholic churches celebrate/ commemorate (a tradition not found in the bible) - the birth of our Lord and Savior, once a year, on Dece

[joe370]

This is called a strawman argument.

You believe that my question is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position? Well, that certainly wasn’t my intent. As a former Lutheran, I was told by every protestant that I ever met that CC tradition was all made up by the leaders belonging to the RCC founded by someone other than Jesus, but no one will give me the name of that someone. Therefore these traditions were to be ignored outright, as spurious at best. Please give me the name of the church that does not reject catholic tradition?

Unless you are in a few denominations like Church of Christ, your belief system is not “If it ain’t in the Bible we ain’t doing it” (see a thread started be me a few months back ‘What
is Sola Scriptura’ for more detail).

 

[joe370]

MUCH confusion here…

When it comes to what you believe and what I believe there always seems to be confusion. LOL…But that’s OK; 2 brothers in Christ can still remain brothers in Christ, in spite of our differences.

1. Sola Scriptura is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the norming of doctrines.

 

[Rence]

I also said: if it’s not in the bible, it must not be believed. If it’s not found in the bible can it still be embraced as truth?

 

[joe370]

Hello Pastor…

Joe,

I think you are trying too hard to find discrepancies between Christians where they don’t exist.

Exactly my point. Traditions started by the CC (not found in the blessed, holy bible) - believed and practiced by almost all Protestant churches, in the world today, are being embraced, while other traditions, believed by the early church, (which is the CC) - are outright rejected, because they claim that these traditions are not to be found in the bible. How does one know which historical catholic traditions are to be believed and which historical catholic traditions are not to be believed?

 

[joe370]

I also said: if it’s not in the bible, it must not be believed. If it’s not found in the bible can it still be embraced as truth?

If you understand the origins of the Christian bible then you know that the Catholic Church preceded the Bible. So the question doesn’t apply to Catholics.

Agreed. That is why I directed it to a non-Catholic audience, but I always love to hear what Catholics have to say.

They were established BEFORE they put together the New Testament. In the NT it says that teachings would be taken from the Bible, as well as verbal traditions. So yes, the Catholic Church has teachings based on oral teachings and tradition, as well as the Bible.

Totally agree.

It’s not so much the date that bothers me, but the fact that almost all Christians, regardless of denomination, commemorate our Lords birth once a year, and nowhere in the bible does it tell us to do this. I was told that Mary’s Immaculate conception was not to be believed because it is found nowhere in the holy bible, so the same should apply to the commemoration of Jesus’ birthday, once a year, which also is found nowhere in the Bible?

Well, it shouldn’t bother you. If you don’t want to celebrate Christ’s birthday, you don’t have to.

I think you are missing the point of this thread. I am a former Lutheran who has converted to the Catholic faith. I believe everything that you believe. We are in the same boat my friend.

But no where in the Bible does it say you cannot celebrate Christ’s birthday. Certainly when the wise men came to celebrate the birth of Christ, nothing negative was written. It was a positive occurence.

And I don’t know who told you that the Immaculate Conception was not to be believed, because it’s a Catholic dogma. And while it’s not a dogma for the Eastern Catholic faith, they don’t teach for or against the Immaculate Conception. Of course, if you’re not Catholic, it’s not a dogma for you.

I am directing my question to those Christians outside the CC. Actually the EOC does believe; they simply refuse to call it the IC. They believe in a purgative interim as well, but refuse to call it Purgatory, otherwise they wouldn’t pray for the dead. They also elieve that our blessed Mother Mary was assumed bodily as well.

 

[joe370]

Not all “Protestants” celebrate Xmas as a “feast day”. I acknowledge Xmas as a cultural oddity which has been adopted into modern life…but Dec. 25th, Jan 6th are no different than any other days of the year…but in our Western culture those days carry significance for Western people who have been very influenced by Western Christianity through the Catholic church.

You do realize that your bible is a product of tradition, and these traditions were eventually committed to writing by the end of the 1st century, along with a bevy of spurious books, all claiming to be sacred scripture by the various heretical movements leading up to the codification of the holy bible, by the CC? The sacred books were eventually collected, selected, compiled and codified by the CC in the 4th century? Tradition was the benchmark by which the early CC could discern sacred scripture from pseudo scripture?

 

[joe370]

I would direct you to this thread, which I started a couple of months ago:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=417209&page=2

Maybe the two could be merged? (moderator?)

I will definitely check it out.

 

[joe370]

Jesus Christ never thought it necessary that we know His birthdate…If it was important for our salvation, He would have let us known a long time ago…

What Is important is how and what the Angel Gabriel said to the shepherds…the symbol of the star, being born in a lowly stable, and being placed in an animal feeder wrapped in swaddling clothes…

These have deeper meanings…conversion and nourishment…and protection…and…

Agreed. However, my point is: it is a catholic tradition that lies outside the scope of the holy bible, and yet this tradition is embraced by almost all Christians, regardless of denomination. Protestants unwittingly embrace catholic tradition. That was sort of the point of the thread.

 

[adstrinity]

These are false and deceiving traditions-

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII

Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. Pope John XXIII

Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff… cannot obtain eternal salvation. Pope Pius IX

Those ARE false and deceiving traditions!!! What Protestant came up with and began propegating them?

 

[AmateurPianist]

You believe that my question is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position? Well, that certainly wasn’t my intent. As a former Lutheran, I was told by every protestant that I ever met that CC tradition was all made up by the leaders belonging to the RCC founded by someone other than Jesus, but no one will give me the name of that someone. Therefore these traditions were to be ignored outright, as spurious at best. Please give me the name of the church that does not reject catholic tradition?

Yeah…the way the question was worded implied to me anyway that Protestants do not recognize any role for tradition. As I say, that is not true except if you are Church of Christ.

I also said: if it’s not in the bible, it must not be believed. If it’s not found in the bible can it still be embraced as truth?

Again, that definition of Sola Scriptura is only embraced by a few groups, for example Church of Christ, which I believe does not celebrate Christmas.

It’s not so much the date that bothers me, but the fact that almost all Christians, regardless of denomination, commemorate our Lords birth once a year, and nowhere in the bible does it tell us to do this. I was told that Mary’s Immaculate conception was not to be believed because it is found nowhere in the holy bible, so the same should apply to the commemoration of Jesus’ birthday, once a year, which also is found nowhere in the Bible?

Again, the definition…“we ain’t doing it if it is not found in the Bible” is only embraced by a few groups.

 

[schaick]

Well, in order to be called a “church” the organization should first be recognizably Christian. I don’t think the JWs qualify, honestly. And many (though not me) would argue that the SDAs don’t, either.

The Restorationist churches (the various Campbellites & Plymouth Brethren included) tried to start from a clean slate, Bible-only perspective. Of course, they are using a body of texts which itself bears the clear imprint of the Church Catholic, which raises a number of questions. I have read attempts by Church-of-Christers to explain the canon of Scripture as self-validating, none of which are epistemologically convincing. No matter how you try to disguise it, that argument boils down to “The Bible is true because the Bible says so,” a textbook petitio principii.

Self validationg as in they always were.

If thoses churches go directly from Old Testament and Gospel then that is not the case. The Old Testament and Gospels were always considered Scripture from the time they were first written.

The earliest Church Fathers and even Paul were quoting these texts before the Catholic Church was labeled the Catholic Church in- was it 200AD?

 

[schaick]

Those ARE false and deceiving traditions!!! What Protestant came up with and began propegating them?

I keep hearing 2 different stories from Catholics, on this forum and elsewhere. Christians are saved outside the Catholic Church, Christians aren’t saved outside the Catholic Church.

I was so shocked when I was told those things, that I posted those on a few threads trying to get answers, finally got one yesterday.

I was trying to figure out if the statements were said from “Peter’s chair” or not.

All of which makes me wonder how does Catholic laity know if something said by a Pope is supposed to be an infallible statement or just him talking off record?

 

[schaick]

Not all do. After a quick internet search I came up with this short list:

Jehovah’s Witnesses
Seventh Day Adventists
Church of Christ
Plymouth Brethren

There were more but I can’t remember the names as I type this.
It seems the most common reason for not celebrating Christmas is due to its “pagan roots”. I also found one guy that says he doesn’t celebrate Christmas because it is “Catholic and pagan”! Some of these folks don’t seem to celebrate birthdays of any kind. Must be a bummer being a kid there! I wouldn’t even ask them about the “tooth fairy”.

The problem is lumping all Trinitarian Christians in with non-trinitarian Christians and calling them Protestants.

We know that Jehovah Witnesses are non- trinitarian. I think some Seven Day Adventists are also non-trinitarian.

 

[Newbie2]

Agreed. However, my point is: it is a catholic tradition that lies outside the scope of the holy bible, and yet this tradition is embraced by almost all Christians, regardless of denomination. Protestants unwittingly embrace catholic tradition. That was sort of the point of the thread.

Exactly, and I “got it”.

So many times various Protestants, mainly fundamentalists, slam the Catholic Church for our “extra-biblical” traditions (and Traditions), yet celebrate Christmas traditionally on the same arbitrary day that we do. Curious.

Of course if they do celebrate it, they have to celebrate it sometime…and they don’t know any better than Catholics do when it actually occured…so it might as well be on Dec. 25th as any other day.

 

[Publisher]

You do realize that your bible is a product of tradition, and these traditions were eventually committed to writing by the end of the 1st century, along with a bevy of spurious books, all claiming to be sacred scripture by the various heretical movements leading up to the codification of the holy bible, by the CC? The sacred books were eventually collected, selected, compiled and codified by the CC in the 4th century? Tradition was the benchmark by which the early CC could discern sacred scripture from pseudo scripture?

I understand you beleive it as you have stated. It is no “secret” that the “undivided institutional church” preserved the scriptures through out the centuries…of that we can all be thankful.

 

[Palaeologos]

I understand you beleive it as you have stated. It is no “secret” that the “undivided institutional church” preserved the scriptures through out the centuries…of that we can all be thankful.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that the texts that were vetted and preserved were those texts which reflected the theology the Church had received from the Apostles and their successors.

In other words : the Church is not a church of the Bible. Quite the other way around : the Bible is the book of the Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Joe, Christians use the Catholic rite of baptism…they are essentially baptizing souls into the Catholic church!! to be joined to the Body of Christ.

If you didn’t have the Catholic Church, then you wouldn’t have the Reconstructionists, the protestants…

Tradition is the people part of the Bible imbued with the Holy Spirit down through the ages.

So really, you can’t have the Bible without the people…and the tradition is also the way the people read the Bible…the various protestant churches and groups have their own traditions as well in how they relate to Bible and follow it.

I think it is easier for Catholics to recognize the Holy Spirit at work in Protestants than Protestants recognizing us in how we relate through the Holy Spirit to Scripture. In fact, I think we use the word Scripture rather than ‘Bible’. ‘Take out your Bibles now for class’, is how it is used, but other than that, it is the words of Scripture…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I also said: if it’s not in the bible, it must not be believed. If it’s not found in the bible can it still be embraced as truth?

Again, Joe, you don’t seem to be aware that the practice of celebrating the Navitity of Jesus on December 25 is a PRACTICE. No denomination (including yours or mine) states as doctrine that Jesus was born on December 25. Doing so is a CUSTOM, a PRACTICE, it is - at most - “tradition” with a little “t.”

And it’s not a Catholic custom (amazing how so many Catholics don’t seem to be even be aware of The Oriental Orthodox Churches, The Eastern Orthodox Churches - to some, if it’s pre 1521 it’s Catholic; odd, very odd).

It’s not so much the date that bothers me, but the fact that almost all Christians, regardless of denomination,** commemorate** our Lords birth once a year, and nowhere in the bible does it tell us to do this. I was told that Mary’s Immaculate conception was not to be believed because it is found nowhere in the holy bible, so the same should apply to the commemoration of Jesus’ birthday, once a year, which also is found nowhere in the Bible?

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is DOGMA. Unique to one denomination, The Catholic Church. Celebrating the nativity of Our Lord on December 25, having hymnals, using a lectionary, embracing the Church Year, Advent Wreaths, church websites, worshipping on Sundays, having turkey on Thanksgiving, calling your clergyman “Father”, having a sign out by the road - all these are CUSTOMS, PRACTICES. Apples and oranges.

.

 

[Publisher]

The other side of the coin, of course, is that the texts that were vetted and preserved were those texts which reflected the theology the Church had received from the Apostles and their successors.

In other words : the Church is not a church of the Bible. Quite the other way around : the Bible is the book of the Church.

Or the institutional church chose those books which best reflected it’s developing theology…aprart from any apostolic influence or their sucessors.

I do not beleive the apostles were influencing agents in the formation of the institutional church…most of the apostles are only a list of names in the gospels…and we know nothing of their lives…aprart from Paul, who wasn’t an original apostle, and some “traditons” about Peter and John set forth by those who claimed to know them and be taught by them.

But then the Gnostics and Marcionites also claimed apostolic influence…some taught directly by John and Mark and Paul. All we really know about the “apostles” is legend passed on from the institutional church.

 

[gcnuss]

Hello Pastor…
Exactly my point. Traditions started by the CC (not found in the blessed, holy bible) - believed and practiced by almost all Protestant churches, in the world today, are being embraced, while other traditions, believed by the early church, (which is the CC) - are outright rejected, because they claim that these traditions are not to be found in the bible. How does one know which historical catholic traditions are to be believed and which historical catholic traditions are not to be believed?

Hi Joe,

I guess I’m puzzled by why you would think that other Christians would not celebrate the birth of our Lord on December 25th simply because Catholics do. Scripture doesn’t tell us to celebrate the Nativity but it does tell us that Jesus was born and that his birth was celebrated by the angels, the shepherds, and the magi. We are happy to join in that celebration with our Catholic brothers and sisters.

On the other side of the coin, a tradition that I have difficulty in adopting, based on the lack of scriptural evidence, is the celebration of the Assumption of Mary. Scripture tells us nothing of the end of the Blessed Virgin’s earthly life. I am quite willing to admit that she is in heaven – she has no equal as an example of faith and obedience. But how she came to be in God’s nearer presence, I do not know. And so, that is a tradition that I (we) have not adopted.

I don’t know if this helps you understand where I come from or not. I realize that in using the Assumption as a comparison I am dealing with something that has been dogmatically defined so I may be incorrect in looking at it as a tradition.