You can't have it both ways.

[joe370]

Schaick, somehow we have meandered into the area of tradition:

In using the following Scriptures to support tradition the Catholic Church is using the Bible as the final authority in validating tradition. The tradition should be able to stand alone on it’s own merit for it to be equal in authority with Scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2
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 tradition we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Although that passage does support the use of sacred tradition, your statement is not true. The authoritative bible is not the final authority (for Christians belonging to the CC, or most PC’s as well, even though they claim it is ) - for validating tradition.

I believe the bible when the bible calls Jesus’ church the pillar and foundation of truth, and I believe that the bishops of His church are in fact the successors of the apostles, *(which is NOW, very important to me vis-a-vis the preservation of truth) *- and it is through this unbroken living transmission, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, (forever guided by the HS into all truth until the end of time) - that I can reliably trust what Jesus’ established church teaches, be it by word of mouth (oral tradition) - or letter (Written tradition). I believe Jesus when He promised to remain with his church “always, to the close of the age” and therefore, based on His promise, will always protect the teachings that he promulgated when he walked the earth, from within His established church, which, according to scripture, is forever guided by the HS, and nowhere in the bible is apostolic tradition frowned upon.

Schaick, I would agree with you that Tradition does not stand alone on it’s own merit, if the HS stopped guiding Jesus’ established church at some unspecified time in history, once the bible was finally codified by the CC, but that is un-biblical.

If the HS is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, and all truth is referring ONLY to the written word, the written word still needs a reliable, fallible interpreter, and that reliable, fallible interpreter can only be trusted as reliable if the infallible HS is still guiding this fallible interpreter into all truth, for all people, again, are fallible. Help me find that fallible interpreter?

 

[joe370]

;7049837]Christian people were inspired. They are nothing (just ask them); the Holy Spirit is everything.

Yes, Christian people were inspired. Yes, the HS is everything. No, people are not “nothing.”

Dok, what does any of this have to do with what Jimmy is saying? You are seriously losing me man. LOL…Perhaps you could address our posts instead of making nebulous statements - maybe?

 

[joe370]

Yes, Christian people were inspired. Yes, the HS is everything. No, people are not “nothing.”

Dok, what does any of this have to do with what Jimmy is saying? You are seriously losing me man. LOL…Perhaps you could address our posts instead of making nebulous statements - maybe?

 

[1234]

Um, actually He DID fit the criteria. It does matter what is in the OT because the New Covenant would not exist without the Old. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, He came to fulfill it.

But that’s an entirely different topic. I suggest you start it. You can explain why you feel Jesus didn’t fit the criteria of Messiah (which, btw, means anointed one, but I’m sure you know that) and then we can all get into a discussion about why He DID fit the criteria.

The OT belongs to the Jews, this is true. The Christian faith would not exist without the Jewish faith. They are our parent religion, in a way. The NT belongs to Catholic’s. But it’s only when you put the two together that the puzzle pieces slide into place.

I really wish we had more Jews on this forum who could answer these questions.

My understanding is that Jesus didn’t fit the criteria for the Messiah, and doesn’t fill them to this day. I don’t know what they are–I read them once, there are several, and why J didn’t fulfill them. It wouldn’t be hard to find out what they are and why Jesus didn’t fit them.

 

[nickybr38]

Interesting accusing GOD’s Word for splintering the Church when in fact it was man-made money for indulgences that did the final splintering.

Long before there was a Catholic Church- as opposed to the universal Church that Jesus built our early Church Fathers recognized what was Scripture. I have read that the New Testament could be written from the writting of the early Church Fathers, they referenced all but a small sampling.

Men don’t always listen to the Holy Spirit.

It is not just a Book but a concrete bit of evidence of what we need to do to have an amazing relationship with GOD.

Yes I understand GOD’s word won’t sway you. Actually Bible verses have swayed me and why I believe GOD’s Word to be sufficient in the matters of explaining what I need to do for my Salvation.

What do Catholic Sacred Traditions tell you is needed for your salvation?

Who decides what is GOD’S word and what isn’t? That’s all I’m asking.

 

[nickybr38]

I really wish we had more Jews on this forum who could answer these questions.

My understanding is that Jesus didn’t fit the criteria for the Messiah, and doesn’t fill them to this day. I don’t know what they are–I read them once, there are several, and why J didn’t fulfill them. It wouldn’t be hard to find out what they are and why Jesus didn’t fit them.

Well, as someone else said - the Apostles were Jews. The early Christians were Jewish converts. So obviously he did fill the criteria, otherwise these people wouldn’t have turned to Him.

St. Paul, for example, was a hardcore Jew. Yet, he too took up the cause.

I am doing a bible study right now that is explaining all of this and how Jesus fits the criteria perfectly but I haven’t finished it so I don’t have all the information. Otherwise I’d share.

 

[nickybr38]

Schaick, I would agree with you that Tradition does not stand alone on it’s own merit, if the HS stopped guiding Jesus’ established church at some unspecified time in history, once the bible was finally codified by the CC, but that is un-biblical.

You’re absolutely right. Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. One is nothing without the other. I think we see that all the time. Or at least I have.

Thank you for the correction. Right now I’m on FIRE for tradition because it’s what I’ve been missing all of my life (and consequently for all of my Christian walk). Us newbies are always annoyingly absolute.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You’re absolutely right. Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. One is nothing without the other. I think we see that all the time. Or at least I have.

Thank you for the correction. Right now I’m on FIRE for tradition because it’s what I’ve been missing all of my life (and consequently for all of my Christian walk). Us newbies are always annoyingly absolute.

 

[Acts242]

You’re correct the Holy Spirit inspired people… Catholic people… the same Catholic people that the Holy Spirit inspired to collect, put into otder, translated and approved the Bible… right?

That doesn’t sound accurate to me. The Scriptures are the inherant word of God. I think what is important is who wrote them and why.

 

[schaick]

Schaick, you said:

OK, but I am not questioning the veracity of sacred scripture; I am questioning how one can know, with certainty, which fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God is an error free interpretation?

There is only one interpretation.

If someone comes up with an interpretation out of context with surrounding verses, the chapter, book entire Bible it is wrong.

Is what Catholics keep saying is a wrong or different interpretation simply a different celebration, application of that one interpretation?

Remember we are not talking prophecies here but interpretations. Interpretations must also fit in context of their time and place.

Prophecies are a whole 'nother ball of wax- as in Revelations. We will not know the true interpretation of Revelations until it has actually happened. We can all discuss what we think it might mean, but until it happens we will not know. The Woman in Revelations 12 is it Mary?, the Church?, Israel?. The male child- Jesus?, some from Israel and the Gentile Church?

Do we need to know for certain what Revelations means for our salvation?

Dogmas about Mary no where in the Holy Bible does it say you must believe them for your salvation. Worshipping the Eucharist- no where does it say you must worship the Eucharist, but it does say you must partake of it.

Infallibility if the Pope, no where does it say you must believe this for your salvation.

How about infallibility of GOD’s Word? Must you believe in the infallibility of GOD’s Word for your salvation? In those Words are the rules you must follow to obtain your salvation. Rules that even children understand.

Maybe this will help- you say that the Catholic Church is the only one that is allowed to interprete because of authortiy passed down. Your sacred Tradition revolves around the authority of the Church and what you think is a right or wrong interpretation. The Catholic Church has also added things that it feels you must believe to be a member of that Church. Do you believe you have to believe them to be saved?

True authority of any Church a member of the one Jesus built should focus on the application of that interpretation-is it a correct application/celebration of faith?

The Church can not bind or loose something that is at odds with GOD’s Law, GOD’s Truths which are all laid out in the Holy Bible for everyone to see.

Anytime someone adds something that is not already mentioned in the Holy Bible in regards to what we need for our salvation is going against what GOD has already laid out for all of man to see.

 

[schaick]

You’re absolutely right. Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. One is nothing without the other. I think we see that all the time. Or at least I have.

Thank you for the correction. Right now I’m on FIRE for tradition because it’s what I’ve been missing all of my life (and consequently for all of my Christian walk). Us newbies are always annoyingly absolute.

Can you name a Tradtion required for you to believe for your salvation that only a member of the Catholic Church has acess to?

 

[nickybr38]

Can you name a Tradtion required for you to believe for your salvation that only a member of the Catholic Church has acess to?

Salvation… it’s always about salvation isn’t it? That’s not what we’re discussing friend. Way to change the subject.

Name a Tradition that IMPEDES Salvation would you? If you insist on going that route.

We’re discussing Scripture, and we’re discussing how Scripture was formed and decided THROUGH tradition. Without Tradition Scripture would not exist (yes, even Old Testament). Oral Tradition has kept this faith alive a very long time (at the beginning - even when we had written Scripture very few could read it).

Do you, or do you not accept this?

The two, Oral Tradition and Scripture, are intertwined. One means nothing without the other. I’ve said this again and again and yet here you are going on about Salvation.

I think, for those who are already baptised, the issue of Salvation is already sorted out. The issue at hand now isn’t Salvation, but obedience.

PS: I understand I’m out of my league here and probably shouldn’t be engaging in apolgetics at this point. I’m just a Catechumen. Sorry guys - I’ve always had a hard time keeping quiet. My fellow Catholics feel free to correct me if I’m making statements that contradict Catholic teaching. That’s what I’m here for, after all, to learn from other Catholics.

 

[1234]

Um, actually He DID fit the criteria. It does matter what is in the OT because the New Covenant would not exist without the Old. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, He came to fulfill it.

But that’s an entirely different topic. I suggest you start it. You can explain why you feel Jesus didn’t fit the criteria of Messiah (which, btw, means anointed one, but I’m sure you know that) and then we can all get into a discussion about why He DID fit the criteria.

The OT belongs to the Jews, this is true. The Christian faith would not exist without the Jewish faith. They are our parent religion, in a way. The NT belongs to Catholic’s. But it’s only when you put the two together that the puzzle pieces slide into place.

OK, so I googled “criteria for the messiah” and I am listing some of the top two hits from Jews. Jews take all of this very seriously and have a LOT of scholarship to back up their defense, so…beware–you’ll have to know your p’s and q’s for this one.

I would look at and read Jewish sources on this one–it’s* their* messiah, after all.

messiahtruth.com/response.html

26reasons.com/reason8.html–this by a cultural Jew who became Orthodox.

Why evangelicals should spend one billion dollars on converting 7 million people is beyond me. I can think of much better ways to spend their money.

 

[Jimmy_B]

That’s true and we also know that the Magi, or " Three Wise Men" and others came to celebrate the birth of Christ… and they brought gifts. However, the point I was attempting to make with RD and others here, who totally reject Christian traditions, is that Christmas, or Christ’s Mass is a Christian tradition. I also find it interesting how quickly some non-Catholic, Christians will reject or dismiss Christian traditions and yet will celebrate traditions like Thanksgiving Day…especially for those who claim to put Christ first in their lives. T

hen again, these same Christians, won’t have a problem with a giant statue of Abraham Lincoln, at the Lincoln Memorial in D.C. but will have a problem with a little statue of St. Mary. It’s almost as if, for some “Christians”, secular traditions are more important than Christian traditions and I don’t understand that. The thought the expression went - “God and Country” …in that order.

This is something that I posted on another thread.

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Schaick, you said:

OK, but I am not questioning the veracity of sacred scripture; I am questioning how one can know, with certainty, which fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God is an error free interpretation?
There is only one interpretation.

If someone comes up with an interpretation out of context with surrounding verses, the chapter, book entire Bible it is wrong.

OK…

Is what Catholics keep saying is a wrong or different interpretation simply a different celebration, application of that one interpretation?

If it is merely different, but still true, then logically speaking, there can be 2 applications/interpretations, which of course is impossible, if in fact there is only one truth leading to one application, regarding any one teaching, such as the Eucharist. For the remainder of our debate let’s assume that the CC is not the church founded by God. Let’s assume what most protestants believe; let’s assume that Jesus left the world with ONLY His authoritative word of God for each and every Christian to authoritatively interpret as they see fit, as opposed to His authoritative church, forever guided by the HS. This will be a very helpful starting point.

Remember we are not talking prophecies here but interpretations. Interpretations must also fit in context of their time and place.

Agree…

Prophecies are a whole 'nother ball of wax- as in Revelations. We will not know the true interpretation of Revelations until it has actually happened. We can all discuss what we think it might mean, but until it happens we will not know. The Woman in Revelations 12 is it Mary?, the Church?, Israel?. The male child- Jesus?, some from Israel and the Gentile Church?

OK…

Do we need to know for certain what Revelations means for our salvation?

If you are referring to the book of Revelation then I say no. Revealed truth found in the bible, such as: unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you - then yes.

Dogmas about Mary no where in the Holy Bible does it say you must believe them for your salvation.

The CC agrees with you, so let us move passed that protestant obstacle. Jesus’ mother is not our savior; Jesus is our savior!!!

Worshiping the Eucharist- no where does it say you must worship the Eucharist, but it does say you must partake of it.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. To some, the Eucharist is nothing more than mere bread, a symbol of Jesus’ body, (talk about adding to scripture…) - and if this bread is wrongly worshiped then the person worshiping the bread is rightfully guilty of idolatry, which means every Christian belonging to the CC, EOC (and most Lutheran churches) - for the last 2000 years, is in big trouble, if you are correct. On the other hand if the bread truly becomes Jesus’ body - “my flesh is true food,” then you are wrong my friend, which is why I am asking you a very straightforward question:

Which fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God is an error free interpretation regarding the Eucharist? Like you just said:

*“If someone comes up with an interpretation out of context with surrounding verses, the chapter, book **entire Bible it is wrong.” ***

Infallibility if the Pope, no where does it say you must believe this for your salvation.

Agreed…

Continued…

 

[joe370]

How about infallibility of GOD’s Word? Must you believe in the infallibility of GOD’s Word for your salvation?

Yes, but first one must know the infallible truths regarding God’s infallible word - eg, “unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you.” Someone is wrong regarding this teaching and it is a very important teaching! This teaching is critical, according to the bible, to obtaining eternal life; not my word. Please use the bible as the Christians final authority, (since you believe it is the Christians final authority for resolving differences) - to settle this Eucharistic dispute, once and for all? Which fallible interpretation of the Eucharistic doctrine is the correct interpretation? Your interpretation and my interpretation will not suffice for the simple fact our interpretations do not settle the matter, once and for all.

Let’s really focus on this point, for if the bible is the Christians final authority, either God was unclear as to what He was talking about, (which calls into question either the veracity of the holy bible as being the authoritative, inspired word of God, or the veracity of the person interpreting the authoritative, inspired word of God) - or God was clear as to what He was talking about, and left us with the means to know the truth regarding His inerrant word of God? If the bible is the Christians final authority and God was clear regarding the truths found in His word, then how does one go about locating these clear truths in light of all those pesky misinterpretations being peddled, out there in the world, with bible alone in hand?

In those Words are the rules you must follow to obtain your salvation. Rules that even children understand.

You and I both follow those rules, (rules that even children understand) - that lead to salvation, yet we both are being led in different directions! If these rules are so simple, then again, give me a simple answer to the question regarding the Eucharist…an answer that all Christians, regardless of denomination, will embrace as truth, as opposed to an answer that will continue to be rejected by one party or the other?

Maybe this will help- you say that the Catholic Church is the only one that is allowed to interprete because of authortiy passed down.

I never said that the CC is the only church that is allowed to interpret scripture; anyone can interpret scripture as can be attested in the world today. I am merely suggesting to you, as per the bible, that Jesus’ church, comprised of all sinful fallible members, is the only church that can infallibly teach and interpret scripture, in view of the fact that the holy spirit (GOD) - is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, until the end of time; again, not my words. If you do not believe that this church is the CC then simply help me find this church? Again, let’s pretend that the CC is not that church, and go from there?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Your sacred Tradition revolves around the authority of the Church and what you think is a right or wrong interpretation. The Catholic Church has also added things that it feels you must believe to be a member of that Church. Do you believe you have to believe them to be saved?

I have covered every single supposedly “invented” tradition, as a former protestant, and none of them are the cause of our salvation. The blood of the lamb, JC, is our one and only savior, and we are to **eat his flesh if we want eternal life, according to the bible, and yet so many protestants downplay this very important fact, mostly through no fault of their own; they simply believe what their pastors are teaching. **Surely you must concede that knowing the truth, regarding this essential doctrine is so important regarding eternal life?

True authority of any Church a member of the one Jesus built should focus on the application of that interpretation-is it a correct application/celebration of faith?

Which brings me right back to my original question: If the HS is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, and all truth is referring ONLY to the written word, the written word still needs a reliable, fallible interpreter, and that reliable, fallible interpreter can only be trusted as reliable if the infallible HS is still guiding this fallible interpreter into all truth, for all people, again, are fallible. Help me find that fallible interpreter that can give us the correct interpretation? We can’t focus on the correct application until we know, with certainty, the correct interpretation - right?

The Church can not bind or loose something that is at odds with GOD’s Law, GOD’s Truths which are all laid out in the Holy Bible for everyone to see.

What can the church bind and loose, and to what church was Jesus referring? I agree that Jesus’ Church cannot bind or loose something that is at odds with GOD’s Law, GOD’s Truths… so why would God entrust to His church the power to bind and loose? Perhaps the answer is staring us right in the face - perpetual guidance of the HS until the end of time? If the HS is not forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, then why would God give the command to His established church, to bind and loose?

Schaick, some doctrinal truths, which are laid out in the Holy Bible are interpreted differently, and what is at odds with God’s law, God’s truths… is a matter of subjectivity when the bible is left in the hands of each and every Christian, for them to individually interpret, as they see fit. Each Christian determines whether or not a particular doctrine such as the Eucharist, is fallible or infallible. This is a serious problem for sola scriptura in my opinion and know one will give me any solid support for the bible alone being the Christians final authority!

Again, let’s leave the CC out of the discussion and use the bible alone to align everyone, doctrinally speaking. Until we do this, those truths which are laid out in the holy bible really aren’t truths unless those truths can be discerned by all. For example, 2+2=4 and no one doubts this truth, ergo it is a truth. Let’s use the same simple logic to discern the truth regarding the Eucharist, using the bible alone as our one and only authority for resolving doctrinal differences?

Anytime someone adds something that is not already mentioned in the Holy Bible in regards to what we need for our salvation is going against what GOD has already laid out for all of man to see.

I could continue to say that the man-made tradition, sola scriptua was invented and you could continue to say that catholic tradition is invented, but what’s the point at this juncture considering the fact that you and I will, no doubt, always diverge. I reject the SS and you reject the traditions of the CC; let’s move passed those 2 irreconcilable differences, for it is only distracting attention from my question regarding the sole authority of the bible versus the authority of any one church.

 

[HCC]

Sola Scriptura:

Protestants take on the authority of TRADITION that the Holy Bible is the Word of God.

Why do they celebrate the feasts of Christmas and Easter?

What are some other practices Protestants take on Tradition?

 

[joe370]

Hey Nicky, excellent points…You said:

Name a Tradition that IMPEDES Salvation would you? If you insist on going that route.

I can name some books that are found nowhere in the bible today, but were embraced by many in the early church as canonical, and some books found in the bible today, but rejected by the early church in certain parts of the Roman Empire, which begs the question: how would the bible alone doctrine have worked for the first 400 years of Christianity, prior to its codification? I soon learned, as a former non-Catholic, that we owe it all to the CC for clearing up this doctrinal matter once and for all, and if we can trust the CC regarding this major task then we can trust the CC regarding other tasks, and we can trust the CC because Jesus said to His established church: * “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” *

If the CC introduced bogus tradition, over the centuries then it is just as possible that the CC added bogus books to the NT, but of course no non-Catholic will ever entertain that possibility for the simple fact that the bible, as opposed to their church, is their authoritative Kernel, all the while deferring to the authority of their church leaders. The ironical part is the fact that all protestant church pastors/teachers claim just as much authority when it comes to teaching error free doctrine, (as does the CC) - vis-a-vis the bible alone.

I soon began to ask myself: Why the need for the authoritative interpretation of a Pastor, (regardless of denomination) - when the sola scriptura advocate can simply take it right to their final authority which is the bible? As a former protestant I was always told that the CC teaches heretically regarding certain teachings found in the bible, but, if the bible alone, as sola scriptura advocates insist, is the Christians final authority for resolution, then no one has the right to question anyone else, and that is the achilles heel of sola scriptura in my humble opinion!

Can you imagine if that system of logic was applied to say, something like, the National Electrical code? If every person or each individual electrician was an authority unto himself, interpreting the Nation electrical Code, we would have chaos in the the country and probably quite a few injured people. It would be like playing with fire. The analogy is quite apropos in light of all the division in Christianity which took shape at the advent of the protestant reformation and the newfangled doctrine, SS. Of course Martin Luther never planned for this doctrine to morph into what we see today. Once authority was transfered to the inspired word of God, in lieu of the church founded by God, doctrinal division ensued. The Bible (as does the NEC) - needs an authoritative body of overseers…needs the authoritative church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 (forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth) - to interpret it.

For me, as a former protestant, I simply wanted to belong to the church that has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit, (authority) to keep her, as the bride of Christ,** from falling into error as a body, in matters of faith and morals regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat,** and that church is the church to which Jesus said: I will build my church…and everyone must find there own way to that church, through the labyrinth of man-made churches and their corresponding teachings, that we see today, not to impugn the wonderful works of these churches founded by mere man as opposed to Jesus.

We’re discussing Scripture, and we’re discussing how Scripture was formed and decided THROUGH tradition. Without Tradition Scripture would not exist (yes, even Old Testament). Oral Tradition has kept this faith alive a very long time (at the beginning - even when we had written Scripture very few could read it).

So very true… Sola scriptura would have been absolutely impossible. The process of recognizing the written word of God involved a human process of discernment by the Magisterium (teaching authority) - of the church founded by Jesus, (which I now believe is the CC) - over many centuries of time, but sadly, most protestants will not recognize the indispensable role that the CC played when it comes to their final authority, the bible alone, and many of my friends will attempt to use their bible, given to them by the CC, to discredit the CC; quite the oxymoron.

I think, for those who are already baptised, the issue of Salvation is already sorted out. The issue at hand now isn’t Salvation, but obedience.

Obedience really seems to be the bone of contention for most non-Catholics, but, ironically, most of them have no problem being obedient to their church Pastors/leaders.

Regarding salvation, I agree to a degree. I, no doubt like yourself, and many non-catholics do not embrace the whole “once saved always saved,” doctrine but many, like my sister, do embrace it, even though Paul clearly disagrees.

 

[joe370]

Sola Scriptura:

Protestants take on the authority of TRADITION that the Holy Bible is the Word of God.

Jimmy asked that question as well, but don’t hold your breath. Those are clear traditions of the CC, established by the leaders of the CC, found nowhere in the holy bible. Believing in the assumption of Mary is a big no-no, but celebrating our Lords birthday once a year or commemorating His death once a year, even though it is not a command of the bible, is allowable. If something is not to be believed or done, if it’s not in the bible, eg the Mass for example (according to protestants) - then why are these 2 things done once a year, by protestants? At worst, they ignore you; at best, they will say that it just makes good sense. But who knows, maybe someone here at this thread will surprise us all.

What are some other practices Protestants take on Tradition?

In my experience, the following:

The man-made false doctrine that “this IS My Body,” as said by Jesus Christ Himself in
the bible, is really only “a symbol” of His body. Where did Jesus Christ ever say, “This is a symbol of my body?” Here is yet another example of a false charge against the Catholic Church, as it is NOT Scriptural. This is merely another Protestant man-made tradition. When the reformers (who all, but one, believed) - separated themselves from the Catholic Church, they lost the Sacrament of holy orders, and now do not even acknowledge it, and therefore, based on yet another man-made tradition believed by no one for 1500 years, reject a valid priesthood to consecrate the host so that the HS can transform the bread and wine into the real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of Jesus Christ.

The man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is a Protestant tradition.

The man-made doctrine of individual Interpretation of Holy Scripture which is frowned upon scripture itself. Sola scriptura rejects any church authority, making the bible their one and only authority via individual interpretation.

The man-made doctrine of not baptizing infants. Whole families according to the NT were baptized. Interestingly, Protestants attack the Catholic Church for baptizing infants, yet nowhere in Scripture does it say, “Do not Baptize Infants.” It’s not like they can go to an outside source to prove their point if the bible is the be all end all regarding everything.

The man-made doctrine of baptism by Immersion Only. Some, (not all) - protestants attack the Catholic Church for not baptizing by immersion. This is a false attack, as the Catholic Church does baptize by immersion. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that says “Baptism must be done by immersion,” however, so a lack of Scriptural proof makes that charge another protestant tradition.

The man-made doctrine that “Catholics worship Mary.” I learned that this was a man-made tradition in my protestant days. I have asked them to show me where scripture says that but no takers? If they cannot then I ask them to show me the authentic Catholic document which tells Catholics that they must worship Blessed Mary? Zip Zero Notta…This is yet another protestant invented tradition concocted specifically to attack the CC with yet another false, and baseless charge. I have witnessed this one first hand!

The man-made doctrine which reputedly shows that the “catholic Church apostatized” in the early centuries and is therefore, not the Church which Jesus Christ founded. This charge is certainly not scriptural, and it is not even historical, as no genuine historical document has proved this to be true. From the first fathers to the last, spanning over five centuries, they mention the CC by name and how it grew and expanded. There is not one word of this “Great Apostasy” which Protestants invented, yet, protestants teach this as one of their man-made traditions. I do not understand why non-Catholics read secular history but shun the wealth of historical documents regarding the most important historical topic, the history of Christianity.