Sacred Tradition...

kelly1 · 21-01-2008 9:28pm #1

Dear friends,

as we all know, we frequently have debates about matters of doctrine and I would like to discuss the subject of Sacred Tradition.

It seems to me that from the numerous debates that I've been involved in, that non-catholic Christians seem to think that Christiantity began well with the apostles and then lost it's way around the time of Constantine and then found the true path again with arrival of Martin Luther.

I am fully aware that the Church lost it's way in many ways. e.g. simony, striving after political power, the Crusades etc but what I'm claiming here is that the very heart of the Church hasn't changed. The Church is charged with continuing Christ's saving work on earth. i.e. with teaching the truth, administering the sacraments as a means of conferring grace, providing guidance etc.

Despite the sins of the individual members, the Church is still Holy by virtue of the the grace that flows from the Head, which is Christ, into the Body which is the sum of all members of the Church.

So my question is why do non-catholic Christians/protestants not accept Sacred Tradition as being valid? Anyone who has studied the Early Church Father will know that Sacred Tradition was part of the Church from the beginning and in fact pre-dated Sacred Scritpure.

Christ founded a Church and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Yet there are those who seem to think that the Church has been teaching error since the death of the apostles. Since the early days of the Church, the following doctrines and traditions have existed:

- Purgatory
- Infant baptism
- Confirmation
- Ordination to the priesthood
- The Holy Eucharist and belief in the real presence of Christ in the Host.
- Confession to and absolution by a priest
- Mortal sin
- Sacrament of Exteme Unction
- The offices of Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Pope.
- Veneration of Mary and the saints.
- Use of sacramentals (holy water, blessed candles, crucifixes etc).

So I don't understand how people can deny these things given that they were in practice up to, during and since the reformation. The orthodox Churches have the same traditions. Why do people believe in Sola Scriptura and ignore or reject the authorithy of the Church? It's not a valid argument to say that it's OK to leave the Church because the ministers are sinners. The Catholic Church is a Church for sinners! It's is for those people who repent of their sins and are serious about doing God's holy will and take sin very seriously. The sins of priests does not make the sacraments invalid. Priest are Christ's instruments and all grace comes from Christ. Christ never promised that His disciples would be free from sin. Of course a priest has a special calling to holiness but his very striving for holiness makes him a prime target of Satan.

The Early Church Fathers are witnesses to the teachings and traditions that were taught and practiced by the early Church. See

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

All the doctrines and traditions that protestants reject, can be found in their writings. So can someone please explain to me why non-catcholic Christians reject Sacred Tradition despite that fact the Church predated the New Testament? Christ didn't just leave us a book as our guide. He gave us a Church to teach us the Truth and bring us Christ's saving grace.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 10:16 He that heareth you [the apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Matthew 18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you [the apostles] all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Thoughts?

God bless,
Noel.

Nevyn · 21-01-2008 9:40pm

Hey you forgot the doctrine for abortion and reincarnation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Run_to_da_hills · 21-01-2008 10:06pm

kelly1 wrote: »

.

It seems to me that from the numerous debates that I've been involved in, that non-catholic Christians seem to think that Christiantity began well with the apostles and then lost it's way around the time of Constantine and then found the true path again with arrival of Martin Luther.

What about the messianic Jews? These jewish believers in Christ have been around since the apostles. http://www.didgodlie.com/faq.html.

Christianity is Jewish. To start with all Christians were Jews. To the Messianic Jew's point of view, Christianity is the culmination of Judaism, the fulfillment of everything taught in the Old Testament. To start with, what we call "Christianity" was Messianic Judaism. Jesus wore the prayer shawls and the little hats. He attended synagogue. Much of His preaching occurred in synagogues. He observed all the Jewish feasts and festivals. He made the appropriate offerings and sacrifices to God.

After Paul started preaching Jesus to Gentiles that is to everyone who isn't Jewish the make-up of the body of believers began to change. There was conflict because some of the Messianic Jews wanted the Gentiles to go through the rites to become Jewish as well as believing Jesus as Messiah. Paul taught that this kind of attitude was wrong. Because he devoted so much time and energy to reaching out to Gentiles, telling them about Jesus and teaching them how to live as believers in Jesus, Paul created what became known as the "Church."

The "Church" consists of all people who believe Jesus is the Messiah that is the Anointed One of God who was born of a virgin, suffered on the cross to pay for sin, died and was raized from the dead. And, as a result, Christianity became a seperate religion from Judaism.

After Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, he made Christianity the state religion. He looked for a sect of believers who had a hierarchy in which one person became the leader of everyone else that was the Catholic sect. He became a Catholic because it gave him the most power.

After awhile, the Catholics split becoming the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Also, Constantine persecuted Jews and Jewish believers and the "church" became mostly Gentile while before it had contained a significant population of Jews. To start with, Jews treated Messianic Judaism as a Jewish sect, but after Constantine's persecution, many Jews no longer considered Messianic Jews to be Jewish.

Later, the Roman Catholic Church became very corrupt. For example, Priests were selling "Indulgences," which were literally “tickets out of hell.” No “Indulgence” is worth the paper it’s printed on if the person purchasing it expects it to do its job. Only faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior can do that, it’s free. Another example of their corruption was purposely keeping the masses illiterate and the Bible in Latin. This way, Priests had the power of being the only persons who could interpret the Bible and tell others what it said. There were other corrupt activities.

Martin Luther, who was a Catholic Priest at the time, wrote objections to what he'd been seeing and nailed the paper to the church door. This move began Protestantism, which was initially a protest movement against corrupt Catholicism. "Co-incidentally" the printing press was invented about this time and all of a sudden it was possible for anybody to own his or her own copy of the Bible. But a person still had to know Latin for the book to be very useful.

Martin Luther started his own “Church” which we know of today as the Lutherans. A Lutheran service will more closely resemble a Catholic service than any other Protestant denomination.

wolfsbane · 21-01-2008 10:36pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Dear friends,

as we all know, we frequently have debates about matters of doctrine and I would like to discuss the subject of Sacred Tradition.

It seems to me that from the numerous debates that I've been involved in, that non-catholic Christians seem to think that Christiantity began well with the apostles and then lost it's way around the time of Constantine and then found the true path again with arrival of Martin Luther.

I am fully aware that the Church lost it's way in many ways. e.g. simony, striving after political power, the Crusades etc but what I'm claiming here is that the very heart of the Church hasn't changed. The Church is charged with continuing Christ's saving work on earth. i.e. with teaching the truth, administering the sacraments as a means of conferring grace, providing guidance etc.

Despite the sins of the individual members, the Church is still Holy by virtue of the the grace that flows from the Head, which is Christ, into the Body which is the sum of all members of the Church.

So my question is why do non-catholic Christians/protestants not accept Sacred Tradition as being valid? Anyone who has studied the Early Church Father will know that Sacred Tradition was part of the Church from the beginning and in fact pre-dated Sacred Scritpure.

Christ founded a Church and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Yet there are those who seem to think that the Church has been teaching error since the death of the apostles. Since the early days of the Church, the following doctrines and traditions have existed:

- Purgatory
- Infant baptism
- Confirmation
- Ordination to the priesthood
- The Holy Eucharist and belief in the real presence of Christ in the Host.
- Confession to and absolution by a priest
- Mortal sin
- Sacrament of Exteme Unction
- The offices of Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Pope.
- Veneration of Mary and the saints.
- Use of sacramentals (holy water, blessed candles, crucifixes etc).

So I don't understand how people can deny these things given that they were in practice up to, during and since the reformation. The orthodox Churches have the same traditions. Why do people believe in Sola Scriptura and ignore or reject the authorithy of the Church? It's not a valid argument to say that it's OK to leave the Church because the ministers are sinners. The Catholic Church is a Church for sinners! It's is for those people who repent of their sins and are serious about doing God's holy will and take sin very seriously. The sins of priests does not make the sacraments invalid. Priest are Christ's instruments and all grace comes from Christ. Christ never promised that His disciples would be free from sin. Of course a priest has a special calling to holiness but his very striving for holiness makes him a prime target of Satan.

The Early Church Fathers are witnesses to the teachings and traditions that were taught and practiced by the early Church. See

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

All the doctrines and traditions that protestants reject, can be found in their writings. So can someone please explain to me why non-catcholic Christians reject Sacred Tradition despite that fact the Church predated the New Testament? Christ didn't just leave us a book as our guide. He gave us a Church to teach us the Truth and bring us Christ's saving grace.

Thoughts?

God bless,
Noel.

Great subject, Noel. I hope to address it more fully later, but perhaps you could point us to where several of these RC doctrines and traditions occur in, say, the writers up to AD200?

I'm especially interested in - The offices of Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Pope.

philologos · 21-01-2008 10:36pm

Noel: also the Church before the Reformation restricted how people could access the Bible. Any attempts to translate or read the Bible in their own tongue was considered heretical. This is what Anglicanism was about. Tyndale, and Cranmer both would lose their lives for this cause. Would it be out of order to refer to these men as martyrs?

Without the reformers, the concept of knowing Jesus through sacred writ would not exist as it exists today. Luther did this for the Germans, and the English reformers did this for England and the English speaking world. This led from Erasmus daringly publishing the Greek beside the Latin.

The very quotes you have wouldn't be available to you in English if the Reformation never happened.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6101527704063312894&q=The+Bible+Revolution&total=222&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
This is a good video on the matter.

The traditions weren't only the problem. I thank God this problem has been truly solved.

kelly1 · 21-01-2008 11:41pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What about the messianic Jews? These jewish believers in Christ have been around since the apostles.
.
.
.
.
.
Martin Luther started his own “Church” which we know of today as the Lutherans. A Lutheran service will more closely resemble a Catholic service than any other Protestant denomination.

I was hoping you might have a go at answering my questions.

kelly1 · 21-01-2008 11:44pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm especially interested in - The offices of Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Pope.

How about this for starters:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

Run_to_da_hills · 22-01-2008 12:11am

kelly1 wrote: »

I was hoping you might have a go at answering my questions.

Soul Winner · 22-01-2008 2:48am

kelly1 wrote: »

Dear friends,

as we all know, we frequently have debates about matters of doctrine and I would like to discuss the subject of Sacred Tradition.

It seems to me that from the numerous debates that I've been involved in, that non-catholic Christians seem to think that Christiantity began well with the apostles and then lost it's way around the time of Constantine and then found the true path again with arrival of Martin Luther.

I am fully aware that the Church lost it's way in many ways. e.g. simony, striving after political power, the Crusades etc but what I'm claiming here is that the very heart of the Church hasn't changed. The Church is charged with continuing Christ's saving work on earth. i.e. with teaching the truth, administering the sacraments as a means of conferring grace, providing guidance etc.

When the Church preaches the faith of Jesus Christ only then is the Church doing God's will. Only faith in God's Word gets God spirit in you and thus puts you in Christ and not appointed unto wrath. Nothing else can do it. Faith in god's Word is hanging your body on His promises. With the heart man believes and with the mouth proclamation is made unto salvation.

kelly1 wrote: »

Despite the sins of the individual members, the Church is still Holy by virtue of the the grace that flows from the Head, which is Christ, into the Body which is the sum of all members of the Church.

Do you know what the word "Holy" means? It comes from the Greek word "Hagios" which can also be translated to "Saint". It has to do with commitment, it is the giving of one's self for the exclusive use another. It is not restricted to religious connotations either, it can have various applications like marriage or loyalty to a club and so on and has nothing whatsoever got to do with righteousness or with the traditional view of what holiness is.

kelly1 wrote: »

So my question is why do non-catholic Christians/protestants not accept Sacred Tradition as being valid?

Because it is just that, tradition. Jesus had to contend with this in His earthly ministry when the Jewish Leaders of His day put their man made traditions in front of the Word of God and thus making it (the Word of God) void and of no affect. He said you make void the word of God by your traditions. It’s the same thing in Christianity. As time goes by institutions especially religious institutions forget what got them started and adapt or graft on traditions which go against how they came be in the first place. Take the table of the Lord for example. This was the fulfilment of the Passover feast which the Jews kept. It was not tradition to keep it, this was commanded by God that they remember His power to deliver them out of Egypt by observing it yearly as a feast day or literally a set time of the LORD. The practice of taking the elements (bread and wine) in the home was done away with by the established church and it was they and only they who could administer the elements. This is not New Testament doctrine. The first Passover feast in Egypt was done in the home and the first table of the Lord ’s Supper was done in a home, John Mark’s mother’s home to be exact. But the Catholic Church will say no that it can only be done in a Church building after the elements as blessed by a priest. BALDERDASH!!! Where tradition clashes with the Word of God you should side with the Word of God. Even their own practice of taking the elements is warped. They call it Mass. This word comes from Massa which were the little round cakes in the shape of the sun (sun worship) that the women baked for the queen of heaven in Egypt. It is pagan in origin and it was adapted and grafted onto the table of the Lord in the Catholic Church early on. The Pope’s hat is also a pagan symbol. As are his garments. The lighting of candles comes straight out of the false religions of Babylon, the first King of which was Nimrod whose name means rebel. Is anyone here going to disagree that the Catholic Church has adapted more paganism into its practices than any other Church in the world? I’ve given just a few examples. Easter, Christmas, Good Friday, and Mary Worship are all other examples of engrafted paganism with halos put on them.

kelly1 wrote: »

Anyone who has studied the Early Church Father will know that Sacred Tradition was part of the Church from the beginning and in fact pre-dated Sacred Scritpure.

Predated sacred Scripture yes because they were pagan rituals practiced an engrafted into the church and had halos put on them because the Church was powerless to stop the practice. But they were never intended by God to be practiced in the Church. What you seem to be confused about is that the Catholic Church is not synonymous with truth. You were just brought up to believe this as was I but it is not so.

kelly1 wrote: »

Christ founded a Church and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Yet there are those who seem to think that the Church has been teaching error since the death of the apostles. Since the early days of the Church, the following doctrines and traditions have existed:

- Purgatory – Tradition. Show me just one verse in the bible that even mentions purgatory.

- Infant baptism – Tradition. Show me just one verse in the bible that even mentions infant baptism.

- Confirmation – Tradition. Show me just one verse in the bible that even mentions confirmation in the catholic tradition sense of the word. The only way to get God’s spirit into you is by acts of faith not by making your Confirmation. I made my confirmation and that did nothing for me. Jesus said that “no man comes to the Father save the spirit draws him.” I came to God later in my life because I heard His Word being taught right.

- Ordination to the priesthood – Tradition. We are all priests unto God in the New Testament.

- The Holy Eucharist and belief in the real presence of Christ in the Host. – Tradition. The word is “Transubstantiation” where the wine and the host literally become the body and blood of the Lord. This is wrong. Yet more paganism engrafted onto the Catholic Church’s teachings. The word “cannibal” comes from “Kanna” “Baal” or Priests of Baal who ate the flesh of their God. It was a pagan ritual that was practiced long before Christianity came on the scene. When Jesus broke the bread He said remember me till I come as oft as you eat and drink of these elements. They were symbols of his body and blood not His actual body and blood. He Himself partook of these elements with His disciples in the last Passover supper (last because that feast was fulfilled in Him) and His blood was still in His veins then as was His flesh on his bones. We are to do it remembering what He did for us. We are made worthy by His blood (symbolised by wine) and with His stripes we were healed (symbolised by the bread. His stripes were the result of His scourging by the Romans which was prophesised by the prophet Isaiah as was His death.

- Confession to and absolution by a priest – Tradition. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgives us our sins. There is one mediator between man and God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. No need for anymore intercessors. He was touched with our infirmities and was tempted in all manner as we are but knew no sin. It is to Him we confess our sins no one else. For with the heart man believes and with the mouth proclamation is made unto salvation. Not a word about needing another priest in these quotes and if you need chapter and verse for any of the verse I’ve quoted thus far I can get them.

- Mortal sin – Is that a tradition or a condition? There were two sin offerings in the Old Testament, a sin offering and a trespass offering. The sin offering was for the condition of sin that we are born into and the sins of ignorance that we don’t know we are doing. The trespass offering was for the sins we know about. Both offerings were fulfilled in Christ’s one offering of Himself.

- Sacrament of Exteme Unction – What is that? I’ve never read anything about that in the Bible. I don’t know anything about that one so please enlighten me on it.

- The offices of Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Pope. – Tradition. God gave some apostle, prophets evangelists, pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints (committed ones) to the work of the ministry. Which said work of the minsitry is the perfecting of saints. You are a saint perfected or a saint being perfected. This also highlights the fact that saints are in need of perfecting. You start out as a saint, you don’t end up a saint hundreds of years after you die because the Catholic Church has decided to deem you as such. This is like what the Buddhists did with Buddha hundreds of years after he died. They said Buddha could not have done the things he did unless he was divine and yet Buddha said of himself that he meant nothing, all I he could lead us was the way he himself had to travel. The eight fold path which would break the chain of Karma which ultimately would lead to Nirvana. You start out a saint, a committed one.

- Veneration of Mary and the saints. – Tradition. Mary just replaced other Mother and Child worship that was already practice the world over in many different religions. They all came form one source in ancient Babylon. The wife of Nimrod who claimed to have conceived by a beam of sunlight after her husband died and returned to the sun had a child who’s name was Taumus. It is his birthday we celebrate at Christmas (or the feast of Saturnalia) as it was once called. The celebration of the rise of the sun back into the sky after the winter solstice. All these practices spread throughout the world and pop up under different names in various cultures. The Catholic Church adopted this form of worship and just put a halo on it by calling the woman Mary and the child Christ. It is paganism. Nothing in the New Testament writings that tells us we should worship Mary. Mary never understood Jesus. Even when she rebuked Him in the temple when he was 12 years old astounding the elders. He said to Her, “Wist you not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Then when she and the brothers of Jesus came for Him in His earthly Ministry (because he was embarrassing them due to the claims He was making about Himself) He said “who is my mother and brothers? These are my mother and brothers, the ones who do the will of the father who sent me” He rejected His natural mother in that sense. I’ll say one thing for her though, she mightn’t have understood Him but she was one of a very small few that hadn’t left Him when he was dying on the cross, but she was not to be worshipped. If she could speak today she’d tell you that herself. She was blessed amongst women no doubt about it but not to be worshipped.

- Use of sacramentals (holy water, blessed candles, crucifixes etc). – Tradition please read above.

kelly1 wrote: »

So I don't understand how people can deny these things given that they were in practice up to, during and since the reformation. The orthodox Churches have the same traditions. Why do people believe in Sola Scriptura and ignore or reject the authorithy of the Church?

God’s Word is the authority not the Church. The Church is supposed be based on God’s Word. Like it or lump it the Bible is God Testament to mankind not Church council decisions.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not a valid argument to say that it's OK to leave the Church because the ministers are sinners. The Catholic Church is a Church for sinners! It's is for those people who repent of their sins and are serious about doing God's holy will and take sin very seriously. The sins of priests does not make the sacraments invalid. Priest are Christ's instruments and all grace comes from Christ. Christ never promised that His disciples would be free from sin. Of course a priest has a special calling to holiness but his very striving for holiness makes him a prime target of Satan.

Anyone who acts in faith on God’s promises is more of a target for Satan than a priest who is caught up in traditions of men that make void the word of God. Satan is not going to bother them too much as he already has them nice and secure in his prison. Martin Luther recognised this and the rest as they say is history.

kelly1 wrote: »

The Early Church Fathers are witnesses to the teachings and traditions that were taught and practiced by the early Church. See

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

All the doctrines and traditions that protestants reject, can be found in their writings. So can someone please explain to me why non-catcholic Christians reject Sacred Tradition despite that fact the Church predated the New Testament? Christ didn't just leave us a book as our guide. He gave us a Church to teach us the Truth and bring us Christ's saving grace.

Thoughts?

God bless,
Noel.

I think I’ve already answered this above. It is not my goal to undermine anyone’s faith but I will not let ignorance rule where I can help it. What I’ve pointed out above are facts that pertain to the Catholic Church. They (the Catholic Church) are not the final authority on this earth nor where they ever that. They have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness for too long and thank God for the brave men in History (as portrayed in Jackass’ very good documentary) because without them we’d still be bound darkness and in the traditions of men that make void the Word of God.

philologos · 22-01-2008 8:19am

Noel, if you could get around to addressing my post it would be appreciated.

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

.
Martin Luther started his own “Church” which we know of today as the Lutherans. A Lutheran service will more closely resemble a Catholic service than any other Protestant denomination.

The Anglican tradition is seen to be the closest that we follow in Ireland to it, apparently.
ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission) work on relations between the two churches.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 10:52am

Jakkass wrote: »

Noel, if you could get around to addressing my post it would be appreciated.

You also seem to have ignored my questions on Sacred Tradition. In response to your question, my opinion is that reading and interpreting the bible outside the context of Church teachings is dangerous. Jesus entrusted His teachings to the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a book alone isn't enough. The Church has the final say on interpreting scripture because it has the authority to do so.

So Luther came along and told people is was acceptable to read and interpret scripture for themselves. And this lead to the maze of conflicting Christian doctrines that we see today.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN · 22-01-2008 11:08am

kelly1 wrote: »

You also seem to have ignored my questions on Sacred Tradition. In response to your question, my opinion is that reading and interpreting the bible outside the context of Church teachings is dangerous. Jesus entrusted His teachings to the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a book alone isn't enough. The Church has the final say on interpreting scripture because it has the authority to do so.

So Luther came along and told people is was acceptable to read and interpret scripture for themselves. And this lead to the maze of conflicting Christian doctrines that we see today.

God bless,
Noel.

A quick reading of Church History demonstrates that there has always been a maze of conflicting Christian doctrines. However, before Luther the Catholic Church was much more efficient at using violence to stamp out heresy.

Luther is important because he was one of the first 'heretics' to attract enough political clout to protect him from the flames of the Inquisition.

BTW, Noel, as a non-Catholic I certainly do not think that Christianity "found the true path again with the arrival of Martin Luther". Luther was a vicious sectarian anti-Semite who was happy to see those who disagreed with him persecuted and destroyed (eg the Anabaptists). All he did was replace a corrupt Catholic Christendom with an equally corrupt Protestant Christendom. However, his emphasis on 'sola Scriptura' did open the door for more authentic forms of Christianity to develop.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 12:21pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because it is just that, tradition.

Why is tradition necessarily wrong? Sacred tradition has existed from the very beginning of the Church. Confession, ordination, confirmation, belief in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament have all existed since the beginning. So I'm asking you how this is wrong!

Soul Winner wrote: »

The practice of taking the elements (bread and wine) in the home was done away with by the established church and it was they and only they who could administer the elements. This is not New Testament doctrine. The first Passover feast in Egypt was done in the home and the first table of the Lord ’s Supper was done in a home, John Mark’s mother’s home to be exact. But the Catholic Church will say no that it can only be done in a Church building after the elements as blessed by a priest. BALDERDASH!!!

Do you have any evidence to show that it was common practice for lay, non-ordained people to take the place of the priest during the consecration in which is said "This is My Body" etc??

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even their own practice of taking the elements is warped. They call it Mass. This word comes from Massa which were the little round cakes in the shape of the sun (sun worship) that the women baked for the queen of heaven in Egypt. It is pagan in origin and it was adapted and grafted onto the table of the Lord in the Catholic Church early on.

What a load of non-sense, you've been reading too many anti-catholic diatribe. Mass comes from the latin word missa, which means dismissal/sending out.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What you seem to be confused about is that the Catholic Church is not synonymous with truth. You were just brought up to believe this as was I but it is not so.

No, I wasn't brought up to believe this and didn't believe it until 5 years ago.

Soul Winner wrote: »

- Purgatory – Tradition. Show me just one verse in the bible that even mentions purgatory.

- Infant baptism – Tradition. Show me just one verse in the bible that even mentions infant baptism.

Why do these have to be in scripture?

Soul Winner wrote: »

- Confirmation – Tradition. Show me just one verse in the bible that even mentions confirmation in the catholic tradition sense of the word.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. 15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

See also Acts 19:5-6, Eph. 1:13, Eph. 4:30.

Soul Winner wrote: »

- Ordination to the priesthood – Tradition. We are all priests unto God in the New Testament.

Acts 6:6 These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. 7 And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. 3 Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

There are loads of example in acts of the imposition of hands which is the sacrament of holy orders. What do you thing the imposition of hands is about?

Soul Winner wrote: »

- The Holy Eucharist and belief in the real presence of Christ in the Host. – Tradition. The word is “Transubstantiation” where the wine and the host literally become the body and blood of the Lord. This is wrong. Yet more paganism engrafted onto the Catholic Church’s teachings. The word “cannibal” comes from “Kanna” “Baal” or Priests of Baal who ate the flesh of their God. It was a pagan ritual that was practiced long before Christianity came on the scene.

So again I ask you, is this tradition from the earliest days of the Church wrong? Was the Church wrong for 1500 years?

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

If the Eucharist is only symbolic, how can it be eaten and drunk unworthily? And how can a symbol bring judgement upon someone??

Soul Winner wrote: »

- Confession to and absolution by a priest – Tradition. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgives us our sins. There is one mediator between man and God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. No need for anymore intercessors.

Please explain to me then why Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins if He only meant for us to confess directly to God. And again you're ignoring the tradition of confession.

Soul Winner wrote: »

- Mortal sin – Is that a tradition or a condition?

It's a state. But it has always been taught by the Church and is discounted by Protestants now.

Soul Winner wrote: »

- Sacrament of Exteme Unction – What is that? I’ve never read anything about that in the Bible. I don’t know anything about that one so please enlighten me on it.

It's the same thing as Last Rites.

James 5:14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Soul Winner wrote: »

- The offices of Deacon, Priest, Bishop and Pope. – Tradition.

Yes, it is tradition and scriptural. The first three are all mentioned in scripture as in the imposition or laying of hands. The primacy of Peter is not explicit in scripture but it is clear that Peter is the first among the apostles.

See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I

Soul Winner wrote: »

God’s Word is the authority not the Church. The Church is supposed be based on God’s Word. Like it or lump it the Bible is God Testament to mankind not Church council decisions.

The bible makes it clear in 1 Tim 3:15 that the Church, not scripture, is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It is also clear from John 14:26, John 10:16 and Matthew 18:17 that God wants us to obey Church teachings.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think I’ve already answered this above. It is not my goal to undermine anyone’s faith but I will not let ignorance rule where I can help it. What I’ve pointed out above are facts that pertain to the Catholic Church. They (the Catholic Church) are not the final authority on this earth nor where they ever that. They have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness for too long and thank God for the brave men in History (as portrayed in Jackass’ very good documentary) because without them we’d still be bound darkness and in the traditions of men that make void the Word of God.

What you've shown me if how vehemently opposed you are to the Church founded by your Saviour. All of the comments you've made are not at all based on fact but rather on nasty lies and rumours put out by the enemies of Christ's Church.
It's clear that you've been reading way too many anti-catholic sites. The Catholic Church is the most persecuted Church in the world because the world lives in darkness and can't abide the light. You seem to have no idea just how much Satan is working to destroy the Church but he never will and we have Christ's promise for that!

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 12:28pm

PDN wrote: »

A quick reading of Church History demonstrates that there has always been a maze of conflicting Christian doctrines.

Could you give me examples please? Could I ask you also, do you place any importance on the writings of the early Church Fathers?

PDN wrote: »

However, his emphasis on 'sola Scriptura' did open the door for more authentic forms of Christianity to develop.

What he actually did was to open the floodgates of heresy by allowing people to interpret scripture for themselves. The result is that people began to reject the central doctrines of the Church. The threw out the internal organs and kept the skeleton. As I've argued before, the interpretation is scripture is not a straightforward matter and easily leads into false beliefs such as OSAS.

God bless,
Noel.

Run_to_da_hills · 22-01-2008 1:30pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Noel, if you could get around to addressing my post it would be appreciated.

The Anglican tradition is seen to be the closest that we follow in Ireland to it, apparently.
ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission) work on relations between the two churches.

It would not surprise me in the least if these two religious institutions are united within the next decade.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 3:04pm

Just to reiterate my question, why do people reject Sacred Tradition as found in the writings of the early Church fathers? Jesus Christ taught His apostles the Truth and the Holy Spirit inspired them when it came to writing scripture. But not everything that the Church teaches is found in scripture at least not explicitly. The writings of the Fathers only a couple of centuries after after the death of the apostles show that there are traditions which are not explicitly recorded in scritpure. I want to know why people reject these traditions? Did the Church fall in to error so soon after Christ's time on earth?

Just to give one example, St. Augustine taught the doctrine of Purgatory in the "City of God".

See Book 21, Chapter 13:

But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.

There are many more examples of the Church Father teachings on Purgatory:

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 3:18pm

Just on the same site, here's a link showing ECF teachings:-

http://www.staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm

What I'm trying to show is that Catholic docrines such as Purgatory, confession and the Eucharist etc aren't inventions. They were taught from the beginning.

Run_to_da_hills · 22-01-2008 4:00pm

kelly1 wrote: »

What I'm trying to show is that Catholic docrines such as Purgatory, confession and the Eucharist etc aren't inventions. They were taught from the beginning.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 4:11pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So am I! Why are you confused?

JimiTime · 22-01-2008 4:39pm

I think its quite simple Noel. You take the word of your church as truth. You trust it, have faith in it and believe it holy.

Speaking for myself, I simply would not and could not trust them. They have too many ungodly traditions and doctrines, along with a horrid history of violence and oppression. They do not represent My Lord one iota. However, you obviously don't have an issue with this, and continue to trust in them as your lord of truth. I don't know why you are confused. Some can't reconsile them with Christ, you obviously can. I think its that simple.

BrianCalgary · 22-01-2008 4:46pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Just on the same site, here's a link showing ECF teachings:-

http://www.staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm

What I'm trying to show is that Catholic docrines such as Purgatory, confession and the Eucharist etc aren't inventions. They were taught from the beginning.

I haven't responded here because of the number of questions raised and the time available to do the topics justice.

Confession: we are to confess our sins to God. We can also confess to our friends and ask for help in straightening out. The Bible never says that forgiveness only happens when you confess to a priest and then do works for absolution. The Bible says that you are forgiven by your faith in Christ and not by works.

Teh Eucharist was instituted by Christ. I believe that the Holy Spirit is present within teh Eucharist. I have trouble within the mass when the faithful pray that 'God will accept thsi sacrifice for the good of us and all His church." (not sure of exact wording) Jesus was the one and only sacrifice for our sins, no more are needed.

Purgatory was written by St Augustine and has no Biblical basis. The doctrine of purgatory also says that Jesus' work on the cross was insufficient to cleanse your soul of sin and that you also need purgatory.

The last problem that I have is that there were priests, bishops and popes who used such doctrine to manipulate peoples fears of Pugatory, Hell and damnation to get people to succumb to the will of the said church official.

I also know some very fine priests who do have a desire to preach Christ, serve God and minister to their congregants and show forth the fruit of the spirit.

Run_to_da_hills · 22-01-2008 4:47pm

kelly1 wrote: »

What I'm trying to show is that Catholic docrines such as Purgatory, confession and the Eucharist etc aren't inventions. They were taught from the beginning.

So am I! Why are you confused?

I see heaven and hell in scripture but Purgatory? I would prefere to have assurance of my salvation here on earth by accepting Christ as my saviour rather than relying on a "Get out of Jail free card" that is used to soften the concequence of sin and hellfire.

I believe in confession as a means of communicating to God direct through Christ (our only mediator 1st Timothy 2:5) for my sins and wrong doings. I see no harm with discussing sins and flaws among other christians.

I would take the bread and wine at church in memorance of Christs broken body and spilt blood that he has sacraficed for my sins. If there was any wrong doing or any unconfessed sin in my life I would pass on the bread and wine at church as I feel that it would be an insult to take it.

CerebralCortex · 22-01-2008 4:47pm

The church and its absurd practices turned me and many people my age away from Christianity, and in a small way made it pleasantly easy to become an atheist.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 4:50pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its quite simple Noel. You take the word of your church as truth. You trust it, have faith in it and believe it holy.

Speaking for myself, I simply would not and could not trust them. They have too many ungodly traditions and doctrines, along with a horrid history of violence and oppression. They do not represent My Lord one iota. However, you obviously don't have an issue with this, and continue to trust in them as your lord of truth. I don't know why you are confused. Some can't reconsile them with Christ, you obviously can. I think its that simple.

Hello again Jimi, long time no word!

Don't think for a moment that I condone the sins of the Church. That's not what I'm at.

I'm asking a perfectly valid question. i.e. Why do people reject the traditions of the Church which I've outlined and which are clearly recorded in the documents of the Church Fathers for all to see. Were the Church Fathers in error? Did Ambrose, Augustine, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jerome, John Chrsyostom, Justin, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian and the rest make it up?

CerebralCortex · 22-01-2008 4:53pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello again Jimi, long time no word!

Don't think for a moment that I condone the sins of the Church. That's not what I'm at.

I'm asking a perfectly valid question. i.e. Why do people reject the traditions of the Church which I've outlined and which are clearly recorded in the documents of the Church Fathers for all to see. Were the Church Fathers in error? Did Ambrose, Augustine, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jerome, John Chrsyostom, Justin, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian and the rest make it up?

Ya, pretty much.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 5:03pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Confession: we are to confess our sins to God. We can also confess to our friends and ask for help in straightening out. The Bible never says that forgiveness only happens when you confess to a priest and then do works for absolution. The Bible says that you are forgiven by your faith in Christ and not by works.

I agree that forgiveness is possible by confessing one's sins directly to God but just ask yourself why did Christ give the apostles the authority to forgive sins if God wanted us to confess directly to Him?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Teh Eucharist was instituted by Christ. I believe that the Holy Spirit is present within teh Eucharist. I have trouble within the mass when the faithful pray that 'God will accept thsi sacrifice for the good of us and all His church." (not sure of exact wording) Jesus was the one and only sacrifice for our sins, no more are needed.

The Mass is not a new sacrifice. It's it the re-offering of the one sacrifice of Calvary in atonement for our sins. The Mass was prophesied in Malachias:

Mal 1:10 Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Purgatory was written by St Augustine and has no Biblical basis. The doctrine of purgatory also says that Jesus' work on the cross was insufficient to cleanse your soul of sin and that you also need purgatory.

Are you claiming that Augustine invented Purgatory? I just picked his name at random!

BrianCalgary · 22-01-2008 5:20pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree that forgiveness is possible by confessing one's sins directly to God but just ask yourself why did Christ give the apostles the authority to forgive sins if God wanted us to confess directly to Him?!

I think it was due to Jewish thought and the role of the high priest on the day of atonement. Giving authority to the apostles was enabling the church to maintain continuity. Hebrews 10 explains the role of teh high priest and how Christ has taken it over once and for all.

kelly1 wrote: »

The Mass is not a new sacrifice. It's it the re-offering of the one sacrifice of Calvary in atonement for our sins. The Mass was prophesied in Malachias:!

This I don't have a huge problem problem with, just a discomfort. I also have a discomfort in evangelical churches that say it is just symbolic. There is more to the Eucharist than symbolism but I can't go so far as transubstantiation.

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you claiming that Augustine invented Purgatory? I just picked his name at random!

No. I thought you picking his name meant that you knew he started it.

I don;t know where the doctrine of purgatory started but it isn't in teh Bible.

As for the early church fathers their writings have to be tested against scripture as much as the preachings of our pastor and my teachings at Sunday school. That is what they are there for.

As for tradition: Jesus speaks out against tradition quite a few times in teh gospels so no, tradition means nothing to me for traditions sake.

Tradition for God's sake is good.

philologos · 22-01-2008 5:34pm

kelly1 wrote: »

You also seem to have ignored my questions on Sacred Tradition. In response to your question, my opinion is that reading and interpreting the bible outside the context of Church teachings is dangerous. Jesus entrusted His teachings to the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a book alone isn't enough. The Church has the final say on interpreting scripture because it has the authority to do so.

So Luther came along and told people is was acceptable to read and interpret scripture for themselves. And this lead to the maze of conflicting Christian doctrines that we see today.

God bless,
Noel.

Luther gave people the right to learn Christ through the Bible in their own language. People were openly killed for this before him and Anglican reformers. Why shouldn't we know what Christ did? Most of the populous couldn't understand Latin, therefore all they did in church was look at the stained glass windows and uttered things they did not understand. This is not the way to know God in my opinion.

If interpretation is left to the Church, why are you quoting passages (from a Bible that would not have existed without a Reformation), and adding your own view to them. That is what interpretation is. I think all must learn to understand the word of God for themselves.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 5:39pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think it was due to Jewish thought and the role of the high priest on the day of atonement. Giving authority to the apostles was enabling the church to maintain continuity. Hebrews 10 explains the role of teh high priest and how Christ has taken it over once and for all.

Sorry, I don't follow your argument. I agree Christ is the High Priest and He ordained the apostles as priests when He said "Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Who sins you forgive etc..."

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No. I thought you picking his name meant that you knew he started it. I don;t know where the doctrine of purgatory started but it isn't in teh Bible.

It is alluded to several times (Pay the last farthing to get out of jail, purification as by fire etc)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As for the early church fathers their writings have to be tested against scripture as much as the preachings of our pastor and my teachings at Sunday school. That is what they are there for.

Do you know any teaching of the ECF's that contradict scripture?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As for tradition: Jesus speaks out against tradition quite a few times in teh gospels so no, tradition means nothing to me for traditions sake.

Tradition for God's sake is good.

Tradition shouldn't contradict Scripture but as the Gospel of John says, there were many things which Christ did and said that are not recorded. I don't understand why non-catholic Christians refuse to accept nothing outside of scripture. The bible does not forbid this and in fact it does mention tradition:

2 Thes 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 22-01-2008 5:41pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Luther gave people the right to learn Christ through the Bible in their own language. People were openly killed for this before him and Anglican reformers. Why shouldn't we know what Christ did? Most of the populous couldn't understand Latin, therefore all they did in church was look at the stained glass windows and uttered things they did not understand. This is not the way to know God in my opinion.

If interpretation is left to the Church, why are you quoting passages (from a Bible that would not have existed without a Reformation), and adding your own view to them. That is what interpretation is. I think all must learn to understand the word of God for themselves.

I agree with much of what you're saying but I'm also saying that interpretation of scripture needs to be in accordance with Church teachings.

philologos · 22-01-2008 5:45pm

How can it be in the Church teachings if the Roman Catholic Church forbade anyone from actually reading it in the first place basically. Nobody outside the priestly class had a Bible at the time.

Your very quotation from Bible Scripture is a proven benefit of a post-Reformation world, even though you are a Catholic.

By the way I do support priest led consultation in the path of discovering the Bible. I would advise anyone who is stuck to talk to their parish priest / rector / pastor before continuing.

Sacred Tradition...

Comments