Sacred Tradition...

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.

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.

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.

kelly1 wrote: »

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!

I’m not Catholic anymore. My faith is based on the Word of God not Catholic Tradition. Show me chapter and verse where it states that I must get my infant kids baptised? Where I must confess my sins to a priest? Where I have to be ordained in order to be a Christian? I already explained that the bread and wine are not the actual flesh and blood of Christ just like they weren’t when they first partook of it in John Mark’s mother’s HOME. They are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus. I’ll explain more when I get to where you quoted Paul to the Corinthians further on down.

kelly1 wrote: »

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??

For years they took these elements in homes. Remembering what Christ did for them. Did they have cathedrals and church buildings in New Testament Jerusalem? It was first practiced in the home. Common sense alone will tell you that.

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

No I haven’t. “The Divine Liturgy or Mass is of course the chief rite among the Armenians, whether Catholic or Gregorian, and it is celebrated with a form and ceremonial which partakes in a measure both of the Roman and Byzantine rites. As we have said, the curtains are used instead of the altar-rail or iconostasis of those rites, and the vestments are also peculiar. The Armenians, like the Latins, use unleavened bread, in the form of a wafer or small thin round cake, for consecration; but like the Greeks they prepare many wafers, and those not used for consecration in the Mass are given afterwards to the people as the antidoron.” Taken from The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia relateing to Armenian Catholics. “When the time for making bread was short the leaven was omitted, and unleavened cakes were baked, as is customary among the Arabs (Gen 18:6; 19:3; Ex 12:39; 1 Sam 28:24). Such cakes were called in Heb. massa, "sweetness." Thin, round cakes made of unleavened dough were baked on heated sand or flat stones (1 Kings 19:6), by hot ashes or coals put on them-"ash-cakes." Such cakes are still the common bread of the Bedouin and poorer orientals.” Taken from Intercontinental Church of God website.

kelly1 wrote: »

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

Ok I was so I was wrong on that one

kelly1 wrote: »

Why do these have to be in scripture?

“Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”. Matt 4:4

kelly1 wrote: »

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?

The laying on of hands is fine. This does not contradict scripture. It was indeed practiced in the New Testament but God is not limited to the laying on of hands. He had to go outside the original apostles and get Paul by Himself. Who laid hands on Paul in ordination?

kelly1 wrote: »

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

The fact that we are having this argument is proof enough that traditions just get in the way of God’s Word. Doing something for a long time does not make it the right thing to do. Since when is “long time” the criteria for something to be right? If it starts out wrong then won’t it be always wrong? These traditions are great if you want to do them, but don’t tell people they have to do them in order to be saved. That is wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

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

Excellent question. In the verse you quoted I Cor 11:26 Paul is admonishing the Corinthian Church (the Church he had the most problems with btw) to partake of the elements “worthily”. The word “worthily” is an adverb and adverbs modify verbs and verbs are action words, they have nothing to do with the actor partaking, and the action in this case is partaking of the elements. And Paul defines what partaking unworthily is later in the same chapter as not discerning the Lord’s body. When the Corinthians Church got together for what was called the “Agape” or “Love Feast” they would get drunk and show off their wealth and then tag on to this practice the table of the Lord. By the time they got around to partaking of the table of the Lord they were not able to discern what they were doing and as a result some of them were weak and sick and some even died. Paul warned them to partake worthily by discerning what Jesus had done for them and not to focus on their own worthiness to partake. When you are partaking of these elements (bread and wine) and you take your focus off Jesus and what He has done for you and put your focus on anything else including yourself then you are partaking unworthily, when your focus is on Him and Him alone only then are you partaking worthily. The Catholic Church for centuries has thought (and still does to this day) that you must be worthy in order to partake of these elements. WRONG!!! This is putting the focus on the partaker not the partaking. None of us are worthy to partake. We are “made” worthy by the blood of the Lamb and when we discern this whilst we are partaking only then are we partaking worthily. These elements are symbolic of His body and blood they are not the actual flesh and blood, sorry that is wrong, always was and will be.

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

Where is the chapter and verse that states Jesus gave the apostles authority to forgive sins? They haven’t got the authority to forgive sins only in His name. Forgiveness of sins is through Jesus Christ alone and Jesus sent them out to preach this, He never gave them authority to forgive sins in any other name including their own.

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

We hear all too often of Jesus’ praise of Peter’s statement of faith. But not too long after Jesus’ praise of Peter’s statement of faith Jesus called him Satan because he savoured not the things of God but the things of men. Peter had rebuked Jesus when He (Jesus) spoke of His impending death saying (Peter speaking) “be this far from thee, he just didn’t understand at that point in his faith that it was necessary for Him (Jesus) to die, otherwise there is no provision for salvation. Jesus loved him though and great picture of the grace of God is seen when Jesus told the women who reported the resurrection to tell His disciples and Peter that he was going ahead of them to Galilee. Peter was included specifically because he was really hard on himself over his failings. But even after that he was still a hard head. And even after the spirit fell on him he still needed to be shown visions that he was not to call unclean what God had cleansed, this was in reference to God sending Peter to preach to a gentile. He was still caught up in traditions that make void the Word of God and jut didn’t understand God’s cleansing work in Christ as it pertained to non Jews. No wonder God went outside the original Apostles and called and sent Paul to the non Jews.

kelly1 wrote: »

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

There are two words in the New Testament that are translated “Church”. One is when Jesus says “I will build my Church and he gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The word Church here in is “Ecclesia” ec = out le = called sia = ones. “I will build my “out called ones” and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Most Latin languages (Spanish, Italian etc) still use this word to translate what we in the English call Church. The other word translated “Church” in the New Testament is “Kiriacone” (written phonetically) which means simply “The Lord’s”; it comes from the Greek word “Kirios” which means “Lord”. The Church is only the pillar and foundation of truth when it is proclaiming the truth and Jesus was the truth. He said to Pilate for instance that He (Jesus) was the truth. The New Testament Church or out called ones belonging to the Lord preached Jesus Christ crucified, buried and risen and ascended and faithful and just to forgive us our sins. All you need to so is ask Him, confess your sins to Him not to a preist. Jesus Himself said to pray in private to your Father in Heaven. He never mentioned that you need a priest.

kelly1 wrote: »

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

You must be reading form a different Bible than me because I can see nothing whatsoever in any of thee verses that specifically states that we should obey Church teachings. I do believe what Paul says that we should obey those who have rule over us because they watch for our souls. But the Pope doesn’t watch for my soul. Only those who teach the truth about Christ watch for souls. I belong to a Church and I follow the leaders thereof as they follow Christ and I do obey those there that have rule over me for they do watch for my soul.

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

Wrong. I am not the enemy of Christ. If you had a spiritual bone in your body you would see clearly from all my post that that is certainly not the case. He gets all the glory on my post no one else. If I were of the devil could I say the things I say about Jesus?

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that you've been reading way too many anti-catholic sites.

Nope, haven’t read one anti Catholic site. I use to be Catholic, was brought up as one. I am not against Catholics per se just the Roman Catholic Church as an institution and any other institution that does not have God’s Word as its basis without the traditions of men that make it void.

kelly1 wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the most persecuted Church in the world because the world lives in darkness and can't abide the light.

Oh please you’re gonna have me busting out crying next. The most persecuted Church in the world? Ha ah that is a joke. It is the single richest institution in history. Did you see Pope John Paul II’s funeral Mass? Did you see all the heads of state at that were there? Tell me one other institution that has power like that. There is not one other single institution in the world that could amass such a gathering of dignitaries, even the Greek Orthodox Church was represented. Persecuted my foot. It has caused more persecution of God’s people than any other institution in the history of mankind. It has still to excommunicate Hitler. There has been known devil worship by many in its hierarchy. It has martyred more of God’s people in its ignorance than any dictator the world has ever known.

kelly1 wrote: »

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!

Look like I said this is not an attack on you personally. But you must know that the Church institution you belong to is not infallible. Neither is the Pope. Satan will only attack Churches that are preaching God’s Word. Once he can pollute a church with teaching traditions that make void the Word of God then he will leave it alone. It is not bothering him so why would he waste ammunition on it? Same goes for all Churches that don’t stand on God’s Word alone and give it the Supremacy it deserves. How you can defend traditions over the word of God is beyond me.

kelly1 said:

How about this for starters:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bish...and_Deacon.asp

Thanks, Noel.

As you may know, Evangelical Protestantism also holds to the offices of presybter and deacon. We however point out that bishop is the same office as presbyter - elder, overseer, pastor.
Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. 24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

They are NEVER called priests. The word for priest is hiereus, not episkopos/presbyteros.

Note also the plurality of bishops/presbyters/elders/pastors/overseers. The church in Ephesus had several.

But let me focus on the big issue - the idea that the Church has a priesthood (other than that of all the faithful - Revelation 1:6). The priesthood is the foundation on which the Roman Catholic Church stands, the mechanism by which she exerts control over the consciences of men. It claims these priests offer Christ upon their altars and that such offerings actually atone for the sins of Christians.

That is the biggest blasphemy I can imagine. And there is not one verse on the New Testament that supports it. Neither the repeated offerings nor the priesthood itself.

I'll be glad to hear your explanation.

kelly1 wrote: »

My faith is based on both and tradition does not contradict scripture.

Tradition doesn’t contradict scripture?

Scripture says: If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness 1 John 1:9. But Catholic tradition says we must confess our sins to a Catholic priest or else they are not truly forgiven.

Scripture says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Tom 2:5. But Catholic Tradition says that there is also Mary and the Saints.

Scripture says referring to the table of the Lord: “If you partake unworthily (i.e. not discerning the Lord’s body) then you eat and drink damnation to yourself.” 1 Cor 11.26. But Catholic Tradition says that we must be worthy to partake of the host????

Being worthy to partake and partaking worthily are two very different things. We partake worthy when we recognise that we are not worthy and that we are made worthy by the blood of the Lamb. If we were worthy then we would have no need to partake of these elements.

Scripture says: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (substance) is of Christ” Col 2:16-17. Paul was talking about legitimate Jewish feast days that were supposed to be observed under the law, but now that Christ (the substance which cast these shadow) has come there is no need to observe these days because they have been fulfilled in Christ. Imagine what Paul would say today about lesser pagan rituals being engrafted onto Church teachings after Christ has come that we are told we must observe? But Catholic tradition says that we must observe certain days like Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas. These were pagan feasts Christianised and grafted onto Catholic Church teachings. Christ was not born on December 25th yet the Catholic Church teaches that He was. He was not crucified on Good Friday at 3pm and Risen again on Easter Sunday at 6am. That would give us a mere 39 hours in the grave. Scripture tells us that he was 3 days and 3 nights in the grave before He was raised that’s 72 hours? Plus He didn’t rise at sunrise in the morning, He rose at sundown in the evening. Jewish days start at sundown 6pm. He was crucified on the feast of Passover which fulfilled that feast day (set time) and was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights which fulfilled the feast of Unleavened Bread. In the OT this bread was hidden for 3 days and 3 nights after Passover. He came out of the tomb on the First Day of the next week fulfilling the feast of First Fruits (first born of many brethren) which was a feast within a feast (second half of the unleavened bread week were it was unhidden). Fifty days after First Fruits the Spirit descended on the Apostles which fulfilled the Feast of Pentecost (which means Harvest, the harvest of the Church started on this day). There are 3 more feasts to be fulfilled. Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. On the feast of the Trumpets 2 silver trumpets were to be blown all day long. One of these trumpets has been fulfilled. Christ was born on the feast of the Trumpets which is in September. You can prove from scripture that Jesus was born in September. We know from scripture that John the Baptist was born in the Spring time and that six months later Jesus was born, that does not put you in December rather sometime in Autumn. The second Trumpet has yet to be fulfilled. This is what we call the Rapture of the Church. I can go into these remaining feasts in more detail if you like but I think I’ve made my point about contradictions between Catholic traditions and scripture.

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture doesn't say these things and neither are these contradictory to scripture. But I didn't say one must confess. I don't think it absolutely essential for salvation but it does guarantee forgiveness of all sins and as a sacrament, it confers grace helping the sinner to resist sin.

The acts of the sinful nature (so called sins) are but the result of an inherent condition Paul calls “Harmatia” literally to “fall short of the mark of the Law” and an inch is a good as a mile. The only thing powerful enough to deliver you from the law of sin in your nature is the Holy Spirit. Confessing your sins will bring God’s forgiveness but it is the fact that you are acting on God’s Word that puts His Spirit in you. This is supposed to be a daily activity, not a once off altar call-once saved always saved-never move another muscle of faith for the rest of your life activity. Without God’s Grace already given to us in Christ while we were yet sinners then access would have been impossible. It is by Grace that we are saved through faith.

kelly1 wrote: »

I didn't say that. Ordination is necessary to become a priest.

Yes a catholic priest. But I’m talking about everyday ordinary individuals who need Christ in their lives where they live it but are denied it because they don’t adhere to Church teachings first, which as I have pointed out in several earlier posts including this one is totally wrong and against God. People need to hear the “Good News” of Christ not the “Bad News” of Church Teachings. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17

kelly1 wrote: »

You claimed that the Mass had pagan/sun worship connections. Are you withdrawing this claim?

Absolutely not.

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus sent the apostles out to teach the truth and the apostles sent their successors out to do the same thing. Now are you telling me that these successors/bishops taught error?

Yes. Its called ‘add-on’.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you not accept that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to teach the truth is His name?

I do accept that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to teach the truth is His name.

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? Ok, here's John 10:16

Doesn't this tell you that Jesus wants us to obey Church teachings?

Does it specifically mention the Catholic Church in that verse?

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you know that "confess" means confession to a lay person or to God? Tradition show that confess mean confession to a priest.

Yes tradition shows that but it is clear that the scripture fails to make that distinction and point out that it is to a priest that we must confess our sins. It merely says confess your sins and He is faithful and just to forgive them. When David penned Psalm 51 was it to God or to a Priest? Read it and find out.

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture is true. What's wrong with asking Mary or the saints to Pray to Christ on our behalf?

Nothing wrong with it at all. Work away. I personally have no problem with it. I just know I don’t have to do it based on God’s Word. But what would happen to me if I were a Catholic in the 15th century and held a meeting in my local parish and proclaimed to the Arch Bishop and all in attendance that I don’t believe I need to pray to Mary or the Saints any more? That all I need is Christ Jesus because the Bible (if I could find one I could read back then of course) says He is the only mediator between man and God? How do you think that would that go down? I can nearly smell the flames.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to the Church, being worthy in this case means being in a state of grace.

The word Grace in the Greek is “Charis”. This word means un-merited favour which means it is the kind of favour that cannot be earned. If it could be earned then it ceases to be “charis” the reward as Paul says is now reckoned of debt. In order to get access to this Grace we must have faith. “For by Grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast” Now the word faith in the Greek is “Pistis” (the noun) “Pisteo” (the verb) and it is an action word. It is something you do, not merely something that you have. The scripture says without it, it is impossible to please God. The literal meaning of the word Pisteo in the Greek is to act upon a belief and to continue that action in the confidence that the thing being believed in is true and solid. In the Christian sense this is God’s Word of promise. So we are saved by unmerited favour through acting on God’s Word namely His promises. We are only in this state of grace when we are doing these kinds of actions daily. Merely adhering to the traditions of men with a checklist mentality will not pass muster with God. He wants faith and faith Alone!!! It is written!

kelly1 wrote: »

This verse supports the change from observing the sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday. See also:

Acts 20:7 And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread (The first day of the week is Sunday)

Is this a command from God? Did Paul say that this was to be done in response to a Word from the Lord? Paul spoke for himself and made a distinction when it came from the Lord or Him e.g. “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” 1 Cor 7:10-14
The writer to the Hebrews says that there remains a rest or “sabbathing” for the people of God Heb 4:9. That rest or “sabbathing” is what I explained above. Acting in faith on God’s Word and ceasing from your own works of righteousness which cannot save you.

Yet more debunking of tradtions by scripture:

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” Col 2:20-23

kelly1 wrote: »

1 Cor 16:2 On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.

This quote has to do with giving. Do you want to talk about giving? Tithes and Offerings?

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree. Are you claiming this is what the catholic faith is like??

Absolutely not. And how can you say you agree when it is blatantly clear from your posts that you don’t?

kelly1 wrote: »

Church teachings keep Christ out of peoples lives? Are you serious??

Catholic Church teachings do. For instance; if I wanted to get my child to make his first holy communion in a Catholic Church he would need to get baptised and then he would need to confess his sins to a priest then he’d need to say a few Hail Marys and an Our Father or two and probably a decade of the rosary and only then could he be deemed worthy to make his first holy communion, am I wrong? Why can he not just take communion at home? Just get a little wine and a little bread and partake of it at home whilst discerning what Christ done for him on the cross and in so doing is discerning the Lord’s body as he partakes which Paul defines as partaking worthily? Now why can’t he do that without all these catholic add-on obstacles in the way?

kelly1 wrote: »

Which bad news are you talking about???

The bad news that God cannot accept us until we jump through several self compromising Catholic hoops en route to Him who freely gave Himself for all mankind not just Catholics, that bad news is what I’m talking about.

kelly1 wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that you came to your conclusions about the Church by yourself. Are you honestly telling me that you haven't been influenced by things you been told or read? Be honest please.

I never said that I came to my conclusions about the Catholic Church by myself. And I am honestly telling you that I have been influenced by things that I have been told and have read. What of it? Is that now a sin also that I must do penance for? My eyes were open to the truth of God’s Grace by His own word, that He takes me as I am and you as you are and you do not need to pass Catholic boot camp (or anyone else’s boot camp) before He’ll accept you. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 We did nothing to deserve it and cannot do anything now to deserve it either, all we can do is trust in His Word.

kelly1 wrote: »

Basically you're tell me me that Christ founded a Church and that His Church fell into error despite Christ assurances that the Church would keep the Church in truth and that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail and that He would be with His Church to the end of time. You don't appear to have a whole lot of faith in Christ's assurances about the Church!

It is quite evident from my posts that I have a lot of faith in Christ’s promises. Including the one that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His “out called ones” or “Church”. What you seem to be confused about is that you think that those “out called ones” that He is referring to is just the Catholic Church. Well its not. He is referring to an invisible body of believers in the world, who have one thing in common, and that is that they trust in God’s Word of promise. They could be from any walk of life including Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Mormon, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and so on they could be of any race or creed. The thing is God knows who they all are today and who they all were throughout history and I believe He is not far from making up His intended number to fill that void in heaven left by Satan and his minions. Christ died for all of us and it is the Church’s (any Church’s) primary function to proclaim this Good News to the whole world. That is what Christianity started out as and that is what it still is and that is all it ever will be. Now no matter what Church you belong to, it needs to understand this and that their house rules should only be the criteria for getting into their particular Church and those who want to be part of it should obey those rules but those rules are not the criteria for eternal life.