Praying to Mary

Leroy42

homer911 wrote: »

I apologise that my response is sectarian but your views are worthy of correction. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys over so called apostolic succession - its like saying I'm a Christian because my great-great grandfather was a Christian

Well change great-great grandfather to parents and it is basically the reason why the majority of people believe in the religion they do.

Sagats_knee

homer911 wrote: »

That would depend on your definition of bias. If it is bias to prioritize the word of God over these alleged teachings of the early church fathers then Yes, I am happy they are biased, especially where these teachings are contradictory to what is taught in the Bible, and this from the Christian sect that deterred its members from reading the bible for centuries

I apologise that my response is sectarian but your views are worthy of correction. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys over so called apostolic succession - its like saying I'm a Christian because my great-great grandfather was a Christian

The great commission happened. And those people, including the Apostles had students/acolytes. We have their writings, thousands of pages! I recommend reading some of them to see what they believed. I’ll give you a clue, they weren’t Calvinists.

The prohibition of studying the bible and the likes of that came centuries later from the Latin Church.

kelly1

Guys, I haven't read all the posts here and I don't intend to...

Discussion like these stem from the unfortunate fact that "protestants" regard the bible alone as the rule of faith and disregard Catholic Tradition. That's a mistake. The bible is clear on the value of Tradition as well as the Early Church Fathers and popes. Scripture *and* Tradition are the two indispensable pillars of the Church.

When you throw away Tradition, you also throw away the very core of the faith i.e. the Mass and the sacraments.

Leroy42

But surely the mass and sacraments are based on the divinity of the bible? Without the core being the bible what justification is their for the sacraments or mass?

kelly1

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely the mass and sacraments are based on the divinity of the bible? Without the core being the bible what justification is their for the sacraments or mass?

It helps to remember that Mass and the sacraments came before the bible so they can't be based on the bible. Tradition is essentially the preservation and transmission of the deposit of faith and the bible doesn't fully describe Tradition.

Leroy42

kelly1 wrote: »

It helps to remember that Mass and the sacraments came before the bible so they can't be based on the bible. Tradition is essentially the preservation and transmission of the deposit of faith and the bible doesn't fully describe Tradition.

I am confused. I thought the Bible was the word of God, by definition it must be timeless. The actual time it was put on paper is irrelevant. So whilst there may well have been masses prior to it being written, what were those masses based on? I would assume they were based on Jesus and his teachings, and the OT, which were then written as the bible.

If the bible doesn't fully describe tradition it brings up some questions. 1st, what are the traditions based on. 2nd, just because it is tradition doesn't make it right or indeed even relevant to God.

Perhaps you could explain it a bit more so I can understand.

homer911

kelly1 wrote: »

The bible is clear on the value of Tradition

I'd love to hear your take on this

kelly1

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am confused. I thought the Bible was the word of God, by definition it must be timeless. The actual time it was put on paper is irrelevant. So whilst there may well have been masses prior to it being written, what were those masses based on? I would assume they were based on Jesus and his teachings, and the OT, which were then written as the bible.

Yes, of course, the bible is the word of God but it came *after* the founding of the Church. Tradition was established by Christ and handed down to the Apostles, who preserved it orally and in their writings (epistles, encyclicals etc)

The first Masses were based on instructions given by Christ, obviously not what was writing in the New Testament, since that came maybe 200(?) years later. I'm sure the rubrics of the Mass would have come, to some degree, from the Old Testament too since the Mass was the new covenant established between God and man (Mt 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.)

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the bible doesn't fully describe tradition it brings up some questions. 1st, what are the traditions based on. 2nd, just because it is tradition doesn't make it right or indeed even relevant to God.

Tradition is essentially the deposit of faith handed down orally to the Apostles by Christ. I'm guessing the Apostles took notes, maybe.

So if it was handed down by Christ, that makes it perfectly right and relevant.

kelly1

homer911 wrote: »

I'd love to hear your take on this

e.g.

2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter"

2 Tim 2:2 "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me"

Rom. 10:17 "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ"

1 Cor. 15:3 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed"

1 Cor. 11:2 "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you"