This is what application of TRADITION gets ya:
Posted on 06/16/2014 8:51:55 PM PDT by icwhatudo
2 Peter 3:15 As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, 16 as in all his letters, speaking concerning these matters, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. 17 You then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being let away with the delusion of the lawless.
And might I remind you that God used many less than holy men to promote His will. He used Judas, Balaam’s donkey, and Herod for starters. Trying to take credit for what God does will not serve you or the Catholic Church well.
You keep missing the point. There were many writings out there. It was the early Church Fathers that “authoritatively” selected which of these writings constituted the Bible. That authority is the one handed down to St. Peter and his successors. I guess all the great theologians of the world have all got it wrong! for 2000 years! Wow!
Pleas show from scripture where “his successors” was taught by the apostles. If not I have to apply this verse.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Placemarker
Long before Scripture, there was a 30-50 year old revered oral tradition. The great intellectual convert to Catholicism after whom university scholarly societies are named, John Henry Newman once said that history is the enemy of Protestantism. You must take the trouble to do some serious reading before asking puerile questions. The works of St. Thomas Aquinas are so profound they are placed alongside the Bible in Oxford’s renowned Bodleian library.
This 2000 year history of the Church with the greatest of theologians, saints and and martyrs is not the stuff for congregants of the Joel Osteens, Billy Grahams, and corner street pastor churches.
Anyway here’s a good place to start.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0106.html
For the Catholic Church tradition is placed above scripture. For Mormons it’s the writings of Smith, for Muslims the writings of Mohamed. Count me unimpressed.
>> Long before Scripture, there was a 30-50 year old revered oral tradition.<<
First of all the Old Testament was long before the apostles and was considered Scripture. Peter considered Paul’s writings scripture.
2 Peter 3:15b. As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, 16 as in all his letters, speaking concerning these matters, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. 17 You then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being let away with the delusion of the lawless.
Catholics don’t impress anyone other than themselves with the nonsense that they wrote or compiled scripture. That scripture that you think the Catholics wrote and compiled tells us not to go beyond what is written. Are Catholics so stupid as to think the Catholics would tell us not to go beyond what is written then go beyond what is written? Catholics should really begin to realize how ridiculous they actually sound. You fall for it if you wish but I'll simply follow what scripture says.
Paul’s WRITINGS!
How much more stupid can you people get? Even before Paul’s writing there was the received and revered oral tradition. The corner street congregations are usually of middling intelligence and feel-good middle aged housewives. They look at “literal” scripture completely devoid of who deemed that writing as opposed to others as “authentic” and as part of the books in the Bible. All the serious intelligent theological stuff flies right over their heads notwithstanding the leading theologians and converts from Lutheran church to Catholicism and the hundreds upon hundreds of Protestant ministers who finally abandoned this rot. The is the type the low IQ crowd the Joel Osteens, David Koreshs, Jim Jones, Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, and the Billy Grahams attract. It’s Christianity lite. No Mass, no need for Sacraments, just read the Bible, believe, and no more is needed.
John Henry Newman put it best, the enemy of Protestantism is the early history of the Church.
Most recently, Sweden’s most influential Protestant sent shock waves to his followers admitting to this rot he has believed all these years and converted to Catholicism. Come over my friends and see the true light!
Please prove that those “oral traditions” are the same as taught by the Catholic Church today.
>>The corner street congregations are usually of middling intelligence and feel-good middle aged housewives.<<
1 Corinthians 1:27 but the foolish things of the world did God choose, that the wise He may put to shame; and the weak things of the world did God choose that He may put to shame the strong;
>>Most recently, Sweden’s most influential Protestant sent shock waves to his followers admitting to this rot he has believed all these years and converted to Catholicism.<<
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
>>Come over my friends and see the true light!<<
Join an organization rife with paganism? I think not.
This is what superficial reading of Scripture gets you! No wonder we have the David Koreshs, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggarts; Bishop TD Jakes, the Rev. Schullers, the prosperity Gospel Osteens, Rev. Al Sharptons, Billy Grahams, and the scores of self ordained corner street pastors. The oral traditions are the same because whenever there were questions and debates, they were settled by the early Church Fathers. The foundational belief is the Nicene Creed.
Here is a FreeRepublic link. But it doesn’t appear you wish to be educated. Ignorance is bliss on your side.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1775005/posts
ANd now there are many signs and wonders.
All of which must be 'investigated' to see if they are from GOD or not.
Mary's in Heaven; handling requests (not prayers) from SO many faithful Catholics.
She picks out the REALLY good ones and then 'asks' her son to look into them.
The intellectual, Elsie the Great, says it's the EMBARRASSMENT of Catholicism!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Still got the cookies?
Mary's NOT dead, but uses her time helping JESUS.
Oh...
Wait...
I've had SOMEONE on FR say there is NO time in Heaven.
I, like Galileo, have finally learned NOT to disagree with ANYTHING that Catholics teach about Science!
This is what application of TRADITION gets ya:
Questions for you.
Which of the 35,000 Protestant Scriptural interpretations do you follow? or do you pick and choose? Or you have no use for the revered oral tradition? How do you fulfill Christ’s Great Commission to evangelize ONE truth?
I think not. Take the assumption of Mary as an example. There is no mention of it until at least 4th century. That’s 200 years minimum after the apostles. Here is some information for those who want truth.
From christiantruth.com about the assumption of Mary and the early church fathers.
This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).
>>Here is a FreeRepublic link.<<
I’ve read all the supposed support that Catholics put out there. Full of holes you could drive a semi through. The truth is that most of Catholic “tradition” is made up from pagan origins and beliefs.
You have still not shown any support from scripture for the “and his successors” comment.
This is the same old recycled stuff that has been refuted time and again. Go check out the long list of famous Protestant, Anglican and Lutheran theologians who gave their reasons for converting to Catholicism from John Henry Newman to America’s own preeminent Lutheran Richard Neuhaus and founder of “First Things.”
Heres’ one theologian who taught at Baylor University and who for long championed Protestantism, and finally ditched it.
Wesleyan.
Now you can research it to find out whether what you’ve been taught about it is true.
Feel free to inform the readers in this thread just WHAT is in error that you’ve found.
Your hard work (instead of repetitious talking points) will be GREATLY appreciated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.