Posted on 04/09/2012 6:08:04 AM PDT by NYer
Thank you, I see your mistake. You assumed that "commandments of men" is the same thing as Apostolic Tradition. It clearly is not. It is the Revealed Word of God every bit as much as is Sacred Scripture.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
>> “You assumed that “commandments of men” is the same thing as Apostolic Tradition.” <<
.
There is no “apostolic tradition.” The apostles were godly men that obeyed their Lord, and avoided creating any tradition but for the following of the instructions that they wrote down in the Gospels.
Unfortunately, when John died, there were no more apostles to keep the people on the straight track; their mission was complete.
.
Paul and the Apostles are dead. I did not live in their lifetime. I cannot hear it from their mouth. So I must go by their "letter" which is conveniently located in the Bible.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39
Hear I am told to look to the scriptures. That sorta makes that YOPIO cereal pic look sort of contrary to the Word of God.
Well that goes a long way toward explaining the sorry state of the Church in Europe.
That is a fascinating account, but I am not familiar with it. Since it is not Scriptural you are going to have to tell me where you learned it.
I am also curious to know how it is you believe that the Apostles taught the "Good News" between receiving their commission and the writing of the Scriptures. There were 13 Apostles(the original 11 plus St. Matthias and St. Paul). All were commanded to got forth and preach the Gospel to all nations, but we only have Scripture from five of them.
Martin Luther was a man. His doctrines are human.
Your church and adherents have a great disdain for Martin Luther. Other than the nail marks to a church door, what are your grievances against him? He tried to correct wrongs in the church. He read the Bible. He prayed. The contradictions were self evident. The sale of indulgences were the result of avarice not soul saving. He was sad that the Church he loved had strayed so far from its purpose.
Unfortunately, you have chosen a flawed translation and presented an incomplete statement. If you read the next several versus and check the Greek (39 Ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν· καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ) you will see that Jesus is actually admonishing the Jews for citing Scripture rather than accepting His teachings.
1) Martin Luther was not infallible.
2) His doctrine of “the Bible alone,” as the sole rule of faith, isn’t in the Bible.
Therefore, Protestantism has no logical basis.
This is why Catholics aren’t interested in Protestantism.
We are interested in an infallible teaching Authority, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.
Wow!Do you have that wrong. The Jews prided themselves for being faithful to Moses and his writings. Jesus points out how they were in fact unfaithful to Moses and his writings because Moses foretold of Jesus coming.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Jesus and Scriptures were never in contradiction.
I'm afraid we are going to have to disagree. Jesus was chiding the Jews for not seeing Him in the Scriptures, yet professing an early version of Sola Scriptura. It establishes that Scripture, wrongly interpreted, is not profitable.
More circular reasoning. Sidestepped the valid points in my post. Arrogance on a scale foreign to most Christians. How can a church correct errors when they claim infallibility? They cannot.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup (Jer. 51.7) in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 and upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
"you will see that Jesus is actually admonishing the Jews for citing Scripture rather than accepting His teachings."
Jesus did not admonish the Jews for citing scripture. Only word twisting with a bias would say that is what Jesus said. There is nothing wrong with citing scripture as you would have the gullible believe. Jesus beat back the devil with a "It is written" response.
"You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: has not God, in former times, clothed his Apostles with power far more exalted? They were endowed with gifts of working miracles, of prophecy, and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which Popes are merely the custodian. If God could make man the organ of his revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error."
"Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not."
"If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope."
"If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible..., then I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?"
- Cardinal Gibbons "The Faith of our Fathers," 1917
That is not a grievance at all. His 90 (or whatever the number) theses were all questions worth discussing and posting a proposal for a debate on the doors of a church was accepted practice at the time.
The grievance against Luther is that he promulgated unbiblical theological fantasies of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, tossed from the Old Testament books he found inconvenient for himself, desecrated monasteries, started a new iconoclasm, and lead millions away from Christ. Since Mohammed, there was no greater enemy of Christ than Martin Luther.
"The Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, pg. 111, said, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we (The Roman Catholic Church) never sanctify."
Jesus, on His life here on earth, kept the Sabbath. The Jews are the chosen ones because they are one of the few (remnant) that would still be observant in the last days. Remember what Jesus said? "IF ye love me, keep My commandments".
He is the very same James Cardinal Gibbons.
It is always very revealing and somewhat saddening when some Protestants quote Catholic Clergy and authors as though they had actually read the works themselves. The quotes are always out of context and errors are repeated from website to website and post to post. It shows a contempt, or at least a disregard, for the truth, which as the Catechism states, is God who is truth itself.
The first problem with your citation is that the quote is not on page 111, it is actually on page 97 (a dead giveaway as to the source of your material). The second is the lack of context. Below is an extended excerpt of the entire page 97 from Faith of our Fathers:
Would it not be extremely hazardous to make a long voyage in a ship in which the officers and crew are fiercely contending among themselves about the manner of explaining the compass and of steering their course? How much more dangerous is it to trust to contending captains in the journey to heaven! Nothing short of an infallible authority should satisfy you when it is a question of steering your course to eternity. On this vital point there should be no conflict of opinion among those that guide you. There should be no conjecture. But there must be always someone at the helm whose voice gives assurance amid the fiercest storms that all is well.
Third—A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers.150 For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible.
We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.
Excellent post.
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.