Replies

" Traditions set by man are just that, traditions"

When we use the word tradition, we usually mean two things by it. First, there are those traditions that were handed down by Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the early Church. Perhaps better than tradition would be the word "history." Scripture clearly attests to many of these, and we can check our reading of Scripture by checking what the Church has always believed.

For example, Scripture clearly tells us that the Eucharist, (what many refer to as the Lord's supper,) is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It doesn't say that it's a symbol, it says that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ--that's just the plain words of Scripture. Now the Church has always understood the Eucharist to actually be Jesus Christ, and the historical evidence all indicates that Christians believed the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. You can pull up any number of historical references from Christian authorities indicating this to be the case, I believe that you will find them dating back to sometime around the year 110 AD. It's was only 14 centuries later that you begin to see people claiming otherwise. So that is tradition in the historical sense. We point to the Scriptures when people ask for them, and if they do not believe the Scripture or disagree with our interpretation, we point to the historical record to show what the Church has always believed.

Now there is another type of tradition, and that is the tradition which is contained in the development of Christian doctrine. One example of this is the Bible. Now when you open the Bible to the Letter to the Hebrews, you have no question that it is inspired Scripture, even though you have no idea who the author is. Why then do you accept the Letter to the Hebrews as Scripture? Why indeed would you accept the Psalm of Psalms as Scriptural, since it's a book that doesn't even mention God once? You accept them on the basis of Christian tradition, the same basis on which you reject the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Paul as being fraudulent, even though they contain statements from Scripture, and are certainly very old documents. Basically, you believe the books in the Bible are Scriptural because you find these books bound up in the Bible when you open it. And the books are bound up in the Bible because the Church, 350 years after the time of Christ, canonized them.

" He said if we love first the rest of Christian life will fall into place. That is how I make my focus in my Christian walk..."

Good for you. God is Truth, God is Love and God is life. If we love the Truth and love one another, all will be well.

"Good for you. God is Truth, God is Love and God is life. If we love the Truth and love one another, all will be well."
A statement that I can appreciate and agree with. Please understand that I did not set out in this thread to attack the Catholic faith or any doctrine or theology contained therein. Only after my doctrine and faith and values were attacked by a few on here did I feel I had to defend by beliefs system. I do not desire to argue the scriptures with anyone, but I will defend what I believe and stand for. I appreciate your courteous tone, and will return it with the utmost of respect.