Replies

Cronos quoted New Advent, saying:

“however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday?

How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?
How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? “

Catholic controversialists proved nothing of the kind.

1) First, in regard to Sunday rather than Saturday. The laws given to Israel through Moses were just that, laws given to Israel. They were not binding on the Gentiles, as the New Testament clearly teaches. Those laws that are binding are stated by Jesus and the Apostles. The commandment regarding the Sabbath is the only one not reiterated in the New Testament. Did someone just forget? Or was it not repeated purposely, in view of what was coming and had been fulfilled in Christ? There is much more to be said here. But it is all taught in the Holy Scriptures.

2) Second, baptism of infants is presupposed. If “all nations” are to be made disciples through baptism and teaching, Matthew 28:18-20, just as “all nations” will stand before the judgment seat of Christ on the last day, Matthew 25:31-46, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert that “all nations” does not mean all people. There is much more to be said here as well, regarding also immersion/infusion (pouring). But it is all taught in the Holy Scriptures.

3) Third, legitimate oath taking was never forbidden. Illegitimate oath taking is self-appointed oath taking. If lawful higher authority requires an oath, it is rendered by the Christian. Case in point: “And the high priest arose and said to Him, ‘Do You say nothing? What is it these men testify against You?’ But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, ‘I put You UNDER OATH by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?’ Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you say ...’” (Matthew 26:62ff.) I dare say Jesus did not sin in accepting the authority of the high priest, sinful as he was. He was none the less the lawful high priest of Israel and one who could legitimately place someone under oath. All such regarding proper oath giving and taking is taught in the Holy Scriptures.

I am sorry, Cronos, but New Advent is quite incorrect in its assertions here.

The Catholic Church puts forth a false dichotomy, one in which “tradition” is imagined to be something other than, and supplemental to, what is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Tradition, in the right sense, is nothing more than the oral passing on of the same doctrines of the written Scriptures. This false dichotomy, in part, is what the Reformers rejected as part of Rome’s wandering from apostolic doctrine, and rightly. Tradition is to be respected, which is something that some on the Protestant side fail to do. Some, I said. Honoring tradition is nothing more or less than honoring father and mother (God never said that we were to cease honoring them at their death). Thus, Jesus, for example, was constantly pointing Israel back (repent!) to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. Thus also, the last verse of the Old Testament: “And he (the Elijah who was to come, i.e. John the Baptizer) will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to THEIR fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.” (Malachi 4:6)

Please note that all this can be shown from the Holy Scriptures without even using St. Paul, who sharpens all these points.

1. Yes, then if this is not binding, why celebrate on Sundays? Why not on some other day?
2. I posted an early post here that argues against that. Here it is

When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says "to come to me". In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms.

and

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another."

And, the proof that the Early Church DID baptise infants is from here by St. Cyprian of Carthage
In respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptised within the second or third day after birth, and that hte law of ncient circumcision be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptised and sanctified within the eighth day,we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.. we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh accrding to Adam, he has ontracted teh contagion of the ancient death as its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins -- that to him are remitted, not his own sincs, but the sins of another (Adam)
and from Origen (185-254 AD)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed teh secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit
and from St. Augustine
Who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kindgom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptised and born again in Christ? This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perserveringly guards even to the end

Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,"

3. Good point on 3

The Church does not say that Tradition is different from Scripture -- it isn't, it complements scripture. Scripture is written tradition, but not all -- The NT is the child of The Church -- the primary author IS the Holy Spirit -- God is the author. The writers were a part of the Church and the Church had the authority to recognise the inspired books and the authority to close the canon. Without the authority of The Church, how does a Protestant know which books belong in the New Testament? Reformed theologian R.C> Sproul says in Essential truths of the Christian faith that the Protestant position can at best claim "a fallible collection of infallibile books"

If Christ wanted us to have an infallible colleciton of writings, he needed to do one of two things:
1. Give us an authoritative list of writings, dictated by an apostle that would form the canon to provide certainty, so there would be no confusion OR
2. Establish an infallible community, a Church that could give us a list of infallible writings so we could be certain.
The did not do the first, and the Protestant viewpoint denies the second

The NT is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followers. It is not however, the sum total of all their teachigns and traditions

St. Epiphanius (315-403) wrote "It is needful to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition" (Panarion)

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours"