Posted on 04/08/2004 1:40:06 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Rosalie and Michael (not their real names) are a Catholic husband and wife from the Northeast who run an upscale hair salon in the South; they have long been what might be called "perpetual parish shoppers," ever looking for a church community that perfectly fits their spirituality.
Not long after Rosalie began attending an evangelical Christian mega-church whose spirituality emphasizes Biblical fundamentalism, church members directed her to a plethora of Internet sites aimed at revealing to Catholics the "truth" about the Catholic Church.
One example of the sort of misinformation present on such sites: The back of the popes chair in St. Peters Basilica in Rome is inscribed with an upside-down cross proof that the pope is allied with Satan, right?
Perhaps a poorly catechized Catholic like Rosalie would fall for that explanation, but others will remember that St. Peter asked to be crucified upside-down because he did not feel worthy to die in the same way his Lord did.
(Excerpt) Read more at osvpublishing.com ...
That experience was illuminating for me: the guy who handed me that book was not exactly theologically sophisticated, but if I hadn't been exposed to Catholic teachings in college, I probably would never have abandoned the "Rome=Babylon" position, and would probably still be teaching that to others.
I wonder how many young kids like me are out there.
Now, I still have grave reservations about Catholic theology. My theological perspective is Reformed. However, I've read the writings of Augustine, Ireneaus, and Aquinas, and found Augustine particularly compelling. (I consider his Confessions to be one of the three most influential books I ever read in my life, after Desiring God by John Piper and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.) But I understand it better now, and won't dismiss Rome as Antichrist.
Christ and vain tradition:
1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:1-9 see also Mark 7)
\ Paul and and vain tradition:
4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col. 2:4-8)
Peter and vain tradition
13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (1 Peter 1:13-18)
You showed Christ like behavior by not poking him in the nose! :-)
Protestants live by traditions too actually, I know, since I am one, and different denominations have their own traditions.
Do they tell you they don't?
Question 1: Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth
Question 2: and that tradition is not to be believed?
Question 1: Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY truth
To answer question 1 I could quote Revelations 22:18-19 (e.g. if anyone add to them ) but the argument would come back that the New Testament wasnt created at that time. Or 2 Timothy 3:16-17 but I would get the same response. In fairness these responses would be legitimate primarily because the Bible doesnt defend itself. It is Gods word-take it or leave it. (Just like it doesnt mention the Trinity by name or a number of other things.)
The church has ALWAYS made the distinction that the books that constitute the Bible is the inspired word of God as opposed to any other teaching. (The Jews held this for the Old Testament as well.) In the fourth century when a number of heretical doctrine and teachings and fake books were entering the church, the church fathers wisely decided to sort out the original books and close them to maintain the scriptures purity. Augustine writes that they were very concerned the farther away from the life of Christ one would go, the more distorted the theology would become and heretical writings or beliefs would enter the church. Thus there needed to be a clear distinction as to what the church deemed inspired writing and what wasnt.
These blessed church fathers gathered up all the early writings they knew to be written by those directly involved with our Lord Jesus or the early growth of the church and these documents, along with the recognized inspired Hebrew text, became the Bible. As I have pointed out to my Catholic friends here but what seems to be ignored or construed as Catholic bashing, the Apocrypha was controversial among the early church fathers and added as an Appendix-this is a historical fact. It was 1000 years later at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was deemed inspired-a decision the early church fathers felt they could not make.
Be that as it may, the early church fathers made a clear distinction between what WAS inspired and what was NOT inspired to keep heretical doctrine out. They felt the Bible was inspired by God and was the document they used to make decisions. (Creeds came in later to clarify the position of the church but was based upon the scriptures.)
To say that there is more than the Bible is to essentially deny the work and belief of the early church fathers.
Question 2: and that tradition is not to be believed?
I dont know of any Protestant who would say tradition is not to be believed. Many Protestants baptize and maintain the Lords table (albeit with a different interpretation than our Catholic counterparts) and believe in the early creeds among other traditions. However, as Augustine and the other church fathers cautioned, it is easy for faulty doctrine to enter the church. As the early church fathers noted, the question really becomes, What verifies that a tradition is of God? Catholics would say they have the church to tell them. Protestants would say they go back to the original writings the early church fathers said where inspired.
The meanings of traditions that currently exist in all churches were controversial in the early church. At the risk of sounding like Im bashing Catholics, Catholics would like for us to believe traditions like the Eucharist and baptism were standard practice right from Peter to today. As I posted on another thread, the meaning of the Eucharist was agreed upon 900 years after Augustine. And on another thread how there was confusion in the early church on the meaning of baptism.
Many of the beliefs held by Protestants on these matters were held by early church members. Its just that the Vatican picked one for whatever reason. This isnt to say that the final interpretation of the RCC is incorrect, but its a little disingenuous to make it sound like the meaning of these traditions were always held or other believers are wrong just because someone in the Vatican say so.
And as history has shown us, there have been boo-boos decisions of the Vatican. As I have posted on other threads (and Catholics have disagreed with me on), a major shift in the doctrinal and theological position of the Catholic Church took place between the Council of Orange and the Council of Trend. I disagree with the Council of Trend position.
Consequently, some traditions are accepted but only after careful review of the scriptures. Does God work today? Of course. Does that require a new tradition. No.
Try getting on a "religious" forum and see the Catholic bashing that goes on. Other denominations get on the same thread and not a word is said.
Ho! Ho! Just let me mentioned the wonderful works of John Calvin or Martin Luther or the doctrine of Election or Limited Atonement and Ill be on the Catholic ping list before one can say Pope John Paul. And do a Google search on John Calvin and see how many negative articles by Catholics are written about the gentleman.
As you and many other people probably already know, Im frequently a participant on this forum. Contrary to what some may think Im not here to change or bash anyones belief.
From what I can tell Catholics tend to be overly sensitive to any doctrinal criticism and construed this as bashing. Most of us Protestants dont mind having our doctrinal positions challenged. Catholics on the other hand feel that if you challenged the doctrinal position of the RCC then youre attacking the church. I think its a cultural thing.
I hope this answer your questions.
With a stop in Purgatory for good measure.
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.