You are both talking about rituals, correct? Like a High Mass?
Please don’t confuse those rituals with Holy Tradition — scripture that was passed person to person before it was written down.
I don’t believe in Catholic ‘Sacred Tradition,’ especially since it contradicts actual revealed Scripture so much, so it’s not like I would like it anyways.
But I was referring to traditions, not some capital-t Tradition that supercedes Scripture.
Yes I’m snarky.
I'm not confused.
I refer to...
UN-holy Tradition — ritual that is NOW performed AFTER scripture was written down.
No such thing.
That notion is a Catholic fabrication used to take credit for the existance of Scripture and is NOWHERE found in Scripture itself.
The age of the oldest surviving manuscripts shows that this notion is completely false, as is the instruction by the apostle Paul to the Colossians (Colossians 4:16) that once they are done reading his letter, they are to have it read by the church in Laodicea and they are to read his letter to Laodicea themselves.
Paul’s letters were clearly being circulated among the churches even at the time Paul was alive, thus showing that this claim by Catholics that Scripture was transcribed much later after having been passed down word of mouth is wrong.
2 Peter 3:16 also refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture, showing that what he wrote while both he and Peter were alive was widely recognized as Scripture at the time.
Only some of Scripture was once expressed orally, versus directly into writing, and even then (as duplicate accounts of the gospels show) the Holy Spirit can rephrase, expand (or contract?) what was originally said in providing a fuller revelation.
And God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
But if there exists a stream of wholly inspired oral revelation then the question is how does one know what is of God? Bible Christians find assurance that something that was passed down (such as the names of Jannes and Jambres as being those who withstood Moses: (2 Timothy 3:8)) is the word of God by its inclusion in Scripture, while the the premise that there exists a stream of wholly inspired oral revelation which Catholicism teaches is also the word of God is based upon the proven fallacious premise that Catholicism determines just what is of God, and that one cannot discover the contents of the Bible except by faith in her, who tell us just that.
And thus Catholics are to have assurance that their church is the one true infallible church because she tell them that she is. And thus they argue that she gave us the Bible and therefore we need to trust and submit to her. Which principle effectively invalidates the NT church, as can be explained if any Catholic wishes to argue thusly. Some know better not do, but will post an article of someone who does.
Holy Traditions - purportedly passed from person to person - is no different that Big Foot.
People believe it, can't prove it, have no idea what happened in the past.
It is a fable, held onto by those who must prove another fable - that Rome is the true church.
And of course, no tradition is ever equal to the words of God Himself.
There goes Holy Tradition, look!!
