Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tradition Still Requires Interpretation
The Gospel Coalition ^ | 02/09/2011 | Kevin DeYoung

Posted on 02/09/2011 12:55:10 PM PST by RnMomof7

One of the common Catholic objections to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that without the Church to offer authoritative interpretations we are all just left with our own personal readings of Scripture. So, the argument goes, evangelicals may talk a big game about the Bible being our ultimate authority, but actually the final authority rests with each individual interpretation of Scripture. In light of this chaotic free-for-all, consider how much better is the Catholic understanding of authoritative Tradition with a capital T.

There are a number of ways an evangelical could respond to this argument.

1. Illumination. We believe the Spirit opens the eyes of his people so that spiritual things can be spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:6-16). This illumination is not limited to church councils.

2. Perspictuity. We believe that the main things of the Bible–sin, salvation, Christ, man, God, faith–can be clearly understood. Our God speaks and knows how to speak. Jesus and the apostles quoted Scripture all the time as if they believed there was a meaning in the text that they could understand and others ought to have understood as well.

3. History. At our best, evangelicals do not confuse sola scriptura with solo scriptura, the latter entailing a complete rejection of theological tradition. Creeds and confessions matter. The historic Christian faith matters. All councils, catechisms, and theologians are fallible, but this doesn’t mean we ignore the communion of the saints that have gone before. Biblical interpretation must be informed by and rooted in tradition, just not controlled by it.

Those three points could be elaborated for a thousand pages, but I want to focus on one other response to the Catholic argument against sola scriptura.

Interpretations Need Not Apply?

I respect Catholic theology for its intellectual history, its commitment to doctrinal precision, and for the many places it promotes historic orthodoxy. But I do not see how an appeal to authoritative church tradition, in its practical outworking, makes the interpretation of Scripture any more settled. In my experience, what it does is push the boundaries of the debate away from Scripture out to papal encyclicals and the like. This is fine to do as a means for establishing what Catholics have believed about Christian doctrine (much like I don’t think it’s a waste of time for Presbyterians to discuss the Westminster Confession of Faith). But here’s my point: just because you have an authoritative tradition doesn’t mean you won’t argue over the interpretation of that tradition.

For example, take the immigration debate. How should Christians view the ethics of immigration? Two evangelicals might both turn to the Bible and come up with a difference response. I’m not saying one answer wouldn’t be more right than the other (we’re not relativists or hard postmodernists when it comes to texts), but they could very well disagree even though they both adhere to sola scriptura. So do Catholics have an easier time giving a definitive answer? Clearly not.

In May 2008, First Things printed an exchange between two Catholics on the issue of immigration. This was how the “conservative” author began (three paragraphs in):

Is there a Christian answer to these urgent question? For Catholics at least, there are relevant teachings in the Catechism: (1) The “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able,” to welcome foreigners in search of security or a livelihood; (2) there should be not “unjust discrimination” in employment against immigrants, and (3) the immigrants themselves should “obey” the receiving country’s laws. (40)

The author on the “left” also began with an appeal to Catholic Social Teaching:

Deriving its understanding from revelation and reason, the Catholic Church teaches (1) that persons have right to emigrate in search of a better life when poverty, hunger, unemployment, unrest, and similar factors greatly hinder human flourishing; (2) that states have a right to limit immigration when the common good of society requires it in due consideration of such factors as national security and the domestic economy, but not out of inconvenience, selfishness, or minor cost; and (3) that “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin,” as the Catechism puts it. (44)

Both authors are obviously working with the same material, and both quote the part about prosperous nations being obliged to welcome immigrants. But you can already see they are going in different directions. The first author’s third point highlights the need for immigrants to obey the laws of the land, while the second author’s second point goes out of the way to say that nations cannot refuse immigrants out of selfishness. Same tradition, but still a debate.

Interestingly, both authors go on to interact with various Cardinals and Bishops, but neither quotes from Scripture. This doesn’t mean their arguments can’t be scriptural, it is simply to make the point that the debate centers on interpretations of interpretations.

A Tangled Mess Too

This leads to one last thought. Just because Protestants have a bazillion denominations and Catholics have, well, the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is any less a mishmash of traditions. They have under a more formal unity just as many competing ideologies and theologies.

For example, here’s Russell Hittinger, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Tulsa, writing about the thought of Thomas Aquinas:

The past century and a half of papal teaching on modern times often seems like a tangle: any number of different strands–theology, Thomistic philosophy, social theory, economics–all snarled together. And yet a little historical analysis may help loosen the know.
In fact, a careful reading of papal documents reveals one of the main causes of the tangle.
Throughout Catholic thought over the past hundred and fifty years, they have run two quite different uses of Thomism–a combination of four threads weaving in and out of the Catholic Church’s response to the strangeness of modern times. (First Things June/July 2008, 33)

Later, as a case in point, Hittenger explains (in a sentence that will make sense to few Protestants):

The affirmations to be negated in Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus became affirmation to be affirmed in Leo XIII’s famous 1892 encyclical Rerum Novarum–positive statements on Catholic teaching on modern social and political issues. (35)

In the end, the best arguments of sola scriptura come from the way Scripture views Scripture. I recognize I haven’t done much of that here. But clearing away counter-arguments is important too. And one of the most common is the charge that Protestantism got rid of one infallible Pope, just to put a million little popes in his place. Makes a good evangelical wince a little, doesn’t it? But before you take a step or two in the direction of Rome, remember that even one Pope has a million interpreters.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: pope; solascriptura; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
Excellent common sense reading of the problems with governing a church with tradition as its foundation
1 posted on 02/09/2011 12:55:13 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; BibChr; 1000 silverlings; caww; boatbums; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; ...

Ping


2 posted on 02/09/2011 1:01:48 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

The Catholic Church doesn’t have a foundation based on Tradition. That is false.

The Catholic Church foundation is built on the Word of God, through both Scripture and the Tradition as passed on from the Apostles, those who walked with him.


3 posted on 02/09/2011 1:04:07 PM PST by rbmillerjr (I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Mitt Romney....none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Your Own Personal Interpretation Of The Magisterium?


4 posted on 02/09/2011 1:08:41 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Your Own Personal Interpretation Of The Magisterium?

LOL..gotta remember that YOPOTM

5 posted on 02/09/2011 1:17:26 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Conveyed more briefly and perhaps more pointedly here.
6 posted on 02/09/2011 1:19:45 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
RB..tradition trumps scripture in the Roman church ... Scripture has no priesthood, no pope , no mass, no confessionals , no statures ,no purgatory, no prayers to or for the dead , no assumption, etc.. The Roman church has added so much tradition that its foundation now rests on it

Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith

7 posted on 02/09/2011 1:21:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

:)


8 posted on 02/09/2011 1:23:29 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BibChr; RnMomof7

“The answer is, who explains to him?”

Well, obviously the Holy Spirit explains it to him(not HS) but not to you.....but He(HS) does inspire you to listen to him(not HS)...and then inspires him(not HS) to explain it to you......and He(HS) then interprets his(not HS) explanation to you so that you don’t have to do any original critical thinking since that would cause you to question his(not HS) understanding of whatever was explained to him (not HS) by the Holy Spirit (HS).

Tradition is a whole lot like pornography. As Justice Potter Stewart opined (a loose translation), “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it”.


9 posted on 02/09/2011 1:39:51 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Scripture has no priesthood, no pope , no mass, no confessionals , no statures ,no purgatory, no prayers to or for the dead , no assumption, etc

IN YOUR FALLIBLE OPINION.

I find every one of those things in Scripture, and by your own doctrine, you have no more authority to tell me I'm wrong ... than the Pope has to tell you you're wrong.

10 posted on 02/09/2011 1:43:07 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Campion

If you found the statures you gotta share - I’ve been looking for a while ;)


11 posted on 02/09/2011 1:46:08 PM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion

***I find every one of those things in Scripture, and by your own doctrine, you have no more authority to tell me I’m wrong ... than the Pope has to tell you you’re wrong.***

It is wrong not because I say it . It us wrong because the scripture says it is

The greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The greek have a couple words for priest

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..

Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin

He is now our High Priest..

The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.

There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..


12 posted on 02/09/2011 1:52:07 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Er... I hate to be so pointed, but: ever hear of something known as a "straw man fallacy"?

RB..tradition trumps scripture in the Roman church ... Those who respect logical discourse research their topic before making accusations. Might you be persuaded to do the same?

Scripture has no priesthood,

(??) Are you kidding me? Remember Melchizedek (priest of the Most High God, Genesis 14), Aaron (high priest, too many references to count--see Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc.), Zechariah (to whom Gabriel announced the pending birth of St. John the Baptist), and Jesus, Himself (the eternal High Priest)?

no pope

See Isaiah 22:15-25--especially Isaiah 22:21-23--and compare it to Matthew 16:18-20; then we'll talk. Unless you mean that the word "Pope" isn't there? Nor is the word "Trinity"; do you reject that?

no mass

No? Have you not read 1 Corinthians 11:23-30? Or the accounts of the Last Supper? Or Acts 2:42? Or is this another "I don't see the word 'Mass' anywhere" type of objections?

no confessionals

Horribilis dictu! You might also be interested to know that confessionals aren't mandatory; they're built for privacy and convenience. Or did you mean to object to "Confession" (as a Sacrament)?

no statures

(I assume you mean "statues"?) Do the bronze serpent (Numbers 21), the sculptures of trees and such in the Temple of the Lord (1 Kings 6, Ezekiel 41, etc.), or the cherubim statues upon the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-20) not qualify, for you? I wonder at your problem with them, anyway...

no purgatory

Is this a "missing word" objection, or a "concept" objection? If the latter, see below.

no prayers to or for the dead

No? Have you not read 2 Maccabees 12:40-46?

no assumption,

No? You have an objection to the idea that Enoch and Elijah "walked with God" without dying? Why would you make a fuss about it regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary?

The Roman church has added so much tradition that its foundation now rests on it

All right; you've now stated your personal opinion. If you could work a proof of any of it into future posts, that'd help your case, I think.
13 posted on 02/09/2011 2:06:47 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
The greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

Sorry... where in Scripture, exactly, does it say this? Chapter and verse, please. These extra "traditions of men" about "Greek words", "translations", and other such shibboleths and mummeries isn't something to which I can subscribe, if I follow your paradigm... yes? :)
14 posted on 02/09/2011 2:16:44 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Isn’t the question, not the Church’s guidance and revelation, but the Church changing the Scripture itself. ?


15 posted on 02/09/2011 2:26:16 PM PST by Knight Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
re: For example, take the immigration debate. How should Christians view the ethics of immigration?

The Catholic Church has not defined an answer to these questions, therefore, one can come up with whatever response. This example that the author gives is a lousy example of the Catholic hierarchy of truth. He should have picked a subject for which the Catholic Church has defined the infallible truth, like contraceptive use.

The article is useless.

16 posted on 02/09/2011 2:54:03 PM PST by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

From the first bit:
“One of the common Catholic objections to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that without the Church to offer authoritative interpretations we are all just left with our own personal readings of Scripture. So, the argument goes, evangelicals may talk a big game about the Bible being our ultimate authority, but actually the final authority rests with each individual interpretation of Scripture.”

RnMomof7,
this is patently false. The most common objection to the doctrine in question is that it is unscriptural. The Holy Bible does not support it. Whether you define sola scriptura as “no authority but the Bible,” or “The Bible is the final authority,” there is literally no chapter and verse that say those words. I’m not trying to be inflammatory when I say this. I realize that your position is the furthest on the map from ours. But, right from the start, this is not accurate.


17 posted on 02/09/2011 2:55:09 PM PST by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“RB..tradition trumps scripture in the Roman church”

Simply incorrect. Attack the Catholic Church for what it teaches, not what you think it teaches.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44


18 posted on 02/09/2011 3:01:24 PM PST by rbmillerjr (I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Mitt Romney....none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

I Guess Saints are not Welcomed.. Thomas Aquinas Passe.,St Jerome Famous for works with the Bible St Augustine? St Cyril Of Jerusalem St Cyril of Alexandria to mention a few... Doctors of the Church


19 posted on 02/09/2011 3:33:35 PM PST by philly-d-kidder (AB-Sheen"The truth is the truth if nobody believes it,a lie is still a lie, everybody believes it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
re: For example, take the immigration debate. How should Christians view the ethics of immigration?

The Catholic Church has not defined an answer to these questions, therefore, one can come up with whatever response. This example that the author gives is a lousy example of the Catholic hierarchy of truth. He should have picked a subject for which the Catholic Church has defined the infallible truth, like contraceptive use.

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." (St. Augustine)

The article is useless.

20 posted on 02/09/2011 3:38:58 PM PST by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: philly-d-kidder

BTW These Doctors of the Church there are 33 In 2000 years. They Have 3 Requirements as “Doctors of the Catholic Church”:

1) holiness that is truly outstanding, even among saints;

2) depth of doctrinal insight; and

3) an extensive body of writings which the church can recom­mend as an expression of the authentic and life-giving Catholic Tradition.

But Sola Scriptura..... No Tradition Allowed...


21 posted on 02/09/2011 3:39:55 PM PST by philly-d-kidder (AB-Sheen"The truth is the truth if nobody believes it,a lie is still a lie, everybody believes it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

The Catholic Church had a foundation in Holy Tradition long before the Bibble was recorded (even the Old Testament.)

Tradition for Catholics — isn’t rituals, it’s the oral passing down of the Word of God as recorded in the Bible. It has been a part of the Catholic Church and will remain a part of the Catholic Church forever.


22 posted on 02/09/2011 4:14:49 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

>> “This illumination is not limited to church councils.” <<

.
No, it is limited to individuals.

Only individuals can have a relationship with God. The Holy Spirit is sent to the individual believers, not to any ‘council.’

Christianity is strictly a one on one experience between the believer and their Lord; there is no provision for anything in between given in the word of God.


23 posted on 02/09/2011 4:15:35 PM PST by editor-surveyor (NOBAMA - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
For the enlightenment of all. Please don't keep wandering around in the darkness:

Do Christians Need Only the Bible?
[T]radition and [t]radition (and just what is the difference?) [Ecumenical]
What is Holy Tradition?
Why Does The Catholic Church Accept Traditions? [Ecumenical]

A Return to Tradition: A new interest in old ways takes root in Catholicism and many other faiths
Scripture Is Tradition
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
The Importance of Tradition Today
The Place of Custom and Tradition
Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Holy Tradition: The Road That Leads Home
On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Recovering the Catholic Moral Tradition: The notion of happiness
Tradition and Reform

APOSTOLIC TRADITION: Consistency or Contradiction?
Can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
Pope praises Ukrainian-Catholic Church for upholding Sacred Tradition, communion with Seat of Peter
The Shadow Tradition - Magisterium vs Murk
[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]
Pope will preside at Ash Wednesday Mass, procession; act will renew ancient tradition
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II

24 posted on 02/09/2011 4:19:12 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

The kids are all over this thread with their simplistic retorts, can we have a new thread for adults?

Arguing with childish minds is like trying to clean a mirror with a muddy rag.


25 posted on 02/09/2011 4:31:30 PM PST by editor-surveyor (NOBAMA - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Of what value is a list of links to well known catholic error?

The catholic church is darkness defined; it leads to the second death.


26 posted on 02/09/2011 4:35:15 PM PST by editor-surveyor (NOBAMA - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

They can not even understand this very simple truth... darkness is so overwhelming


27 posted on 02/09/2011 5:09:21 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; RnMomof7; BibChr
Well, obviously the Holy Spirit explains it to him(not HS) but not to you.....but He(HS) does inspire you to listen to him(not HS)...and then inspires him(not HS) to explain it to you......and He(HS) then interprets his(not HS) explanation to you so that you don’t have to do any original critical thinking since that would cause you to question his(not HS) understanding of whatever was explained to him (not HS) by the Holy Spirit (HS).

That's about the best explanation for the ridiculous notion that we must depend on someone else to explain God's Word to us that I've ever had the pleasure to read! Thanks for using the absurd to show how absurd it truly is!!

28 posted on 02/09/2011 5:18:38 PM PST by smvoice (Defending the Indefensible: The Pride of a Pawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Your Own Personal Interpretation Of The Magisterium?

Nice... gotta remember that...

:D

Hoss

29 posted on 02/09/2011 5:47:23 PM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I find every one of those things in Scripture, and by your own doctrine, you have no more authority to tell me I'm wrong ... than the Pope has to tell you you're wrong.

Actually, you don't. There is nothing in scripture that supports popery, Mass, purgatory, et. al. The Magicsterium* says that they exist, so "tradition" supports their existence, and the mass of Roman Catholics drink up the bilge as if it's true.

And fallible men, just as you accuse here, are the authors of it. Not scripture.

Hoss

*credit to Quix

30 posted on 02/09/2011 5:53:03 PM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: paladinan; RnMomof7

Have you not read that RnMomof7 is not the author of the piece? Care to argue your points with the author?

If others happen to agree that’s one thing. But your post seems to ascribe the authorship to RM7.

Hoss


31 posted on 02/09/2011 5:56:59 PM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Arguing with childish minds is like trying to clean a mirror with a muddy rag.

Well, e-s, that's about the only thing you're gonna find here responding to fact. It's sad...but true.

Hoss

32 posted on 02/09/2011 6:01:27 PM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; RnMomof7; editor-surveyor; Quix; metmom
The Catholic Church had a foundation in Holy Tradition long before the Bibble was recorded (even the Old Testament.)

Let me get this straight -- The Roman Catholic church EXISTED in the time of Abraham and Moses (as this scripture was written down by men inspired by God) and served as "tradition"?

That is indeed laughable. Are you sure you want to stand by that statement? Or maybe you misstated it (I hope).

Regardless, this is one for the books and that's a fact.

Hoss

33 posted on 02/09/2011 6:07:20 PM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Suitable for framing! :o)


34 posted on 02/09/2011 6:46:43 PM PST by editor-surveyor (NOBAMA - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Amazing, no?

Hoss


35 posted on 02/09/2011 7:02:01 PM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
Photobucket

Photobucket

36 posted on 02/09/2011 8:58:52 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The Catholic Church is not in error and the Bible proves it.

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today, kids,  to keep things on even footing):

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.


37 posted on 02/09/2011 9:55:51 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

You need to read some more Scripture. The New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.

Quiz for today —

How many Gospel writers quote the Old Covenant and the Old Testament?

LOL!


38 posted on 02/09/2011 9:57:46 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

I just realized how funny the title is.

It is written in presnet tense.

Tradition is the Word of God that was handed down from person to person in ancient times until it was written down in the Bible.

Tradition is not a “present tense” thing.

It’s been here a long time. (And you can thank the Catholic Church for preserving it.)


39 posted on 02/09/2011 10:11:05 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

No... If you READ the verse you quoted, you'd find that the subject is Jesus and the things he did. How does this verse exegetically support "tradition?"

Clue=it doesn't

can you not see the difference

Hoss

40 posted on 02/10/2011 3:32:15 AM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Quix
You need to read some more Scripture. The New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.

Really? I'd a never known that. Puh-lease. I think you need to ACTUALLY READ the Scripture yourself, seeking discernment through The Holy Spirit and see what God actually wrote instead of what the Magicsterium* tells you God wrote.

You really should; Rome has you (and sadly many,many more) snowed.

Hoss

*Quixificated description

41 posted on 02/10/2011 3:40:05 AM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; RnMomof7
Tradition is the Word of God that was handed down from person to person in ancient times until it was written down in the Bible.

Really? Did the Vatican change definitions on you again? Maybe you forgot to read the latest set of errata?

Roman Catholics on here have been pounding the "fact" that there is "holy" tradition AND Scripture--now you're saying tradition IS scripture...

Y'all need to take a minute and get back on the same (wrong) page before you all start looking foolish....

Er... Strike that. Too late.

Hoss

42 posted on 02/10/2011 3:51:14 AM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
Have you not read that RnMomof7 is not the author of the piece?

Of course, I did. But she introduced and praised the piece here, did she not? Are you suggesting that it's forbidden for me to ask questions of anyone but the original author? That's... odd. And I do think I was civil in my questions/comments, wasn't I... especially since RnMomof7 had no scruples against posting a direct criticism of the Church to Whom I belong? I have no animus against her... but it's bizarre for you to suggest that I not broach the subject with the one who brought up the topic in the first place!

Care to argue your points with the author?

If you can persuade the author to come to this thread, I'd be happy to debate the points with him/her. Otherwise, no... sorry. I have little enough free time as it is, without chasing down every random website of every last author obliquely referenced on FR. I assume that, if someone introduces and defends article [x], then that someone shouldn't be surprised at questions/comments about it... and nor should other random post-ers (such as yourself). I'm not quite sure why you took this [i.e. my comments to RnMomof7] up as an issue, anyway.

If others happen to agree that’s one thing. But your post seems to ascribe the authorship to RM7.

I have no idea, whatsoever, how you get to that conclusion. It doesn't follow from anything I said or did. Again, what's your particular beef, here?
43 posted on 02/10/2011 5:56:15 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Hint, FRiend: you may get more civil and pertinent replies if you make some efforts not to come across as less crowing, less self-congratulating, and less mocking. If your arguments are sound, they should stand up without that sort of nonsense.

More later, as time allows...


44 posted on 02/10/2011 6:00:09 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
(*sigh*) Speed-typing gets me, again! The above, of course, should read:

"...if you make some efforts not to come across as less crowing, less self-congratulating, and less mocking."
45 posted on 02/10/2011 6:04:09 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: paladinan; RnMomof7

I do not doubt that I could have mis-read what was written; however, the tone of the replies struck me as more of addressing RnMomof7 as the source of the piece as opposed to the poster.

If I took it in error, my mistake and my apologies.

As for my the ‘hint’ — well, call it my sense of humor. As to sound arguments, based on other posters (not necessarily you, mind you), the soundness or accuracy of what I say means nothing.

Again — apologies if I mistook the reply —

Hoss


46 posted on 02/10/2011 6:14:42 AM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

Speed typing and speed reading both get me sometimes. May have been my problem this morning. Too early and no coffee.

:D

Hoss


47 posted on 02/10/2011 6:20:09 AM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

:) No harm, no foul!


48 posted on 02/10/2011 6:26:05 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
through both Scripture and the Tradition as passed on from the Apostles,

This RCC belief ... that the traditions of the RCC not contained in the Bible, are apostolic ... is itself an RCC tradition.

49 posted on 02/10/2011 7:18:54 AM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
When the Holy Spirit inspired the roles for the NT church.. there is no priest, no pope, no confessional. no mass, and no prayers for the dead.. quoting the roles in the jewish temple or Jewish practices does not "help " your cause." .

We are under a new and everlasting covenant..

Those OT points to Christ.. and He fulfilled it..

No where do you read anywhere in the NT that the NT church had priests or a pope..

The Roman church is NOT the NT church as the apostles and disciples outlined it

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,

"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

50 posted on 02/10/2011 7:41:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson