Tradition

[MaxBecher]

Hi folks, I'm new here. I posted this topic in another forum about a week ago, but it has gotten no response, so I decided to post it here as well. I hope I'm not violating any rules.

Why do so many Christians (Catholics are the only exception, I think) believe in the bible alone? If God intended us to belive in the bible alone, wouldn't that be in the bible? And it isn't. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the bible isn't God's word (it is!). I'm simply saying that we shouldn't belive in the bible ALONE, but Sacred Tradition as well. And the bible says so. Look at these passages (I am using the New American Bible):

1 Cor. 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. [emphasis added]

2 Thes. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. [emphasis added]

There it is, as plain as anything. St. Paul is praising the Corinthians and Thessalonians because they held fast to the traditions. How can any bible-believing Christian honestly say that we should not believe in Sacred Tradition? It just baffles me.

I hope I haven't seemed rude or offensive, that was not my intention. I'm just confused that so many good, truth-seeking people could be so misled. I look forward to hear what you have to say about this.

BTW -- I am Catholic, in case you want to know.

Max

[RevJP]

Is getting together in a bible study truely a new tradition? didn't 1st century Christians gather in homes to study, pray and worship?

[Dilettante]

youngborean wrote:

Traditions that are taught to affect salvation are idolatry (protocol in communion, pennance, etc). A bible study means nothing to salvation, only a tool that uphold the authority of scripture.

My definition of idolatry is simply "worship of a false deity". Your definition widens the concept as I understand it. Also, are you implying that reading the Bible is not necessary for salvation? I might agree with you then, but that's not what evangelicals today are saying. I don't think any early Christian ever read "the Bible" because no Bible existed yet, only collections of books. Some later became part of the Bible and some were rejected.

RevJP wrote:

Is getting together in a bible study truely a new tradition? didn't 1st century Christians gather in homes to study, pray and worship?

They may have, but they certainly did no Bible studies since the Bible (as we know it today) wasn't available yet. They most certainly studied lots of documents and books we don't consider sacred or divinely inspired today ---such as the Apocripha).

[RevJP]

Oh, I see. The 'bible' is the sticking point. No doubt if we say 'scriptures' we would take a different tack in this line of reasoning.

However, let us look at the word 'bible':

Bi·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bbl)
n.

The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.

A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.

A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.
often bible A book considered authoritative in its field: the bible of French cooking.

Seems to me that by definition, the early Christians did engage in bible study.

Point being; We are instructed to follow the oral traditions of the church, with the addendum that those traditions do not contravene scripture. Many traditions of the Catholic church certainly do contravene scripture and thus the reformation was born with Martin Luther.

Bible study is not new, it simply focuses on (in most cases) NT scriptures rather than OT scriptures.

[Dilettante]

RevJP:

If by "bible study" we mean study of whatever writings a religion considers central to its teachings, then I agree that the early Christians probably did that.

As for Catholic doctrines which "contravene Scripture" I suppose you mean images and statues in church. That would seem to contravene the Ten Commandments, but that is in the OT, not the NT. Also, you can't judge both "Sola Scriptura" Protestantism and "Magisterium-based" Catholicism according to the same standards. As far as I know, Catholicism doesn't claim strict allegiance to the Bible (only to the New Testament) and to its official philosopher-theologian, Thomas Aquinas.

In some ways all Christian denominations probably engage in worship practices which "contravene" scripture, since, for example, women no longer pray with their heads covered, as Paul clearly commands them to ( see 1 Corinthians 11:6). And they are not silent in church either (and I'm not saying they should be!)

[MaxBecher]

Wow. Thanks for the replies, guys.

The Sola Scriptura doctrine probably assumes(mistakenly, in my opinion) that the Bible is clear enough and can be interpreted in one way only.

Yes, I agree with you, when you say that that the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16 "In them [talking about the letters of Paul] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." That is why we need one, extra-biblical (but not contra-biblical) authority to interpret scripture for us.

Paul doesn't seem to want to discredit the Jewish traditions in any way.

Ooh, be careful. The Jewish traditions are stronlgy spoken against by Christ. Matt. 15:1-6 "Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands when they eat a meal.' He said to them in reply, 'And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and your mother," and "Whoever curses father or mother shall die." But you say, "Whoever says to father or mother, 'Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,' need not honor his father." You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition." So, St. Paul must have been speaking of some other tradition, or else he would have been speaking against God.

Espicially since prayer to wooden idols has always been spoken out against, it seems ridiculus that now we would be called to do so.

Hold on, you're not accusing the Catholic Church of idol-worship, are you? We worship God, and God alone.

So regardless of a proof for or against "Sola Scriptura" we can only know (Biblically speaking of course) that Scripture is the only text which is assured to be profitable in the manner mentioned above.

It is important to note that although St. Paul does say that all Scripture is inspired, he does not say that inspiration is limited to Scripture.

Most Christians I have read or conversed with don't believe in the Bible as the only text which betrays any and all truth whatever. I can only speak from personal experience, but most simply believe there is no higher authority. Other texts used, other traditions followed, must affirm what is in Scripture, not contradict it. That is the basic approach and one which is hard from a theological perspective to disagree with. What would be the point in following contrary teachings along with the Bible. That is the point.

Well, I think this is probably our main point of difference. I, as a Catholic, believe that the Church (which is a divine institution) is the highest authority. Listen to what Jesus says to his apostles in Matt 18:15-18 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here, Christ names the Church as the final (highest) authority. It is important to note that the word "church" is only used twice in all the Gospels. The other time that it is used is only two chapters back, when Christ tells Peter that we will be the head of the church on earth. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18-19) Looking at the identical verses found in these passages (Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven), we can see that Jesus was referring (in Matt. 18) to the Church that he made Peter head of, only two chapters back. That church is the Roman Catholic Church. Look at this list here. We can trace our current Pope, the 265th successor of Peter, straight down to Peter himself. If you want biblical evidence for apostolic succession, let me know.

It seems very clear to me. Christ established one church, and he made Peter the head of it. The Catholic Church can build the chain of Popes all the way back to Peter, a claim which no other church on earth can make. Catholics, and only Catholics, can trace their roots back to Jesus himself.

As believers we should simply avoid anti-Scriptural teachings.

We certainly should avoid anti-Scriptural teachings.

The emphasis was on returning authority to the Scriptures since the church had usurped and abused that same authority. It was not about simply rejecting traditions and liturgies, although many were rejected.

You can't return the authority to the Scriptures when they never had supreme authority in the first place. The Church is the final authority, as I stated above.

Hold on there! This may be a minor point, but Christian Orthodox and Catholicism were not yet two different Christian trebuchets at this time. St. Paul is also an Orthodox figure. The capitalized term Catholic didn't get applied until the 16th century, in the shadow of the Reformation. Paul could be called catholic with a lowercase c, but he was just a Christian.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said that St. Paul was Catholic, I didn't mean he called himself a "Catholic," because as you said, the term was not yet in use. I meant that St. Paul was part of the Church that is known today as the Catholic Church.

Many traditions of the Catholic church certainly do contravene scripture and thus the reformation was born with Martin Luther.

Well, I disagree with you there. No Catholic tradition goes against Holy Scripture.

Folks, I'm sorry if I have come across as rude or offensive. I'm not saying these thing just to dig in and show you that you're wrong, I'm simply trying to share what I believe to be the truth. I've been very impressed with the civil atmosphere on this board, and I wouldn't want to spoil it!

Thanks, and God bless.

Max

[chrispalasz]

MaxBecher wrote: Hi folks, I'm new here. I posted this topic in another forum about a week ago, but it has gotten no response, so I decided to post it here as well. I hope I'm not violating any rules.

Why do so many Christians (Catholics are the only exception, I think) believe in the bible alone? If God intended us to belive in the bible alone, wouldn't that be in the bible? And it isn't. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the bible isn't God's word (it is!). I'm simply saying that we shouldn't belive in the bible ALONE, but Sacred Tradition as well. And the bible says so. Look at these passages (I am using the New American Bible):

1 Cor. 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. [emphasis added]

2 Thes. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. [emphasis added]

There it is, as plain as anything. St. Paul is praising the Corinthians and Thessalonians because they held fast to the traditions. How can any bible-believing Christian honestly say that we should not believe in Sacred Tradition? It just baffles me.

I hope I haven't seemed rude or offensive, that was not my intention. I'm just confused that so many good, truth-seeking people could be so misled. I look forward to hear what you have to say about this.

BTW -- I am Catholic, in case you want to know.

Max

Hey Max!!

I'm glad you could join the discussion! It's a pleasure to discuss with a practicing Catholic. I've done a lot of research on Catholic theology... so this will be fun. I'm not offended by what you say at all. 8)

1. I would like to say that I agree with ST88. Paul was a Christian, not a Catholic. Just because the Catholic church claims that it holds the only true direct line from Christ doesn't make it so. Nothing except their word links them.

2. What traditions do you think Paul was talking about? I believe in the Bible alone. I see those passages you used. The traditions Paul speaks about are outlined in the Bible. Catholics practice traditions that are not in the Bible. The Bible is God breathed. What authority do non-biblical traditions hold? Also, many traditions held by the Catholic church not only cannot be found in the Bible, but they actually contradict its teachings. Those traditions are fundamental dogmatic Catholic beliefs such as the Apocrypha, Purgatory, praying to/through the saints, the Eucharist, the Pope being the head of the church, the Pope's word being infallable when he sits on the chair of Peter, and all that stuff about Mary being sinless and assumed into Heaven.

We all know that Purgatory and the Chair of Peter and a bunch of other stuff came hundreds of years after Paul died. How could any of these be the traditions he spoke of or he passed down?

Also, I have a question for you: How much do you know about Catholic theology? Have you studied it a lot? Do you agree with all of it?

[chrispalasz]

MaxBecher: No Catholic tradition goes against Holy Scripture.

Let's take this claim one Catholic tradition at a time.

Purgatory: That's the most obvious tradition that blatantly contridicts Holy Scripture.

Have you heard of Scott Han? He is the most convincing debater for the Catholic church that I've heard. His arguments do not even come close.

If you think you can provide a good explanation, I would appreciate it! Thanks!

[Dilettante]

Greenlight wrote

Let's take this claim one Catholic tradition at a time.

Purgatory: That's the most obvious tradition that blatantly contridicts Holy Scripture.

Greenlight, this discussion is fascinating, but I think it would be more enlightening if you gave specific references instead of just making the claim as if it was obvious to everyone. One things is for a certain Catholic concept to be extra-biblical, quite another to claim that it is against the Bible. Unfortunately the Bible is not always clear. That's why it requires interpretation, as any text. For Protestants, interpretation is a private affair. For Catholics,it is a public affair in which the Magisterium of the Church has the last word. As William G. Most says:

... not all things in Scripture are obvious in meaning. Many Protestants try to claim that, but are refuted by the Yellow Pages of the phone book, listing numerous churches all claiming to know how to understand Scripture. When we meet something that is not obvious, the Protestant method is private judgment. The Catholic method is to follow the teaching of the Church, if there are some teachings on the point in question. Even if there is nothing direct, often there will be help from the analogy of faith, i.e. , the whole body of our teachings. Sadly, many today who call themselves Catholics are following the Protestant method. Some have even been taught to do that by so-called Catholic schools. (Lutherans may object: "But we must follow our creeds, such as the Augsburg Confession". But the reply is: If a Lutheran went to his pastor and said, "I do not believe this and this" in the Augsburg Confession, he would not be told: "You have a divinely imposed obligation to follow our church." No, the Pastor would say; "I guess you belong with some other denomination".

Naturally, private interpretation of the Bible's unclear passages causes Christians to divide into more and more denominations. It causes some people to think uttering a series of incomprehensible sounds is a sign of the Holy Spirit. It even causes others to think handling snakes is the way to go! If, as someone said, health books are dangerous because you might die of a misprint, then private interpretation of the Bible is not without its dangers too. You might indeed die of a misinterpretation--in the form of a snake bite!

[MaxBecher]

I'm glad you could join the discussion! It's a pleasure to discuss with a practicing Catholic. I've done a lot of research on Catholic theology... so this will be fun. I'm not offended by what you say at all.

Good, glad to know I'm welcome here!

I would like to say that I agree with ST88. Paul was a Christian, not a Catholic.

St. Paul was a Christian and a Catholic. As I said above, he did not call himself "Catholic" and the Church was not even called "Catholic" yet. In the earliest days, it wasn't even called Christian. But it still was Christian. The Church that St. Paul was spreading was the Church that is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

Just because the Catholic church claims that it holds the only true direct line from Christ doesn't make it so. Nothing except their word links them.

The Catholic Church can not only make the claim of succession from Peter (and through Peter, from Christ himself) but it can support that claim with solid historical evidence. Did you look at that list of popes from Peter to John Paul II? Catholic have a historical record going unbroken (Matt. 16:18 - "The gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it.") all the way back to Peter! We see ever so clearly in the Bible that Christ made Peter the head of the Church on earth. "Blessed are you, Simon Son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what ever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. 16:17-19

What traditions do you think Paul was talking about?

I do not know exactly what he was referring to. But what I do know, and I wanted to point out, was that he is saying that it's not the Bible ALONE. Now, don't get me wrong. I am NOT trying to say that the Bible is not the word of God. I believe in the Bible 100%. I am merely pointing out that God's inspiration is not limited to the Bible. St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." If this is so, then how could God's guiding hand be Bible-exclusive?

I believe in the Bible alone.

Why?

According to your own belief, something must be found in the Bible to be truth. Please show me where in the Bible it says that we must believe in the Bible alone. Now, of course there will be passages saying that the Bible is the word of God (because it is!!) and there will be passages telling us to believe in the Bible (because we should!). But what you will not find (because it is not there) is even one solitary verse in the whole of Scripture that says we are to believe in the Bible ALONE!

How could any of these be the traditions he spoke of or he passed down?

I did not say that St. Paul was specifically referring to any of the traditions you mentioned. My point was: St. Paul is clearly commending the Corinthians and Thessalonians for keeping the traditions which Paul and the other missionaries (the Church, basically) gave them, in addition to the written word. And then, 1500 years later, Martin Luther comes along and changes all that. Who are you going to listen to, God, or Martin Luther?

Also, I have a question for you: How much do you know about Catholic theology? Have you studied it a lot?

I am only 16 years old. I was born into a Catholic family, and have been raised on Catholicism my whole life. For most of my life, I accepted Catholicism simply because my parents told me it was right. But over the past six months or so, I have made my faith my own. I have taken such an interest recently in reading the Bible, the Catechism, aplogetic books, going to Mass, praying the Rosary; basically, I'm on fire. My new interest in the faith is due the wonderful example of some friends I met recently, as well as a tape recording of Tim Staples.

But, I'm afraid my zeal is greater than my knowledge. I still have much to learn. I hope I haven't sounded haughty, or all-knowing in my posts, because I am just starting off. There are some Catholic doctrines that I know very little about, but I'm learning more all the time.

Why do you ask?

Do you agree with all of it?

Yes, all that I know of it. Although, I still have much to learn about Catholicism, but what I do know, I believe in 100%. Nobody has been able to show me that any of my beliefs are untrue. If you think they are (well, I'm sure you do, since you're not Catholic) untrue, please don't hesitate to show me. I want to know. I'm only seeking the truth.

Just curious, why do you ask?

Let's take this claim one Catholic tradition at a time.

Purgatory: That's the most obvious tradition that blatantly contridicts Holy Scripture.

Ouch. You hit me with a tough one. Purgatory is one of the Catholic teachings I have done basically no research on. Maybe you could help me out? Could you show me the passages you had in mind that speak against Purgatory? That would be a great starting place for me, if you wouldn't mind.

If you think you can provide a good explanation, I would appreciate it! Thanks!

That's the whole reason I'm studying religion. I'm trying to get good explanations. Please be assured that I will share any with you! Although, at the moment, I have some research to do on Purgatory first.

Have you heard of Scott Han? He is the most convincing debater for the Catholic church that I've heard. His arguments do not even come close.

I have heard much about him, but I've never heard him talk. Do you have any place online where Scott Hahn (I think it's spelled with an H) gives his arguments for Purgatory?

Hey, I see from your signiture that you run the CARM site. What a coincidence! I ran across your site a few weeks ago by accident, as I was searching for a forum like this one. I was captivated though, and started reading. I was just on the verge of emailing you to talk about it, when I saw your post here! Do you mind if I do?

Thanks, and it's great talking with you!

Max

[unprofitable servant]

[/quote]Well, I disagree with you there. No Catholic tradition goes against Holy Scripture
There are traditions in the Catholic church which are contrary to the testimony of Christ.
The greatest being this
Matt 23:9 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Not only do Catholics call men father, but even calls one man Holy Father!

As for Catholic doctrines which "contravene Scripture" I suppose you mean images and statues in church. That would seem to contravene the Ten Commandments, but that is in the OT, not the NT.
Yet 2 Tim 3:16 (as quoted earlier)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
And this is what becomes of the Word of God when we stray from the scriptures.
But as far as other resources we must remember what is stated at Dan 12:4
4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
For Jesus says at Matt 10:26
26Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
There is hidden truth that is being made known as the time grows shorter and as Jesus says at Matt 7:7,8
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
So we should seek those things that correlate to the scriptures being careful as Jesus said in Matt 24:4,5
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.