GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Sacred Tradition  (Read 31077 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #35 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:09:19 »

So if Sacred tradition is the Word of God why was it left out of the Bible,also what about the below verse

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

I LOVE it when Protestants quote this passage from Revelation.
Tell me something - WHAT is this passage talking about?

As for your question about why Sacred Tradition is not written down in the bible - I would think the answer is blindingly CLEAR to you:
Because it is ORAL Tradition - not WRITTEN Tradition.

I await your answer to my question . . .

The meaning of the verse is in the verse,simply do not add to the Word of God.....

"It's not in the scripture's because it's oral"Sooo how do you all no what they are?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #35 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:09:19 »

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #36 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:13:36 »
Quote from: n2thelight
So if Sacred tradition is the Word of God why was it left out of the Bible,also what about the below verse

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
It is pretty evident by this question that you still don't understand what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.

Try to imagine that you are a Christian living in the first year after the death of our Lord....

How would you worship?

Well, you certainly wouldn't be reading the New Testament (Rev 22:18) since it wasn't written yet let alone compiled together in a canon.

Soooo.... how would you worship?

Read Acts and you'll get an idea of how the nascent church came together for a common meal and common prayer....

Then understand that EVERYTHING in your faith that is more than what these early Christians were doing is part of YOUR sacred tradition:
The NT, the divinity of Christ, the symbol of the cross, Sunday worship (assuming you are not SDA), etc. etc.

You can certainly disagree with certain parts of what Catholics define as part of our Sacred Tradition, but to deny that it is a valid aspect of authentic Christianity is to deny 99% of the way that non-Catholics worship... including you.  ::smile::

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #36 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:13:36 »

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #37 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:27:40 »
Quote from: n2thelight
So if Sacred tradition is the Word of God why was it left out of the Bible,also what about the below verse

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
It is pretty evident by this question that you still don't understand what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.

Try to imagine that you are a Christian living in the first year after the death of our Lord....

How would you worship?

Well, you certainly wouldn't be reading the New Testament (Rev 22:18) since it wasn't written yet let alone compiled together in a canon.

Soooo.... how would you worship?

Read Acts and you'll get an idea of how the nascent church came together for a common meal and common prayer....

Then understand that EVERYTHING in your faith that is more than what these early Christians were doing is part of YOUR sacred tradition:
The NT, the divinity of Christ, the symbol of the cross, Sunday worship (assuming you are not SDA), etc. etc.

You can certainly disagree with certain parts of what Catholics define as part of our Sacred Tradition, but to deny that it is a valid aspect of authentic Christianity is to deny 99% of the way that non-Catholics worship... including you.  ::smile::

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

So me not being,Catholic,Im missing out on some of the Word of God,and scripture(in the bible) is not enough for me....Is that a fair statement?Also since sacred tradition is the Word of God,I need not check it against scripture,correct?

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #38 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:32:35 »
Quote from: n2thelight
So me not being,Catholic,Im missing out on some of the Word of God,and scripture(in the bible) is not enough for me....Is that a fair statement?
It is certainly enough for your salvation... but I'm not sure why you would deny some Catholic traditions and embrace so many others....   ???

I would appreciate an answer to how you as a early Christian would worship and be saved in the year after our Lord's death... since you didn't have the NT do you believe you would NOT be saved?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #38 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:32:35 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #39 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:55:53 »

So if Sacred tradition is the Word of God why was it left out of the Bible,also what about the below verse

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

I LOVE it when Protestants quote this passage from Revelation.
Tell me something - WHAT is this passage talking about?

As for your question about why Sacred Tradition is not written down in the bible - I would think the answer is blindingly CLEAR to you:
Because it is ORAL Tradition - not WRITTEN Tradition.

I await your answer to my question . . .

The meaning of the verse is in the verse,simply do not add to the Word of God.....

"It's not in the scripture's because it's oral"Sooo how do you all no what they are?

WRONG.
It is warning the reader not to add to the BOOK of Revelation.
The Bible had not been compiled yet, my ignorant friend.  it is ONLY talking about the Book of Revelation.

As for ORAL Tradition, it is passed down ORALLY.  Thank God for the Early Church, though who wrote down much of Sacred Catholic Tradition.

Which one would you like to hear about?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #39 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:55:53 »



Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #40 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 00:00:21 »
Quote from: n2thelight
So if Sacred tradition is the Word of God why was it left out of the Bible,also what about the below verse

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
It is pretty evident by this question that you still don't understand what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.

Try to imagine that you are a Christian living in the first year after the death of our Lord....

How would you worship?

Well, you certainly wouldn't be reading the New Testament (Rev 22:18) since it wasn't written yet let alone compiled together in a canon.

Soooo.... how would you worship?

Read Acts and you'll get an idea of how the nascent church came together for a common meal and common prayer....

Then understand that EVERYTHING in your faith that is more than what these early Christians were doing is part of YOUR sacred tradition:
The NT, the divinity of Christ, the symbol of the cross, Sunday worship (assuming you are not SDA), etc. etc.

You can certainly disagree with certain parts of what Catholics define as part of our Sacred Tradition, but to deny that it is a valid aspect of authentic Christianity is to deny 99% of the way that non-Catholics worship... including you.  ::smile::

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

Allthough I tend to agree with the basics, I think you are passing over something important.

If I was a Christian living in the first year after Christs death, I would be living in Jerusalem with all the Apostles around me.
The teachings from the Apostles would be passed on to me directy and verbally by them.

In time the Apostles did note their thoughts and teachings down in letters.
Luke narrated the experiences and circumstances of the early church down in Acts.

What we know about the New Testament is that not everything Jesus said and did is mentioned in it.
Not everything the Apostles said and did is mentioned in it.
What we also know and what is mentioned in the New Testament is that false teachings or incorrect understanding of the Gospel started practically at the same time as the Gospel was preached.

N2thelight is asking a fair question.
If a tradition is not mentioned in the Scriptures, how do you know if it is a tradtion passed on to us by the Apostles?
Or how do you know if it is a Sacred Tradition? How do you know the tradition is not passed on to us by people who erred?
Or how do you know when Apostles really want something to be a Tradition when they write things down?

Give you an example:
You and I both know that in the early church women covered their heads.
Not only is this specifically mentioned in the Scriptures, it has also been held a tradition for hundreds of years.
I am pretty sure that if you would ask an early Christian if this was something sacred, he or she would confirm this.

Somewhere down the road though, the church decided that it was no longer a requirement.
So since then women are allowed to enter the church bare-headed.
If the Holy Spirit told Paul to write down these words, is it the same Holy Spirit who then tells the later church that it actually doesn't matter?

In this example the question is: How do you know that Paul was not dead serious when he commanded women to cover their heads?
And if this tradition can be "downsized", what makes you say that other traditions cannot be downsized as well?
What makes a tradition "Sacred" or "Apostolic"? And what traditions do we hold to be "Sacred" or "Apostolic", but are in fact not?

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #41 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 00:19:57 »
Quote from: AVZ
Allthough I tend to agree with the basics, I think you are passing over something important.

Okey dokey... and thanks for being polite ----> some really angry "Christians" around here!   ::eek::
Quote
If I was a Christian living in the first year after Christs death, I would be living in Jerusalem with all the Apostles around me.
The teachings from the Apostles would be passed on to me directy and verbally by them.

I agree.
Quote
In time the Apostles did note their thoughts and teachings down in letters.
Luke narrated the experiences and circumstances of the early church down in Acts.
-------------------
N2thelight is asking a fair question.
If a tradition is not mentioned in the Scriptures, how do you know if it is a tradtion passed on to us by the Apostles?
Or how do you know if it is a Sacred Tradition? How do you know the tradition is not passed on to us by people who erred?
Or how do you know when Apostles really want something to be a Tradition when they write things down?

Fair question... but ignores the fact that the same "test" one would put forth for a Tradition (ie was it taught by the Apostles) is the same exact "test" one would use to determine the validity of the written works that would become Scripture.

To expand on our little make believe scenario here, how would you after the death of the last Apostle determine:

1.  Which books do you consider canonical?  http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html
2.  Do you worship on Sat. or Sun.?
Quote
Give you an example:
You and I both know that in the early church women covered their heads.
Not only is this specifically mentioned in the Scriptures, it has also been held a tradition for hundreds of years.
I am pretty sure that if you would ask an early Christian if this was something sacred, he or she would confirm this.

Somewhere down the road though, the church decided that it was no longer a requirement.
So since then women are allowed to enter the church bare-headed.
If the Holy Spirit told Paul to write down these words, is it the same Holy Spirit who then tells the later church that it actually doesn't matter?

Not sure what you are looking for here.... since the question is easily answed by a Catholic who believes in the authority of the Church...
Quote
In this example the question is: How do you know that Paul was not dead serious when he commanded women to cover their heads?
And if this tradition can be "downsized", what makes you say that other traditions cannot be downsized as well?
What makes a tradition "Sacred" or "Apostolic"? And what traditions do we hold to be "Sacred" or "Apostolic", but are in fact not?

Good questions!  Wonder how non-Catholics would answer them.

-S

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #42 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 00:26:22 »
Quote
WRONG.
It is warning the reader not to add to the BOOK of Revelation.
The Bible had not been compiled yet, my ignorant friend.  it is ONLY talking about the Book of Revelation.

I already knew you would say that...............

Now since the book of Revelations can and is compared with Ezekiel as well as Daniel,how can you make such a foolish statement?

Also,the Seals of REV,are also written in,Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21,so who's the ignorant one!!!!!
« Last Edit: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 01:36:25 by n2thelight »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #43 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 02:03:47 »
Quote from: AVZ
N2thelight is asking a fair question.
If a tradition is not mentioned in the Scriptures, how do you know if it is a tradtion passed on to us by the Apostles?
Or how do you know if it is a Sacred Tradition? How do you know the tradition is not passed on to us by people who erred?
Or how do you know when Apostles really want something to be a Tradition when they write things down?


Fair question... but ignores the fact that the same "test" one would put forth for a Tradition (ie was it taught by the Apostles) is the same exact "test" one would use to determine the validity of the written works that would become Scripture.

To expand on our little make believe scenario here, how would you after the death of the last Apostle determine:

1.  Which books do you consider canonical?  http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html
2.  Do you worship on Sat. or Sun.?


The canon of Scripture is determined according to a fixed system and a set of rules.
There are only two possibilities in the outcome. Either a Scripture is canon, or it is not.

In contrast to canon, tradition is not determined according to a fixed system. If there is such a set of rules, I would be eager to know.
In contrast to canon, within the group of traditions there are sub-classifications.
We have Sacret Traditions, Apostolic Traditions, and Customary Traditions. Again, these sub-classifications do not find their origin in a fixed system.

The "tests" you speak about therefore are different tests, and not the exact same.
If it was the same test, then traditions could be classified as canon.

I don't hold worship on Saturday or Sunday to be a Sacred Tradition.
In my opinion there are only good, neutral and bad traditions.
They either bring you closer to Jesus (the good ones), they don't matter for faith (the neutral ones), or they lead you away from Him (the bad ones).
Worship on Saturday is a good tradition, and worship on Sunday also is a good tradition.
Contrary to commands, traditions are never binding or authorative.


Quote from: AVZ
Give you an example:
You and I both know that in the early church women covered their heads.
Not only is this specifically mentioned in the Scriptures, it has also been held a tradition for hundreds of years.
I am pretty sure that if you would ask an early Christian if this was something sacred, he or she would confirm this.

Somewhere down the road though, the church decided that it was no longer a requirement.
So since then women are allowed to enter the church bare-headed.
If the Holy Spirit told Paul to write down these words, is it the same Holy Spirit who then tells the later church that it actually doesn't matter?


Not sure what you are looking for here.... since the question is easily answed by a Catholic who believes in the authority of the Church...


What I am looking for is by what set of rules (or system) did the church do away with this tradition?
"Because the church says so" it not an answer, so let me rephrase.
I am now asking the church itself: By what set of rules did you determine that the above tradition was no longer to be kept?


Quote from: AVZ
In this example the question is: How do you know that Paul was not dead serious when he commanded women to cover their heads?
And if this tradition can be "downsized", what makes you say that other traditions cannot be downsized as well?
What makes a tradition "Sacred" or "Apostolic"? And what traditions do we hold to be "Sacred" or "Apostolic", but are in fact not?

Good questions!  Wonder how non-Catholics would answer them.


But I am not asking non-Catholics or Catholics.
I am asking you because I am responding to your earlier post. What is your opinion?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #44 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 09:26:20 »
I already knew you would say that...............

Now since the book of Revelations can and is compared with Ezekiel as well as Daniel,how can you make such a foolish statement?

Also,the Seals of REV,are also written in,Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21,so who's the ignorant one!!!!!

Nice dance - but that's not what you said.

THIS is what you said and it is patently false
"The meaning of the verse is in the verse,simply do not add to the Word of God....."

The text of Rev. 22:18 refers to "THIS BOOK" - the Book of Revelation.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #45 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 09:30:10 »
In this example the question is: How do you know that Paul was not dead serious when he commanded women to cover their heads?
And if this tradition can be "downsized", what makes you say that other traditions cannot be downsized as well?
What makes a tradition "Sacred" or "Apostolic"? And what traditions do we hold to be "Sacred" or "Apostolic", but are in fact not?

The answer is quite simple.  However, YOU will reject it because you are not obedient to the Church as Christ commanded (Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16).

The CHURCH determines which Traditions are Sacred and which are minor.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #46 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 18:15:22 »
Quote from: AVZ
The canon of Scripture is determined according to a fixed system and a set of rules.
There are only two possibilities in the outcome. Either a Scripture is canon, or it is not.
I am curious to have you explain this "fixed system and a set of rules" ... since I assume you don't mean the leaders of the early Church.

My study of history led me to believe the canon was debated for the better part of 400 years - with even respected church fathers not in agreement on certain books (I gave a link to a good non-Catholic site) --- as an aside, ask super-fundie Catholics where the Pope was during this, the most critical period of our faith!!!  Hardly evidence of Petrine primacy, but that's for another thread!
Quote
In contrast to canon, tradition is not determined according to a fixed system. If there is such a set of rules, I would be eager to know.
My understanding is that the same source settled both -- the Catholic Church... that's why I am so curious to hear about your "system".
Quote
If it was the same test, then traditions could be classified as canon.
It should be evident by now that it was the same test --- and that is why Christians for the first 1500 years of the faith viewed Scripture equal to Tradition and why RC's still do.

... and to clarify, "canon" describes a set of books.  Even if I could show you they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, Traditions would never be part of the canon as they are not books.  Hope you understand my point.
Quote
I don't hold worship on Saturday or Sunday to be a Sacred Tradition.
In my opinion there are only good, neutral and bad traditions.
Well said... but I am curious as to how you determine what is good/bad/neutral?  Your personal opinion?  And if others don't agree with your classification are they wrong - or is the individual believer free to worship any way he/she chooses just as long as they have a "good feeling" it is supported by Scripture?
Quote
What I am looking for is by what set of rules (or system) did the church do away with this tradition?
"Because the church says so" it not an answer, so let me rephrase.
I am now asking the church itself: By what set of rules did you determine that the above tradition was no longer to be kept?
To be clear, this is still a pious practice performed by Catholic women all over the world.... and something like this is not what we consider Sacred Tradition, but merely a small "t" tradition that is not a binding practice of the Church.

... but to answer your question, we believe that Christ did not abandon His Church to the subjective reading of the Bible.... that is not a "church", but a like-minded collection of people who each have their own version of Christianity.  Instead we believe Christ entrusted his Church to the Apostles and those who followed in their office.  We believe these teachers have continued in an unbroken line to the Bishops of today.  These Bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome, are the authentic teachers of the Christian faith and have the authority to develop certain teachings (like  head covering) over time -- but are prevented from changing any aspect of the "deposit of faith" which is the dogmas or core teachings of the Christian faith.

I know you don't agree, but that is the Catholic answer to your question (God willing! I tried my best!).

If the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition or any other part of this is unclear, you can google the Catechism of the Catholic Church or I would be happy to try to explain it further.

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #47 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 21:16:27 »
I already knew you would say that...............

Now since the book of Revelations can and is compared with Ezekiel as well as Daniel,how can you make such a foolish statement?

Also,the Seals of REV,are also written in,Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21,so who's the ignorant one!!!!!

Nice dance - but that's not what you said.

THIS is what you said and it is patently false.  
"The meaning of the verse is in the verse,simply do not add to the Word of God....."

The text of Rev. 22:18 refers to "THIS BOOK" - the Book of Revelation.

What part are you not understanding?

Now since the book of Revelations can and is compared with Ezekiel as well as Daniel,how can you make such a foolish statement?

Also,the Seals of REV,are also written in,Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21,so who's the ignorant one!!!!!

In other words that it(Rev)can be found in other books of the bible makes them a part of that book,so try again!!!

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #48 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 21:57:33 »
What part are you not understanding?

Now since the book of Revelations can and is compared with Ezekiel as well as Daniel,how can you make such a foolish statement?

Also,the Seals of REV,are also written in,Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21,so who's the ignorant one!!!!!

In other words that it(Rev)can be found in other books of the bible makes them a part of that book,so try again!!!

Huh . . . noDaniel, Ezekiel, Mark, Luke and Matthew are NOT part of the Book of Revelation. An educated person living in the first century would certainly be familiar with the prophetic language used in all six books but they are NOT the same Book, nor are they "part" of each other.  They are ALL individual testimonies to the same truth - Jesus Christ.

The warning in Revelation not to add OT remove is limited to THAT Book.  If it pertained to the WHOLE of Scripture, all Protestants would be damned for removing SEVEN Books from the OT, as well as portions of Daniel and Esther

If you want to play by THOSE rules - then be my guest..  I never understood why you guys went with a Post Christ, Post Temple Jewish Canon anyway . . .

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #49 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 22:59:01 »
Quote
Huh . . . no.  Daniel, Ezekiel, Mark, Luke and Matthew are NOT part of the Book of Revelation. An educated person living in the first century would certainly be familiar with the prophetic language used in all six books but they are NOT the same Book, nor are they "part" of each other.  They are ALL individual testimonies to the same truth - Jesus Christ.

The warning in Revelation not to add OT remove is limited to THAT Book.  If it pertained to the WHOLE of Scripture, all Protestants would be damned for removing SEVEN Books from the OT, as well as portions of Daniel and Esther. 

If you want to play by THOSE rules - then be my guest..  I never understood why you guys went with a Post Christ, Post Temple Jewish Canon anyway . . .

Let me help you out..........

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him."

Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto His words, Lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

So I guess you shall now say,the above is only for Proverbs...........

Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

In verse 18 God said, “the words of the prophecy of this Book

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #50 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 01:17:15 »
Quote from: AVZ
The canon of Scripture is determined according to a fixed system and a set of rules.
There are only two possibilities in the outcome. Either a Scripture is canon, or it is not.

I am curious to have you explain this "fixed system and a set of rules" ... since I assume you don't mean the leaders of the early Church.

My study of history led me to believe the canon was debated for the better part of 400 years - with even respected church fathers not in agreement on certain books (I gave a link to a good non-Catholic site) --- as an aside, ask super-fundie Catholics where the Pope was during this, the most critical period of our faith!!!  Hardly evidence of Petrine primacy, but that's for another thread!
Quote
In contrast to canon, tradition is not determined according to a fixed system. If there is such a set of rules, I would be eager to know.

My understanding is that the same source settled both -- the Catholic Church... that's why I am so curious to hear about your "system".
Quote
If it was the same test, then traditions could be classified as canon.

It should be evident by now that it was the same test --- and that is why Christians for the first 1500 years of the faith viewed Scripture equal to Tradition and why RC's still do.

... and to clarify, "canon" describes a set of books.  Even if I could show you they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, Traditions would never be part of the canon as they are not books.  Hope you understand my point.
Quote
I don't hold worship on Saturday or Sunday to be a Sacred Tradition.
In my opinion there are only good, neutral and bad traditions.

Well said... but I am curious as to how you determine what is good/bad/neutral?  Your personal opinion?  And if others don't agree with your classification are they wrong - or is the individual believer free to worship any way he/she chooses just as long as they have a "good feeling" it is supported by Scripture?
Quote
What I am looking for is by what set of rules (or system) did the church do away with this tradition?
"Because the church says so" it not an answer, so let me rephrase.
I am now asking the church itself: By what set of rules did you determine that the above tradition was no longer to be kept?

To be clear, this is still a pious practice performed by Catholic women all over the world.... and something like this is not what we consider Sacred Tradition, but merely a small "t" tradition that is not a binding practice of the Church.

... but to answer your question, we believe that Christ did not abandon His Church to the subjective reading of the Bible.... that is not a "church", but a like-minded collection of people who each have their own version of Christianity.  Instead we believe Christ entrusted his Church to the Apostles and those who followed in their office.  We believe these teachers have continued in an unbroken line to the Bishops of today.  These Bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome, are the authentic teachers of the Christian faith and have the authority to develop certain teachings (like  head covering) over time -- but are prevented from changing any aspect of the "deposit of faith" which is the dogmas or core teachings of the Christian faith.

I know you don't agree, but that is the Catholic answer to your question (God willing! I tried my best!).

If the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition or any other part of this is unclear, you can google the Catechism of the Catholic Church or I would be happy to try to explain it further.

Your brother in Christ,
Scott


That's a lot of questions.

The canonization of the Scriptures were done long a set of criteria.
The most simple was inter reference.
Jesus many times referred to "The Law of Moses and the Prophets", so the Old Testament was accepted without much debate.

Then there is historical accuracy.
If a book is historically incorrect, it's authenticity can be doubted.

Then there is spreading.
If a book is only read in one church (for example Rome) but not in other churches, it's authenticity can be doubted.

Then there is scriptual accuracy.
If a book contradicts scripture, it's authenticity can be doubted

Then there is authority.
Books written by apostles themselves or by their authorisation are likely to be accepted.

Then there is quantity.
A book that has been copied many times, is more likely to be acceptable than a book that has been copied only a few times or never.

Then there is composition
How as the book written and what does it claim itself to be? A letter or a narration?

Then there is collection.
Some books were written together within the same scroll, thus carrying authenticiy towards each other.


Canonical books must have a satisfying amount of above mentioned properties to be accepted.
Note that most books were accepted by about 180 AD, that's not too long after they were written.
By about 360 AD the Bible was complete.
Anyway, a full study can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html


How to determine a good/neutral/bad tradition?
Just take the teaching of the tradition and test it according to the Bible.
Of course its not a matter of "feeling good or bad".


You said "It should be evident by now that it was the same test --- and that is why Christians for the first 1500 years of the faith viewed Scripture equal to Tradition and why RC's still do."
This is something I do not agree upon. For the larger part of these 1500 years, people believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal, because they were told so by the church. Most people could not read or write, so no basis existed to doubt the church.
For a large part the church was also an economical and political power, hence there was no platform where objections could be ventilated.
For a large part of those 1500 years religion was not a personal choice, but an enforced nominaton by an emperor or king.

For a large part of those 1500 years there was also no choice. There was either the church...or nothing.
And believing in nothing was very dangerous and could cost you your life.

I would say that if you would be able to travel to the year 1200 and ask a peasant Catholic what he thought about the office of Pope, he would have serious problems to explain to you his personal opinions, as he most likely didn't have any. And if he had any, he would most likely held his mouth shut.

Now, a tradition that is enforced by an authority, is no longer tradition, but has become law.
I am of the opinion that in the first 1500 years many traditions went the way of enforcement, and not of free will.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #51 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 02:42:05 »
Thanks for the info AVZ.

 ::smile::

 

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #52 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 09:47:08 »
By about 360 AD the Bible was complete.
Anyway, a full study can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html


Yes - nothing like a good Protestant source to unfold the story of the Catholic Canon of Scripture.

Ay, ay, ay . . .   ::frown::

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #53 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 17:29:24 »
Quote from: Elvisman
Yes - nothing like a good Protestant source to unfold the story of the Catholic Canon of Scripture.

Ay, ay, ay . . .   ::frown::
Was this just a shot at Protestants or do you have issues with the site (I think it is pretty good, which is why I am asking.)?

All with Peter, to Jesus, through Mary!
-Scott

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #54 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 17:54:42 »
Quote from: Elvisman
Yes - nothing like a good Protestant source to unfold the story of the Catholic Canon of Scripture.

Ay, ay, ay . . .   ::frown::
Was this just a shot at Protestants or do you have issues with the site (I think it is pretty good, which is why I am asking.)?

All with Peter, to Jesus, through Mary!
-Scott

I have a problem with any source that lists the Deuterocanonical Books as "Apocrypha".
If I live to be a thousand years old, I will never understand how Protestants can adhere to a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Jewish Rabbinical Canon of Scripture instead of the one that Jesus and the Apostles clealry studied from and referenced.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #55 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 18:26:31 »
Quote from: Elvisman

I have a problem with any source that lists the Deuterocanonical Books as "Apocrypha".
If I live to be a thousand years old, I will never understand how Protestants can adhere to a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Jewish Rabbinical Canon of Scripture instead of the one that Jesus and the Apostles clealry studied from and referenced.
Ummmm.... ok.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #56 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 22:14:47 »
Quote from: Elvisman
Yes - nothing like a good Protestant source to unfold the story of the Catholic Canon of Scripture.

Ay, ay, ay . . .  ::frown::

Was this just a shot at Protestants or do you have issues with the site (I think it is pretty good, which is why I am asking.)?

All with Peter, to Jesus, through Mary!
-Scott


I have a problem with any source that lists the Deuterocanonical Books as "Apocrypha".
If I live to be a thousand years old, I will never understand how Protestants can adhere to a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Jewish Rabbinical Canon of Scripture instead of the one that Jesus and the Apostles clealry studied from and referenced.


Let's face it Elvis, you simply have problems with anything that is said by a Protestant or comes from a Protestant source.
You consider every non-Catholic on this board to be an anti-Catholic, and any non-Catholic teaching to be heretic.
When it comes to non-Catholics you are short sighted, double tongued, disrespectful and ungracious.

In the thread "Athority" you state: "St. Jerome - perhaps the greatest Bible Scholar of ALL time . . ."
Perhaps a good idea for you to check on Jerome's stance in the matter of Apocrypha, and which books he rejected?
Also noteworthy would be the name he reserves for the Apocrypha ..."deliramenta" (delusion, nonsense, absurdity, madness)
You will also find that what the Catholic Church understands as "Apocrypha" should actually be called "Pseudepigrapha"

Two Catholic sources for you:
- http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
- http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9069
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 22:52:31 by AVZ »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #57 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 22:26:08 »
Quote from: Elvisman

I have a problem with any source that lists the Deuterocanonical Books as "Apocrypha".
If I live to be a thousand years old, I will never understand how Protestants can adhere to a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Jewish Rabbinical Canon of Scripture instead of the one that Jesus and the Apostles clealry studied from and referenced.
Ummmm.... ok.

I have tried to find a more elaborating Catholic site before posting the "Protestant link", but was unable to find any.
Then again, I dont think that there will be substantial difference between Protestants or Catholics on this topic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #58 on: Thu Mar 22, 2012 - 12:58:21 »
Let's face it Elvis, you simply have problems with anything that is said by a Protestant or comes from a Protestant source.
You consider every non-Catholic on this board to be an anti-Catholic, and any non-Catholic teaching to be heretic.
When it comes to non-Catholics you are short sighted, double tongued, disrespectful and ungracious.

In the thread "Athority" you state: "St. Jerome - perhaps the greatest Bible Scholar of ALL time . . ."
Perhaps a good idea for you to check on Jerome's stance in the matter of Apocrypha, and which books he rejected?
Also noteworthy would be the name he reserves for the Apocrypha ..."deliramenta" (delusion, nonsense, absurdity, madness)
You will also find that what the Catholic Church understands as "Apocrypha" should actually be called "Pseudepigrapha"

Two Catholic sources for you:
- http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
- http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9069


So many errors, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Let’s start with your initial comments.

First of all – not ALL Protestants are ANTI-Catholics.  The ones on this board and elsewhere who resort to lies and falsehoods about the Church ARE anti-Catholics.  If you must resort to lying about ANYBODY or ANYTHING – it is blatantly obvious that you are against it - or them.
Simply disagreeing doesn’t make somebody an Anti-Catholic – and that has been my position ALL along on this board.

9 of my 12 siblings left the Church and became Protestants.  Out of nine – only three are what I would consider to be “Anti-Catholic

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #59 on: Thu Mar 22, 2012 - 21:37:57 »
Elvis

are you going to respond to post # 49?

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #60 on: Thu Mar 22, 2012 - 22:28:06 »
Let's face it Elvis, you simply have problems with anything that is said by a Protestant or comes from a Protestant source.
You consider every non-Catholic on this board to be an anti-Catholic, and any non-Catholic teaching to be heretic.
When it comes to non-Catholics you are short sighted, double tongued, disrespectful and ungracious.

In the thread "Athority" you state: "St. Jerome - perhaps the greatest Bible Scholar of ALL time . . ."
Perhaps a good idea for you to check on Jerome's stance in the matter of Apocrypha, and which books he rejected?
Also noteworthy would be the name he reserves for the Apocrypha ..."deliramenta" (delusion, nonsense, absurdity, madness)
You will also find that what the Catholic Church understands as "Apocrypha" should actually be called "Pseudepigrapha"

Two Catholic sources for you:
- http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
- http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9069


So many errors, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Let’s start with your initial comments.

First of all – not ALL Protestants are ANTI-Catholics.  The ones on this board and elsewhere who resort to lies and falsehoods about the Church ARE anti-Catholics.  If you must resort to lying about ANYBODY or ANYTHING – it is blatantly obvious that you are against it - or them.
Simply disagreeing doesn’t make somebody an Anti-Catholic – and that has been my position ALL along on this board.

9 of my 12 siblings left the Church and became Protestants.  Out of nine – only three are what I would consider to be “Anti-Catholic

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #61 on: Thu Mar 22, 2012 - 22:30:04 »
Getting back to the traditions,what does the scripture

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

mean to the catholic church?

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #62 on: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 06:56:19 »
Getting back to the traditions,what does the scripture

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

mean to the catholic church?

In scripture there are many examples of people calling others father both in the Old and the New Testaments. I’ll give a few examples from the NT

“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #63 on: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 07:50:03 »
Getting back to the traditions,what does the scripture

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

mean to the catholic church?


It's all what's in your head and heart when things like this come up as regards Catholic doctrine. We, like you believe we only have one true Father, our the creator of us all in heaven. As winsome pointed out, scripturally the word "father" is used man, many times to describe mere humans.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #64 on: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 09:39:06 »
Let me help you out..........

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him."

Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto His words, Lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

So I guess you shall now say,the above is only for Proverbs...........

Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

In verse 18 God said, “the words of the prophecy of this Book

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #65 on: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 09:58:09 »
Let me help you out..........

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him."

Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto His words, Lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

So I guess you shall now say,the above is only for Proverbs...........

Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

In verse 18 God said, “the words of the prophecy of this Book

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #66 on: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 10:01:02 »
See there again you get your knickers in a twist over nothing.
There simply is a difference in application of the term Apocrypha between Catholics and Protestants.

In Jerome's time there were no Deuterocanonical books. Only two divisions were made, Canonical and Apocrypha.
Apocrypha simply meant "of questionable authenticity".
What went wrong is that books that were certainly not authentical, were also clustered under the nomer "Apocrypha".
Over time the term Apocrypha then became synonymous for "rejectable" or "incorrect"

In the 15th century the Catholic Church lifted a number out of the Apocrypha, and added another classification "Deuterocanonical".
The term Apocrypha however, even though wrongly applied, was left in place for the rejectable cluster of books.

So in terminology both the Catholic Church and Protestant Church are applying "Apocrypha" incorrectly.
It would have been better to (as the Catholic source correctly implies) name the classifications: Canonical, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

It also needs to be said that the exchange with Scott was not about the correct implication of the word Apocrypha, it was about the origin of the division.
But as we are used of you, you take any opportunity to stumble over a needle to lead discussions off track, just to satisfy your need to argue.

Your need to argue and your choice of words is tiring, sickening, insulting and shows no grace whatsoever.
You have called every non-Catholic on this board "anti-Catholic", and you have dispelled anything that is being said by them as "ignorant".
It is your soul purpose to denigrate anyone on this board who does not agree with you.
And since you have proclaimed that your opinions are parrotting the opinions of the Catholic Church, people here take the Catholic Church filled with little Elvis' who all are denigrating and insultive.

Now I know that fortunately the Catholic Church in general has none of the animosity you display here.
It is no wonder that 9 or your siblings ran away from you, and if you continue with this atitude in life, I can guarantee you that you will upset and disappoint more people than you will ever be able to draw towards faith.

I’ve called “EVERY

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #67 on: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 22:51:47 »
Quote
Preposterous post based on your own presuppositions of Scripture.
The verses from Proverbs have no bearing on the warnings in Revelation whatsoever, especially when speaking of Christ's Church who is his mouthpiece on earth (Luke 10:16).  The warnings in Revelation about adding to the Word of God are against INDIVIDUALS - you know, like the "Reformers" . .
.

So what you are saying is that the catholic church,can add to scripture?

Quote
When Jesus was building his Church, what did he tell them about the Word of God?  He told the early leaders of the Church that whoever listened to or rejected THEM was listening to or rejecting HIM - AND the Father (Luke 10:16).  


By church,do you mean the pope?

Quote
He ALSO told them that they had ALL Authority on earth to bind and loose - and that these decisions would be ratified in Heaven as well (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18) and gave the Church the power to forgive sins in his name (John 20:21-23).

So I need not ask God to forgive my sins,if I ask a priest first,so I can take this as an either or,Well when any of your priest can give the example as Christ did in the below scripture's you may have a point,until then you need to stop....

Mark 2:10 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," (He saith to the sick of the palsy,)"

Mark 2:11 "I say unto you, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house."

Mark 2:12 "And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, "We never saw it on this fashion."


Quote
At the Last Supper, he told the Apostles that he had MUCH to tell them but they could not yet bear it.  He promised to send His Holy Spirit to guide the Church to ALL Truth . . . ALL TRUTH.  The only 2 entities in ALL of Scripture who are referred to as Truth are:  
1. Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity (John 14:6).
2. His Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

The truth is what's written in scripture!!!


Quote
This illustrates CLEARLY that the Word of God is NOT completely laid out in Scripture and that the Church declares the Word of God under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So are you saying that scripture is not enough?Also I really need to no what you mean by church.........I ask because my definition is a body of believers with Christ as the head.....
« Last Edit: Fri Mar 23, 2012 - 23:24:25 by n2thelight »

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #68 on: Sat Mar 24, 2012 - 21:53:27 »
Getting back to the traditions,what does the scripture

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

mean to the catholic church?



It's all what's in your head and heart when things like this come up as regards Catholic doctrine. We, like you believe we only have one true Father, our the creator of us all in heaven. As winsome pointed out, scripturally the word "father" is used man, many times to describe mere humans.


I think we can all agree that the verse in question is not talking about our earthly parent,however it's saying something,and I feel it's being directed straight at the catholic church...

Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Notice where your true father is, "He is in heaven", and we talk to Him in prayer. When we repent, we go to Him in Jesus name. Though we have physical fleshly fathers, we have but one Father of our souls, for God created our souls. There is only one creator of souls, and he is in heaven, and only God should be called Father. By deception, many are called father here on this earth, and have assumed the role of the Father, and Jesus is warning us of them. They expect you to come to them for confession, and they grant you forgiveness, however, there is a much more critical time coming just ahead, at the coming of Satan, the Antichrist when the whole world will call him father.

http://www.theseason.org/matthew/matthew23.htm

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #69 on: Sat Mar 24, 2012 - 22:06:17 »
Quote
Mark 2:10 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," (He saith to the sick of the palsy,)"

Mark 2:11 "I say unto you, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house."

Mark 2:12 "And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, "We never saw it on this fashion."

Soooooo,what can your popes do to prove their power to forgive sins?

 

     
anything