Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by micmerci


Actually 1 Cor. 4-6 is Paul warning not to go above and beyond what was written in scripture.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:6. What do you see as the "Scripture" mentioned in that verse, the Hebrew Scripture, or the words given to them by the Apostles in their teachings? Notice he says, do not go beyond the saying. That seems to be on a similar level to "Remember the saying: Don't cry over spilled milk." At best, it may be something from the Old Testament.

In addition to my rather off-hand explanation, which you are free to laugh at (I mention it only as a possibility), there are several other possible interpretations which I found in two minutes of looking:

1.) As per philosophy professer Peter Kreeft advises, "We do not have the authority to edit the words of GOD", which was what was happening in Corinth - and following Father Martin Luthers posting of the 99 thesis.

2.) Basically, the saying was making fun of the person who took things too literally who did not be craeative in applying God's law to their life. For example, charity is expected of all Righteous. Taking the law too literally, would be limited oneself to only ten percent in the tithe. Whereas, going beyond the literal would be the good samarithan in Jesus' paraiable.

3.) But Paul is referring to the places in the Old Testament Scriptures where it warns against boasting and being puffed up, which is what Paul is talking about in verse 6-7.

4.) Essentially, Paul was saying one doesn't even have to go beyond the Scripture that teaches pride is to be avoided. He also may be suggesting not to add words to those passages in order to get them to mean something else.

I don't see how the Bible tells us which interpretation is correct. (Want to jump into the Magisterium pool for a water fight? Just kidding, for now.) That's what I was intending when I was talking about sola scriptura. Sometimes, the Bible needs a little help.

By the way, speaking about sola scriptura, thanks for that link. It leads, as you know, to a mountain of information and claims. How would you like me to respond to that. I certainly can't do it in one post.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


It doesn't say "the saying", it says beyond what "is written". (Scripture). And if you look at 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul's epistles were considered "scripture" at that time.

And I wasn't really waiting for you to respond, I just wanted to address your post where you asked for some scriptural support for sola scriptura. (Which technically should be irrelevant to you whether or not there is scriptural support for it if you don't consider scripture the final authority)

reply to post by charles1952


Dear charles,
You have also been immensely helpful.
I understand quite a bit now that I did not before this thread! Isidore's posts and links were particularly helpful. I think it's so important that we try to understand one another's thinking....and get to the bottom of it. To try to find the common ground. You are a blessing, charles.

Sincerely,
wild

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

Thanks for the correction, I must have looked at a different translation.

But, are we still back at the original question? Are we torn between "It takes three Bible references before a doctrine is acceptable," and "The Word of God includes Tradition, which has the same weight as the Bible?"

That's fine if we are, of course, but maybe I should be changing my attitude. Would it help if I was to take the role of a neutral, but somewhat informed, observer, and listen to your proofs that your position is correct?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by wildtimes

Dear wildtimes,

Blast and darn it! (Please excuse the profanity. That's what I say when I'm really upset.) You're right, I've forgotten to give Isidore the credit he richly deserves. I'll send him a U2U right away.

You know, I see us as a team in this adventure. Each of us blessing each other. Each of us learning. I still can't get over how rewarding this has been. I wish all of ATS could see it and learn from your work here on approaching a difficult and controversial subject.

You, NOTurTypical, and of course, Isidore, are amazing people. It's a pleasure to know you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thank you, you too. We've been here for a long time Charles.

Sola scriptura isn't a doctrine though so how would that be apples to apples? Baptism would be a major primary doctrine agree or no? And again, I'm not against the tradition recorded in scripture. I'm against things that have become tradition that are not recorded in scripture. Catholic AND Protestant alike. I could rail about things Protestants keep and teach that have a long tradition that are not specifically articulated in scripture.

reply to post by charles1952

Blast and darn it! (Please excuse the profanity. That's what I say when I'm really upset.)

That's all you got???!!
That's not hardly 'profanity', Charles. You truly are a jewel. Lighten up on yourself.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I'm against things that have become tradition that are not recorded in scripture.

I would argue that they were "Capital T" traditon as soon as Jesus started teaching the Apostles, and didn't "become" tradition.

But leaving that aside for a moment, WHY do you believe that???

That's my problem, I'll accept it if I can see that it's correct, but I'd really like something substantial that I can explore, support, subject to criticism, and check with Holy Men and great thinkers.

Is this something like personal revelation? Did it hit you one day that it was correct? Was there a chain of reasoning which you followed?

Honestly, I could be wrong, it happens all the time. Show me where the "right path" is, if I'm following the wrong one.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. One of the things I like about this is that whenever someone thinks they've had enough for awhile, they can walk away and come back refreshed. (Or not, if they've finished with the topic.) - C -

I think that none of the new testament
was written at the time that paul was speaking.

He had to be speaking about the
old testament or oral tradition.

reply to post by slugger9787

I think you're right. But, I also believe there were a lot of letters and other messages floating around the Christian Community at the time and many didn't get into the New Testament. That's the Tradition I'm thinking about.

By the way, in your signature

Tempus fugit memento mori

. That has a special significance to me. Could we be Brothers?

Don't know how I missed this thread, so sorry to be late to the party

A couple of points:

First, someone said that Catholics put Tradition (capital "T") on a par with Scripture, and I don't believe that is the case, for the simple reason that Tradition cannot conflict with Scripture, but there is no rule which says that Scripture cannot conflict with Tradition. So, of the two, Scripture clearly holds precedence.

Secondly, adult baptism (or "Believer's Baptism") isn't a Fundamentalist belief, it stems from the theology of 16th Century Anabaptists, not Fundamentalism. Ironically, they held (still do, I think) that baptism technically doesn't do anything, because we're saved by faith, and faith alone -- it is merely a sign that one has joined the Christian community. It also got them killed, by fellow Protestants, in large numbers, because in Europe at the time, one had to be a baptized Christian to hold political office, and in areas where the Anabaptists were in sufficient majority, that meant that any non-Anabaptist wasn't a Christian, and was therefore kicked out of the town council.

The earliest Catholic church records do not indicate that infant baptism was required, and there are a number of Early Church Fathers and saints who weren't baptized until they were adults, even though they were raised in Christian homes (Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Ambrose being two examples.) We know that it was a commonly held belief that baptism wiped out ALL sin, and many declined to be baptized until they were on their deathbeds, or at least very late in life, so that they were ensured of not being in a state of mortal sin.

The real push for infant baptism came from St. Augustine (himself, ironically, raised in a Catholic house, but not baptized until adulthood,) and that was in favour of arguing against a heresy (the Donatists, I think.) Augustine argued that no one could be saved without a valid Catholic baptism (the Donatists were a breakaway group that claimed they were the "true" church, having excommunicated themselves) and that was extended across the board -- even infants could not be saved if they weren't baptized. The concept of Limbo, a place where those tainted by original sin, but otherwise okay, because they couldn't comprehend sin, were stuck, came out of the obvious despair that many parents felt when their baby died before being baptized.

Call me a heretic and don't tell my priest, but I'm with the Anabaptists on this issue, at least so far as saying I don't think that baptism, whether an adult or an infant, is required for salvation.

reply to post by adjensen

The concept of Limbo, a place where those tainted by original sin, but otherwise okay, because they couldn't comprehend sin, were stuck, came out of the obvious despair that many parents felt when their baby died before being baptized.

And here's a little bit of info on that - in the 16th and 17th centuries, people who were holding onto their Catholic beliefs even during the Protestant Reformation were still terrified of Limbo for their deceased infants....and some of the clergy would still take their money as 'payment for prayers' by the clergy. The more money the parents had, the longer they could buy those 'prayers' to be extended for their infants' release from Limbo. Some parents emptied their coffers completely for the sake of those infants in "Limbo."

The Protestants removed the idea of Limbo, but that didn't sway the Catholic believers from wanting it done anyway and paying for it.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

The concept of Limbo, a place where those tainted by original sin, but otherwise okay, because they couldn't comprehend sin, were stuck, came out of the obvious despair that many parents felt when their baby died before being baptized.

And here's a little bit of info on that - in the 16th and 17th centuries, people who were holding onto their Catholic beliefs even during the Protestant Reformation were still terrified of Limbo for their deceased infants....and some of the clergy would still take their money as 'payment for prayers' by the clergy. The more money the parents had, the longer they could buy those 'prayers' to be extended for their infants' release from Limbo. Some parents emptied their coffers completely for the sake of those infants in "Limbo."

I think that you might be confusing Purgatory with Limbo -- the concept of Limbo was that those who were there could never be released. Limbo wasn't seen as being a place of unpleasantness or torture, it was just a place that was away from God.

Purgatory is another matter entirely.

The Protestants removed the idea of Limbo, but that didn't sway the Catholic believers from wanting it done anyway and paying for it.

Limbo is not, nor has it ever been, official Catholic doctrine. As far as I can recall, there was a recent statement from the Vatican dismissing the entire notion (which works into my position that baptism doesn't matter -- I don't think that the Vatican was, in dismissing Limbo, saying that unbaptized infants are sent to Hell.)

reply to post by adjensen

It's always good to have your contribution. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and thoroughness.

I'm willing to admit that I was the one that gave Tradition a position equal to Scripture. It's very possible that I'm wrong and would love to be corrected, but it seems to be the fundamental issue of this thread, so I'd like to offer one of my reasons for my belief.

From the current Catholic Catechism:

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." 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".

. . . 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."

"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."

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 honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

www.vatican.va...

I'm looking forward to your insightful comments.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


My perspective was prompted by a question that I asked the priest during RCIA last year -- I asked him whether Tradition could ever conflict with Scripture, whether a doctrine could be determined by the Church, dependent on Tradition, that was contrary to Scripture and he said "no". In thinking it through logically, that seems like the only answer he could give, for that matter, and I read a hierarchy of authority in that, don't you?

reply to post by adjensen


Very possible that I'm confusing the two. It's been a few years since I examined the material I was researching at the time.
Thanks for reminding me.

The issue at hand when I was writing about it in a story was also relevant to the notion of predestination, whether the child had been of the Elect or the Damned.....and the mother was freaking out that if her baby wasn't one of the Elect she needed to pay the clergy to pray him out of wherever she was afraid he was.

Thanks for the clarification!
(The book I wrote was based on a true story of one of my ancestors)

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

Thanks for the prompt answer. I hate to say this, but we have to be very careful with our words here.

I asked him whether Tradition could ever conflict with Scripture, whether a doctrine could be determined by the Church, dependent on Tradition, that was contrary to Scripture and he said "no". In thinking it through logically, that seems like the only answer he could give, for that matter,

I absolutely agree that Tradition can not contradict Scripture. Here's where I have a little problem:

and I read a hierarchy of authority in that, don't you?

Actually, I don't quite see that. We could just as logically say that Scripture can't contradict Tradition, therefore Tradition is superior. (I don't believe that's the case, by the way.)

I believe the Church's position, as shown in it's catechism (above), is that Scripture and Tradition are both the Word of God, to be equally respected and venerated.

If I'm missing your point, help me understand.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by wildtimes


Predestination is also an Augustinian notion, though when one speaks of predestination to the elect or the damned, one is speaking of Double Predestination, which is a Calvinist Protestant doctrine, not a Catholic one. Augustinian Predestination is one of the points of conflict between the Eastern and Roman churches -- the Eastern church never bought into it, but until Calvin came along, no one thought it possible that God could intentionally predestine someone to damnation.

On the other hand, there is this:

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:10-13 NIV)

Calvin loved that passage.

Originally posted by charles1952
We could just as logically say that Scripture can't contradict Tradition, therefore Tradition is superior. (I don't believe that's the case, by the way.)

No, as I said earlier, I don't believe that one can flip the tables that way. Tradition, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is not a static thing -- the Assumption of Mary, for example, has no Biblical basis, and had no official church position until 1950, so it is a matter of Tradition, right? The Bible, on the other hand, is a static thing -- the canon is closed, and nothing new is to be added.

So, if we have two things that contribute to the same potential conclusion, it is possible, though not necessary, for them to be in conflict. And if a conflict arises, it is the non-static thing that must yield, since the static thing cannot. If there was a passage in the Bible that said that Mary died, was buried and here's her tomb, for example, the church couldn't just erase that passage so that the Tradition could go forward.

An unrealistic example, to be sure, but the point is that, logically, if two things are held equally, a static thing takes precedence over a non-static one.

I also ran across this, a similar conclusion, though a completely different subject:

In the hands of masters Scripture may become a sharp defensive and offensive weapon against error and heresy. When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of the necessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminous truth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness to faith defended at need against error by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have an ad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it. (Catholic Encyclopedia: Tradition and Living Magisterium)

That, I think, is an effective argument in favour of Scripture holding sway in discussions of what are valid Tradition claims, and what are invalid -- the same can't be said going the other way.