User Profile: by faith

by faith

Member Since: September 27, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • August 29, 2014 at 11:50am

    In the third verse, Paul speaks of Sacred Tradition as being taught both orally and in writing. The written teaching would later be canonized as Sacred Scripture, so this verse suggests how Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture.

    Near the end of Paul’s ministry he instructed Timothy to carry on the Sacred Tradition passed down to him: “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).
    Paul went on to instruct Timothy to pass down that Sacred Tradition to others: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

    Throughout history, the Catholic Church alone has continued to safeguard and teach the fullness of the Christian faith. This faith is complete only when it includes Sacred Tradition.

    The Berean Church Fellowship and other sola scriptura adherents would do well to follow in the footsteps of the original Bereans and embrace Sacred Tradition. But of course the result would be one fewer Christian denomination and thousands more Catholics.

    Sorry about all the factual, Biblical evidence I know how you prefer when
    “wonderful people who see no need to correct every little detail about my non-Roman Catholic beliefs.”

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:44am

    Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1-4)

    Luke, then, commits to writing what has already been taught.
    That teaching is Sacred Tradition just as surely as Luke’s Gospel will later be recognized as Sacred Scripture.

    Moving beyond the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, we find that Paul provides even more explicit evidence of Sacred Tradition in his writings. Here are three examples:
    “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
    “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
    “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:42am

    Jesus’ command to the Apostles at the end of Matthews Gospel logically assumes the necessity of Sacred Tradition:
    Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt. 28:19-20)

    Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write down everything he had taught them. He simply commanded them to teach it.
    Much of this teaching later made its way into Sacred Scripture, but every bit of it was and still is considered Sacred Tradition.

    In fact, we know that NOT everything Jesus taught was eventually committed to writing.
    John tells us as much at the end of his Gospel: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

    Some of Jesus’ teachings had not yet made it into written form by the date John finished writing his Gospel.

    Turning to Luke, we see that the author begins his Gospel by explaining why he is writing it. Luke points out that others have already committed certain things to writing, and he thinks it is a good idea to write down what his reader has already been taught:

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:38am

    This was a tradition but certainly not a sacred one which broke the commandment to honor one’s mother and father. Jesus rightfully condemned it, but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.

    Another verse sola scriptura adherents point out is, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).
    Certainly the Catholic Church agrees with Paul that such human traditions are to be rejected. But Sacred Tradition is not merely human tradition. It is the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit. It originated with Christ and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, hardly of human origin.

    So, if Scripture doesn’t explicitly condemn Sacred Tradition, does it support it?
    It seems that since the Catholic Church claims that the NT came after Sacred Tradition, it makes sense that the New Testament would show ample evidence of Sacred Tradition.

    In fact, it does.
    Paul’s teaching in Berea as cited in Acts is one of many places where the New Testament provides evidence of Sacred Tradition.

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:35am

    As a Jewish convert to Christianity himself, he knew Jewish Scripture well and he knew that it prophesied about Jesus.
    He undoubtedly explained this Scripture to enlighten other Jews about the truth of Christianity. These Jews would have to examine their Old Testament Scripture to see if what Paul was saying made sense.
    It did, and many Jews, including some of the Bereans, became Christians.

    Paul’s method was one of the ways Christianity was first taught. And Paul’s teaching is an example of what the Catholic Church calls Sacred Tradition.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,
    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. (CCC 83)

    Now, sola scriptura adherents are quick to point out that tradition is condemned in Scripture. Indeed, some forms of tradition are condemned. For example, Jesus denounced a certain tradition when he said, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3; see also Mark 7:8-9). In this passage Jesus was condemning a particular Jewish practice of seemingly donating money to God while in reality sheltering it from being used to care for one’s parents. This was a tradition-but certainly not a sacred one

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:32am

    They also examined the scriptures to see if the word was true. So just who were the Bereans? What was “the word” they received and what scriptures did they examine?

    This all happens before the New Testament is canonized

    The Bereans, we’re told, were mainly Jews (and some Greeks), not Christians, and they even had a Jewish synagogue. The word they received was Paul’s teaching about Jesus.
    That same teaching which he sums up in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).

    The scriptures mentioned here by Paul are the same scriptures which the Bereans examined – the Old Testament scriptures.

    These were the only scriptures of the day, as no New Testament Scripture existed at the time.
    Most of the New Testament had not yet been written and what had been written had not yet been canonized so as to attain the status of Scripture.

    What we see here is a group of people being taught about Christianity by Paul prior to the existence of the New Testament. They eagerly listened to Paul while examining the Old Testament Scripture.

    This all makes sense when we understand this event in its historical context. The event occurred during Paul’s second missionary journey. On his journeys Paul taught the good news of Christianity as Jesus had commissioned him to do.
    By oral tradition

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:29am

    Those whol support sola scriptura (“by scripture alone”) believe they patterns themselves after the Bereans about which Luke wrote. Using this verse as evidence against Tradition is not really unusual; in fact, many sola scriptura adherents quote Acts 17:11 as “proof” that the Bible is the sole rule of the Christian faith. Some seem to imagine the Bereans to be a group of early Christians faithfully living according to what the Bible teaches when Paul comes along claiming to be a teacher. They listen to what he has to say but they also cautiously compare his teachings to what their Bibles say in order to be sure that what Paul is saying is authentic Christian doctrine.

    Interestingly, though, a closer look at Acts 17:11 reveals that the people of Berea were not sola scriptura adherents at all.

    In actuality, they were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Tradition. Here’s the verse within its fuller context:
    The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12)

    Luke’s words commend the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessalonians because they eagerly received “the word.”

  • August 29, 2014 at 11:25am

    So a priest was mean to you? Well then by all mean I am 100% wrong. You have every right to disparage Catholic teaching whenever you see fit. I was once insulted by a protestant so I guess we will forever be locked in this battle.

    I have given you historical facts to back up my position, you can only muster your personal opinion.

    Passive aggressive?
    Yes like using RC because you can’t use catholic alone. Because that is all Christian and not those in union with Rome. First written reference to the Catholic Church dates back to AD107. To describe those Christians in union with Rome.
    Or drop the heretical label. When did I use that?
    Or My monastic movement has some trappings of heretical thinking?

    Your life is more in keeping with Acts 17? According to who?
    The Bereans? Read the whole passage in context. Since there is no Bible to lead these people at the time, how did they learn about Jesus? Paul taught them. Paul also taught the Thessalonica, but they did not “hold fast to the traditions” if you will. They were noble because they kept the faith Paul orally taught them. They did not fall away from the true church and start their own system of beliefs like the Thessalonica

  • [1] August 29, 2014 at 10:55am

    Well if you can’t find it, then it doesn’t exist.

    “people die for their faith” doesn’t mean that what they die FOR is real.
    It is real to them. That’s the point.
    Again you try to isolate one incident cloudy it up a little bit and refuse to see the big picture
    Not one event, the preponderance of the evidence.

    Jim Jones, Branch Davidians? These events did not happen in a vacuum. Look at the additional evidence. Christians died in the Coliseum. These individual events do not prove an entire faith. Just one more bit of evidence. How is this so hard for you to understand?

    Look I was able to vote thumbs down on your post. Maybe it does exist after all.

    Tumbs up

  • August 29, 2014 at 9:16am

    Make sure you read all that with a smile, because that’s how I typed it.

    You know your problem reading little ole me incorrectly sure doesn’t make your “I read the Bible correctly” belief sound right.

    This is simple stuff and the Bible can be complex.
    Context is the Key and if you can’t hear the inflection or see body language or which sylLABle get the proper enFAces. Who was the intended reader, that matters too. Not all scripture is written with the same hand or the same audience.

    But hey you can’t defeat my argument so you passively aggressively attack my style. My words are too strong so you project a tone of anger onto them.

    Find the Church Jesus founded and never leave Her.

  • August 29, 2014 at 9:08am

    You couldn’t talk me out of the Catholic Church in a million years. But you could influence others with false information.

    For you to convert would mean you have to leave the Church of Me and Jesus. A man-made tradition

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The Pharisees and Sadducees were part of the “What is written” crowd.

    Jesus had issues with people who asked “According to Scripture it says…”
    The Lord is using me to make correction in you right now.

    God speaks to me through the Bible, through His Church, through the Church fathers and even through people like you.
    He shows me the truth in my heart and the errors in yours

  • August 29, 2014 at 9:06am

    What I don’t understand is how you get to read the Bible flawlessly yet you can’t read my post without error. I am not angry. Try reading my posts with a smile maybe that will help.
    Like this:
    If you were a salesman and you don’t fully investigate before you believe. You just take the word of whatever they tell you, what did you sell cigarettes? Now is that mean or funny?
    See you have the benefit of knowing the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Catholics as well as the purity of all “Bible beleavin” Protestants. Even though they may disagree with you more that Catholics. Must be nice.
    You never claim to know much about the Catholic Church (you can drop the Roman – I’ve told you that history) anyway you never claim yet you post constantly? You get a response from me of any other true Catholic on this site. And next time same talking points. Same lies.
    You see difference in the Bible? I can tell. Why does that make you right and Catholics evil? Maybe with all the facts you get thrown back at you, I don’t know maybe you read the Bible with Protestant glasses.
    “people who see no need to correct every little”
    So basically you are saying I should let you believe and spread your errors. That would make me nice? You would rather be wrong and that makes you happy?
    I have no handlers. Once again you passive aggressive whiner. You follow teachings invented by Luther and you don’t even know it. How sad for you. (See no anger, just pity)

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 6:33pm

    simply by ‘being there first’
    That is a lie. And over the past months several Catholics have pointed that out to you. No Catholic believe we are right simply because we were there first.

    “Their staunch refusal to acknowledge that the Word itself is the final arbiter ”
    The Word is the final arbiter. If by the Word you mean Jesus.
    The Bible is not the final arbiter and I know this, because nowhere in the Bible does it make that claim. Nor is it the sole source of the faith.
    The Catholic Church predates the Bible by 300 years.

    Do illiterate people get saved?
    What about those mentally incapable of reading the Bible?
    There you have it. The Bible is not the final arbiter.
    And if it were, then why are there so many different interpretations of said final arbiter?

    Doctrine before scripture. Not at all.
    Doctrine must agree with scripture.
    Sure beats ‘I don’t accept that because that’s no how I read scripture”
    The Pope can’t be infallible, but everyone who picks up a Bible is?

    But the Pope uses the Bible to support Catholic teaching. “No he doesn’t
    Must be nice to be you JGraham. You don’t need to research the core foundation of your faith and yet you still get to be right about mine.

    Find the Church Jesus founded and never leave her.
    I will never leave the Catholic Church.
    Because unlike you, have studied my faith.

    Again, when you can’t defeat my argument you attack my character.

    I’ll give you a place to start:
    “Surprised by the Truth” edited by Patrick Madrid

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 6:19pm

    Acrimonious tone? Coming from you? LOL

    Largest Christian group in the US? Catholic. Larger than all others combined
    2nd largest? Former Catholics
    It’s not about popularity, it’s about truth.

    Check your attitude at the door the next time, ok?
    I guess as you put it “when I grow up” before I responded to you.
    Remove the timber from your own eye.
    You can’t refute the facts so you attack my character. Whatever helps you sleep at night
    See this is a good example of why reading the Bible alone does not work. You can’t read body language, innuendo, sarcasm. People put their own enfaces and spin.

    “Martin Luther, I may have to investigate further”
    You follow the teachings of a man you have not investigated? Well that’s blind faith.
    Make sure you read actual history and not just the whitewash protestant revisionist
    Since you haven’t studied him you would not know he was fascinated with the potty. His feces throwing fights with the devil are documented historical fact.

    Private revelations lead to man-made doctrine. Why not just become Mormon if private revelations are a good thing?

    truth of RC doctrine
    It’s Catholic doctrine. The slur Roman Catholic was invented by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic.

    Honey works better than vinegar.
    Either way, you still got flies

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 5:25pm

    I only have my mind made up where things make sense
    So the Pope is not infallible, you are

    unfalsifiable claims
    You’re saying Christians were not killed for their faith?
    Can you name one country in which Catholics were not killed for their faith?

    You’re adding to what I did not say
    I added nothing, I asked you a question.

    “Can you point me towards…”
    Do you own homework

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 5:20pm

    Um, NO, you can’t! Show me where!

    thumbs down this time

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 5:16pm

    Suffice it to say I do not care what Ignatius
    Let me paraphrase for you: Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve got my mind made up

    40 years is too long for you, but you base your entire faith on the teachings of a man who “came up with Sola Scriptura while sitting on the privy in the tower” 1500 years later.

    Now we know there can be no two varying opinions
    Yes 35,000 differing opinions makes much more sense

    treat Protestant brothers and sisters as if they aren’t part of the Body of Christ
    This is 100% fabricated fiction. Several Popes have said in essence all Christianity has some truth. You can be saved outside of the Catholic Church.

    When I do grow up, I hope to be a Christian as you JGraham.

    I’ll leave you with an analogy.
    Jesus has promised you a meal. Now you can go to McDonalds and get all the nutrition and sustenance you need to live.
    I prefer to go to Ruth Chris’.
    The Fullness of the faith is the Catholic Church.

  • August 28, 2014 at 5:02pm

    Paul and Peter?
    You do realize you just prove the Catholic view of Peter?
    Peter’s original thought was to not allow the gentiles into the faith. Just like his original thought was to run from Jesus. But what did Peter do? He listen to Paul and gave in to the Holy Spirit. Gentiles were allowed in only after Peter allowed it. Until then it was a discussion.
    You see what Peter did was change his human mind when he was presented a compelling argument.

    Papal infallibility in no way claims the Pope is perfect.
    Or that the Pope can never change his mind.
    Only that once he does make a doctrinal teaching it will be without error.

    A protection provided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus.

    I’m still waiting on that list of names of who got the keys to the kingdom

  • August 28, 2014 at 4:52pm

    Notice anything about those quotes?
    They all predate the trouble between Ortho and Latin

  • August 28, 2014 at 4:47pm

    Yes, I should be more clear.

    AD 382 Council of Rome, Pope Damasus presided over the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches.

    Only the closed minded and uneducated confuse the Catholic Church with the “Roman Catholic Church”

    The Bible was canonized by the one Christian church in existence at the time.
    The Catholic Church

123 To page: Go