blovedwolfofgod Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Well, my goal is not to bash anyone. I may word strongly, but I respect everyone. Divine Revelation: Holy Tradition A large difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the idea of Tradition. Protestants generally follow Sola Scriptura, which means they only use Sacred Scripture as the only source of Divine Revelation. Holy Tradition is that which is handed down by the apostles. The Bible is an excellent resource for salvation, but it doesn?t contain everything that Jesus did. ?Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.? (John 20:30) The apostles saw and did things that were not in the Bible. To rule these things out would be to deny a part of God?s Word. in order to preserve the Gospel, which wasn?t immediately written down, the apostles left bishops in charge of the various churches. They gave these bishops their own teaching authority, that is the authority to preach the truth. The Holy Spirit preserved this transmission of authority and teaching because God had said that he would protect his Church (cf Mt 28:20). It is distinct from Sacred Scripture, but it is closely related to it and not in contradiction. They come from the same source, which is Jesus transmitted by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not biblical. It is found nowhere in Scripture. I would go so far as to say the Bible is incomplete without Tradition because ?there are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written (John 21:25).? Furthermore, St. Paul instructs us to hold the Tradition we were taught. ?Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours (2 Thess 2:15).? ?We instruct you, brothers, in the name or our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us (Thess 3:6).? ?I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you (1 Cor. 11:2).? No matter what, if we are Christian, we submit to apostolic authority whether we know it or not. The Canon wasn?t composed until 393 AD and 397AD. That is almost 350 years after the death of Jesus. Basically, it was Tradition that decided what was canonical and inspired by God. The Bible didn?t just magically appear out of the air. The Catholic Church used its apostolic authority taught to it by Tradition to decide what went in the Bible. To totally dismiss Tradition, one would have to toss out their Bible and go it alone. But wait, how would you know Jesus without the book or the word of mouth (aka Tradition)? The answer is simple. To refute Tradition, Judaism is the only way you would know about the One God of everything, but you wouldn?t be called His son because Judaism doesn?t makes slaves and not sons. That may be extreme, but one must admit that Tradition does play a large role. Logically speaking, the Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God must have the infallible authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit. To doubt this, one must always second-guess the Bible. To place your faith in the Bible means you are placing your faith in the Catholic Church to some extent. Why pick and choose what you will and won?t believe? Cardinal Ratzinger says that the truth is not decided by a majority vote. It seems to me that to accept the Bible and not the Church is rather contradictory. The Catholic Church is the original Church. I have heard the argument that there was a church before the Catholic Church that was called the Way. This may be true of the name, but they were one in the same church. Every bishop of Rome for the first 200 years of Christianity was martyred. Emperor Decius (249-252 AD) said: ?I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome.? This shows the centrality of Rome in the Church and that the Roman Catholic Church was established at that time with a reputation. Tertullian, who was born in the early 2nd Century wrote about the Church calling it the Catholic Church before he became a heretic. This means that the name of the Catholic Church was already popular and well known, or else he would have written about the Church by a different name. In addition to this, a missalette (which is a book of the Mass) was discovered and dated back to 80 AD, so the Mass was a widespread and popular thing before the last apostle died. It is almost identical to the Mass of the Catholic Church today. Its funny to me that the Mass of the Catholic Church was established in the time of the apostles and unchanged for 2000 years while the Protestants reject that as well. In conclusion, Tradition is a valid transmission of the Word of God. It is closely tied in with Sacred Scripture. Without Tradition, we would have a warped version of Christianity. Tradition is kept by the Catholic Church which dates itself back to Peter and the time of the apostles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 [quote]I would go so far as to say the Bible is incomplete without Tradition[/quote] Very true, we hold Tradition and the Bible to greatly complement each other, and neither completes our Faith by itself. Also we have the Magesterium who's there to interperet the Bible and help with Tradition. I love the Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Just Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Nice Job!!! On Point!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 since this post doesn't necessarily seem to be made for the purpose of debate, i have a nice little home for it ready and waiting over at the apo board (hint, hint) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 I'm a'movin' it! Patience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 hehe, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blovedwolfofgod Posted July 6, 2004 Author Share Posted July 6, 2004 I wanted someone to refute my post on Apostolic Tradition. Nobody did. I was hoping for practice and to see how everyone else would defend or attack it. I guess I failed this time. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 oh........you didn't make your intention known in ur original post, so i thought it was just made for reference purposes (which is why i thought it would be better for the apologetics board). you may not get much of a bite over at the debate board, but if u want it moved back, just let me know. pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 [quote name='blovedwolfofgod' date='Jul 5 2004, 06:06 PM'] I wanted someone to refute my post on Apostolic Tradition. Nobody did. I was hoping for practice and to see how everyone else would defend or attack it. I guess I failed this time. Oh well. [/quote] I don't think anyone can refute your post, because it is pretty much spot on. The Truth is pretty hard to refute. Maybe you should post the parts you have issues with, then we can elaborate on them. But from what you wrote... yeah... it can't be refuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now