Scripture Vs Tradition

... looks like the Inquisition is on the witchhunt...

Patience, my papist adversary, patience. We poor, pitiful, wretched heretical farming peasants are forced to work for a living you know. I'll address your Most Holy Kilted One's groundless assertions in due time. Watch this space...

I do admire your loyalty to your leader , though it would be better utilized under the Right One.

Seeing this discussion (war ) has taken on a distinctive Scripture vs tradition nature, let's open up a new thread and really get to the crux of the confusion.
Once we have exposed counterfeit religion for what it really is, we can then move to the other thread (Crusades etc) to discuss some home facts about the Vatican's 'glorious' roots and legacy. Let's really put the papacy's 'infallibility' to the test, and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. You may want to check out http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/w....htm?once=true& for a little food for thought. Maybe Mr. Pope should've kept those Vatican archives sealed.

Let's bypass all the claptrap propaganda and get some real answers. Here's hoping other participants will engage in this thread. So what do we go by? Scripture or tradition? 'Sola Scriptura', as some may call it, was not a Protestant invention, but sealed within the Scriptures themselves. The canon of both the OT & NT can be verified as well. Luther's Protestant reformation did very little to enhance living by the literal Word. Didn't he call James an 'epistle of straw'? Hardly advocating 'sola scriptura', ay?

Acts 20:7 - andi claims this spells out that the Eurachrist was celebrated on the first day of the week. Are you sure, dude? Why is this? Is it because they 'broke bread' and/or 'Paul preached unto them'? So have a really, really good look into this, cos I hate to see grown men cry. Forget about what Father Ted has taught you. Just use your Bible and a good concordance/dicitonary.

One question - what is the Vatican's official stance on the Apocrypha? Keeping in mind, that the canon to the Old Covenant (Testament) was closed when the spirit of prophecy was taken from Israel after the time of Ezra, and that the Apocrypha was never recognized by Christ, when He spoke of the 3 divisions of Scripture in the OT (Luke 24:44) , and it was never quoted as scripture by His apostles. Also keep in mind that the only writings the NT church lived by and taught from were the OT Scriptures. There was no NT until later.

These challenges are addressed to professing Christendom in general, but to the Vatican in particular, since it is the 'Mother Church' and pioneer and advocator of much of religion's traditions and beliefs.

A couple more teasers;

1. What is the Vatican's official stance on the nature of the 'soul'. Is it immortal?

2. What is the Vatican's official stance on the nature of hell? It does seem remarkably similar to that pictured in Dante's 'Divine Comedy'.

Keep in mind that unstable answers will naturaly reflect an unstable religion. I'll compile a detailed response in due time. Stay tuned.

Forever heretical, heretical forever!!

... just one more little heretical teaser...

What is the Vatican's official stance on the nature of the Holy Spirit? Is there really a Holy Trinity? Is there a distinct third diety?

That should keep you busy for a while. Bye-bye...

slap me side-ways but seeing the words "heretical" made me think.
Didn't the Mother church burn Scientists, Doctors and thinkers all as heretics.
After all, we all know that the earth is flat. the sun moves round the sun and all medical operations are the works of Satan.
Me thinks that sometimes it would be better if religion never existed at all EVER.
it has caused more wars, fear, death, intolerance and hunger than any other subject.
Just take the Popes ring on his little pinkie. How many starving Children could that pay to feed. the money spent building a wall to divide the israelis and palestinians, could work wonders on removing some of the misery in the world.

Which ever way you look at it Religion sucks big time. it preaches Love then gets the guns out or brainwashes kids into becoming suicide bombers.

I totally agree with you there. I couldn't have put it much better myself - there's nothing quite like being to the point.

I've nothing but contempt for the professing Christendom religion of this world. It reeks of hypocracy and it has indeed evoked a helluva lot of suffering and war. That's why I go by the Book, the whole Book, and nothing but the Book, and bypass a lot of what's been spouted from the pulpit.

I just wanna ask this - compare the teachings of Christ Himself to the religion of this world and then honestly ask yourself if something hasn't gone horribly wrong!

Amen

Nah, witchhunts are passe. They went out of vogue in the 17th century when the Protestants stopped hanging witches in Salem, Mass.

Same here. It is amazing how many people need an ambulance or the fire dept when I am trying to assemble a cogent answer to your assertions.

If you are referring to me as "Holy," you are wasting your time, cos I ain't holy. Just trying to get there. As far as being kilted, not at present, but frequently! As far as my assertions being groundless, well ...

Ah, but I AM loyal to the Right One, and to his Vicar on Earth, Pope John Paul II.

Not a "war," just a theological discussion among people of good will. As for Unholy War: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism I have read it, along with Hitler's Pope and several other books unfavorable to the Church. While they make some valid points, they do not succeed in destroying the Church's integrity as an institution, only in sullying the names of some of the popes involved. Popes being human, they make mistakes. That may be why the current Holy Father frequents the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a week. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the Holy Father is anything but a man, subject to the weaknesses of all men. Being human, the authors of these works also make mistakes. As I have stated previously, there ain't no such thang as a perfectly reliable historical work.

Nice try. But saying that it is so is not the same as proving that it is so. If sola scriptura is indeed historically verifiable, we would expect to see the early liturgical life of the Church suffused with the teaching. In fact, when examining the writings of the early Church Fathers, one sees that the concept was alien to their thought and life. Show me concrete examples (more than one or two) of writings of the early Church Fathers that demonstrate the prevalence of sola scriptura. Incidentally, isolated staements from selected Fathers such as St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine or St.Basil, if taken out of context, can lend the appearance of support of this fallacy. When taken in totality, such an argument is seen to be fallacious.

Indeed, because of the theological and epistemological investigations of the Church. Of course, when the early Protestants removed some of the Canon of the Old Testament because it conflicted with their theology, that wasn't exactly playing by Hoyle was it?

The Protestant Reformation hardly belonged to Luther. Don't forget, there was Calvin and Zwingli, too, along with a host of lesser known personages. As to what Luther's opinion of James' epistle was, I have no idea. But if the early Church Fathers didn't believe in it, and it isn't supported biblically (at least I have seen no convincing proof of it), it had to arise with the Protestants who espouse it.

How else does one interpret a meeting of Christians in which bread is broken and the Word is proclaimed? I guess it could have been a dinner party, but until I have hard evidence showing me such (recovered invitation or RSVP ), I am going to maintain that it is an example of the celebration of the Eucharist. And, by the way, nothing that transpires here is likely to move me to tears.

Actually, it was Fr. Martin. And I am not likely to forget what I have learned in my 20+ years of catechesis and study of theology. I do use my Bible and concordance, but I do not limit myself to that, also studying the writings of the Church Fathers and the saints.

You mean the Deuterocanonicals? They are accepted, of course, else you wouldn't have asked the question.

The Jews could never agree on the Canon among themselves. It wasn't until a convocation of rabbis in 90AD in Javneh, called to figure out what to do with this heretical Christian cult that they decided on a set Canon. They pronounced several books, which included the Gospels, by the way, as unfit to be Scripture. They also eliminated Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and portions of the books of Daniel and Esther. These were accepted by the Christians of the day as Canon. Not all Jews agreed with this. Jews from Ethiopia to this day accept the Canon of the Old Testament as is accepted by the Catholic Church.

Christ never "recognized" the deuterocanonicals because they were a part of everyday life. And they were quoted by the Apostles. See Hebrews 11:35. Show me anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament where there is a story of someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. That is ONLY found in 2 Maccabees 7:1,5-9. Only there.

Indeed. Kind of makes it hard to live by the scripture alone, doesn't it? Sort of makes sense that a Church with teaching authority was founded by Christ to lead his people to Heaven.

Of course, the soul is immortal.

Hell is the state of total seperation from God and all His goodness, with all the suffering and misery of the soul that implies. It is forever, and there is no escape from it after death.

My answers are as stable as my human mind will allow them to be. If there are any mistakes made they are mine alone, and not those of the Church.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

The Holy Trinity is real. Else why would have Christ have commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach everyone, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

No, the Holy Spirit is not a seperate deity, but a third person of one Deity, God Himself. There is only one God, with three Persons.

The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it more succinctly than I could ever hope to do. There is a link to the article here.


Just my tuppence.

Andy

Contempt? I have shown nothing but respect for your views, with a little tongue in cheek humor thrown in for good measure to try to keep the discussion from getting TOO serious. Knowing that you feel nothing but contempt for my views (as a professing Catholic) leads me to wonder about the efficacy of debating the virtues of the Faith with you.

Was Christ contemptuous of those who disagreed with Him? No.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

I don't want to step in this discussion. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgable enough and not able to put my question in the right words (uh, Andy, you would have taken me apart in a minute ; jk!).
But I just wanted to say that for me, who grew up as a Lutherian Protestant, this discussion is really insightful and I did find a lot of new facts to consider and some few answers, too.
So I'd like to thank you all!

Why not just jump in? I don't take people apart, just their arguments!

Seriously, there is no such thing as someone with nothing to contribute. I personally don't know that much about Lutheran practices. If there is something you want to say, go ahead.

I know the Lutheran Church is divided into Synods. Do these have the same jurisdiction as a Catholic diocese? Geographically and theologically? Or does each individual church remain autonomous? I have no idea.

Andy

Hehe, I know your just dealing with arguments so I'm not fearing for my own life ...
The problem is that many thoughts and questions did exist for me in an diffuse way...I couldn't "grap" them and my grasp of the American language isn't good enough for being able to put it in the words as I would do in my own language (aaah, what a terrible sentence!). But following the discussion is clearing my mind - and I will jump in as soon as I'm sure about a few more things.
I do not have the time to answer your questions immediatly, Andy as I have to leave the house in a few minutes. But I do not forget about them and will try to do it later when I've got more time!

This is a link to "Selbststaendige Evangelisch Lutherische Kirche" as a short introduction. They also have an English site under the button "Weitere" but I know that you are able to read in German, too...Just a "starter":
http://www.selk.de/index.html

Have to hurry now...until later!

Vielen Dank!

The link to the Kleiner Katechismus is really good. And it is in modern German, so even I can understand it! Cool!

Andy

You're very welcome, Andy! Nichts zu danken!

Hmm, even my children would have had big problems with studying and learning their "Katechismus" in the very old form of German in which I still had to do it in my young days. They were luckier...they had this modern form!
I hope this link has enough basic information for you to make up a mind...

gaberlunzie

Now, to confuse you even a bit more: Here is another link to the other branch of the Lutheran Church. Yes, there isn't only ONE united church but two branches...one branch is the SELK to which I do belong (we are the hard-liners), the other is the VELK, which is a bit more adapted to the Protestant Church...Here you can read more about structure, synodes etc. They have a good English link at the bottom of the page!

http://www.velkd.de/velkd/index.php3

All these comments and nothing directed at us good old Southern Baptists?