Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Forgive me for butting in to your discussion with wildtimes. May I suggest an answer to your question?
Everybody, Catholic or not, agrees with that. (Although sometimes I wonder about the "begats.")
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The difficulty with your verse is that it doesn't say "Only scripture is given by God . . . " Catholics will say, "Yes, scripture is given by God, so is Tradition."
It seems to me that He is criticizing the Jewish traditions which have discarded God's commands and replaced them with rules which are not observed with love or the intention to come closer to God.
7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
People saw these things, remembered them, told them to others, maybe even wrote them down. This is a different kind of tradition, and what Catholics usually consider the word to mean.
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
And since circumcision was performed on infants . . . .
Another thing that must be understood is that baptism in the New Testament serves the same function as circumcision in the Old Testament. In the same way that the Lord ’s Supper is the New Testament expression of the Passover meal, baptism is the New Testament expression of circumcision. Intuitively, this is seen to be true, for in the book of Acts, new converts are not told to be circumcised as they would have been in the Old Testament. Instead they are told to be baptized (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, Col. 2:11-12 makes this connection clear: “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” In this passage, circumcision and baptism are clearly linked—baptism is considered the New Testament expression of circumcision.
The Church, from it's earliest days, accepted infant baptism. Do we go back in time to tell them they were wrong?
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).
Originally posted by micmerci
Originally posted by Snsoc
1.) Infant baptism
2.) Going to Confession
3.) The Mass
4.) (Supposed) worship of Mary, images, popes, etc.
5.) The Rosary
6.) Mortal & Venial Sin
8.) Papal Infallibility
1 The scripture reference that you gave does not infer that the household included infant children. It is much more likely and accepted that the household included servants and adult friends and relatives.
2 The scripture reference you cited states that we are compelled to confess our faults to one another, not our sins.
3 Transubstantiation is a Catholic tenet that states the bread and wine are literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus each time it is blessed by the priest. There are several scripture references disputing this but at this point I am just giving a brief synopsis for debate. Details can follow later.
4 Prayer to saints and Mary- scripture states that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus.
5 The rosary- Jesus taught us how to pray and it did not include Hail Mary.
6 Mortal and Venial sin- scripture tells us that if we broke one commandment we have broken them all. Sin is sin in the eyes of God- it is imperfection before a perfect being.
7Purgatory- it is actual written and recorded church history that during the struggle for power in the roman empire, the catholic church went door to door raising money by the selling of indulgences to lessen time in the new tenet of "purgatory"
8 papal infallibility- scripture states that there are none righteous, none perfect and none sinless except Jesus.
Add to this:
The Vatican keeping the scripture from the common man for centuries
The pope as the representative of Jesus on earth
The declaration of anathema against the protestant church
Jesuit involvement in numerous corrupt scandals historically
The current Vatican statements concerning aliens and the supposed origin of Jesus being from a star child
Disclosure: I am not a proponent that Catholic parishioners are not faithful Christians, I just think that the organization is corrupt. It's the same as not hating citizens just because their government is corrupt.
Originally posted by coyotepoet
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship
Let us propose, as a primary doctrine, that Tradition must be maintained and observed, and that the Bible is not the sole Word of God. Three verses are needed? Ok.
And I would also point out that in systematic theology it takes at least three supporting verses as the basis for any primary doctrine.
I now feel confident that the vital role of Tradition has been established as a primary doctrine.
"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).
"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).
"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)
"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
" 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 Thes. 3:6)
Might I ask in return what scripture supports the idea that the Word of God can only be found in the Bible?
I would ask what scripture supports infant baptism? In all new testament verses the prerequisite for baptism is a professed belief. By implication infants could do no such thing.
Just a small objection, do you think that everything the Church did in it's early days was recorded in Acts? But leaving that aside for a moment, I would ask that we don't get to concerned over the precise meaning of "earliest days." I usually consider it the first couple of hundred years after Christ's death, if that's all right with you.
if the church "from it's earliest days" supported infant baptism there would be a record of it in Acts, which does record the practices and history of the church in it's "earliest" days.
One argument in support of the baptism of infants comes from the fact that controversy over the practice is conspicuously absent from the history of the early church. There is no question that Origen was baptized as an infant in 180 A.D., just 80 years after the death of the last Apostle, John the Evangelist. There are other possible references to infant baptism at earlier dates, but these references are somewhat unclear in their meaning. Born in the mid fourth century (358 A.D.), Augustine wrote, "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained."