And the caths they got to line stuff up... infant baptism which I do believe at this point is not honored by God... then first communion, then confirmation... like there is a day that everyone goes to the church they put their hand on your head and you receive the holy spirit.
well got to tell you it just aint true. Nothing happened.. And I could have accepted Christ as a six year old if they hadn't put all those rules in my way and then so... by the time I was 15 at confirmation I was already lost.
However, I know
scores of Catholics who have received manifold spiritual blessings through reception of the sacraments, and who bear the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit by the manner of the lives they lead.
Has it occurred to you that your personal situation may not be typical? Simply because you personally believed you felt nothing, received nothing, and were lost while a Catholic does not mean that the Catholic Church is illegitimate, that all Catholics are lost, or that the sacraments are not true vehicles of God's grace.
Jesus tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Actually, I believe it was Paul that told us that, but that's besides the point.
Notice that 2 Tim 3:16 says "all" Scripture. It does
not say
ONLY Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible will you find anything that states that only
written Scriptures are the sole Word of God.
It is apparent, that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture.
The Catholic Church has added nothing to the Deposit of the Christian Faith. The various Protestant churches, however, have
subtracted much Christian doctrine which God has revealed through Apostolic Tradition.
The Catholic Church often attempts to give human traditions higher authority than God's Word.
Apostolic Tradition is not the tradition of man, however---it is the revealed Word of God. Jesus condemned the traditions of the Saducees and Pharisees, true. But He never condemned
Christian Tradition; at the time He was lambasting the Saducees and Pharisees, Christian Tradition didn't exist yet; it was still in the process of being formed.
Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
As aforementioned, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is inspired. To the contrary, in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Thess 3:6, Paul tells his listeners to
adhere to Tradition, and
shun those who do not. Further, the
Church is the final authority, not the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not call the Bible the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition.
Correct.
Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.
The Mass (being the celebration of the Eucharist), the priesthood (Holy Orders), and Penance are sacraments, and ergo are part of the Deposit of the Faith, not Doctrines. Purgatory and indulgences are also part of the Deposit, not Doctrines. The veneration of Mary falls under Dogma, insofar as the defined teachings about her are concerned; this is also not Doctrine. The distinction between venial and mortal sins is Scripture, coming from 1 John 5:16-17; this also renders it Deposit. The Rosary and sacred images are Devotions, which are nowhere near Doctrines.
The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible?
There is nothing in any Catholic teaching which contradicts the Bible. There's quite a bit of Catholic teaching teaching which contradicts the Protestant
interpretation of the Bible, however.
But, by what authority does the Catholic Church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? Claims do not make it true!
I might say the same thing for Martin Luther's novel idea that the Bible alone is the sole rule for all faith and doctrine. He could claim that all he liked, but claims do not make it true.
Is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition?
Tradition is authenticated by the Deposit of the Faith---meaning Scripture and Tradition together.
If so, then there is no check upon it.
Says who, and using what criteria?
Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition?
No. The Fathers merely
quote Tradition; they do not constitute an inspired authority in and of themselves.
If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture.
Moot point in light of above.
Partially.
If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition.
But Tradition is also used as the authority in validating the Bible.
Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth?
Now we're getting warm.
Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
Authority-wise, you are correct. The Bible is the product of the Church, not the other way 'round.
Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.
Okay, so you tell me: Before the Scriptures were written down---when they still consisted of words and concepts inside the minds of the authors---when they were still simply instructions and memories and exhortations which were passed from one person to another by word of mouth of one Apostle or another---what were they? Not Scripture. "Scripture" means "that which is written". But if there was an extant body of teaching which the Apostles had inside their heads and were teaching by word of mouth (and don't forget, the first Christian Scriptures weren't even
written for 40-odd years after Jesus went back to heaven) that constitutes Tradition. And if some of that Tradition later got written down, that became Scripture. So your contention that Tradition did not produce Scripture is false. Scripture didn't simply fall out of the sky, already written. It had to be physically produced by a man sitting down and putting a pen to parchment. The thoughts and concepts that the Holy Spirit had put into his mind in order for him to write them down to begin with is Inspiration, which can be passed on two ways: orally (or Tradition), or in writing (which is Scripture).
The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible.
But if the Church had no authoritative body of established Tradition in order to know what Jesus actually taught, what were they comparing these Biblical books with as they written, in order to know for sure that they
were inspired? If I know nothing about what Jesus taught, and somebody comes along and says, "Hey, I wrote a book about Christianity", how do I know what the guy has written is true? On the other hand, if an Apostle has come through twenty years ago and taught us all what Jesus said, and the same guy comes up and says, "Hey, I wrote a book about Christianity", I can read his book and compare it with what I already know to be true, and decide on the basis of that whether it stacks up or not.
The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great high priestly prayer, He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
Notice that Jesus does not specify whether that Word was
written or
unwritten. The written Word of God is Scripture. The
unwritten Word of God is Tradition.
There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer's standard of truth.
The rallying cry of the Reformation. But 'twas not always so, I'm afraid.
this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
True. For both the written and unwritten Word.
Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.
And the origin of the Scripture itself would be........the Holy Spirit,
n'est ce pas? And if the Holy Spirit is capable of keeping the written page uncontaminated, you're saying that He is incapable of keeping the oral Tradition uncontaminated? I thought God was not limited.
The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: "Thy Word is truth."
You're still inserting the idea that when Scripture speaks of the Word, then it has to
written. Words are spoken as well as written. God is not limited to words on paper only. There is nothing magical about printed words. They are merely a means to pass on concpets, the same way that spoken words can pass on concepts.
You may think by all this that I am trying to lessen the authority of Scripture; I am not. I am merely trying to help you to understand that the Word of God does not have to be written or printed to still be the Word of God.
You are under no compulsion to agree with me, of course. Your mileage may vary.