Why are so many protestants anti-Catholic and/or anti-Orthodox

yeshuaslavejeff said:

See the first quote.
(after your beliefs do change, perhaps, (not sure),
you will understand)

Click to expand...

Did you just say that AFTER Orthodox Forever's beliefs change that THEN he MAY understand WHY there is so much HATE on the part of Protestants toward their brethren who CONVERT to RC or EO???

I flat out could not make any sense of your words at all...

Could you please lay out what that might look like?

Thank-you...

Arsenios

Philip_B said:

View attachment 193068​

The view of Sola Scriptutra is quite consistent with the RCC position on the informed conscience. Perhaps the genuine question has to be the role of the teaching office of the Church in validating the correct exegesis of a given passage, and or the correct scriptures to use when looking at a particular problem.

Click to expand...

Which rather ignores the problem of what tradition is, and why authority is necessary and scripture is not the pillar of truth..

There is a reformationist view that somehow scripture and tradition are two wholy separate tracks, and that they are somehow "reverting" to scripture.

Which misses the point, and so does your diagram.

ALL teaching was paradosis - handing down, which is why Paul said "Hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter"
Jesus gave us apostles, and succession, not a new testament, that came later.
He also gave the means to resolve disputes on interpretation of doctrine.

Which was the power to "bind and loose" given separately to Peter, holder of keys, and also to the succession (ie acting together, so in council)
It was always so. See Jesus' remarks on "moses seat" later usurped by the see and cathedra of Peter given the office of Keys.

The new testament was chosen (by divine inspiration) at least in part because it did not contradict with extant tradition. Books were rejected because the contradicted tradition. Tradition is not "something on the side" it is all of doctrine, which is bigger than scripture. Scripture is not in conflict with tradition because scripture was chosen because it aligned to it, ie did not contradict it but was never the whole of the faith handed down, nor was scripture ever the "complete manual" of Christian belief.

So if we look back at what was handed down, we discover interpretations of scripture. Take ignatius letter to Smyrneans. You see that the tradition handed by apostle John to polycarp and ignatius. That a valid eucharist of the real presence, really considered to be the body and blood of our lord, and can only be performed by a bishop or his appointee. That was tradition, also was why Christians were thought to be cannibals behind closed doors! Scripture does not contradict that, but clearly many of reformationist interpretations of scripture do contradict the faith handed down, ie tradition.

The meaning of scripture is also a part of tradition. You cannot divorce the two, as the reformers pretended. Scripture is not greater than tradition. Tradition gives the correct meaning to scripture.

And it is a fallacy that anything that fits with scripture is fine, and you can take your pick so long as it does not contradict.

Jesus handed us Christianity, passed by word of mouth and occassionally letter.
Solo Dei Verbum is the correct doctrine. Which is also sacred tradition,a part of which is sacred scripture.

Mountainmike said:

ALL teaching was paradosis - handing down, which is why Paul said "Hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

Click to expand...

Just identify for us what those traditions were and we'll see if your POV is proven to be correct.

Albion said:

Just identify for us what those traditions were and we'll see if your POV is proven to be correct.

Click to expand...

The fact you use the phrase "those traditions" means you have misunderstood.

Tradition is singular the handing down of the body of doctrine.

I identified one aspect of the body of doctrine right there...tradition handed down the meaning and conduct of the eucharist. You dont get to choose what scripture means from any potential ambiguity in it.

Tradition handed down the eucharist and power to perform it, and so gave meaning to scripture in as far as it describes it, it nowhere contradicts tradition. Had any of the books of the now new testament contradicted tradition of the eucharist, they would not have been chosen for the canon. History shows it was that way round. Books were rejected if they contradicted accepted doctrine, ie tradition.

Mountainmike said:

The fact you use the phrase "those traditions" means you have misunderstood.

Tradition is singular the handing down of the body of doctrine.

Click to expand...

Not according to the verse you quoted in order to prove your point.

Indeed, you altered the wording of that verse from "traditions" to "tradition," in order to fudge, I am guessing, the difference between traditions and what's called (Holy) Tradition.

So, if that verse is supposed to prove or justify creating doctrines by means of Tradition, what teachings do you find Paul telling his listeners to perpetuate??? It's a simple enough question.

Albion said:

Identify for us what those traditions were...

Click to expand...

If you look at the Apostolic Churches of the first thousand years of the history of the Christian Church, and remove the things in which they differ - eg local ethnic traditions - you will be able without too much effort to find those Traditions which comprise the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ...

You will find the discipling of repentance, Baptism into the Body of Christ, Anointing with Holy Oil, Chrismating of the newly Baptized, the Sacrament of Marriage, and on and on... ALL these Churches still have these traditions even to this day... You will find them in your own Anglican Church...

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

If you look at the Apostolic Churches of the first thousand years of the history of the Christian Church, and remove the things in which they differ - eg local ethnic traditions - you will be able without too much effort to find those Traditions which comprise the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ...

Click to expand...

The question was on the traditions referred to in Paul's statement as quoted by our friend, Mountainmike.

If we are to be guided by that verse or believe in traditions as doctrine, tell us what traditions he was referring to in that verse! It doesn't do anything to just spin out generalities about the sacraments unless they were what Paul was speaking of.

And even if you could show us that they were (which you have not even attempted)...

Those matters are identified for us IN SCRIPTURE, so we do not have any need to turn to any other source of divine revelation in order to know about Baptism or the Lord's Supper or Matrimony.

removed

hengesthorsa said:

I know about baptism, but where is matrimony as a specifically Christian matter brought up? i.e. - where in scripture do we read that Christian priests are empowered to perform such services, etc?

Click to expand...

I was merely referring, in my reply to Arsenios, to some of those things he had listed in his post.

I do not consider Matrimony to be a sacrament and neither of us made any reference to priests in our posts, so your comment here seems to me to be misplaced.

Albion said:

The question was on the traditions referred to in Paul's statement as quoted by our friend, Mountainmike.

Click to expand...

D'ose be da ones!

If we are to be guided by that verse or believe in traditions as doctrine, tell us what traditions he was referring to in that verse!

Click to expand...

The verse specifies: ALL teachings TRADITIONED by word or epistle... Which ones would you discard?

It doesn't do anything to just spin out generalities about the sacraments unless they were what Paul was speaking of.

Click to expand...

Well, for starters, you could, for instance, take the "elementary teachings of the Faith" from Hebrews 6:

Heb 6:1-2 ...The foundation of
1: repentance from dead works, and of
2: faith toward God,
3: Of the doctrine of baptisms, and
4: of laying on of hands, and
5: of resurrection of the dead,
6: and of eternal judgment.

What are the teachings of the Apostolic Churches of the first thousand years on each of these? Is there some concensus? Or are the teachings scattered and contradictory? I think you will find them all very congruent, won't you agree?

And even if you could show us that they were (which you have not even attempted)...

Those matters are identified for us IN SCRIPTURE, so we do not have any need to turn to any other source of divine revelation in order to know about Baptism or the Lord's Supper or Matrimony.

Click to expand...

So where does Scripture identify the "Doctrine of Baptisms"??

And where do we find it in the first thousand years of Christianity's writings?

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

D'ose be da ones!

Click to expand...

What makes you think so, considering that Paul gives no hint of what he has in mind there?

The verse specifies: ALL teachings TRADITIONED by word or epistle... Which ones would you discard?

Click to expand...

No, he says to hold to the traditions that they have been taught. There is no suggestion as to which traditions he was referring to.

Well, for starters, you could, for instance, take the "elementary teachings of the Faith" from Hebrews 6:
augh
Heb 6:1-2 ...The foundation of
1: repentance from dead works, and of
2: faith toward God,
3: Of the doctrine of baptisms, and
4: of laying on of hands, and
5: of resurrection of the dead,
6: and of eternal judgment.

Click to expand...

All you're doing here is guessing that Paul was referring to things we know are standards of Christian belief and practice and which he spoke of elsewhere. That's at least a thoughtful guess. But he could just as easily have been thinking of a hundred other things that observant Jews had customarily done.

And what if you happened to be correct (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way of knowing)? It doesn't mean that there is some second source of divine revelation (Holy Tradition) that's equal in authority to Scripture.

So where does Scripture identify the "Doctrine of Baptisms"??

Click to expand...

Baptism is described in some detail in a number of New Testament books including
Luke 3:16
Matthew 3:13-17
Mark 1:9-11 “
Luke 3:21, 22
John 1:29-33
Matthew 28:19, 20
Mark 1:4, 5
Mark 16:16
Acts 2:38
Acts 8:35-38
Acts 16:31, 33
Romans 6:3-6
1 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 3:27
1 Peter 3:21

Albion said:

What makes you think so, considering that Paul gives no hint of what he has in mind there?

Click to expand...

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

No hint?

What he has in mind is THE TRADITIONS...
So WHICH Traditions?

No hint, you say??

He plainly tells us: Those Traditions which they have been taught!

And he then adds, so that there can be no confusion:
Whether by word of by our Epistle...

How can you say there is no hint?

No, he says to hold to the traditions that they have been taught. There is no suggestion as to which traditions he was referring to.

Click to expand...

He is plainly saying those traditions which they have been taught... How can you say "no suggestion as to which traditions?"

You see, our claim is that the Apostolic Churches were well aware of these Traditions, and faithfully passed them on to the Faithful of the next generations... The "written" Bible of the first generation or so was the LXX, the Apostle's Bible... Nothing beyond that... The entire building up of the Church was by Holy Tradition alone, with no New Testament at all... The Church is prior, you see, to the Scriptures which it then wrote... The Scriptures were not written so that THEN the Church could be established. It is the Established Church that GAVE us the New Testament, the Gospels and Epistles and Revelation...

All you're doing here is guessing that Paul was referring to things we know are standards of Christian belief and practice and which he spoke of elsewhere. That's at least a thoughtful guess. But he could just as easily have been thinking of a hundred other things that observant Jews had customarily done.

Click to expand...

He was plainly referring to the traditions of the Church, the living Body of Christ... Are you seriously arguing that he had some of these in mind and not others?

And what if you happened to be correct (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way of knowing)? It doesn't mean that there is some second source of divine revelation (Holy Tradition) that's equal in authority to Scripture.

Click to expand...

Holy Tradition is the matrix that WROTE the Bible...

Baptism is described in some detail in a number of New Testament books including
Luke 3:16
Matthew 3:13-17
Mark 1:9-11 “
Luke 3:21, 22
John 1:29-33
Matthew 28:19, 20
Mark 1:4, 5
Mark 16:16
Acts 2:38
Acts 8:35-38
Acts 16:31, 33
Romans 6:3-6
1 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 3:27
1 Peter 3:21

Click to expand...

Could you please just give me an abbreviated Cliff's Notes version of the Doctrine of Baptisms which is an elementary doctrine of the faith of Christ? And then show me where in Scripture you found it?

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

No hint?

What he has in mind is THE TRADITIONS...
So WHICH Traditions?

No hint, you say??

He plainly tells us: Those Traditions which they have been taught!

And he then adds, so that there can be no confusion:
Whether by word of by our Epistle...

How can you say there is no hint?



He is plainly saying those traditions which they have been taught... How can you say "no suggestion as to which traditions?"

You see, our claim is that the Apostolic Churches were well aware of these Traditions, and faithfully passed them on to the Faithful of the next generations... The "written" Bible of the first generation or so was the LXX, the Apostle's Bible... Nothing beyond that... The entire building up of the Church was by Holy Tradition alone, with no New Testament at all... The Church is prior, you see, to the Scriptures which it then wrote... The Scriptures were not written so that THEN the Church could be established. It is the Established Church that GAVE us the New Testament, the Gospels and Epistles and Revelation...

He was plainly referring to the traditions of the Church, the living Body of Christ... Are you seriously arguing that he had some of these in mind and not others?

Holy Tradition is the matrix that WROTE the Bible...

Could you please just give me an abbreviated Cliff's Notes version of the Doctrine of Baptisms which is an elementary doctrine of the faith of Christ? And then show me where in Scripture you found it?
Arsenios

Click to expand...

Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.
- Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
- Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
- Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
- Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
- A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.
- A sixth position came up on this board a few months ago, a water-less Holy Spirit baptism.

Arsenios said:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

No hint?

Click to expand...

That's my evaluation of the verse, but if you can find in it any indication of a particular tradition that's being referred to, tell us what they are.

Then, but only then, might this particular verse be cited as evidence that there's something other than Scripture that is meant to guide the church in doctrinal matters. What I see is the word "traditions" which may or may not refer to doctrine, but no mention of any particular ones.

Albion said:

That's my evaluation of the verse, but if you can find in it any indication of a particular tradition that's being referred to, tell us what they are.
Then, but only then, might this particular verse be cited as evidence that there's something other than Scripture that is meant to guide the church in doctrinal matters. What I see is the word "traditions" which may or may not refer to doctrine, but no mention of any particular ones.

Click to expand...

First of all, one might loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Colossians 2:8
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway).

Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words paradidomi and paralambano are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1 Corinthians 15:1-3
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Jude 3

(cf. Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:9, 12; 2 Pet 2:21)

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.

kepha31 said:

Such Catholics are in error. Catholicism is not formally anti-Protestant. Your claim is subjective based on isolated personal experience.

There shouldn't be an issue. Anti-Protestantism is contrary to Catholic teaching. There are STUPID Catholics, just as there are STUPID Protestants accusing us of Mary worship, idolatry, the Pope as the anti-Christ, Church as harlot of Babylon, etc. I see it every day.

I would like you to find ONE Catholic web site that misrepresents Protestantism. Yet there are millions of Protestant web sites misrepresenting Catholicism.
That's tragic. What's more tragic is how anti-Catholicism is part of our culture.

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice
by Philip Jenkins (Author) < professor of history and not a Catholic

REVIEW:
Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care.
A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and newsmagazines, for television news and in movies, for
major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women--the idea of Catholic misogyny--is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins...
The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

Is there a cultural anti-Protestantism that I am missing?
see also:
CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS 2016 YEAR IN REVIEW

Click to expand...

I would suggest you will see much more of that, than the reverse case scenario.
Most Catholics are 'live and let live" type of attitude, and respect other peoples denominations or religions.
You only have to look at youtube videos and comments below them, to see the fervent anti-Catholicism amongst low church Evangelical Protestants.
Just like this one:

I am describing Christian history to you,
A faith handed down from apostles by paradosis, tradition.

The verse I quoted must be understood in the context of tradition.

You make the usual reformationist error of trying to define tradition using scripture, putting the cart in front of the historically provable horse.

Your last comment on pauls teachings shows the need to use tradition to understand scripture.

When paul speaks of the body and blood, for example, we can understand from tradition, it meant and he meant real body and blood, and we understand from tradition that it is only a valid Eucharist if by a bishop in succession or his appointee.

Tradition carries the meaning for scripture.
The faith was handed down.
And where heresy appeared or ambiguity was questioned councils spoke to bind and loose.
New Testament came later.

Albion said:

Not according to the verse you quoted in order to prove your point.

Indeed, you altered the wording of that verse from "traditions" to "tradition," in order to fudge, I am guessing, the difference between traditions and what's called (Holy) Tradition.

So, if that verse is supposed to prove or justify creating doctrines by means of Tradition, what teachings do you find Paul telling his listeners to perpetuate??? It's a simple enough question.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

That's my evaluation of the verse, but if you can find in it any indication of a particular tradition that's being referred to, tell us what they are.

Then, but only then, might this particular verse be cited as evidence that there's something other than Scripture that is meant to guide the church in doctrinal matters. What I see is the word "traditions" which may or may not refer to doctrine, but no mention of any particular ones.

Click to expand...

Well, in the beginning century, you had the Church, the Body of Christ, functioning as Christ discipled them to function as His Body, and some of the things they were doing they wrote down, and most they did not...

So along we come 2000 years later speaking other languages and you want us to ignore what was not written down which is witnessed by ALL the Apostolic Churches for 2000 years?

We love the deep wells of this Faith, my friend... We do not limit the Faith to that which was written down about it... We are discipled to attain to Union with God, as are all Christians in the Apostolic Churches...

Here is a particular tradition - The making of the Sign of the Cross that we do when seeking God's Blessing in all undertakings... ALL Apostolic Churches disciple it. Do you accept or reject this feature of Holy Tradition in the Apostolic Body of Christ? If you walk down the street in Saudi Arabia making the Sign of the Cross, painful things will happen to you... Indeed, if you so much as wear a cross there that can be seen, bad consequences will come...

This, you see, is how to determine what actually IS Holy Tradition, which was not received by epistle, but by word, from the Apostles themselves... So that IF you reject it, when ALL the Apostolic Churches have been discipling it for 2000 years, on the basis that it is not found written in your Bible, then you will nave no way of ever knowing what Paul meant when he wrote what you claim has no specificity of referents... For you, you cannot, but for us, we can, because we are the Church in which that discipling is discipled - We are living that Tradition...

Indeed, in that passage, what is the referent of the term: "The Traditions which ye have been taught..."? IF, as you say, there is nothing specific, do you then have to just pass over that part of the Bible as unknowable? For us, every word in the Bible is pregnant with meaning...

Arsenios

"What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?
For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition?"

( Basil the Great’s (c. 329-379) description and defense of unwritten Tradition found in his classic work, On the Holy Spirit: Chapter 27, §66)

FenderTL5 said:

"What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?
For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition?"

( Basil the Great’s (c. 329-379) description and defense of unwritten Tradition found in his classic work, On the Holy Spirit: Chapter 27, §66)

Click to expand...

Thank-you...

Nobody improves much on St. Basil!

A.