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

[Albion]

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...

...Meaning that we are at liberty to invent a meaning?

Interestingly enough, that IS what "Holy Tradition" amounts to.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

All the traditions I see in the content that they post, and repeat, and keep posting, are the ones opposed to / contrary directly/ to Scripture. I don't know why that is so. Do you ? < shrugs >

 

[Albion]

My point is that Paul didn't identify any traditions, so we cannot say that Purgatory or Indulgences or Mary's body being assumed into heaven is taught because of that verse.

And he absolutely was not using the word to mean what the church many years later decided to call 'Holy Tradition' in order to describe the authority it claimed to have to invent new doctrines that have no Scriptural basis.

No problem...we'll say they came from what we choose to call Holy Tradition and point to a lone verse that uses the word traditions in a different context altogether.

It really is quite a shell game, and easily shown to be one since no Catholic here has ever been able to name a single one of the traditions that Paul supposedly was saying to hold fast to.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

so we cannot say that Purgatory or Indulgences or Mary's body being assumed into heaven is taught because of that verse.

We (ekklesia) agree 100% with YHWH, as revealed all through Scripture (His Word) and all of His messengers since Y'SHUA walked the earth,
that those practices are abominations, plainly and clearly contrary to all of YHWH'S WORD, never not even once endorsed in any way by YHWH nor by Y'SHUA nor by any man of YHWH nor by any one of His children, period.
All those things opposed to YHWH'S WORD, were long ago (always) known, and exposed thoroughly and completely with no shadow nor doubt nor chance they would be accepted nor acceptable, ever, by children of YHWH, called and chosen by YHWH to be His own, as written in 1st John, and all through the GOSPELS/ NEW TESTAMENT.

 

[prodromos]

My point is that Paul didn't identify any traditions, so we cannot say that Purgatory or Indulgences or Mary's body being assumed into heaven is taught because of that verse.

Since neither nor indulgences are common to all the ancient Churches, I wonder why you would bring them up, howevee the Assumption of Mary is celebrated by ALL. That includes the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[FenderTL5]

All the traditions I see in the content that they post, and repeat, and keep posting, are the ones opposed to / contrary directly/ to Scripture. I don't know why that is so. Do you ? < shrugs >

Prove it.
Chapter, verse and context; here's the example(s) by Saint Basil previously posted.
Show me in scripture where all four listed are, "opposed to / contrary directly/ to Scripture"

"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)

 

[kepha31]

...Meaning that we are at liberty to invent a meaning?

Interestingly enough, that IS what "Holy Tradition" amounts to.

No, it does not. You have re-invented the meaning of Tradition to make it fit your preconceptions.

 

[kepha31]

My point is that Paul didn't identify any traditions, so we cannot say that Purgatory or Indulgences or Mary's body being assumed into heaven is taught because of that verse.

Wrong. St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. You have no concept of development of doctrine. There is not a single verse that says all doctrines, devotions and practices must be found explicitly in Scripture. That is a man made tradition.

And he absolutely was not using the word to mean what the church many years later decided to call 'Holy Tradition' in order to describe the authority it claimed to have to invent new doctrines that have no Scriptural basis.

Again, you re-define Tradition to to force fit it into your preconceptions.

No problem...we'll say they came from what we choose to call Holy Tradition and point to a lone verse that uses the word traditions in a different context altogether.

So what. Some traditions are bad. Those are the only ones the fundies can find.

It really is quite a shell game, and easily shown to be one since no Catholic here has ever been able to name a single one of the traditions that Paul supposedly was saying to hold fast to.

If I am not mistaken, it has come up about a million times.

First of all, one might also 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.
No Tradition, no Bible.

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Colossians 2:8

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; 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 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

(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”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9, 12; 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).

7) “. . . things which have been accomplished among us” were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.
2 Timothy 1:13-14
2 Timothy 2:2
St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered by the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).
The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself; quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, 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.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word

 

[Arsenios]

...Meaning that we are at liberty to invent a meaning?

Interestingly enough, that IS what "Holy Tradition" amounts to.

Then how, my Dear, do you account for the consistent witness of ALL the Apostolic Churches for 2000 years?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

My point is that Paul didn't identify any traditions, so we cannot say that Purgatory or Indulgences or Mary's body being assumed into heaven is taught because of that verse.

And he absolutely was not using the word to mean what the church many years later decided to call 'Holy Tradition' in order to describe the authority it claimed to have to invent new doctrines that have no Scriptural basis.

No problem...we'll say they came from what we choose to call Holy Tradition and point to a lone verse that uses the word traditions in a different context altogether.

It really is quite a shell game, and easily shown to be one since no Catholic here has ever been able to name a single one of the traditions that Paul supposedly was saying to hold fast to.

The Latin Church is the one you are describing...
She believes in "Development of Doctrine" and in Her Papal Authority to do so...
She has been out of Communion with the entirety of the rest of the Eastern Christian Churches for a thousand years...
Thank-you for the rant...

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Since neither nor indulgences are common to all the ancient Churches, I wonder why you would bring them up, howevee the Assumption of Mary is celebrated by ALL. That includes the Assyrian Church of the East.

I was simply listing a few of the beliefs that are held by churches that believe in Sacred Tradition and which are attributed to Tradition rather than Scripture. However, you make a point I'm happy enough to see. That's because you are showing us that even if one were to think that "Tradition" is a valid supplement to Scripture, there is no agreement on what it is teaching. None of the churches that claim it have the same list of beliefs as the others that teach doctrines they attribute to Tradition! This suggests that Tradition isn't particularly traditional after all.

 

[Arsenios]

My point is that Paul didn't identify any traditions

He identified them: eg Those (1) traditions taught by [Apostolic] Epistles, and those (2) taught by word. The whole of the Ekklesia at that point was functioning by (2) [eg oral tradition not yet written down]

And he absolutely was not using the word to mean what the church many years later decided to call 'Holy Tradition' in order to describe the authority it claimed to have to invent new doctrines that have no Scriptural basis.

Please try to keep the rant within the first thousand years of historical Christianity. Latin Papal Authoritarianism is a 2nd millennial divergence and is the one that gave western Prostentant Christianity its illegitimate birth. Those orphans are often still very bitter and obsessed with Papal excesses...

The Church, however, in Paul's writings, is very much authoritative, [if not authoritarian, mind you!]... He describes the Ekklesia as the Ground of the Truth, and as the Pillar of Truth, in such a way as to be such a Force that even the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her...

It really is quite a shell game, and easily shown to be one since no Catholic here has ever been able to name a single one of the traditions that Paul supposedly was saying to hold fast to.

Paul warns against the traditions of men. Col 2:8
And he commands us to follow after the traditions received from himself and the rest of the Ekklesia. 2Thess 3:6

So are you arguing that we go OUTSIDE the Ekklesia to find out what these Traditions actually ARE??
Finding Ekklesial Congruence seems so much more, er... Reasonable!
Don't you agree?

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

He identified them: eg Those (1) traditions taught by [Apostolic] Epistles, and those (2) taught by word. The whole of the Ekklesia at that point was functioning by (2) [eg oral tradition not yet written down]

Nothing in that identifies any particular traditions. You must resort to answering with what at best is a good guess. BUT EVEN IF you were correct, there's absolutely no warrant in Paul's statement for people not yet alive to invent new doctrines decades or centuries later, using this verse as their justification. Paul does explicitly refer to traditions, whatever they might have been, that already existed and were known to his listeners.

 

[Arsenios]

Nothing in that identifies any particular traditions. You must resort to answering with what at best is a good guess. BUT EVEN IF you were correct, there's absolutely no warrant in Paul's statement for people not yet alive to invent new doctrines decades or centuries later, using this verse as their justification. Paul does explicitly refer to traditions, whatever they might have been, that already existed and were known to his listeners.

You just completed te circle for me - For now we are back to two alternative understandings:
1: YOURS: We ignore those scriptures because particulars are unknowable.
2: OURS: We ask the Ekklesia for the particulars...

Thank-you...

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

You just completed te circle for me - For now we are back to two alternative understandings:
1: YOURS: We ignore those scriptures because particulars are unknowable.
2: OURS: We ask the Ekklesia for the particulars...

Thank-you...

Arsenios

That's probably accurate. I am opposed to inventing doctrines that are not scriptural, and to using some guidance system OTHER THAN divine revelation.

You think that your denomination (but no other one, apparently) is authorized (for some similarly unscriptural reason) just to make doctrines as its leaders choose. Yes, I'm satisfied enough to have the contrast drawn along those lines.

 

[Arsenios]

That's probably accurate. I am opposed to inventing doctrines that are not scriptural, and to using some guidance system OTHER THAN divine revelation.

You think that your denomination (but no other one, apparently) is authorized (for some similarly unscriptural reason) just to make doctrines as its leaders choose. Yes, I'm satisfied enough to have the contrast drawn along those lines.

Thank-you...

That seems like a reasonable concurrence...

fwiw -
1: A 5-See Ecumenical Council is not a denomination...
2: The Eastern Orthodox DISCIPLE Divine Revelation...

Arsenios

 

[kepha31]

That's probably accurate. I am opposed to inventing doctrines that are not scriptural, and to using some guidance system OTHER THAN divine revelation.

You think that your denomination (but no other one, apparently) is authorized (for some similarly unscriptural reason) just to make doctrines as its leaders choose. Yes, I'm satisfied enough to have the contrast drawn along those lines.

You don't get it. Tradition, properly defined, IS divine revelation, inseparable from Scripture. It's a different mode of transmission and that does not make Tradition inferior to Scripture. If any doctrine is made up it's sola scriptura, which always unbiblically pits itself against Tradition.

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
CCC 75-78

 

[Jeepneytravel]

The thousands of different denominations are nothing but a divide and conquer mechanism of satan to draw people away from God. Try reading the Bible, especially the words of Jesus in the Gospels and see for yourself, and quit following denominational doctrines but try following the actual words of Jesus.

 

[kepha31]

The thousands of different denominations are nothing but a divide and conquer mechanism of satan to draw people away from God. Try reading the Bible, especially the words of Jesus in the Gospels and see for yourself, and quit following denominational doctrines but try following the actual words of Jesus.

Is the canon of Scripture, which took 4 centuries to complete, a denominational doctrine?
Around 130 AD. Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture. What were those gospels measured against that proved their authenticity at a time when the New Testament didn't exist?

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Rome perverted the scriptures big time, and thethousands of denominations have added to it by their traditions instead of Bible teachings Jesus said follow the commandments of God and not the traditions of man Mark 7.....and I reiterate the thousands of denominations are strictly from satan and his divide and conquer mentality. It is time people read the the Bible for themselve, especially the gospels and the words of Jesus and get the truth and it will make them free..