Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[EastCoastRemnant]

I did try to spare him this by making the point, even after his post, that this topic was non-relevant, but alas it would seem some chaps have a habit of ignoring the life preservers I very generously condescend, on occasion, to offer. I have on several occasions urged honourable members to not pursue a particular line of debate, but to no avail. Thus we can hardly be faulted if our interlocutors should, how shall I express this, manage to refute their own arguments despite our interventions to preclude such an outcome, even at our own expense.

A rather smug and arrogant statement don't ya think?

 

[MoreCoffee]

But, the Church is in error... infant baptism, excess of wealth, pomp and pageantry of services, the eucharist, purgatory, confessional, indulgence, celibacy...

But the Church is the body of Christ and her sacraments are God's means of grace, her wealth is the gift of her faithful people, her liturgy is God's work within the church, the holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of the sins of many, confession and reconciliation is a grace from God in response to a contrite heart full of repentance, indulgences are a blessing given to the faithful who first are reconciled to God and then seek to serve him better in prayer and by what they do, and celibacy is a most blessed gift given to the servants of the servants of God. That you think these graces and gifts are errors is more a sign against your understanding than anything else. I urge you to turn away from attempts to thwart the work of God in his Church.

 

[thecolorsblend]

But, the Church is in error... infant baptism,

Baptism is an error? You disagree with St. John 3:5?

excess of wealth

How much do they have? Please provide an exact amount in American dollars. After doing so, please explain why that is "excess". Finally, please explain how that constitutes an "error".

pomp and pageantry of services

You don't believe in offering God the very best of what you have?

the eucharist

Please see my signature.

purgatory

You don't believe that man needs to be purged of sin after death? You don't agree with 1 Corinthians 3:15?

confessional

You don't believe people should confess their sins as Our Lord commanded? You disagree with St. John 20:23?

indulgence

What is your objection exactly?

celibacy...

What is your objection exactly?

 

[ViaCrucis]

But, the Church is in error... infant baptism, excess of wealth, pomp and pageantry of services, the eucharist, purgatory, confessional, indulgence, celibacy...

Says you.

It may seem "obvious" to you that you "just believe the Bible" and others "believe the traditions of men"; that's not so obvious to others for whom precisely the opposite is maintained. You're the one following human traditions and rejecting biblical, normative Christian teaching--such as the baptism of infants, the liturgy, the Eucharist, confession, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wgw]

Baptism is an error? You disagree with St. John 3:5?

How much do they have? Please provide an exact amount in American dollars. After doing so, please explain why that is "excess".

You don't believe in offering God the very best of what you have?

Please see my signature.

You don't believe that man needs to be purged of sin after death? You don't agree with 1 Corinthians 3:15?

You don't believe people should confess their sins as Our Lord commanded? You disagree with St. John 20:23?

What is your objection exactly?

What is your objection exactly?

I will offer further to your point on this issue the following: the Orthodox believe in all these things, except Purgatory per se, although one might refard the Orthodox soteriology expressed by, for example, Fr. Seraphim Rose, of being of a similiar nature in some respects; with regards to the splendour and pagaentry of our services I daresay we actually do a rather better job than most RC parishes on the Novus Ordo Missae.

Now, on the subject of celibacy, we have St. Paul practicing it, we have most of the Apostles practicing it, and we furthermore have St. Paul recommending it, so I have no idea what his point there is in regards to.

A rather smug and arrogant statement don't ya think?

I not only threw you a lifeline before you attempted to make a point on 2 Thessalonians 2:15, but after you made it, I further attempted to move the conversation on from what was rather an embarassing volte-face on your part. In future, perhaps when I point out that an argument you are raising is not topically relevant, you might well listen, in that in fact I do prefer to encourage a vigourous, functional debate in which my interlocutors do not manage to unwittingly snare themselves in avoidable, and in fact, topically irrelevant, contradiction.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You're right, how uncharitable of me... here ya go...

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:5
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Do the RC/OC adhere to the traditions of the early church elders like the Pharisees did? You have admitted as much...

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Peter 1:18
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Apples and oranges. We are not talking about traditions of men; but traditions of the the Church corporate (I'm reluctant to use the term "catholic" as is would be misconstrued). As I have stated before, we see many Churches that not only have abandoned the traditions of the Chruch, but have developed their own "traditions of men" in their place.

 

[Wgw]

Apples and oranges. We are not talking about traditions of men; but traditions of the the Church corporate (I'm reluctant to use the term "catholic" as is would be misconstrued). As I have stated before, we see many Churches that not only have abandoned the traditions of the Chruch, but have developed their own "traditions of men" in their place.

What is more, we can attribute these to the Christian Church in a general way, since the Orthodox and Assyrians have always had them, and since your church, the Anglicans, Methodists and so on retain them. To attack them as traditions of men is to cast doubt on the veracity of the Christian faith as a whole.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But, the Church is in error... infant baptism, excess of wealth, pomp and pageantry of services, the eucharist, purgatory, confessional, indulgence, celibacy...

Well, I will give you half a point for purgatory; Celibacy is within the right of the Church to govern itself, and is not a universal rule even in the Catholic Church. Everything else you listed I will turn around and in your own words:

"But, the [SDA] Church is in error... [it defies] infant baptism, excess of wealth, pomp and pageantry of services, the eucharist, purgatory, confessional, indulgence ..."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Very relevant for it is the rock upon which your premise rests... lets look at it again.

2Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
So who was Paul speaking to here? The church at Thessalonica, right? What traditions would they have been taught to this point? We know that the apostles weren't interpreting the scriptures themselves but as they were lead by the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent in His stead. We also know that the Spirit does not speak contrary to Christ but in harmony. So the traditions that the Thessalonian's would have known would have been the teachings of Christ as given to the apostles, not another gospel. No where in this passage does this speak to future events or peoples but to the people whom the epistle was written.
The context of this epistle is that Paul is worried about the fledgling church he left in Thessalonica... they were a traditionally pagan people and this letter was an encouragement to keep the faith, to remember what the apostles had taught them according to Christ's teachings, not their own.

If I understand correctly, one of the teachings of your Church is that the Bible was written and given to us as God's word; for all mankind, for all of the Chruch, for all time. In regard to your comment in bold, in context of your post; why would God include it in His Holy Word, if it was not relevant to us?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What is more, we can attribute these to the Christian Church in a general way, since the Orthodox and Assyrians have always had them, and since your church, the Anglicans, Methodists and so on retain them. To attack them as traditions of men is to cast doubt on the veracity of the Christian faith as a whole.

My point exactly!

 

[TheDag]

Baptism is an error? You disagree with St. John 3:5?

Please read what is said rather than what you would like to have been said or what you imagine was said. At no point in time did the poster say he believed baptism was wrong.

 

[TheDag]

One tradition in 2 Thes chapter 3 Paul followed, that if a man work not he shall not eat.

He was an apostle who made himself an example to follow in respects to that tradition and its rare to find a working apostle now adays (holding to them traditions) lol

Rubbish. Paul made it very clear that he was entitled to get money from those he taught. He also made it clear why he chose not to. It has absolutely nothing to do with that passage. The tribe of priests were given goods by other tribes for the services they performed. Once again we see the biblical foundation of paying those who teach.

 

[TheDag]

But, the Church is in error... infant baptism, excess of wealth, pomp and pageantry of services, the eucharist, purgatory, confessional, indulgence, celibacy...

How are they wrong on celibacy when it is not even a doctrine? It is a discipline and every time they get a new pope the new pope must say yes we will keep that practice in place. On doctrine however a new pope does not need to say that it still holds for it to still be doctrine. In any case there are a small number of married priests. If one researches history you will see where they had problems with children of priests being given churches instead of it being given to another priest as once upon a time in some places land ownership had to be in an individuals name so the church could not own the property. Priests did and the idea was that in their will they would give it to another priest but some gave it to their kids.

Pomp and pageantry can be seen in plenty of denominations including yours and denominations I have attended. So whats the difference?

Eucharist. Well thats your personal interpretation but can you prove that you are right? Me I disagree with the RC position but I can not say with certainty that they are biblically wrong because it is not clear.
Confession is indeed commanded in the NT and we are to do this. That they have it set up the way they do is just a matter of how it best works for them but confession to others is very much in agreement with scripture.

Excess of wealth is well more of a grey area. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. It is what one does with that. Much like charities put large amounts of money into investments to earn income which they then use to help people as this provides certainty of income where they can help people as opposed to relying on a steady stream of donations when programs generally need ongoing certainty of funding. I have been the beneficiary of money. They provided accomodation at $95 rent per week (govt housing commission formula) where the standard rent for a place like that in the same area is $400. We did not pay for water or electricity like we would in other places. They also drove me places such as to some appointments and to medical treatment. I was given a massive food hamper at christmas. They helped pay part of the cost of some training to help me find work. They also provided me with free furniture when I found my own place to live. That was only a few of the services provided while the list of different services provided all free of charge was two pages! They also provided ongoing counselling for twelve months. Since I already had a counseller I was going to I stuck with them. Not cheap services. Do they have more than is reasonable? Well probably.

Purgatory yeah I'm with you on that one. I see no scriptural support for it. They however would claim tradition. So where in the bible does it clearly speak against purgatory? After all if they are in error then to arrive at that conclusion you must have passages that speak against it even if not directly mentioned.

I believe what the Bible says... you believe what tradition of men says.

Got any evidence to support your claim? My bet is no because you are making false accusations about what I have said. However I am reasonable and will give you an opportunity to show otherwise. While I can point to a post that proves you wrong. So lets see your evidence.
I know you switch from talking about what individuals must believe because they are part of a certain denomination to only what you believe and ignoring what a denomination teaches when it suits you. I called you on that and you seem to be upset for some reason.

What is also telling is that you have a go at another poster here for attacking you personally but you did exactly that to me. Bit of the ol double standards going on there.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Please read what is said rather than what you would like to have been said or what you imagine was said. At no point in time did the poster say he believed baptism was wrong.

I asked other questions as well.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Please read what is said rather than what you would like to have been said or what you imagine was said. At no point in time did the poster say he believed baptism was wrong.

In any case, you seem to acknowledge baptism is a necessity. Or maybe you don't, who can say? But I'll assume you've read, studied and agree with John 3.

So on what rational basis then do you reject baptism of infants?

 

[Optimax]

John 3:5 has been referred to for baptizing infants.

John 3:5 says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,"

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. KJV

The scripture plainly says except a MAN.

The scripture is referring to a MAN, not an infant.

That is not a reference to baptism either!

 

[Optimax]

This statement was made attempting to justify "purgatory".

"You don't believe that man needs to be purged of sin after death? You don't agree with 1 Corinthians 3:15?"

1 Cor 3:15 says this.

"If any man's work shall be burned"

Notice what the verse said.

1 Cor 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. KJV

The verse spoke of "man's work".

The verse did not speak of the man himself.

The verse spoke of "man's work".

Not even close to affirming purgatory.

Not even.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Catholic Church teaches exactly what Christ teaches. In fact one of our Catechisms is called THE TEACHING OF CHRIST because the author believes that what Christ teaches is what the Catholic Church teaches. I will let an Orthodox Christian answer for his/her own church.........................

What percentage of RCs have ever read the entire Roman Catholicism's Catechism?I was a RC for the first 16 yrs of my life and can't ever remember even reading it....

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/non-catholics-view-of-rc-catechism.7411882/

I've studied every single word of it. All 800 pages.

Some comments:

1. It's BIG. There's a LOT there. And it's just the tip of the iceburg; all just very brief summeries of doctrines far, far more extensive. It's not exactly apples to apples, but I have two Catechisms here at my desk. My Catholic one has 800 pages. My Lutheran one has 8.

2. What struck me is the almost entire lack of substantiation. Occasionally, there's a tiny foot note that gives us a Bible reference (almost never with the actual quote). I looked up and studies EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. At times, it seemed either entirely moot to the discussion or actually made the point in the Catechism problematic.

3. It's VERY articulate. OBVIOUSLY the language is very, very intentional and well thought out - to an extent very rarely seen in religion and even doctrinal books. LOTS of thought went into this. I always respected that, and still I use the book at LOT - I just like the clarity and precision of it.

4. I overwhelmingly agree with it. But here and there, something is said that just seems unsubstantiated. A dogmatic fact is made - perhaps remarkable - either with no attempt to document it as true, or if it does, that attempt is entirely inadequate to the point made. I - at times - found myself concluding that there's no reason to determine this is incorrect but also no reason even given to conclude it's correct. And those almost always tended to be issues where the CC departs from all other denominations, distinctives of the CC. Purgatory. Infalliblity of the Papacy. Transubstantiation. Immaculate Conception. Those issues.

5. CCC # 87 makes a foundational claim that should be solidly heard before one opens the Catechism (it should be in those early introductory points). Catholics are required to accept whatever the book says "with docility" as Jesus Himself speaking. This is on a par with Scripture. I think too often people read it as a sort of summery of what Catholics teach, they are to evaluate and consider it or perhaps use it as a reference book for Catholic theology. Wrong. They are to accept every word "with docility" as Jesus speaking. Read it as listening to Jesus. Accept every letter as such (and be a Catholic) or have the integrity to admit that you don't and leave.

It's one of the most referenced books in my library. I HIGHLY recommend it for all Christians. Not as infallibly correct, but as a very articulate and typically very excellent summery of Christian doctrine.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was a RC for the first 16 yrs of my life and can't ever remember even reading it....

It probably wasn't in print when you were young

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What is more, we can attribute these to the Christian Church in a general way, since the Orthodox and Assyrians have always had them, and since your church, the Anglicans, Methodists and so on retain them. To attack them as traditions of men is to cast doubt on the veracity of the Christian faith as a whole.

So true...