Whats the deal with Catholics?

DeaconMike · Jul 14, 2016

All Christians agree that we won’t be sinning in heaven. Sin and final glorification are utterly incompatible. Therefore, between the sinfulness of this life and the glories of heaven, we must be made pure. Between death and glory there is a purification.
Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1030–1).
The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.
The doctrine of purgatory, or the final purification, has been part of the true faith since before the time of Christ. The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old Testament (2 Macc. 12:41–45) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works, such as one which records that Adam will be in mourning "until the day of dispensing punishment in the last years, when I will turn his sorrow into joy" (The Life of Adam and Eve 46–7). Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification.
Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine. As the quotes below from the early Church Fathers show, purgatory has been part of the Christian faith from the very beginning.
Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular "place" in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

Abercius

"The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity

"[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment" (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]).

Tertullian

"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).
"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

MikeHenderson · Jul 14, 2016

Hyper Grace is a mystery. No one has fully describe it FISnookman7. And yes many people have attacked me for what the Scriptures say. I do not know about them running to the mods.

Many people like the Catholics do misinterpret Scriptures. I truly believe its because they do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

This is why i stress everybody needs to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

FlSnookman7 · Jul 14, 2016

DeaconMike said:

I never said paul invented Christianity but Jesus did give paul His gospel for the gentiles. I would say that when Jesus walked the earth He was here for the jew and it was later He gave paul His gospel for the gentile. This is just 1 of many points the catholic church and I disagree on but again i've worked all day and most of the night and must do so again tomorrow, I am grateful for the hours but I am also no longer as young as I was so I must sleep. I look forward to talking about this and other issues with you. Good night.

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

DeaconMike said:

This may well be the most common single question I receive concerning our Catholic Faith whether it be at conferences, via email, snail mail, or any other venue. In fact, I've answered it twice today already, so I thought I might just blog about it.
We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030).
This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It's often called "a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice." It is said to represent "a second-chance theology that is abominable." We get these and many more such charges here at Catholic Answers when it comes to Purgatory. And most often the inquiries come from Catholics who are asking for help to explain Purgatory to a friend, family member, or co-worker.
A Very Good Place to Start
Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will now prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”
In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants. First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.
The Catholic Response:
Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:
And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).
This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
The next objection presents a more complex problem. The punishment for mortal sin is, in fact, definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in Hell according to Catholic teaching (see CCC 1030). But it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this teaching that II Maccabees could not be referring to a type of Purgatory.
First of all, a careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to bat than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times—just like good Catholics today—believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died “for thou [O Lord], thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men” (II Chr. 6:30). God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died.
A Plainer Text
In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.
This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” where our Lord teaches about heaven (vs. 20), hell (vs. 29-30), and both mortal (vs. 22) and venial sins (vs. 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (6:19).
Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, excepting these two verses.
When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.
The Plainest Text
I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

No Christian sect I know of even attempts to deny this text speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking. In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Gr. hopoiov - of what sort).

What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13). It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So what is it? The Protestant calls it “the Judgment” and we Catholics agree. We Catholics simply specify the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged as “Purgatory.”
Objection!
The Protestant respondent will immediately spotlight the fact that there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it!
First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated? Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.
Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives... he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Gr. dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.

FlSnookman7 · Jul 15, 2016

MikeHenderson said:

Amen, we must accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I can and will explain what I believe is the gospel Jesus gave paul complete with verses but it will have to wait until sunday after church as it will be drawn out. Until then good night.

mailmandan · Jul 15, 2016

DeaconMike said:

So according to Catholics, faith must be formed by charity FIRST then man is saved through faith AND acts of charity? Can't you see that is salvation through faith AND good works? Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption alone and not based on the merits of our good works.

So after Catholics "shoe horn" good works into faith, then they would agree that salvation is through faith alone, but what they are really saying is that salvation is through faith AND good works. What Catholics are doing is taking faith AND good works and wrapping them both up in a package, but then simply stamping "faith" on the package while making no distinction between faith AND good works. This explains why Catholics basically define faith as good works.

In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works, which explains why their belief lacks charity. I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington to save my soul. See the difference? Saving faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving faith completely trusts in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of our salvation.

Yet that is faith + good works and is not faith IN CHRIST ALONE for salvation, but is also faith in works. Faith formed by charity is just a sugar coated version of salvation through faith AND good works. We are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works (Ephesians 2:10). Why can't you see this?

That is still salvation through faith AND good works. So how much charity does it take? How many acts of charity does one need to perform before one is finally justified?

So a Catholic would reject that it is by faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24). Catholics believe that "justified by works" in James 2:24 means "saved by works?" Even after reading it in context? BTY when James says that "faith without works is dead," he is not implying that faith is dead UNTIL it produces works and then it becomes alive. That would be like saying that a tree is dead UNTIL it produces fruit and then it becomes alive. Faith does not produce works in order to become alive but BECAUSE it's alive; just as a tree does not produce fruit in order to become alive but BECAUSE it's alive. Works show that faith is alive. No works at all shows that faith is dead.

Adding the word "formed" to the nature of faith "adds good works" to salvation through faith and the end result is salvation through faith AND good works, which means that Christ is an insufficient Savior to Catholics and they must "add" their good works as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Christ save them. Just because faith works through love does not mean that we are saved through faith + acts of charity. That is not faith in Christ alone.

garee · Jul 15, 2016

I would suggest first things (of God) first..

Knowing "this first", that no prophecy of the scripture is of “any private interpretation”. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the “Holy Ghost.” 2Pe 1:20

Yes, God who gives us His living faith to infallibly inform us of His living will through Holy Sacred Scripture. By it, though it alone He quickens our souls by giving us His understanding. He informs us we do not need any man to teach us. He alone as the anointing Holy Spirit of God. he alone theretofore can can perform that which is appointed to us just as He alone infallibly promised he would..All of His promises are yes.

He cannot lie or back of His eternal word. We trust he is our infallible teacher comforter and guide. Not men

This shows us the idea of a succession of fathers (sinful men) from one generation to the next is an oral tradition of men, as the things of men. That oral tradition of men found in the Catholic fathers book of the law is called; “apostolic succession”.

The things of men never become those of God . They offend God by making his authority as all things written in the law and the prophets without effect. The things of men in that way offend God. Never do the two masters as apposing laws become one. No man can serve two masters as teaching authorities.

There is no such thing as a private revelation as an interpretation of the fathers that is equal with sola scriptura (beleveiing all things written in the law and the prophets). Everyone like fingerprints has their own private interpretation as a personal commentary of what they think God’s interpretation; the Bible is infallibly informing us.

The Catholic fathers teach those who venerate men, the non-venerable ones( pew Catholics), that any other private interpretation other than their won private interpretation alone is the rule of faith. This again makes the word of God without effect. Seeing rather than seeking the approval of God they must seek the approval of men.

Offering private interpretations as oral traditions of what you call must call fathers , in which in the first place we are to call no man father on earth in that way which you must. This shows what kind of law you are following

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the “Holy Ghost.” 2Pe 1:20
The fathers don’t replace the Holy Ghost and we need them to teach us as the things of men
Second

Why be ashamed of what you hope it really offers. You should defend the faith of your fathers(apostolic succession of men) seeing its their approval you must seek after.

Protestant creeds do not attempt to usurp the authority of God by saying His authority could come after men‘s private revelations as oral traditions of sinful men. Creeds show what men believe. They do not command men what they must believe as a "law of interpretation". No where can you find the idea that God has sanctioned that the things Holy of God can be infused with those of men Again that offends him as His nemesis an enemy, not an ally .

The Catholic law of the fathers.........80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

This is especially true for the last two thousand years. Seeing he is no longer bringing new revelations in any manner . That possibility has been sealed up until the end of time for over two thousand years. Private revelation which are simply

If it takes discipline to obey the law of your fathers , it is law. It is mote than a creed but a way to add to the scripture which their rises above the scripture. Again making it to no effect. No man can serve two masters We either follow God ‘s tradition as the same spirit of faith according as it is written or we follow after the commentaries of the catholic fathers

it is the only thing coming from God that does matter.he wil not share his glory with the things of men,

In fact Jesus did not condemn all tradition just tradition contrary to Gods Law. In fact there are a number of places in Scripture that tell us to follow Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture.Adding to scripture with the things of men is to blaspheme His Holy name.

It’s there, it just that the things of men called apostolic succession have made it to no effect so that you can rather believe be the fathers by putting your own faith in them rather than that of Christ alone.

It is His will that we must get under and do what it infallibly informs us. It alone is the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against.

The fathers cannot quicken our souls and give us Gods understanding .They are no more in the place of God then the atheist down the street

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Can the perfect law of God as it is written (The Bible) quicken our soul and give us God’s understanding? Or do we need the catholic fathers(apostolic succession ) to teach us? Simply question?

KenAllan · Jul 15, 2016

Actually Salvation is ONLY received by Grace from God, not by anything we can do.

Ephesians 2:8
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For by grace you have been saved through faith

By Faith, not by Works.

Ephesians 2:9
[SUP]9 [/SUP]not as a result of works

Therefore since Salvation is received by Grace from God we cannot lose our Salvation by sinning like the false Christians teach.

FlSnookman7 · Jul 15, 2016

garee said:

I would suggest first things (of God) first..

Knowing "this first", that no prophecy of the scripture is of “any private interpretation”. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the “Holy Ghost.” 2Pe 1:20

Yes, God who gives us His living faith to infallibly inform us of His living will through Holy Sacred Scripture. By it, though it alone He quickens our souls by giving us His understanding. He informs us we do not need any man to teach us. He alone as the anointing Holy Spirit of God. he alone theretofore can can perform that which is appointed to us just as He alone infallibly promised he would..All of His promises are yes.

He cannot lie or back of His eternal word. We trust he is our infallible teacher comforter and guide. Not men

This shows us the idea of a succession of fathers (sinful men) from one generation to the next is an oral tradition of men, as the things of men. That oral tradition of men found in the Catholic fathers book of the law is called; “apostolic succession”.

The things of men never become those of God . They offend God by making his authority as all things written in the law and the prophets without effect. The things of men in that way offend God. Never do the two masters as apposing laws become one. No man can serve two masters as teaching authorities.

There is no such thing as a private revelation as an interpretation of the fathers that is equal with sola scriptura (beleveiing all things written in the law and the prophets). Everyone like fingerprints has their own private interpretation as a personal commentary of what they think God’s interpretation; the Bible is infallibly informing us.

The Catholic fathers teach those who venerate men, the non-venerable ones( pew Catholics), that any other private interpretation other than their won private interpretation alone is the rule of faith. This again makes the word of God without effect. Seeing rather than seeking the approval of God they must seek the approval of men.

Offering private interpretations as oral traditions of what you call must call fathers , in which in the first place we are to call no man father on earth in that way which you must. This shows what kind of law you are following

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the “Holy Ghost.” 2Pe 1:20
The fathers don’t replace the Holy Ghost and we need them to teach us as the things of men
Second

Why be ashamed of what you hope it really offers. You should defend the faith of your fathers(apostolic succession of men) seeing its their approval you must seek after.

Protestant creeds do not attempt to usurp the authority of God by saying His authority could come after men‘s private revelations as oral traditions of sinful men. Creeds show what men believe. They do not command men what they must believe as a "law of interpretation". No where can you find the idea that God has sanctioned that the things Holy of God can be infused with those of men Again that offends him as His nemesis an enemy, not an ally .

The Catholic law of the fathers.........80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

This is especially true for the last two thousand years. Seeing he is no longer bringing new revelations in any manner . That possibility has been sealed up until the end of time for over two thousand years. Private revelation which are simply

If it takes discipline to obey the law of your fathers , it is law. It is mote than a creed but a way to add to the scripture which their rises above the scripture. Again making it to no effect. No man can serve two masters We either follow God ‘s tradition as the same spirit of faith according as it is written or we follow after the commentaries of the catholic fathers

it is the only thing coming from God that does matter.he wil not share his glory with the things of men,

In fact Jesus did not condemn all tradition just tradition contrary to Gods Law. In fact there are a number of places in Scripture that tell us to follow Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture.Adding to scripture with the things of men is to blaspheme His Holy name.

It’s there, it just that the things of men called apostolic succession have made it to no effect so that you can rather believe be the fathers by putting your own faith in them rather than that of Christ alone.

It is His will that we must get under and do what it infallibly informs us. It alone is the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against.

The fathers cannot quicken our souls and give us Gods understanding .They are no more in the place of God then the atheist down the street

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Can the perfect law of God as it is written (The Bible) quicken our soul and give us God’s understanding? Or do we need the catholic fathers(apostolic succession ) to teach us? Simply question?

But what about the following instances of the actual Bible using tradition?

The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, this critic writes, rabbinic tradition does.
"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In 1 Peter 3:19, the Apostle Peter describes Jesus' descent into Hell, drawing directly from a Jewish apocalyptic book, the Book of Enoch, which is not part of the Biblical canon in Catholic or Protestant churches.
In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings.

notuptome · Jul 15, 2016

DeaconMike said:

This is patently false doctrine. To assume this position is to declare the blood of Christ insufficient to atone for all our sins. It limits the ability of God to do what He declares from the beginning of creation. This teaching denies the Christ of the bible and replaces Him with a theology that makes man partly responsible for his salvation and eternal life.

The grace of God makes a man wholly righteous in Christ. Gods righteousness imputed to man makes man not just better than he was but makes man righteous as if he had never sinned.

Rome has cunningly devised fables to allow man to share part of the glory of God saving his soul. This teaching is distasteful and fiendishly wrong.

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Romans 1:16 ¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

To frame this a generally accepted doctrine in Christianity is deceptive for it is not true.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

valiant · Jul 15, 2016

DeaconMike said:

This may well be the most common single question I receive concerning our Catholic Faith whether it be at conferences, via email, snail mail, or any other venue. In fact, I've answered it twice today already, so I thought I might just blog about it.
We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030).
This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It's often called "a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice." It is said to represent "a second-chance theology that is abominable." We get these and many more such charges here at Catholic Answers when it comes to Purgatory. And most often the inquiries come from Catholics who are asking for help to explain Purgatory to a friend, family member, or co-worker.
A Very Good Place to Start
Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will now prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”
In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants. First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry, which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.
The Catholic Response:
Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New Testament:
And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).
This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
The next objection presents a more complex problem. The punishment for mortal sin is, in fact, definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in Hell according to Catholic teaching (see CCC 1030). But it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this teaching that II Maccabees could not be referring to a type of Purgatory.
First of all, a careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing superstitious rituals before going to bat than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter, good Jews in ancient times—just like good Catholics today—believed they should always pray for the souls of those who have died “for thou [O Lord], thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men” (II Chr. 6:30). God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have died.
A Plainer Text
In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.
This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” where our Lord teaches about heaven (vs. 20), hell (vs. 29-30), and both mortal (vs. 22) and venial sins (vs. 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (6:19).
Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, excepting these two verses.
When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.
The Plainest Text
I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

No Christian sect I know of even attempts to deny this text speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking. In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Gr. hopoiov - of what sort).

What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13). It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So what is it? The Protestant calls it “the Judgment” and we Catholics agree. We Catholics simply specify the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged as “Purgatory.”
Objection!
The Protestant respondent will immediately spotlight the fact that there is no mention, at least explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it!
First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated? Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it. We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.
Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but “if the work survives... he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.” And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Gr. dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that “he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.

There is no mention of purgatory anywhere in Scripture. II Maccabees is NOT Scripture. It is full of errors. None of the references you mention deal with purgatory. Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. 1 John 1.7 . I am already sanctified in Christ. Indeed I have been perfected for ever (Heb 10.14)

KenAllan · Jul 15, 2016

Even the greatest scholars of the Catholic Church admit Purgatory is a myth, a fable. But they also claim since the Pope cannot tell lies and the Pope has said Purgatory is real therefore Purgatory has to be True.

But tell us DeaconMike, if Jesus died for ALL our sins why would anyone need Purgatory?

1 John 1:7
[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Again there is that word "ALL" that the Catholics HATE with a passion.

If the Blood of Jesus has cleansed us from ALL sin, why would there ever need to be a Purgatory???

Before you answer, the stain of our sins was also washed away by the Blood of Jesus.

Actually what you Catholics call Purgatory is really the Lake of Fire that God tosses all the sinners in. So yes all Catholics will be in Purgatory.

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

KenAllan said:

Dear KenAllen,
if the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin ( which it does) why would I need to follow what Jesus said that I had to follow the commandments? or ask for forgiveness? or be baptized, our confess Christ? If Jesus did everything what role do you play?

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

If the Blood of Jesus has cleansed us from ALL sin, why would there ever need to be a Purgatory???Dear Ken
Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Ken
If the blood of Jesus "did it all" then how could "any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
Why would you need to build a "foundation, which part of will be "burnt" up but still retain salvation?

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

valiant said:

Dear Ken
If the Book of Maccabees is not part of Sacred Scripture then why does Jesus and the writers like St Paul cite it so much. The following list is some ( not all ) of the citing's just from the Book Macabees. e other detruo canonicals are also cited through out the NT. Are you aware St Paul cites the LXX version of the OT 80% of the time over the Masoretic text.

[h=3]1 Maccabees[/h][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 1:54

[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 24:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 2:21

[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 16:22

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 2:28

[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 24:16

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 2:52

[/TD]
[TD]Hebrews 11:17

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 2:60

[/TD]
[TD]2 Timothy 4:17

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 3:6

[/TD]
[TD]Luke 13:27

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 3:49

[/TD]
[TD]Acts 21:26

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 3:60

[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 6:10

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 4:59

[/TD]
[TD]John 10:22

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 5:15

[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 4:15

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 7:41

[/TD]
[TD]Acts 12:23

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 8:16

[/TD]
[TD]James 4:2

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 9:39

[/TD]
[TD]John 3:28

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 10:25

[/TD]
[TD]Acts 10:22

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 10:29

[30][/TD]
[TD]Luke 15:12

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 11:30

, 33

etc.[/TD]
[TD]Acts 10:22

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 12:6

[/TD]
[TD]Acts 5:12

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 12:9

[/TD]
[TD]Romans 15:4

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 12:17

[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 9:38

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 13:2

[/TD]
[TD]Hebrews 12:21

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 14:41

[/TD]
[TD]Hebrews 5:6

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 Maccabees 15:21

[/TD]
[TD]Acts 9:2

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

The bible never states scripture is the sole rule of faith in authority. Simply not there It’s there, it just that the things of men called apostolic succession have made it to no effect so that you can rather believe be the fathers by putting your own faith in them rather than that of Christ alone.

It is His will that we must get under and do what it infallibly informs us. It alone is the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against.

The fathers cannot quicken our souls and give us Gods understanding .They are no more in the place of God then the atheist down the street

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Can the perfect law of God as it is written (The Bible) quicken our soul and give us God’s understanding? Or do we need the catholic fathers(apostolic succession ) to teach us? Simply question?

Dear Garee

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "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).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "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).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Taken from catholic Answers

I would ask you to show me anywhere in the NT that the Bible states Scripture is the Only rule of faith? Lots of verses state Scripture is authoritive,. The word Sola or Only source , not there. The very principle of Sola Scriptura depends on the NT defining it. But the NT never states it.
Gods blessings

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

Dear garee
The very nature of sola scriptura requires it to be explicitly found in the Bible itself
Given sola scriptura’s central premise, the Protestant has no choice but to prove that the Bible clearly and explicitly teaches the principle. Yet he cannot, because the Bible does not. What it does explicitly teach is the infallible, binding authority of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; Phil. 4:9; 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; and many more) and of the Church (Acts 15:1–32; 16:4; 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:15). Moreover, the Bible—in its indications of binding tradition, authoritative oral tradition, apostolic succession, strong Church authority, the papacy, Holy Spirit-led councils, et cetera—flat-out contradicts sola scriptura but not Catholic doctrines revealed through Tradition (such as the Assumption of Mary).
Why is it required of Catholics, then, to provide more scriptural "proof" for doctrines such as the Assumption or an infallible papacy than Protestants are required to give for sola scriptura? For if ever a tradition needed to be incontrovertibly grounded in plain biblical teaching, it is that one.
56. Scripture alone may be sufficient for many doctrines, but not all
One can arrive at a great number of true doctrines by reading Scripture alone. I did. Before I became Catholic I had arrived at maybe seventy percent of Catholic doctrines just on the authority of the Bible. And most other Catholic doctrines, once they were explained to me, did not strike me as unbiblical.
The problem comes when the Calvinist down the block denies baptismal regeneration, while his Lutheran brother affirms it. It’s with the Baptist two houses down, who believes in adult baptism only, contradicting both his Calvinist and Lutheran brethren, who adhere to infant baptism (while differing on its effects). And with the Presbyterian or broad Anglican who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while his fellow sola scriptura-adhering Lutherans and traditional Anglicans accept it.
And on it goes, with any number of examples of incoherence and contradiction that Protestants are inherently burdened with. All these Protestants are operating on the principle of Scripture alone, just as did the ancient Arians and virtually all heretics.
57. The Trinity was an early test case for Tradition versus sola scriptura
One of Christianity’s most essential doctrines, the Trinitarian nature of God, is a perfect test case for the limits of Scripture’s perspicuity and thus for the need for extra-biblical authority. Catholics and Protestants can agree that the doctrine is contained, to one degree or another, in the Bible. Yet that hasn’t stopped heretics and sectarians, both ancient and modern, from denying it based on their reading of Scripture.
This is why the Church Fathers who opposed the Arians (who denied the divinity of Christ and thus the Trinity) in the fourth century appealed to Scripture in their arguments, but then concluded by appealing to the Church and apostolic tradition. They could say, "The Church has taught the Holy Trinity all the way back to the beginning; therefore it is true, because the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, and the teaching goes back to Jesus and the apostles." But the Arians had no such history they could produce, so they had to fall back on Bible alone; to bogus prooftexts that Jesus was created.
Four short excerpts from St. Athanasius, the heroic fourth-century opponent of the Arian heretics who is beloved by many Protestants (probably second in that respect only to St. Augustine), more than suffice to illustrate how he—like the Church Fathers in general—approached the issue of misinterpretations of Scripture and heresy:
However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise "one," or "like," as the Church preaches, but as they themselves would have it. (Discourse Against the Arians, III, 3:10)
Inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err. (Festal Letter 2:6)
See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 27)
For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine. (De Decretis 4)

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

DeaconMike said:

Dear Fran

Ok a lot here. But basically, the apostles and Jesus used bothe the Hebrew text ( which came to be the Masoretic text and the LXX..
St Paul quotes 80% of his biblical quotes from the LXX.

In addition, the "other" books not included in the Hebrew canon are cited as Scripture in the NT both be Jesus and St Paul
Here are some examples of text quoted from the LXX version.
Mat. 3:3. The Hebrew of Isa. 40:3 may be rendered, “The voice of one crying, In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord.” The crier himself is not necessarily in the wilderness: the path is to be prepared in the wilderness. Matthew follows the Septuagint in construing “in the wilderness” with “one crying,” and so renders “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord.” Here the cry comes from one who is himself in the wilderness, that is, from John the Baptist, who habitually preached in the wilderness of Judea.
Mat. 12:21. The Hebrew of Isa. 42:4 reads, “and the isles shall have hope in his law.” Matthew follows the Septuagint interpretation of this, “and the Gentiles shall have hope in his name.”
Mat. 13: 14-15. The Hebrew of Isa. 6:9-10 reads, “Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see...” Matthew follows the Septuagint in changing the first sentence from two commands to the people into a prophetic description of the people, “Ye shall surely hear, but shall not understand; ye shall surely see, but shall not perceive.” He also follows the Septuagint in changing the second sentence from two commands to the prophet into a description of the present condition of the people: “This people’s heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they see...”
Mat. 15:8-9. The Hebrew of Isa. 29:13 reads (somewhat obscurely), “their worship of me is but a commandment of men which hath been taught them.” The phrase, “but in vain do they worship me,” in which Matthew follows the Septuagint, was created by the translator of the Septuagint by separating “their worship of me” from the words that follow and supplying the thought “is in vain” to complete the sense, and then construing the rest of the sentence adverbially, “teaching the precepts and doctrines of men.” The sense of the passage is not materially changed in this.
Mat. 21:16. The Hebrew of Psa. 8:2 reads, “out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast established strength.” Matthew follows the Septuagint with “thou hast prepared praise.”
Mark 1:2. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above.
Mark 4:12. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 above. Mark departs from both the Hebrew and Septuagint with the interpretation, “and it should be forgiven them,” instead of “and I should heal them” (Septuagint) or “and be healed” (Hebrew).
Mark 7:6-7. See remarks on Mat. 15:8-9 above.
Luke 3:4. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above.
Luke 3:5-6. The Hebrew of Isa. 40:4-5 reads “every valley shall be exalted...all flesh shall see it [i.e., the glory of the Lord] together.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “every valley shall be filled...all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”
Luke 4:18. The Hebrew of Isa. 61:2 reads merely “the opening to them that are bound,” which may mean the opening of prisons. Luke follows the Septuagint interpretation, “the recovering of sight to the blind,” in which the “opening” is of blind eyes, but adds “to set at liberty the afflicted” as an alternative interpretation of the Hebrew. The phrase “to bind up the broken-hearted” (Septuagint “to heal the broken-hearted”) has been left out of the quotation.
Luke 8:10. The allusion to Isa. 6:9 conforms to the Septuagint. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 above.
John 1:23. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above. John’s quotation is somewhat looser.
John 12:34. There is a verbal correspondence here to the Septuagint of Psa. 89:36, “his [David’s] seed shall abide forever.”
John 12:38. “Lord” at the beginning of the quotation is not in the Hebrew, but in the Septuagint.
John 12:40. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 and Mark 4:12 above. John is quoting the Septuagint loosely, with reference to the Hebrew.
Acts 2:19-20. The Hebrew of Joel 2:30-31 has “pillars of smoke” and “terrible day.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “vapour of smoke” and “glorious day.”
Acts 2:26. The Hebrew of Psa. 16:9 has “my glory rejoiceth.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “my tongue rejoiced.”
Acts 2:28. The Hebrew of Psa. 16:11 has “in thy presence is fulness of joy; in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” Luke follows the Septuagint in paraphrasing the first clause “Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance,” and in dropping the last clause.
Acts 4:26. The Hebrew of Psa 2:2. reads, “the rulers take counsel together.” Luke follows the Septuagint, “the rulers were gathered together.”
Acts 7:14. The Hebrew of Gen. 46:27 and Exod. 1:5 has “seventy.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “seventy-five.”
Acts 7:43. The Hebrew of Amos 5:26 is difficult. It seems to say, “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun your images , the star of your god, which ye made.” Luke follows the Septuagint interpretation with “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which ye made.”
Acts 8:33. The Hebrew of Isa. 53:8 reads “he was taken away by distress and judgment.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “in his humiliation his judgment was taken away.”
Acts 13:34. The Hebrew of Isa. 55:3 has “the sure mercies of David.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “the holy and sure things of David.”
Acts 13:41. The Hebrew of Habakkuk 1:5 reads, “Behold, ye among the nations, and look, and wonder exceedingly.” The Septuagint has “Behold, ye despisers, and look, and wonder exceedingly, and perish,” which Luke largely follows.
Acts 15:17. The Hebrew of Amos 9:12 reads “that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations upon whom my name is called.” The Septuagint has “that the remnant of men and all the nations upon whom my name is called may seek after [me],” which Luke largely follows.

Is the Catholic Old Testament Accurate

list is taken from pp. 800-804 of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition (Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine, published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

jaybird88 said:

Dear jaybird 88
no, not the doctrine of Purgatory like it would be thought of later. However, the Jews did believe in a purification after death. This was a later development with the rabbis within the last 200 years prior to Christ. That is why the Deutro canonicals are so important. The books reflect the later developed teachinh at the time of Christ ( which is a big reason why Luther rejected them)
Jesus however was not referring to anything theological. At least anything I can find in any commentaries. Jesus was just reflecting a Roman custom of law.

DeaconMike · Jul 15, 2016

Dear God 4Me

Your still getting confused. The answer to your question depends on your definition of faith. Let me explain as their is history to it.
Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term “faith” is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19

, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).
However, if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.
A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word “formed” to clarify the nature of the faith in “sola fide” renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.
Why, then, do Catholics not use the ther in this regard, we would have to say, “Jesus is not God.” Obviously, the Church could not have people running around saying “Jesus is God” and “Jesus is not God,” though both would be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how the term “God” is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the term “God” when used in this context.
Of course, the Bible uses the term “God” in both senses, but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism or Modalism if they misread the word “God” in the above statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.
A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word “faith.” Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience since they have to continually fight against antinomian understandings of the term “faith” (and the corresponding antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that result). Because “faith” is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term “faith” in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)
This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula “faith alone.” Given the different usages of the term “faith” in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:
First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “faith formed by charity” than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “intellectual belief.” In fact, even in Galatians 5:6

itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.
Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of “the faith,” meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3

). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.
Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13

(though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad “faith” is taken to mean “formed faith” then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term “faith” in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.
Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.
As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).
However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith, hope, and charity.” This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith alone” if the term “faith” is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.
One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”
However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.
Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6

, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.
We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

This was recognized a few years ago in The Church’s Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:
Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having “mere” faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and lovegood Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts

Whats the deal with Catholics?

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned