/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

We do not repudiate the concept of tradition

>>721215

Then why disagree with the tradition of apostolic succession among other things?

>>721229

Because it is against the the teaching of holy scripture, which possesses greater authority than the traditions of men, and corrects them, to ensure their orthodoxy.

>>721187

>the tradition of the apostles is preserved

Why would the tradition of the apostles contradict the teachings of the apostles? If someone says "this is a tradition of the apostles," but it contradicts their actual writings, it's not a tradition of the apostles! And it's definitely not a tradition of the apostles if it's just made by some guy 1000 years after the apostles who claims some barely tenable connection to them

>>721235

The problem is that people have a lot of their own ways of "interpreting" scripture based on their own ignorance and bad will. I don't think making every bible reading Christian his own pope was a step up from having a single pope. The entire purpose of the church is to maintain correct interpretation of the scriptures and revelation

>>721187

>an organization is corrupt

>a member of the organization makes a claim to the noncorruption of said organization

<clearly the claim of noncorruption from a member of a corrupt group is true

What?

>>721252

>The problem is that people have a lot of their own ways of "interpreting" scripture based on their own ignorance and bad will

And will not proper use of scripture correct this problem?

>>721276

proper use of scripture is in the context of the church, it's not private interpretation. This might come off as "putting church above scriptures" from a protestant perspective, but it's simply acknowledging that a historical consensus on what the scriptures mean is going to be more accurate then your own atomized interpretation. If you study the history of the church and all the heresies that have come and gone (all still exist in different forms), you'll understand why the idea that Christ instituted a church makes sense.

>>721187

>Diognetus

We don't recognize that as divinely inspired. Personally I wouldn't say it is or isn't.

>>721283

>proper use of scripture is in the context of the church, it's not private interpretation

I meant treating the bible with respect and studiously seeking to find its intended meaning, not twisting it in the way the man in the funny hat says to

>This might come off as "putting church above scriptures"

Because that's exactly what it is

>but it's simply acknowledging that a historical consensus on what the scriptures mean is going to be more accurate then your own atomized interpretation

Yeah, like that Jesus guy, sticking to his own private interpretation instead of the tradition of the elders that the Jewish Catholic Church has always believed

>If you study the history of the church and all the heresies that have come and gone (all still exist in different forms), you'll understand why the idea that Christ instituted a church makes sense.

Jesus instituted a church, just not a multinational corporation. You see, papism is itself a historical heresy

>>721295

>I meant treating the bible with respect and studiously seeking to find its intended meaning, not twisting it in the way the man in the funny hat says to

You're not meant to study the Bible on its own, nor do you have any authority to proclaim any teaching on your own.

>Because that's exactly what it is

Jesus Christ built a Church upon St. Peter, and gave it the authority to loose and bind on what is on Heaven and Earth. What is the authority to "loose and bind" on Heaven and Earth? Do you know what it is?

The Church teaches Scripture is a co-equal pillar of Tradition (teachings of the Apostles, which is also in the Scripture), and the Magisterium, which is established by Christ and has the authority to loose and bind on Heaven and Earth.

>Yeah, like that Jesus guy, sticking to his own private interpretation instead of the tradition of the elders that the Jewish Catholic Church has always believed

You're denying Jesus Christ when you deny His authority, which He bestowed upon His Apostles.

>Jesus instituted a church, just not a multinational corporation. You see, papism is itself a historical heresy

A material, physical Church, that has existed for 2,000 years. Get in the Ark or drown.

>>721295

>You see, papism is itself a historical heresy

No, I mean the universal apostolic church which still exists, these churches are called Orthodox churches, they still exist and have consistently maintained the original faith

>>721295

>Yeah, like that Jesus guy, sticking to his own private interpretation instead of the tradition of the elders that the Jewish Catholic Church has always believed

You're not Jesus, he had that authority because he was the Jewish messiah and God incarnate, why do you think he instructed his apostles to preserve his sabbath and spread the faith instead of just giving everyone a bible?

>>721299

>You're not meant to study the Bible on its own

Yes, you are. You're not meant to insert your traditions into His word

>nor do you have any authority to proclaim any teaching on your own

Maybe someone ought to tell the magisterium that, they claim to reveal doctrine of themselves. I proclaim nothing but what was already proclaimed by God in His word.

>Jesus Christ built a Church upon St. Peter

This devious error exposes the anti-Christian nature of popery, since it everywhere replaces Jesus Christ with the person of the pope, even as to whom the Christian religion is built upon.

>What is the authority to "loose and bind" on Heaven and Earth? Do you know what it is?

It is certainly not as you believe the power to permit and dispense with the divinely revealed teachings at will, to the contrary, the true Church is ever in submission to God. But the keys were given communally to the Church as a whole, and bestow the power of the gospel in evangelism and church discipline as was explained by our Lord respectively in John 20:20-23 "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld'" and Matthew 18:15-18 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".

>The Church teaches Scripture is a co-equal pillar of Tradition and the Magisterium

Yes, that is what your so-called church teaches, and it is a rank blapshemy, how accursed are they who pretend to place their words on equal level with God's.

>You're denying Jesus Christ when you deny His authority, which He bestowed upon His Apostles.

The various justifications for the pope's pretense to make himself equal with God can always unsurprisingly enough be traced back to the pope's claim itself. For, how is it known that God bestowed upon the pope of Rome the absolute power to bind the conscience of men? Why from the infallible magisterium, which derives its infallible authority from its union to the pope, who embodies it, or from the apostolic tradition, which is known because it is defined and exposited with papal consent, or from the scripture, which is compiled and interpreted by the pope. Like all human cults, it's gotten caught in a feedback loop, where the deceived slaves have been tricked into thinking the cult leader has absolute authority over them, just because he said so.

>A material, physical Church, that has existed for 2,000 years

Says it.

>>721302

You're missing the point, which is that applying your logic consistently would force us to condemn Jesus had we lived at that time.

>>721315

>You're missing the point, which is that applying your logic consistently would force us to condemn Jesus had we lived at that time.

Not necessarily, his proof was in the pudding, the pharisees who condemned him did so out of badwill. It also wouldn't be wrong to condemn someone who was a false prophet, because not everyone who claims to be God has the authority to back it up.

>>721317

>the pharisees who condemned him did so out of badwill.

Not in Mark 7, He truly was contradicting the tradition of the elders, which is why He proceeded to attack that tradition

>>721235

And what church gave you the scriptures?

>>721248

>Contradictions

Why do protestants always mention this boogieman. The traditions that are passed down this the papal see contain the interpretations of the bible, once you understand that, you'll releaze there are no ecclesiastical contradictions.

>>721255

>an organization is corrupt

<Implying the hell prevailed against the church

This is based on false premises.

>>721315

>Yes, you are.

no

> You're not meant to insert your traditions into His word

we get the traditions from the apostles

>Maybe someone ought to tell the magisterium that, they claim to reveal doctrine of themselves.

the magisterium claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit, you claim to be guided by ???

>This devious error exposes the anti-Christian nature of popery, since it everywhere replaces Jesus Christ with the person of the pope, even as to whom the Christian religion is built upon

so Jesus Christ lied?

>the rest

quit larping

>>721700

you gotta get sent by the Church bro, who called you

>>721693

>And what church gave you the scriptures?

The Presbyterian church. They came from God however.

>The traditions that are passed down this the papal see contain the interpretations of the bible, once you understand that, you'll releaze there are no ecclesiastical contradictions.

Sure, reinterpret the real contradictions out of the bible and it won't contradict anymore. It also won't be the full counsel of God anymore, either.

>>721697

>no

yes

>we get the traditions from the apostles

Says your church.

>the magisterium claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit

Yes, and since the basis of this claim is themselves, it's worthless

>you claim to be guided by ???

I'm not inspired by anything, God stopped sending revelation with the death of the last apostle, I just repeat what He once said in scripture.

>so Jesus Christ lied?

No

>quit larping

no u

>>721706

>yes

20Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

st.peter/holy spirit: no

>Says your Church

14Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

st. paul/holy spirit: it's our traditions

>Yes, and since the basis of this claim is themselves, it's worthless

what is the pentecost bro

>I'm not inspired by anything, God stopped sending revelation with the death of the last apostle, I just repeat what He once said in scripture.

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

>>721710

no, orthodox schismed at 1,000 year mark.

>green or eastern orthodox is the real apostolic succession

that's not actually the issue, the Catholic church recognizes the orthodox still maintain valid apostolic succession

>>721708

>20Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

This is about inscripturation and the fact holy scripture is not of human origin (ironically, in gross contradiction to the Romish claim that scripture derives its authority and inspiration from the church). This is why he says "holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" which does not make sense if he is talking about personal bible study.

>14Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

I'm afraid there's nothing about your tradition here. In fact, given he identifies these traditions as "our gospel", your church anathematized this tradition. >what is the pentecost bro

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon God's people.

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

It is certainly not as you believe the power to permit and dispense with the divinely revealed teachings at will, to the contrary, the true Church is ever in submission to God. But the keys were given communally to the Church as a whole, and bestow the power of the gospel in evangelism and church discipline as was explained by our Lord respectively in John 20:20-23 "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld'" and Matthew 18:15-18 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".

>>721712

no, there's only one apostolic succession.

the "schism" is because they broke communion with the Church, which is centered around the seat of St. Peter.

technically, they can still rejoin the Catholic Church by acknowledging the supremacy of St. Peter's seat

>>721715

no, there's only one valid line of succession,

it's like trying to say there's so many humans we cannot possibly be related through Adam and Eve

>>721713

you're trying to read 1 peter as if they are two clauses in a full sentence, but St. Peter

1. That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation

as in, no prophecy, no teaching of scripture is made by some dude by himself

2. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but Holy men of God inspired by Holy Spirit

So, you need the teachings and traditions of the Apostles (inspired of the Holy Spirit) to understand scripture given over by the Holy Spirit

>In fact, given he identifies these traditions as "our gospel", your church anathematized this tradition

you're not reading it correctly, St. Paul refers to

1. our word. which is, teachings from in-person or through methods other than scripture

2. epistle. which is scripture canonized by the Church.

>>721721

???

There is no contradiction, think harder.

>>721722

additionally, I don't believe there's any extant epistles from the Apostles that are not canonized by the Church,

>>721728

The Catholic side acknowledges their line of succession is valid, the Orthodox believes our line is not valid because they disagree with us on dogma.

The Catholic Church declares the Orthodox as schismatic, the Orthodox declares the Catholic heretical.

schismatic implies we are disconnected, heretic implies there is a complete break

>>721722

>you're trying to read 1 peter as if they are two clauses in a full sentence

And you're reading it as if Peter is some kind of schizophrenic who can't express a coherent thought. This is what happens when you elevate human tradition above the word of God

>as in, no prophecy, no teaching of scripture is made by some dude by himself

Even if we accept your absurdity and pretend the verse distinctions are part of the bible and pretend the two sentences have nothing to do with each other, it still doesn't help you, because it says "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" which means the origin of a teaching of scripture is not human opinion, but divine revelation.

>So, you need the teachings and traditions of the Apostles (inspired of the Holy Spirit) to understand scripture given over by the Holy Spirit

This is worse eisegesis than the pharisees practiced

>epistle. which is scripture canonized by the Church.

We just established the basis of scriptural authority is not the church, but it's worth pointing out there was no such thing as "scripture canonized by the Church" when this was written

>>721732

???

This an explanation of both sides of the debate. The Catholics do not believe a schism breaks a valid line of succession, because the apostolic succession does not in itself depend on allegiance to the seat of St. Peter.

Orthodox believe that the Catholics are out-right heretics, and believe this is enough to cut out the Catholics from a valid line of apostolic succession.

What more do I need to explain to you?

>>721736

>And you're reading it as if Peter is some kind of schizophrenic who can't express a coherent thought.

Very charitable of you.

>This is what happens when you elevate human tradition above the word of God

We have a line of tradition that is not contained in the canonized scriptures, and the scriptures also affirm that there could be many books written about the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ. Ergo…fill in the blank.

>which means the origin of a teaching of scripture is not human opinion, but divine revelation.

No, it means the interpretation of divine teaching belongs to those whom have the Holy Spirit, which would be the Apostles themselves, and thus the entire idea of a Holy Tradition.

>This is worse eisegesis than the pharisees practiced

not an argument

>We just established the basis of scriptural authority is not the church

Not only did you never do this, you have yet to establish to whom is the authority to interpret Scripture. HINT: It's not you or myself, or anyone not preset at the Pentecost.

>>721739

I know you are, why don't you just leave like a normal person?

>>721738

>Very charitable of you.

Thank you :)

>We have a line of tradition that is not contained in the canonized scriptures, and the scriptures also affirm that there could be many books written about the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ. Ergo…fill in the blank.

You don't have any traditions about the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ

>No, it means the interpretation of divine teaching belongs to those whom have the Holy Spirit, which would be the Apostles themselves, and thus the entire idea of a Holy Tradition.

This is worse eisegesis than the pharisees practiced

>Not only did you never do this

Yeah but I did.

>>721749

>You don't have any traditions about the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ

Yes we do, because we have the apostolic succession as well as a 2,000 year long tradition. You have…well…

>>721896

so where would a protestant discover the extra-biblical traditions of the apostles? Their churches weren't around when Christ set up his actual Church.

k

>>721713

1)Anyone who knows the history of Scripture or actually looks into it knows that the origin of Scriptures must be one which ties to Tradition. For instance in 1Corinthians part of this is the Eucharist which is handed down from the Lord Jesus. In fact grab any scholarly NT commentary even if it is Evangelical leaning and you can see how Scripture itself refers on many points to Jewish styles of exegesis. So the Catholic claim of tying Scripture to Tradition is not void but fact. Also, the Catholic view is that God is guiding the Church, the same view as Diognesius himself and practically the overall Patristic view!

2)Saying the true Church is ever in submission to God does not add anything or refute the Catholic view as that is what the Church must do in that view too.

3)The Presbyterians are incoherent and inconsistent in their worldview, because by their logic agency must de facto be impossible. That makes the Bible contradict itself and no one in their right mind would consider this valid. So in a situation where a Presbyterian cannot explain their incoherence and simply quote Scripture and other views quote Scripture too, there is literally only one way to break the deadlock, the appeal to Patristic tradition and reason, not to Scripture itself given it wont do anything in this situation. This is why the Presbyerians cannot claim to be the true church

>>721927

sorry bro sola scriptura is the best barrier of defense against the corrupted rcc. if ypure so intent on pushing your easily denied jurisdictional claim, you should focus on fixing your own church’s problems with sexual abuse so that you can restore some modicum of credibility because those are some shitty fruits. And God doesnt produce shit. man does.

>>721693

>And what church gave you the scriptures?

There's that low view of scripture we talked about again