The Council of Trent and its support of paganism.

[Hobie]

The Council of Trent was held in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation; it approved many pagan and unbiblical beliefs and declared it was to be accepted under the threat of "anathema".

The Council of Trent declared in its proclamation's the following:

It denied all the doctrines of the Reformation, from Sola Scriptura to "salvation by grace through faith alone" and pronounced anathemas (basically eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what the scripture shows and the Reformation held and preached.

It gave equal value and authority of tradition and Scripture (in actuality, tradition is held above Scripture) and so allowed for all the pagan rites and rituals it had allowed into the church.

Declared the Scriptures was for the priesthood only, and prohibited to anyone in the laity without written permission from one's superior -- to violate this was considered a mortal sin.

Confirmed the seven sacraments which basically were of pagan origin in the form they brought in. They held seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist (mass), penance/reconciliation (indulgences), extreme unction (last rights), marriage, and orders (ordination). Although not even formally decreed until the Council of Florence in 1439, the Council of Trent later declared all to be anathema whom do not hold Rome's position that it was Christ Himself who instituted these seven sacraments, but the form they used were from paganism more than anything from scripture.

Confirmed Purgatory which has no biblical basis but of pagan origin.Though of pagan origin, the Roman Church proclaimed it as an article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence, and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548. The Catholic Church teaches that even those "who die in the state of grace" (i.e., saved and sins forgiven) must still spend an indefinite time being purged/purified (i.e., expiated of sins/cleansed for heaven).

Confirmed the use Indulgences of which clearly is not sanctioned by the scriptures.

Confirmed the Mass as a propitiatory offering.The Mass was unknown in the early church, the mass did not become an official doctrine until pronounced by the Lateran Council of 1215 under the direction of Pope Innocent III, and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent.

Confirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Lateran Council of 469 under Pope Martin I declared: "if anyone does not confess in harmony with the holy Fathers that the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary is really and truly the mother of God, inasmuch as she in the last times and without semen by the Holy Spirit conceived God the Word himself specially and truthfully, who was born from God the Father before all ages, and she bore him uncorrupted, and after his birth her virginity remaining indissoluble, let him be condemned." The perpetual virginity of Mary thus became an official teaching of the church: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. In 1555, the Council of Trent confirmed this dogma in the Constitution of Pope Paul IV known as "Cum Quorundam." Here the pope warns against teaching that "the same blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the Mother of God, and did not remain always in the integrity of virginity, i. e., before birth, in birth, and perpetually after birth."

Some of the of the Anathemas of Trent:

"If any one shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually -- let him be accursed." (Canon 1).

"If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be accursed."(Canon 2).

"If any one shall deny, that in the venerated sacrament of the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several particle of either kind when separated, let him be accursed."(Canon 3).

"If any one shall say that, after consecration, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is only in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist in use whilst it is taken, and not either before or after, and that the true body of the Lord does not remain in the hosts or particles which have been consecrated, and which are reserved, or remain after the communion, let him be accursed."(Canon 4).

"If any one says that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that other effects do not result from it, let him be accursed." (Canon 5).

"If any man shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters -- let him be accursed." (Canon 6).

"If anyone shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so as to understand that nothing else is required that may cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will ... let him be accursed." (Canon 9).

"If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed." (Canon 12).

Here we see the Council of Trent sets forth the pagan 'Mystery' of the Eucharist.

 

[Hobie]

Now in the sacrament of the Eucharist, was the doctrine of Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek metousiosis) which is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ. However the doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed.

Like many of the beliefs and rites of the Roman Catholic Church, transubstantiation origin is from paganism, and was first practiced by pagan religions. The idea of transubstantiation was characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76.

It was never held in the early church and took many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith by the church of Rome, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was not part of beliefs, but in 831 A.D. Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological debate waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.

 

[Hobie]

The Early church was faithful to the Word of God, but after the so called conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church without true conversion. The leaders in Rome, to gain influence above the other centers of Christianity had been at the forefront of the wave of pagan 'converts' and thus increasing the numbers, but at the same time allowing paganism to come into the church. They also brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the church.

This also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how pagan transubstantiation, through the sacrament of the Eucharist, entered the church and declared part of the beliefs.

True believers who correctly interpret the Word of God see without any difficulty whatsoever that our Lord's reference to His body and blood was symbolic. When Jesus spoke of Himself as being the bread, He was not teaching the pagan transubstantiation brought in by Roman Catholic Church. It is wrong to hold that the Son of God turned a piece of bread into Himself. It is perfectly clear in the Gospels that Christ spoke in figurative terms, referring to Himself as "the door," "the vine'', "the light," "the root," "the rock," "the bright and morning star" and so it was with the bread and wine.

However the doctrine of transubstantiation is clearly of paganism mystery's, which pretended, on the pronunciation of a few potent words, to change one substance into another, or by pagan rites, wholly to remove one substance, and to substitute another in its place. From the Council of Trent the pagan god of flour and water, produced by priestly sorcery, is still worshipped and adored to this day as it was defined. We can find it in the bowing, genuflecting, praying to the "Blessed Sacrament" which may be seen daily in any Catholic church.

 

[Hobie]

Looking a what the Roman Catholic Church says is Mary we find this too is from paganism. In almost all the devotional books of the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of God is crowned, sceptered and enthroned as the Queen of heaven.

The Roman Catholic Church basically holds that damnation is impossible where there is true devotion to the Virgin. Hence the worship of Mary allows for and encourages multiplies sins which of course they then turn around and declare indulgences can negate.

Christians know this even today and yet many accept it...
"Question: "Who is the Queen of Heaven?"

Answer: The phrase “the queen of heaven” appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.

The second reference to the queen of heaven is found in Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await them if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy."....Who is the Queen of Heaven? | GotQuestions.org

The origin of this idolatry had its root in ancient paganism. From Babylon, this worship of the mother and child spread to the other parts of the world. Astarte of the Assyrians, Ashtoreth of the Sidonians and Bowaney the mother of the gods of the Hindus held the place that Mary occupies in the church of Rome. Greece had her Venus and Rome her Juno and we find in scripture, the Diana of the Ephesians. The Egyptians had Isis, the same symbol, a female divinity whom they regarded as "the mother of the gods."

If one has an image of Mary then it is Mary who is venerated, just as much as an image of Jesus. Nowhere do we see this practice in the New Testament, but we do have many warnings about it. Nowhere does God approve of any type of worship toward objects that are even of Himself, neither the tabernacle which housed His presence, nor the ark which had the tablets, were to be worshipped.

 

[Yeshua1]

Looking a what the Roman Catholic Church says is Mary we find this too is from paganism. In almost all the devotional books of the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of God is crowned, sceptered and enthroned as the Queen of heaven.

The Roman Catholic Church basically holds that damnation is impossible where there is true devotion to the Virgin. Hence the worship of Mary allows for and encourages multiplies sins which of course they then turn around and declare indulgences can negate.

Christians know this even today and yet many accept it...
"Question: "Who is the Queen of Heaven?"

Answer: The phrase “the queen of heaven” appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.

The second reference to the queen of heaven is found in Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await them if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy."....Who is the Queen of Heaven? | GotQuestions.org

The origin of this idolatry had its root in ancient paganism. From Babylon, this worship of the mother and child spread to the other parts of the world. Astarte of the Assyrians, Ashtoreth of the Sidonians and Bowaney the mother of the gods of the Hindus held the place that Mary occupies in the church of Rome. Greece had her Venus and Rome her Juno and we find in scripture, the Diana of the Ephesians. The Egyptians had Isis, the same symbol, a female divinity whom they regarded as "the mother of the gods."

If one has an image of Mary then it is Mary who is venerated, just as much as an image of Jesus. Nowhere do we see this practice in the New Testament, but we do have many warnings about it. Nowhere does God approve of any type of worship toward objects that are even of Himself, neither the tabernacle which housed His presence, nor the ark which had the tablets, were to be worshipped.

I appreciate you exposing false teachings and doctrines of the Church of Rome, but can we go into those held by the Sda?

 

[Hobie]

I appreciate you exposing false teachings and doctrines of the Church of Rome, but can we go into those held by the Sda?

Start the thread and lets go over whatever you would like, but I think everyone would agree its best to keep trying to derail others threads. Now continuing on the subject, if you read your history and you will find the Catholics seven sacraments are not from what scripture gives us, but some truth mixed with falsehood derived from pagan rites and ceremonies. The seven sacraments came from another origin not from scripture, so baptism, confirmation, Eucharist (mass), penance/reconciliation (indulgences), extreme unction (last rights), marriage, and orders (ordination) came from pagan sources. The seven sacraments were not even formally decreed until the Council of Florence in 1439, the Council of Trent then declared to be anathema to not hold Rome's position that it was Christ Himself who instituted these seven sacraments. The idea of pushing the sacraments is that it supersedes the shedding of Christ's blood in His death upon the cross, and His death is of no value unless it is somehow dispensed and applied "sacramentally" by the Catholic priesthood.

Catholics are taught that the sacraments are indispensable for salvation, but baptism is considered the most important. Catholics doctrine is that a person enters into the spiritual life of the Church through baptism or really baptismal regeneration (that a person can be saved through baptism) so they practice infant baptism because they believe baptism erases original sin so the priest has power to do that. But scripture makes clear that we cannot be saved by works, and these sacraments even baptism in this form are not taught in the Bible.

The Mass is not from the Bible either, it like the others, has pagan origins. In the Roman Catholic mass, the Eucharist or “host” is a symbol of the sun from the old pagan worship. The round disc in the crescent moon was a symbol of ancient Babylon, and is found in all the ancient religions. Mass was never part of the early church, the mass did not become an official doctrine until pronounced by the Lateran Council of 1215 and then reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. The sacrifice of the mass is the central point of Catholic worship, as seen by the fact that those not attending and abstaining from mass are considered to have committed a mortal sin.

 

[MarysSon]

The Council of Trent was held, blah, blah, blah . . .

Another load of horse manure posted by yet another uninformed anti-Catholic.
This is what happens what you cut-and-paste without doing your homework . . .

So many things are wrong with your posts that it's difficult to know where to begin - so let's just start with your first line:

"The Council of Trent was held in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation; it approved many pagan and unbiblical beliefs and declared it was to be accepted under the threat of 'anathema'."

The main objective of the Council of Trent was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in response to the many heresies of the Protestant movement. There were many abominations occurring within Protestantism that needed to be addressed - such as:
- Removal of Books from the Biblical Canon
- Attempts to change Scripture
- Perverse interpretations of Scripture
- Invention of New Doctrines
and on and on . . .

At the time - Luther himself opined:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
- Martin Luther, Christians at Antwerp, 1525

Protestantism was anything BUT the "clarification" of Scripture - but the immediate splintering of the Body of Christ. This perpetual splintering continues to this day to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines - yet ALL claim to have been "led" by the Holy Spirit.
Martin Luther's head would have exploded had he lived to witness this tragedy.

I'll end this post by destroying your lie that the Early Church did NOT view the Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ by showing you their actual writings - and NOT by quoting some anti-Catholic source with an ax to grind.

Ignatius of Antioch was a FIRST CENTURY Bishop and a student of the Apostle John. He learned everything about the Christian faith from an actual APOSTLE. At the beginning of the 2nd century, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, he wrote Seven Letters to various churches in his region.
Here is what HE stated about the Church's belief in the Eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 107]).


So much for YOUR nonsense . . .

I will go down the list and destroy your other lies in further posts.

 

[MarysSon]

The Council of Trent declared in its proclamation's the following:

It denied all the doctrines of the Reformation, from Sola Scriptura to "salvation by grace through faith alone" and pronounced anathemas (basically eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what the scripture shows and the Reformation held and preached.

It gave equal value and authority of tradition and Scripture (in actuality, tradition is held above Scripture) and so allowed for all the pagan rites and rituals it had allowed into the church.

Time to destroy some more of your false claims . . .

YOUR claim that an anathema is "basically eternal damnation" is basically asinine.

Anathemas are BIBLICAL forms of discipline and not "eternal damnations". They are excommunications - and are recommended by Paul for those who engage in rebellious and unruly behavior (1 Cor. 5:1-3, 1 Tim. 1:18-20).
An excommunication is an expulsion from the assembly - with the hope that the rebellious person returns to the fold.

The anathemas at Trent were such descriptions of ipso facts excommunications - NOT eternal damnation.
Only GOD has the power to condemn a soul.


Onto your next LIE . . .
"in actuality, tradition is held above Scripture"
The Catholic Church does NOT teach - nor has it ever taught that Tradition is to be held "above" Scripture.
The Church teaches - as does SCRIPTURE itself - that Sacred Tradition is ON PAR with Scripture:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, either by by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Here, Paul is telling his readers that they are to put as much stock in their SPOKEN WORDS as they do in their writings.

And, by the way - Paul NEVER says that ALL of their oral teachings will eventually be written down in Scripture. This inspired verse of Scripture is as valid today as it was in the 1st century.

In other words - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

 

[Yeshua1]

Another load of horse manure posted by yet another uninformed anti-Catholic.
This is what happens what you cut-and-paste without doing your homework . . .

So many things are wrong with your posts that it's difficult to know where to begin - so let's just start with your first line:

"The Council of Trent was held in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation; it approved many pagan and unbiblical beliefs and declared it was to be accepted under the threat of 'anathema'."

The main objective of the Council of Trent was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in response to the many heresies of the Protestant movement. There were many abominations occurring within Protestantism that needed to be addressed - such as:
- Removal of Books from the Biblical Canon
- Attempts to change Scripture
- Perverse interpretations of Scripture
- Invention of New Doctrines
and on and on . . .

At the time - Luther himself opined:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
- Martin Luther, Christians at Antwerp, 1525

Protestantism was anything BUT the "clarification" of Scripture - but the immediate splintering of the Body of Christ. This perpetual splintering continues to this day to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines - yet ALL claim to have been "led" by the Holy Spirit.
Martin Luther's head would have exploded had he lived to witness this tragedy.

I'll end this post by destroying your lie that the Early Church did NOT view the Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ by showing you their actual writings - and NOT by quoting some anti-Catholic source with an ax to grind.

Ignatius of Antioch was a FIRST CENTURY Bishop and a student of the Apostle John. He learned everything about the Christian faith from an actual APOSTLE. At the beginning of the 2nd century, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, he wrote Seven Letters to various churches in his region.
Here is what HE stated about the Church's belief in the Eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 107]).


So much for YOUR nonsense . . .

I will go down the list and destroy your other lies in further posts.

Baptists would say that all of that which you labeled was bad was actually God restoring back his true Bible and true Gospel, as the Reformers rediscovered the Pauline Justification of the Gospel, and Rome Apostated by repudiating that truth!

 

[MarysSon]

Baptists would say that all of that which you labeled was bad was actually God restoring back his true Bible and true Gospel, as the Reformers rediscovered the Pauline Justification of the Gospel, and Rome Apostated by repudiating that truth!

And those who actually know their Bible would say that your statement renders Jesus a LIAR, because He assured his Apostles:
Matt. 16:18
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall NOT PREVAIL against it.

For Christ's Church to become "apostate" means that His promise was worthless.
How could you even possibly make this claim??

 

[Yeshua1]

And those who actually know their Bible would say that your statement renders Jesus a LIAR, because He assured his Apostles:
Matt. 16:18
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall NOT PREVAIL against it.

For Christ's Church to become "apostate" means that His promise was worthless.
How could you even possibly make this claim??

The true Church of Christ is NOT the Church of Rome!

 

[MarysSon]

The true Church of Christ is NOT the Church of Rome!

Sooooo, which one of your Protestant sects IS the true Church?
It can't be ALL of them because they all teach different doctrines.

 

[Revmitchell]

Time to destroy some more of your false claims . . .

YOUR claim that an anathema is "basically eternal damnation" is basically asinine.

Anathemas are BIBLICAL forms of discipline and not "eternal damnations". They are excommunications - and are recommended by Paul for those who engage in rebellious and unruly behavior (1 Cor. 5:1-3, 1 Tim. 1:18-20).
An excommunication is an expulsion from the assembly - with the hope that the rebellious person returns to the fold.

The anathemas at Trent were such descriptions of ipso facts excommunications - NOT eternal damnation.
Only GOD has the power to condemn a soul.


Onto your next LIE . . .
"in actuality, tradition is held above Scripture"
The Catholic Church does NOT teach - nor has it ever taught that Tradition is to be held "above" Scripture.
The Church teaches - as does SCRIPTURE itself - that Sacred Tradition is ON PAR with Scripture:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, either by by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Here, Paul is telling his readers that they are to put as much stock in their SPOKEN WORDS as they do in their writings.

And, by the way - Paul NEVER says that ALL of their oral teachings will eventually be written down in Scripture. This inspired verse of Scripture is as valid today as it was in the 1st century.

In other words - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

Talk about the misuse and eisegesis of scripture. Good grief. The word tradition does not support your claim.

 

[MarysSon]

Talk about the misuse and eisegesis of scripture. Good grief. The word tradition does not support your claim.

Talk about a hit-and-run post.

Since you made this claim - how about PROVING me wrong?

 

[Revmitchell]

Talk about a hit-and-run post.

Since you made this claim - how about PROVING me wrong?

You haven't proved it right. You have only nade a claim and then attached scripture to your claim. There is more work for you to do. I simply responded in similar fashion.

 

[MarysSon]

You haven't proved it right. You have only nade a claim and then attached scripture to your claim. There is more work for you to do. I simply responded in similar fashion.

Then, how about telling me where I am wrong?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then, how about telling me where I am wrong?

How about actually making a case instead of just a claim and then attaching scripture to it. Anyway ill be dealing with your original post later on.

 

[MarysSon]

How about actually making a case instead of just a claim and then attaching scripture to it.

I made a case for the Authority of Tradition in post #8.
If you don't feel up to the task - simply admit it so we can move on . . .

Here it is again:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, either by by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Here, Paul is telling his readers that they are to put as much stock in their SPOKEN WORDS as they do in their writings.

And, by the way - Paul NEVER says that ALL of their oral teachings will eventually be written down in Scripture. This inspired verse of Scripture is as valid today as it was in the 1st century.
In other words - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

Here are some further Scriptural examples:

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

2 Tim. 1:12-14
On this account I am suffering these things; but I am not ashamed, for I know him in whom I have believed and am confident that he is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day.
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.

 

[Revmitchell]

I made a case for the Authority of Tradition in post #8.
If you don't feel up to the task - simply admit it so we can move on . . .

Here it is again:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, either by by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Here, Paul is telling his readers that they are to put as much stock in their SPOKEN WORDS as they do in their writings.

And, by the way - Paul NEVER says that ALL of their oral teachings will eventually be written down in Scripture. This inspired verse of Scripture is as valid today as it was in the 1st century.
In other words - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

Here are some further Scriptural examples:

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

2 Tim. 1:12-14
On this account I am suffering these things; but I am not ashamed, for I know him in whom I have believed and am confident that he is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day.
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.

Sigh.....when I get to the house in a bit Ill deal with it correctly.

You, like most cathies, start with your presupposition and then search for a passage of scripture to play mental gymnastics in a way an olympic gold metal gymnast couldnt compete with.

You posted a series of scripture and then made a claim about what you would like them to say with no other support. Those verses do not support your claims.

 

[MarysSon]

Sigh.....when I get to the house in a bit Ill deal with it correctly.

You, like most cathies, start with your presupposition and then search for a passage of scripture to play mental gymnastics in a way an olympic gold metal gymnast couldnt compete with.

You posted a series of scripture and then made a claim about what you would like them to say with no other support. Those verses do not support your claims.

Soooooo, Sola Scripturists like YOU demand Scriptural evidence for everything. Yet, when a Catholic uses Scripture to prove a doctrine - it's not "good enough".


Can YOU say, "Hypocrisy"??