Note: This was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy have preserved “Tradition,” why isn’t there milk and honey used during baptism?
First, why is this a big deal? It is because they claim that a Sola Scriptura view leaves out important traditions and teachings that are not found in the Scripture, but rather in tradition.
To prove this viewpoint the will point to quotes from Fathers such as Basil of Caeserea that say something to the following effect:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force
If such traditions have the “force” of true religion, why isn’t drinking milk mixed with honey something still required as part of the baptismal rite?
Some apologists will say that maybe milk and honey was never quite so serious. However, it was.
Jerome writes Against the Luciferians:
Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord’s day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.
Over 150 years previous, Tertullian wrote on another continent in De Corona in reference to baptism that “we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey” and that is
“sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance.”
Elsewhere, Hippolytus records the practice in his book “The Apostolic Tradition.” Doesn’t that mean it is Apostolic Tradition to have milk and honey with baptism? Or is he lying?
Clement of Alexandria is an early, Eastern witness to the practice, just as Chromatius is a later western witness.
Isn’t it clear that all of these men attest to the practice over centuries and that it was precisely the sort of extra-biblical tradition Basil was talking about. So, this begs the question, why do we not do it anymore when it was so clearly practiced as Apostolic Tradition in both the east and the west?
Yet, the tradition died. Christ states that “[h]eaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Luke 21:33). Clearly milk and honey could not be originally his words.
Of course, all of this begs the question: how do we know that another tradition attested to by such a wide witness is actually legitimate? The truth of the matter is, apart from the Scripture (which is defined as “God breathed” in 2 Tim 3:16), no tradition can be held with the same degree of certainty. You heard straight from the horse’s mouth, milk and honey had “the authority of the written law.” Yet now, it doesn’t.
This is because there is not a single extra-biblical tradition that defines itself as literally breathed out by God. If God Himself did not breath it out, then how do you even know it is actually true with the same degree of certainty? Plain answer: you don’t.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy have preserved “Tradition,” why isn’t there milk and honey used during baptism?
Because it is the Pope and the Church which holds the keys to the Kingdom. Not individual priests or Bishops.
Believe it or not, tasting a delicious concoction of milk and honey used to be a very important baptismal tradition.
I believe it.
First, why is this a big deal? It is because they claim that a Sola Scriptura view leaves out important traditions and teachings that are not found in the Scripture, but rather in tradition.
That is correct.
To prove this viewpoint the will point to quotes from Fathers such as Basil of Caeserea that say something to the following effect:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force
If such traditions have the “force” of true religion, why isn’t drinking milk mixed with honey something still required as part of the baptismal rite?
Let’s talk about something a bit different. Just to make a comparison. God said, in His Word,
Exodus 20:8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Those words and that Tradition was set forth by ALLMIGHTY GOD. Right?
Do Christians still keep the Sabbath? Not in the eyes of the uninitiated. They see us keep the first day, that is, Sunday. Not the Sabbath. However, the word Sabbath has two meanings. One is 7 and is a reference the seventh day, which is Saturday in our calendar. The other is OATH. And we still keep the oath, except we keep it on Sunday Mass as a day of obligation and are free to make the oath on a daily basis in the daily Mass.
So, why was it transferred, if God commanded us to keep it on Saturday? Because of the authority which Jesus Christ, (aka God) vested in the Catholic Church when He said, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it and I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What you lock on earth will be locked in heaven. What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Therefore, the day of worship was changed to the first day of the week and you see no objection in the Scripture. In fact, the Scripture only mentions it in passing:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Some apologists will say that maybe milk and honey was never quite so serious. However, it was.
Do you think that the command to keep the Sabbath was serious? or not?
Ok, now let’s examine what St. Jerome has to say. First, you are essentially like the Luciferians (No, it is not a reference to Satan). You are questioning the authority of the Catholic Church. So this is an excellent document to study. Let’s begin a bit earlier than you did, though.
8. L. Thirsty men in their dreams eagerly gulp down the water of the stream, and the more they drink the thirstier they are. In the same way you appear to me to have searched everywhere for arguments against the point I raised, and yet to be as far as ever from being satisfied.
And to me, you appear to be in the same situation as these men.
Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches?
You do know that this is a reference to the Sacrament of Confirmation, right? Note how he calls it a custom or what we, today refer to as SacredTradition of the Church.
Jerome writes Against the Luciferians:
Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles.
I doubt that you would accept that proof today. If you did, you would be Catholic.
And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command.
Now, he refers to the authority of the Tradition which is being practiced by the whole world at that time.
For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver,
We still do that. Notice that he is not referring to full immersion. The Church has ever practiced pouring, sprinkling and immersion. And it has always been three times. And there is Scripture proof for all three.
and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy;
We don’t do that anymore in the West. But it is not forbidden, as far as I know.
and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord’s day,
A reference to Sunday Worship, which before the invention of the “pews” by Protestants, was always standing.
and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost;
You probably understand that to mean that we cease from fasting on the day of Pentecost. But, that is because Protestants celebrate single days, such as Christmas day, Easter Sunday, and perhaps, some, the day of Pentecost.
But we don’t. We celebrate seasons. The Christmas season is 12 days long. Before that is the season of Advent. After Christmas is the season of Lent, which is forty days and we fast during that time. Then comes Easter and Easter Sunday is the first day of the Easter season which is simultaneously the first day of Pentecost. The day of Pentecost is 50 days after Easter. And we cease to fast during those 50 days. We begin to fast again, afterwards.
and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom.
Yes sir. But, you don’t follow those. Because you make up your own mind how you will worship the Lord. Even though Scripture says:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
So you see we follow the practice of the Church,
Notice how he keeps repeating this phrase. Why? Because he recognizes the authority which Jesus Christ vested in the Church.
although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.
What is he talking about? He is advising rebaptism of heretics. Do you know that the Catholic Church does not, usually, follow his advice on this matter? If you read the entire document, he is advising to rebaptize heretics. But, for the most part, the Church doesn’t follow and has never followed that advice. Yes, even Doctors of the Church have erred in their advice.
The Church has always recognized that some heretics have a valid baptism. For instance, today, the Church does not recognize the Baptism of the Mormons. But recognizes all others of which I’m aware, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.
But that wouldn’t bother St. Jerome. In fact, he may well be aware of that fact but is simply not thinking about it at the time that he is writing this document.
Over 150 years previous, Tertullian wrote on another continent in De Corona in reference to baptism that “we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey” and that is
“sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance.”
Yep.
Elsewhere, Hippolytus records the practice in his book “The Apostolic Tradition.” Doesn’t that mean it is Apostolic Tradition to have milk and honey with baptism? Or is he lying?
Nope.
Clement of Alexandria is an early, Eastern witness to the practice, just as Chromatius is a later western witness.
Ok.
Isn’t it clear that all of these men attest to the practice over centuries and that it was precisely the sort of extra-biblical tradition Basil was talking about. So, this begs the question, why do we not do it anymore when it was so clearly practiced as Apostolic Tradition in both the east and the west?
Because the Church which the Holy Scriptures describe as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) no longer requires it.
Yet, the tradition died. Christ states that “[h]eaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Luke 21:33). Clearly milk and honey could not be originally his words.
Lol! That is because you don’t understand the “spiritual” meaning of the words. Now, let’s go back to the example of the Sabbath. Do we continue to hold that God given Tradition, or no? I say, “Yes!” Because we still hold to the day of the OATH. It is mandatory for Catholics to come to the Sunday Mass on pain of mortal sin.
Do we still drink milk and honey? Yes. Spiritually. Because we enter the land of milk and honey when we are baptized.
Of course, all of this begs the question: how do we know that another tradition attested to by such a wide witness is actually legitimate? The truth of the matter is, apart from the Scripture (which is defined as “God breathed” in 2 Tim 3:16), no tradition can be held with the same degree of certainty. You heard straight from the horse’s mouth, milk and honey had “the authority of the written law.” Yet now, it doesn’t.
All law is subject to the authority of the law maker. In this case, God speaking through His Church. But you don’t believe that. But the Scriptures attest to this truth:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
This is because there is not a single extra-biblical tradition that defines itself as literally breathed out by God. If God Himself did not breath it out, then how do you even know it is actually true with the same degree of certainty? Plain answer: you don’t.
Now, let’s go through the Scriptures to find more defunct laws. You say you are guided by Scripture alone, right?
Ok, do you, as a Christian, follow the Kosher laws?
Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain…. from blood.
And again, do you, keep the Saturday Sabbath?
And, do you, require women to cover their heads in church? do you, baptize for the dead? do you consider the commandments mandatory?
Those requirements are in Scripture. But Protestants no longer hold to them. They don’t have any excuse not to hold them since they claim to hold the authority of Scripture alone. Whereas, we understand that Christ placed His authority in the Church.
I don’t have the time to reply in full but I can sum up your argument as that tradition is not binding, even if it was taught universally by the Early Church Fathers, unless the Pope teaches it because of Matt 16:18.
This requires the presumption that the Pope alone determines tradition, because obviously you reject 5 different witnesses to an ancient practice.
You would also reject that Cyprian did not view the power of binding and loosing to the Bishop of Rome:
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).
Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).
God bless,
Craig
Craig Trugliasaid:May 11, 2015 at 10:35 pm
I don’t have the time to reply in full
No problem.
but I can sum up your argument as that tradition is not binding, even if it was taught universally by the Early Church Fathers, unless the Pope teaches it because of Matt 16:18.
That would be wrong. The Pope (and the Church in union with the Pope) have the authority vested in them by Jesus Christ, to unbind or loosen on earth and whatever they loosen on earth will be loosed in heaven.
This requires the presumption that the Pope alone determines tradition, because obviously you reject 5 different witnesses to an ancient practice.
At the time of their witness, the tradition was binding. Just as in the Old Testament, men were bound to hold the Sabbath on Saturday.
You would also reject that Cyprian did not view the power of binding and loosing to the Bishop of Rome:
You need to read further. Here’s what else he said in the same book:
“..On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)
God bless,
Craig
You as well.
“At the time of their witness, the tradition was binding. Just as in the Old Testament, men were bound to hold the Sabbath on Saturday.”
This is sort of a week reply. As far as I know, the Pope has never ruled on the practice. It simply fell into disuse. If you actually read what the ECF wrote about milk and honey, they confidently asserted that it was an Apostolic Practice.
And herein lies the dangers of your reply: You assert that even still the Pope can make Apostolic tradition null and void by virtue of the power of the keys? I thought the Pope supposedly preserved Apostolic Tradition, not sifted through it and reject some of it. The Scripture warns: “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Rom 16:17). On what consistent, Biblical basis can the Pope reject legitimate Apostolic teaching?
Further, if CHromatius and Hippolytus both defended the teaching from Rome in wording that shows that they viewed the tradition as Apostolic, doesn’t this show that the Roman Church f the time viewed the teaching as Apostolic?
“You need to read further…”
Nothing you quoted changes the fact that Cyprian did not view the “powers” of binding and loosing as solely in the hands of Peter. In “The Baptism of Heretics” Cyprian writes:
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”
God bless,
Craig
“At the time of their witness, the tradition was binding. Just as in the Old Testament, men were bound to hold the Sabbath on Saturday.”
This is sort of a week reply. As far as I know, the Pope has never ruled on the practice. It simply fell into disuse. If you actually read what the ECF wrote about milk and honey, they confidently asserted that it was an Apostolic Practice.
You are correct. Show me where the Church officially ruled on the Sabbath. You’ll find that a ruling did come forth, about the middle ages. But the practice of celebrating the Saturday sabbath had already fallen into disuse.
And herein lies the dangers of your reply: You assert that even still the Pope can make Apostolic tradition null and void by virtue of the power of the keys?
The Pope and the Church, together, are guided by the Holy Spirit. I assert, that if the Church leaves behind an Apostolic Tradition, it is because it is God’s will.
The problem with anti-Catholic Protestants is that they like to focus on the Church without comparing to their own tradition. Now, in your case, YOU decide which tradition to follow and which to ignore, simply by reading the Bible yourself. Effectively, you are your own Pope. Now, when did you stop eating milk and honey in your baptisms?
Oh, that’s tradition and you don’t hold it binding. Ok. Let’s look at Scripture. Here’s one that few Protestants own up to. Which men do you hold to be accountable for your soul?
Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Here’s another. Which man do you acknowledge as beseeching you in God’s stead and which men do you acknowledge to pray for you in Christ’s stead?
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
You’ll say that Scripture is your only authority. But you, along with every other Protestant I’ve ever met, will ignore or reject these verses.
I thought the Pope supposedly preserved Apostolic Tradition, not sifted through it and reject some of it.
As you said, in this case, it fell out of disuse. And it was probably another form of authority, another guiding principle, which most anti-Catholics aren’t aware exists. The Senseis Fidelis. The Sense of the Faithful. The Holy Spirit guides all Catholics. And if that Apostolic Tradition quietly fell into disuse, it is because the Holy Spirit willed it so.
The Scripture warns: “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Rom 16:17). On what consistent, Biblical basis can the Pope reject legitimate Apostolic teaching?
Where is the dissension and hindrance? I find no complaint from any quarter that we no longer drink milk and honey at a Baptism.
Further, if CHromatius and Hippolytus both defended the teaching from Rome in wording that shows that they viewed the tradition as Apostolic, doesn’t this show that the Roman Church f the time viewed the teaching as Apostolic?
Yes.
“You need to read further…”
Nothing you quoted changes the fact that Cyprian did not view the “powers” of binding and loosing as solely in the hands of Peter.
I never said “solely”. I have continually added the “Church” together with Peter. Read my messages.
In “The Baptism of Heretics” Cyprian writes:
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”
True. But I quoted you the verse, where Cyprian acknowledges that the Pope has a primacy over the other Apostles. Just go back up and read it. So, this verse must be taken in context with that one. Taken in context with that writing, St. Cyprian acknowledges that the Pope was given the primacy by Jesus Christ. And is saying that the rest of the Bishops would be wrong to do so. Again, otherwise, St. Cyprian would be contradicting himself.
Caveat. St. Cyprian was a heretic at the end of his life. He opposed the Pope and the Church on the validity of heretic Baptism. He would not, today, accept the baptism of Protestants as the Church does. Note, however, that even in his opposition to the Pope, he admitted that it is in the Pope that Jesus invested the unity of the Church. Excerpt:
Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ.
This is from the second edition of The Unity of the Catholic Church [251/256 A.D.], the one which he wrote while objecting to his being called a heretic. The first edition uses much stronger words in favor of the primacy of the Pope. He watered those down in the second edition. Obviously, he changed his mind a bit when that authority was turned against him.
He is a saint by virtue of his martyrdom. Whether he would have been canonized a saint by virtue of his teachings and life is an open question, since he was in open oppostion to the Church at one time.
God bless,
Craig
I think we are going down a rabbit trail here, so let me re-focus my reply to you. You quote Cyrprian about Roman Primacy. Fine. Most people do not reject this, so that is not the issue. The issue is that Rome alone, according to Cyprian in theory and practice, has the power bind and loose. You cannot avoid that this is the conclusion of his thought.
Before you run to tradition to show that Cyprian was supposedly wrong, I’m going to point out the obvious, which you have been missing. If you delve into tradition to show that Cyprian is wrong, then on what consistent basis do you use tradition to defend the idea that Rome accurately maintains Apostolic Tradition? That’s the whole point to the milk and honey post here.
If you use extra-biblical tradition as a means of substantiating certain doctrines of the Church, then you would be compelled to believe that milk and honey is really Apostolic Tradition, and if really Apostolic Tradition, should have not been allowed to fall into disuse by Rome.
So, your use of tradition is inconsistent, and that being the case, does form a solid bass in which to establish a religion.
The basis of the Christian’s religion is not the contradicting traditions of men, imaginary oral Apostolic Tradition, no the interpretations of a supposedly solid authority according to those same contradicting traditions. The Scripture was the ECFs basis, as it is ours today.
Just because a bunch of people disagree upon what theScriptures teach, as did the ECFs, that does not make the Scriptures themselves any less of a solid basis. It just shows how poor of an idea it is to make men and their traditions and interpretations a basis for anything.
You cannot avoid this conclusion, nor contradict it with tradition without contradicting yourself.
God bless,
Craig
P.S. I do not think it is necessary for Christians to taste milk and honey after baptism, because it is not in the Scripture. I do think it is necessary for women to wear head coverings and men not to) during prayer and prophesy , a once time-honored tradition of the Catholic Church where one could not receive the elements unless they were covered properly, because IT IS in the Scripture. At least my basis for belief is not contradictory and it accords with tradition.
Craig Trugliasaid:May 13, 2015 at 9:53 am
P.S. I do not think it is necessary for Christians to taste milk and honey after baptism, because it is not in the Scripture. I do think it is necessary for women to wear head coverings and men not to) during prayer and prophesy , a once time-honored tradition of the Catholic Church where one could not receive the elements unless they were covered properly, because IT IS in the Scripture. At least my basis for belief is not contradictory and it accords with tradition.
How about this one?
Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
Do you live in a commune?
I think we are going down a rabbit trail here, so let me re-focus my reply to you. You quote Cyrprian about Roman Primacy. Fine. Most people do not reject this, so that is not the issue. The issue is that Rome alone, according to Cyprian in theory and practice, has the power bind and loose. You cannot avoid that this is the conclusion of his thought.
Neither St. Cyprian nor the Catholic Church ever taught that the Pope alone could bind and loose. How does St. Cyprian’s letter differ from the Catechism?
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
Before you run to tradition to show that Cyprian was supposedly wrong,
St. Cyprian is right. You are wrong.
I’m going to point out the obvious, which you have been missing. If you delve into tradition to show that Cyprian is wrong, then on what consistent basis do you use tradition to defend the idea that Rome accurately maintains Apostolic Tradition? That’s the whole point to the milk and honey post here.
If you use extra-biblical tradition as a means of substantiating certain doctrines of the Church, then you would be compelled to believe that milk and honey is really Apostolic Tradition, and if really Apostolic Tradition, should have not been allowed to fall into disuse by Rome.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. St. Cyprian is right. You are wrong. And, I think you’re functioning under the false impression that Apostolic Tradition can not fall into disuse. The proof that this is false can be found in Scripture.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
We no longer go from house to house, breaking bread. We, do, however, go to Mass daily. Something which Protestants DO NOT do. They don’t even think it necessary to meet on Sundays.
So, your use of tradition is inconsistent,
On the contrary, it is very consistent and thousands of times more consistent than Protestant application of Sola Scriptura.
and that being the case, does form a solid bass in which to establish a religion.
The basis of the Christian’s religion is not the contradicting traditions of men, imaginary oral Apostolic Tradition, no the interpretations of a supposedly solid authority according to those same contradicting traditions. The Scripture was the ECFs basis, as it is ours today.
Just because a bunch of people disagree upon what theScriptures teach, as did the ECFs, that does not make the Scriptures themselves any less of a solid basis. It just shows how poor of an idea it is to make men and their traditions and interpretations a basis for anything.
You cannot avoid this conclusion, nor contradict it with tradition without contradicting yourself.
In fact, it is quite simple to contradict, both with Sacred Tradition and with Scripture. Scripture itself tells us to hold Traditions. And of course, Sacred Tradition tells us to do so.
The bottomline is this. Jesus Christ did not write a word. Jesus Christ established a Church. He taught the Church His Traditions and those Traditions are the solid basis of the New Testament which was written by the Church to supplement, not to supplant, the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
God bless,
Craig
God bless you too.
I honestly do not think you understand where I am coming from. I do not think your reply makes much sense. For example:
“How about this one? Acts 2:44…Do you live in a commune?”
Acts 2:44 is not prescriptive. In 1 Cor 11, Paul speaks of Christians, in good standing, not sharing food during a meal. Obviously, the Apostolic Teaching is not that we are compelled to live communally, unless Acts 2 contradicts 1 Cor 11. Of course, if your standard of Biblical truth is so low that the Bible can outright contradict itself, then I say we should just end our conversation, because our views of divine revelation would not match and we will be speaking past each other.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
As I just said, but it is because you are obviously confused. You just called Cyprian a “heretic” and now your write:
“St. Cyprian is right. You are wrong.”
Huh? Cyprian is a heretic, he is right, what are you even talking about?
My point is if you seek to prove from tradition that the Papacy is the real deal, then you have to concede that using the same methods, milk and honey is the real deal. And, if that be the case, you must admit the Papacy has done away wth Apostolic Tradition instead of preserving it. You cannot have it both ways. Being that this is my website, if you do not intelligently confront this point, I will simply disengage from this conversation.
“And, I think you’re functioning under the false impression that Apostolic Tradition can not fall into disuse.”
Isn’t it Catholic teaching that they preserve Apostolic tradition? Are you telling me that they are purposely allowing know Apostolic teachings to fall into disuse?
“The proof that this is false can be found in Scripture.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart…”
Man, that’s just bad exegesis. The Temple no longer exists. Luke recording that people did this or that when the Temple was still around is not proof of a prescriptive Apostolic teaching. I think you know this and I think you need to sit back and re-evaluate whether what you are saying here even makes sense. It is completely incomprehensible.
“They don’t even think it necessary to meet on Sundays.”
Who says that, Adventist heretics?
“So, your use of tradition is inconsistent…”
You still have not shown that in the least bit.
,
“In fact, it is quite simple to contradict, both with Sacred Tradition and with Scripture. Scripture itself tells us to hold Traditions. And of course, Sacred Tradition tells us to do so.”
What does this even mean? You just said that Scripture teaches that it contradicts Sacred Tradition? Valid Apostolic tradition cannot contradict Scripture, or it would merely be the private opinions of the Apostles.
I hope this reply is not too nasty, but you need to be careful not to reply to something just for the heck of it. You need to do some research and make some consistent points, otherwise I do not know hot to respond.
God bless you on your studies,
Craig
Craig Trugliasaid:May 13, 2015 at 11:42 pm
I honestly do not think you understand where I am coming from. I do not think your reply makes much sense. For example:
“How about this one? Acts 2:44…Do you live in a commune?”
Acts 2:44 is not prescriptive. In 1 Cor 11, Paul speaks of Christians, in good standing, not sharing food during a meal. Obviously, the Apostolic Teaching is not that we are compelled to live communally, unless Acts 2 contradicts 1 Cor 11.
Obviously, I agree that Acts 2:44 is not prescriptive, since we don’t live in a commune either.
However, this is prescriptive:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
But you reject it.
And have you dealt with the authority of the Church to change the Sabbath? If Catholics accept the authority of the Church to change of something as important as the Sabbath day, without question, what makes you think we will be bothered if the Church has decided not to celebrate Baptism with milk and honey?
Of course, if your standard of Biblical truth is so low that the Bible can outright contradict itself, then I say we should just end our conversation,
On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the Word of God and contains no errors or contradictions.
We do not confuse your interpretations of Scripture with the lessons of Scripture, however.
because our views of divine revelation would not match and we will be speaking past each other.
Except for the fact that we agree that Scripture is without error, we seem to be speaking past each other on every other detail.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
As I just said, but it is because you are obviously confused. You just called Cyprian a “heretic” and now your write:
Oh, you didn’t know? The Catholic Church charged St. Cyprian with heresy on the basis of his stance on heretical baptisms. He is considered a Saint on the basis of his martyrdom. But he was in opposition to the Pope and the Church on the question of rebaptizing heretics.
“St. Cyprian is right. You are wrong.”
Different question. St. Cyprian was wrong on the question of rebaptizing heretics. But is correct on the question of the authority of the Pope.
St. Cyprian, a Catholic, would likely have submitted to the Teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the validity of heretical baptisms, had he lived to respond to the charges.
Huh? Cyprian is a heretic, he is right, what are you even talking about?
You’re not aware that the document you presented is St. Cyprian’s edited version, which he rewrote due to his being charged with heresy?
My point is if you seek to prove from tradition that the Papacy is the real deal, then you have to concede that using the same methods, milk and honey is the real deal.
Did I ever disagree?
And, if that be the case, you must admit the Papacy has done away wth Apostolic Tradition instead of preserving it.
How?
You cannot have it both ways. Being that this is my website, if you do not intelligently confront this point, I will simply disengage from this conversation.
Unless someone agrees with you, you don’t consider them intelligent. Until you recognize that Catholic Theology is based upon the Authority of Jesus Christ revealed through His Church, you will reject all Catholic Doctrine and consider all Catholics stupid.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
“And, I think you’re functioning under the false impression that Apostolic Tradition can not fall into disuse.”
Isn’t it Catholic teaching that they preserve Apostolic tradition?
Yes. Do you know any Catholic who denies that drinking milk and honey in Baptism was an Apostolic Tradition?
Are you telling me that they are purposely allowing know Apostolic teachings to fall into disuse?
The Catholic Church is organic. That which is maintained is that which the hierarchy considers good for the faith of the People of God.
“The proof that this is false can be found in Scripture.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart…”
Man, that’s just bad exegesis. The Temple no longer exists.
Yes, it does. The Temple of God is now the Church.
Luke recording that people did this or that when the Temple was still around is not proof of a prescriptive Apostolic teaching.
That is your interpretation. You believe in private interpretation of Scripture. We don’t. For us, the Temple is the House of God. And the Church is the House of God. Therefore, the Church is the New Temple of God.
Note how in the Old Testament, there was an altar in the Temple:
2 Chronicles 26:16 But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense.
And the New Testament, we still have an altar. Well, we do. I don’t think you guys do:
Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
CCC#809 The Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the soul, as it were, of the Mystical Body, the source of its life, of its unity in diversity, and of the riches of its gifts and charisms.
I think you know this and I think you need to sit back and re-evaluate whether what you are saying here even makes sense. It is completely incomprehensible.
To you.
“They don’t even think it necessary to meet on Sundays.”
Who says that, Adventist heretics?
So, you consider it necessary to meet on Sundays? I’m surprised. In twenty years, I’ve not met one Protestant who does not interpret this verse:
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
To mean that he can worship from anyplace at anytime and need not gather with the Church on Sundays.
“So, your use of tradition is inconsistent…”
You still have not shown that in the least bit.
You accused me of that. I accused you of being inconsistent in your application of Scripture. And, I believe I have shown you, in this discussion and in the others we’ve had, but you don’t agree. C’est la vie.
“In fact, it is quite simple to contradict, both with Sacred Tradition and with Scripture. Scripture itself tells us to hold Traditions. And of course, Sacred Tradition tells us to do so.”
What does this even mean?
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
That is prescriptive. The Apostle commands us to expel those who do not hold the Sacred Traditions they passed down.
Here is Tradition, giving us the same directive:
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
….
You just said that Scripture teaches that it contradicts Sacred Tradition?
No. I said that Scripture and Tradition contradict your view that one can disregard Tradition.
Valid Apostolic tradition cannot contradict Scripture, or it would merely be the private opinions of the Apostles.
That is Catholic Doctrine.
I hope this reply is not too nasty,
Lol! Its one of the nicest replies, from a Protestant, that I’ve ever read.
but you need to be careful not to reply to something just for the heck of it. You need to do some research and make some consistent points, otherwise I do not know hot to respond.
The problem is not with my consistency or lack thereof. The problem is with the Protestant presuppostions which dominate your understanding of theology.
First of all, you assume that I am giving you my private interpretations. I’m not. I have consistently proven that I’m passing on Catholic Doctrine.
Second, you believe that I will accept your authority on any point of Scripture. Again, I believe that Jesus Christ speaks through the Catholic Church, why would I accept anything you have to say?
We, Catholics, have found the Pearl of great price. We don’t trade it in for anything. We don’t change for any wind of doctrine.
God bless you on your studies,
Craig
You also.
“Obviously, I agree that Acts 2:44 is not prescriptive, since we don’t live in a commune either.”
Now, you are being a tad dishonest. You just argued that Acts 2:44 was prescriptive and that I would be inconsistent in ignoring it. However, if Acts 2:44 was not prescriptive, there would be no inconsistency to accuse me of.
“However, this is prescriptive:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
But you reject it.”
Actually, you by your own admission reject what by your own definition of tradition by not performing the milk and honey rite.
However, my view of tradition is that it has only been completely preserved in the Scripture with perfect accuracy, and that extra-biblical tradition has degrees of doubt. So, I am actually consistently following the teaching of 2 Thes 2:15, while your rejection of milk and honey, or even something like head coverings (Christian tradition for 19 centuries!!!) shows that you blatantly contradict traditions. It is rather ironic that I am being accused of the thing that you overtly do.
“And have you dealt with the authority of the Church to change the Sabbath?”
The Church did not change the Sabbath, Christ fulfilled the Sabbath. Read Heb 4. Paul in Col 3 and Rom 11 taught not to esteem one day holier than the next. This was not some sort of new idea that the ope came up with centuries later. This was Apostolic teaching from the beginning, as proved by the Scriptures.
“Oh, you didn’t know? The Catholic Church charged St. Cyprian with heresy on the basis of his stance on heretical baptisms.”
Now he’s back to being a heretic according to you…When was Cyprian charged?
“…But is correct on the question of the authority of the Pope. ”
He is indeed correct that “neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment.”
“Me: And, if that be the case, you must admit the Papacy has done away wth Apostolic Tradition instead of preserving it.
You: How?”
Because they no longer require what was once required. This deliberately does away with a supposedly Apostolic Tradition.
“Yes. Do you know any Catholic who denies that drinking milk and honey in Baptism was an Apostolic Tradition?”
I have spoken to many Eastern Orthodox who issued such denials, because they unlike you understood the ramifications of it.
“Yes, it does. The Temple of God is now the Church.”
Yes, but Acts 2 had a specific geography in mind, it is not an allegory…That is not a private interpretation of the Scripture, that is an obvious fact. Acts 2 is being presented as history. Chrysostom agrees: https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/acts-of-the-apostles/st-john-chrysostom-on-acts/chapter-2
It’s you who is offering a private interpretation of Acts 2. You cannot take typology and apply it to every single verse.
“So, you consider it necessary to meet on Sundays? I’m surprised.”
You have not talked to many Protestants, evidently. The bigger argument is whether Sunday should be observed as a literal Sabbath.
“2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
That is prescriptive. The Apostle commands us to expel those who do not hold the Sacred Traditions they passed down.”
Okay, so should the Pope be kicked out if he does not bring back the milk and honey, because the Apostles supposedly passed that tradition down?
“No. I said that Scripture and Tradition contradict your view that one can disregard Tradition.”
I think what you fail to realize is how much in doubt your extra-biblical tradition really is.
“First of all, you assume that I am giving you my private interpretations. I’m not. I have consistently proven that I’m passing on Catholic Doctrine.”
That contradicts Cyprian, that contradicts Chrysostom…in this reply alone…
Your modern Catholic Doctrine is obviously not ancient catholic doctrine, or you would still have the milk and honey.
“Again, I believe that Jesus Christ speaks through the Catholic Church, why would I accept anything you have to say?”
And Jehovah’s Witnesses think Christ speaks through the Watchtower. And Mormons believe that Christ speaks their Apostles in Salt Lake City. And Pentecostals think that Christ speaks through a bunch of random people’s gibberish.
You obviously don’t have any real authority like those people. My authority is the same authority the Church has always had. The Truth, which is only found unadulterated in the Scripture. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth. The Church itself is not the Truth encapsulated.
If your argument is no different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I do not find it very compelling.
“We, Catholics, have found the Pearl of great price. We don’t trade it in for anything. We don’t change for any wind of doctrine. ”
Same with the JWs.
God bless,
Crag
Craig Trugliasaid:May 15, 2015 at 12:43 am
Now, you are being a tad dishonest. You just argued that Acts 2:44 was prescriptive and that I would be inconsistent in ignoring it.
I argued that Acts 2:44 is in Scripture and since you go by Scripture alone, you should follow it.
However, if Acts 2:44 was not prescriptive, there would be no inconsistency to accuse me of.
Since you do not consider it prescriptive, there is not. However, you seem to have arbitrary notions of what is prescriptive in Scripture and what is not.
“However, this is prescriptive:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
But you reject it.”
Actually, you by your own admission reject what by your own definition of tradition by not performing the milk and honey rite.
We have a more, “mature” understanding of what is important to keep and what isn’t.
Without meaning any insult, it seems to me as though I’m talking to a child. You seem to really feel it is of tremendous importance to keep this milk and honey ritual. But, one of the most important reasons that I came back to the Catholic Church, is because the Catholic Church is not “legalistic”.
If the Catholic Church does not keep this ritual anymore, it is because it is not important to the salvation of a human soul.
However, my view of tradition is that it has only been completely preserved in the Scripture with perfect accuracy,
Passing along Doctrine by Teaching apart from Scripture is one of the most important Traditions which we have. It is the Tradition which is called the Great Commission. I asked you earlier to show me the Doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture. I want to see where Scripture says that God is one God in three persons, consubstantial one with the other.
If you can’t find that in Scripture, then you have been disproved. Because it is in Tradition that you find the exact definition of the blessed Trinity.
and that extra-biblical tradition has degrees of doubt.
It is actually Protestants who hold to extra-biblical traditions. Sola Scriptura is an extra, no, worse than that, it is a contra-biblical tradition. It contradicts the Word of God.
So, I am actually consistently following the teaching of 2 Thes 2:15,
By your personal interpretation of the verse. But it is an innovation, an error, introduced by the Reformers to support their rebellion against the Authority which Jesus Christ vested in the Catholic Church.
while your rejection of milk and honey, or even something like head coverings (Christian tradition for 19 centuries!!!) shows that you blatantly contradict traditions.
1st. There is no evidence that anything has been rejected.
2nd. The mere fact that it is no longer practiced does not mean either of those have been rejected.
3rd. They may very well be brought back whenever the Church deems it necessary.
4th. As for head coverings, they are still practiced in Catholic Church in various parts of the world. It is only in European and American Church’s that the practice has become rare.
5th. This is another example of your overly simplistic view of the world.
6th. Really? Rejected? Show me where the Catholic Church has condemned the practice.
It is rather ironic that I am being accused of the thing that you overtly do.
It is ironic that you don’t see that it is you who rejects Tradition and contradicts Scripture.
“And have you dealt with the authority of the Church to change the Sabbath?”
The Church did not change the Sabbath, Christ fulfilled the Sabbath. Read Heb 4. Paul in Col 3 and Rom 11 taught not to esteem one day holier than the next. This was not some sort of new idea that the ope came up with centuries later.
True. That is why, WE, gather everyday and celebrate the Mass. But YOU only gather on a particular day. Which is it? And why did you choose that day? And where does it say to do so in Scripture?
This was Apostolic teaching from the beginning, as proved by the Scriptures.
Show me. I want to see the directive in Scripture with perfect accuracy.
“Oh, you didn’t know? The Catholic Church charged St. Cyprian with heresy on the basis of his stance on heretical baptisms.”
Now he’s back to being a heretic according to you…When was Cyprian charged?
Around the year 251:
Caecilius Cyprianus Thascius, St. Cyprian of Carthage (200-253 A.D.) Cyprian was born in Carthage between 200 A.D. and 210 A.D. His parents were wealthy pagans and he did not convert until 246 AD., at which time he made a vow of chastity. St. Pontius says he was a dignified but cheerful man. He was a skilled administrator and a man of great energy and character. He became Bishop of Carthage in 249 A.D. After the martyrdom of Pope Fabian during the persecution of the Roman Emperor Decius in 250 A.D., he took refuge in the hills outside Carthage and wrote letters to his flock. He stood against heresies at the Council of Carthage in 251 A.D., but disagreed with Pope St. Stephen over the issue of rebaptism of converted heretics. Cyprian followed the African custom to consider invalid any baptism conferred by heretical groups. [The Catholic Church maintains, to the contrary, that if the baptism is made in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19) with the right intention and using water, that it is valid.] But the dispute was ended by a renewed Roman persecution, with Pope Stephen being martyred in 256 A.D. and Cyprian suffering the same fate in 258 A.D.
“…But is correct on the question of the authority of the Pope. ”
He is indeed correct that “neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment.”
This is what he said before the Church sent for him to explain his heresy. We are in possession of both the first and the second editions of his letter. Naturally, Protestants ignore the first:
And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
“Me: And, if that be the case, you must admit the Papacy has done away wth Apostolic Tradition instead of preserving it.
You: How?”
Because they no longer require what was once required.
That seems a big jump. To say that the Papacy has done away with something means that the Papacy has rejected or condemned that thing. But you say that it simply no longer requires it.
This deliberately does away with a supposedly Apostolic Tradition.
Deliberately? Hm? Let’s look up the definition:
de·lib·er·ate·ly
dəˈlib(ə)rətlē/
adverb
1.
consciously and intentionally; on purpose.
“the fire was started deliberately”
synonyms: intentionally, on purpose, purposely, by design, knowingly, wittingly, consciously, purposefully; More
2.
in a careful and unhurried way.
“slowly and deliberately he rose from the armchair”
Do you have records of the deliberations which took place to rescind and reject or condemn this practice?
“Yes. Do you know any Catholic who denies that drinking milk and honey in Baptism was an Apostolic Tradition?”
I have spoken to many Eastern Orthodox who issued such denials, because they unlike you understood the ramifications of it.
Hm? What do Eastern Orthodox have to do with this discussion? Are they Popes or rulers of my Church which I should recognize?
It sounds to me as though you’re getting desperate.
“Yes, it does. The Temple of God is now the Church.”
Yes, but Acts 2 had a specific geography in mind, it is not an allegory…That is not a private interpretation of the Scripture, that is an obvious fact.
Sorry, Charlie. You have a certain, unbiblical, hermeneutic in mind. Whereas, I follow Catholic Doctrine.
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”….
You have prove to follow a literal interpretation, which Scripture says, “kills” the spirit:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Of course, if you can show me your hermeneutic tradition described in Scripture with perfect accuracy, then I’d have to believe you.
Acts 2 is being presented as history. Chrysostom agrees: https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/acts-of-the-apostles/st-john-chrysostom-on-acts/chapter-2
It’s you who is offering a private interpretation of Acts 2. You cannot take typology and apply it to every single verse.
I don’t think so. Here’s the direct quote.
Acts 2:46 Since they have become three thousand, they take them abroad now: and withal, the boldness imparted by the Spirit being great: and daily they went up as to a sacred place, as frequently we find Peter and John doing this: for at present they disturbed none of the Jewish observances. And this honor too passed over to the place; the eating in the house. In what house? In the Temple. Observe the increase of piety….
He equates the house with the Temple. In other words, being Catholic, he is equating the House of God and the Temple.
“So, you consider it necessary to meet on Sundays? I’m surprised.”
You have not talked to many Protestants, evidently.
For the past twenty years, I have talked to Protestants from all parts of the world. And, I have several Protestant friends who tell me all about their Wednesday gatherings as well as their Sunday gatherings. And many more who tell me that they don’t “get fed” in Church, its them and their Bible. Even those who attend their respective gatherings on Wednesday and Sunday, don’t believe it is necessary.
The bigger argument is whether Sunday should be observed as a literal Sabbath.
That depends upon what you mean by “literal”. The word Sabbath derives from a root which literally has several definitions.
“2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
That is prescriptive. The Apostle commands us to expel those who do not hold the Sacred Traditions they passed down.”
Okay, so should the Pope be kicked out if he does not bring back the milk and honey, because the Apostles supposedly passed that tradition down?
The Pope and the Bishops are the ones who would do the kicking out. In fact, that is the group to whom you are supposed to bring your objection. Since you think this Tradition should be maintained, you should follow the Scripture:
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
“No. I said that Scripture and Tradition contradict your view that one can disregard Tradition.”
I think what you fail to realize is how much in doubt your extra-biblical tradition really is.
I think what you fail to realize is that your doubts and the doubts of all Protestants amount to a hill of beans compared to the Authority of Jesus Christ.
“First of all, you assume that I am giving you my private interpretations. I’m not. I have consistently proven that I’m passing on Catholic Doctrine.”
That contradicts Cyprian, that contradicts Chrysostom…in this reply alone…
It simply contradicts your understanding of what St. Cyprian and St. Chrysostom have to say.
Your modern Catholic Doctrine is obviously not ancient catholic doctrine, or you would still have the milk and honey.
Lol! That’s funny. In contradiction to the Word of God, you hold to Scripture alone, faith alone and who knows what other heretical ideas, but you believe that Catholicism falls because of milk and honey.
“Again, I believe that Jesus Christ speaks through the Catholic Church, why would I accept anything you have to say?”
And Jehovah’s Witnesses think Christ speaks through the Watchtower. And Mormons believe that Christ speaks their Apostles in Salt Lake City. And Pentecostals think that Christ speaks through a bunch of random people’s gibberish.
But what does Scripture say? You claim to follow Scripture, right? Does Scripture say that the Christ does not speak through His Church?
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
You obviously don’t have any real authority like those people. My authority is the same authority the Church has always had. The Truth, which is only found unadulterated in the Scripture. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth. The Church itself is not the Truth encapsulated.
But the Church will not Teach error. Otherwise, it would not support the truth.
If your argument is no different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I do not find it very compelling.
Tell me, were any of the JW’s amongst the Early Church Fathers. Didn’t you once say to me that there was a time when the Catholic Church was the only game in town?
“We, Catholics, have found the Pearl of great price. We don’t trade it in for anything. We don’t change for any wind of doctrine. ”
Same with the JWs.
Lol! Apparently, you don’t know very much about JW doctrine. It has changed significantly in the short history of that group.
God bless,
Crag
And you as well.
” Me: Now, you are being a tad dishonest. You just argued that Acts 2:44 was prescriptive and that I would be inconsistent in ignoring it.
You: I argued that Acts 2:44 is in Scripture and since you go by Scripture alone, you should follow it.”
That’s a non-argument, and you know it. You can’t take a verse out of context and then say, “If you really believe the Scripture do this.” That’s irrational. That’s like taking the verse “every man must have his own wife” and say that this rules out celibacy.
I caught you trying to play “gotcha” and you bungled the verse. Just admit it.
“Since you do not consider it prescriptive, there is not. However, you seem to have arbitrary notions of what is prescriptive in Scripture and what is not.”
No, arbitrary is taking verses out of context and using them as counter arguments. Now, I am sure you can cook up some sort of excuse, or you can just be honest and admit that you bungled Acts 2 to try to win an online argument and now you have egg on your face. Your choice.
“We have a more, “mature” understanding of what is important to keep and what isn’t.”
So, apparently you know tradition better than St. Jerome, St. Hippolytus, and etc.
“Without meaning any insult, it seems to me as though I’m talking to a child. You seem to really feel it is of tremendous importance to keep this milk and honey ritual.”
Not really, I don’t think it is important at all because it is not in the Scripture. So I view holding to tradition as holding to the Scripture. However, you believe that extra-biblical tradition was transmitted orally and preserved by the Church. Milk and honey is one of them. So, my definition of tradition actually holds up. Yours doesn’t.
“Passing along Doctrine by Teaching apart from Scripture is one of the most important Traditions which we have.”
True, but you have no guarantee that any of it is accurate…i.e. like milk and honey. If there was a guarantee then I would be compelled to accept it.
“I asked you earlier to show me the Doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture. I want to see where Scripture says that God is one God in three persons, consubstantial one with the other.”
1 John 5:7 depending upon what manuscript tradition you accept. Otherwise, we may conclude the doctrine from several Scriptures. I suggest you read more here: http://christianreformedtheology.com/category/offending-the-jehovahs-witnesses/
“If you can’t find that in Scripture, then you have been disproved.”
Just did, sorry.
“By your personal interpretation of the verse. But it is an innovation…”
Getting rid of milk and honey and head coverings are innovations by your own church’s traditions. Don’t school me on innovations!
“3rd. They may very well be brought back whenever the Church deems it necessary.”
So, the CHurch can decide what tradition is binding with the force of law at any moment. THat’s not tradition, that is innovation. Tradition by definition does not change, it continues.
“4th. As for head coverings, they are still practiced in Catholic Church in various parts of the world. It is only in European and American Church’s that the practice has become rare.”
It was once required for receiving mass. It is no longer required. It has been unanimously upheld by the Scripture and Tradition to require head covering observances. You have made void the tradition you have affirmed for 1900 years.
“True. That is why, WE, gather everyday and celebrate the Mass. But YOU only gather on a particular day.”
CHristians meet on all sorts of days.
“Around 251”
Your link did not say that try again.
“This is what he said before the Church sent for him to explain his heresy. We are in possession of both the first and the second editions of his letter. Naturally, Protestants ignore the first…”
I am quoting NewAdvent.com. The manuscript evidence probably does not even support that there were originally two copies of the Council that I am quoting.
“Sorry, Charlie. You have a certain, unbiblical, hermeneutic in mind. Whereas, I follow Catholic Doctrine.”
I just quoted CHrysostom to show you that no one, but you, considers Acts 2 an allegory. Your hemeneutic is simply arbitrary and you know it. Now that is not to say that other allegories or typologies are not possible, but we need a firm grounding in the context of a passage in order to interpret it.
“But what does Scripture say? You claim to follow Scripture, right? Does Scripture say that the Christ does not speak through His Church?
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,”
You haven’t proven anything with that quote. First, it says the Church will know stuff, not that that Christ speaks through the Church. Christ speaks through the Church through His Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. However, you presume that God speaks specifically through your church, which is a claim tons of organizations make about their own churches.
“But the Church will not Teach error. Otherwise, it would not support the truth.”
Exactly. If a church propagates error it ceases being a church and one is not a schismatic if he leaves it.
“Tell me, were any of the JW’s amongst the Early Church Fathers.”
Where are the RCCs amongst the Early Church Fathers?
“Didn’t you once say to me that there was a time when the Catholic Church was the only game in town?”
The RCC is not the CC.
“Lol! Apparently, you don’t know very much about JW doctrine. It has changed significantly in the short history of that group.”
RCC doctrine has changed a fair bit too in 2,000 years.
God bless,
Craig
Oh, God bless you too.