Protestant: The contention of the evangelicals/protestants in not accepting human tradition of the catholic church is that the Bible alone can provide answers to MAN'S NEEDS IN ORDER FOR HIM TO KNOW GOD, TO BELIEVE AND EXPERIENCE HIS PROMISES, TO BE SAVED, TO WORSHIP HIM, TO LOVE HIM, TO SERVE HIM AND TO LIVE A LIFE EXPECTED OF A BELIEVER. As far as these needs are concerned, evangelicals/protestants believe the Bible alone is enough to provide the answers.
Catholic: No doubt, the Bible is useful "for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness," but it does not mean that the Bible alone is. Sacred Tradition also is.
Note that we’re not speaking about human tradition, but Sacred Tradition. Compare:
Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”
2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
The same Paul couldn’t condemn “tradition” in one breath and in the next breath tell brethren to hold fast to it. It simply doesn’t make sense. The only explanation, of course, and one which Protestants overlook is that there are TWO traditions spoken of here: one good, the other less than good. The good one is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition.
Unless Protestants begin to acknowledge the mention in the Bible of two kinds of "tradition," they will never be able to see Revelation as it is.
In the second place, nowhere does the Bible say that it is the ONLY source of answers to all questions. All it says is for itself to be useful in teaching, refutation, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17). It doesn’t say it is the ONLY one.
In fact, Bible admits that
- it doesn’t contain all that Jesus taught or said (John 20:30; John 21:25);
- that it is NOT self-explanatory, and has to have its passages explained by one with a direct link to the Apostles (Acts 8:30-31);
- that it is NOT the final authority [the Church is] Mt 18:15-18);
- that in it are things hard to understand which the unlearned and unstable mis-interpret to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Why, the Bible even frowns at personal interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Through the centuries, Protestants have clung to their interpretation of Bible passages they hold as Gospel truth, disregarding passages which contradict preconceived notions. The Protestant statement (in blue) below is a classic example.
There can be questions and concerns which might not be easily found in the Bible. And no way human tradition [even if you label it as SACRED] can provide it even if granting it cannot be found in the written scriptures. NO WAY!!!
Example:
1. If the Bible clearly tells me that I am a saint because I am a believer, how can tradition contradict by saying that I need to be canonized or beatified by the pope who even such a word do not appear in the bible?
In the first place, and as I have told you previously, the Church agrees with you-- the justified, even if while still alive, are also called "saints." But- and here you laughed at me -- they are saints as part of the Church Militant- people on earth alive and struggling to persevere till the end. Saint Paul is a "saint" all right, but he is a part of the Church Triumphant-- those already in heaven.
Here's a classic example. The Bible is talking only of one body of Christ - the Church - the Saints. Tradition is making it 3. Church suffering, militant and triumphant? What kind of teaching is that? And if you agree that the justified are called saints, where do you put as necessary the beatification and canonization of the pope?
You won’t see “church militant,” “ church triumphant,” “ nor church suffering” in the Bible, but that fact doesn‘t mean they don’t exist, in the same way that, try as you might, you will never see the word “trinity” in the Bible ( but again that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist).
In Rev 5:8 and 8:3, the saints in heaven lay the prayers of the holy ones on earth at the feet of God, that is, they support the prayers of the holy ones on earth with their (the saints') intercession. All the Church did was to give a name – “church triumphant” – to those who made it to heaven, as distinct from the living on earth, which the Church also gave a name- “church militant.”
In 2 Tim 1:18, Paul desires God’s mercy on the day of judgment for his loyal helper Onesiphorus , who apparently was already dead at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy.
In the same way, the Church simply gave a name to those in purgatory—“church suffering.”
I cannot understand why Protestants would readily accept “sola fide” even if the word is nowhere found in the Bible, and yet bristle with contempt over “church militant,” “church triumphant,” and “church suffering,” or about not finding the word “pope” in the Bible.
Now if you ask, on whose say so is St. Paul claimed to be already in heaven? The answer is, on the say so of the Church, through the Pope, by the Power of the Keys. I know you will pooh-pooh that, but that's how it is.
What do you mean by that's how it is? Meaning because the pope says so then it is? Just when did the Pope become God?
The infinite gap between Creator and creature can never be bridged, and the Pope, no matter how powerful he is, can never be God. But we are not talking about the divinization of the Pope here, we're talking about God giving the Pope fantastic powers through the Power of the Keys, which, if you will only read Isaiah 22 with all humility, begging God for the grace to understand, assuming that you, too, seek the truth, you will find that God gave the Pope authority without relinquishing his (God's) own.
If the Bible clearly tells me that I have access to the Father through faith in Jesus, how come tradition tells me to ask the intervention of saintsBecause the Bible clearly tells you so. Rev 5:8- we've been through this before. Catholics seek the intercession of saints because no less than the Bible says the saints in heaven pray for the people on earth. In the passage all it mentions are "prayers of the saints" being presented before God. But let me ask, for whom are the prayers, because by its very nature, prayers HAVE to be for someone, otherwise it's not a prayer: for the saints? No, because they're already saints, and what more do saints need- they have God, they have everything! For the angels? No, because they likewise have everything, they have God, they don't need anything else. For God? All the more, no. Then for whom?
and Mary so my prayers will be answered. How come people believe tradition's teaching that Mary is a mediatrix between me and Jesus when Jesus himself is my mediator.
The Church has always taught of one mediator: Jesus Christ.
Granting. What if I will not ask the intercession of the so called saints? Will my prayers answered or not?
How to deal with prayers is something that's exclusively God’s. Catholics ask for the intercession of saints, but Catholics accept that the decision is all God's.
Why is it that tradition is teaching the people to make a sign of the cross when praying when Jesus in teaching his apostles how to pray never mentioned about making a cross?
In the first place, Bible admits that it doesn’t contain all that Jesus taught or said (John 20:30; John 21:25).
In the second place, if Paul glories in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 6:14), why can’t the rest of the faithful? Our Lord tells His apostles, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19). What’s wrong with the faithful reminding themselves of that fact many times during the day by crossing themselves?
Why should I go through purgatory as tradition insisted when the Bible is very clear that I am a citizen of heaven?
In the first place, no one can be certain of heaven while on earth- the Bible is unequivocally clear about that (Phil 2:12). In the second place, because purgatory is something right off the Bible:
The Church teaches of an intermediate state between earth and heaven, where the soul of a person goes who dies in the state of grace, but who has not made good the temporal punishment due his sins. This is based on the premise that nothing unclean may enter heaven. So the first question now becomes: Is this statement, i.e., nothing unclean may enter heaven , Scriptural?
Rev 21:27 tells us it is. But then Protestants will say: “Precisely, that is why Christ died on the Cross for our sins, so that God, by the merit of Christ’s sacrifice, will declare the justified clean, and thus would be able to enter heaven.
But the Church teaches that justification is not just a forensic declaration, but an actual and complete removal of sins. The Bible is replete with passages explicitly telling of a "washing away," a "blottting out," a "taking away" of sins S(Ps 50:3 Is 43:25 Is 44:22 Acts 3:19 Chr 21:8 2 Sam 12:13 Mich 7:18 John 1:29 Ps 102:12 Ps 50:4 Is 1:16 Ez 36:25 Acts 22:16 1 Cor 6:11 Heb 1:3 1 John 1:7 Ps 3:1 Ps 84:3 Mt 9:2-6 Luke 7:47 John 20:23 Mt 26:28 Eph 1:7), that we would have to tear off many pages of the Bible if we insist on forensic declaration.
Here, I will give Scriptural proof in support of the Church’s teaching of a purification in that state called “purgatory.”
2 Mac 12:42-46 describes the Jews praying for their dead. Now, that’d be pointless if there were no intermediate state, as saints in heaven do not need prayers, and neither do the damned in hell.
Neither would Mt 12:32 make sense if there were no intermediate state (” And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.”), for there ‘s no forgiveness for the damned in hell, and neither is forgiveness needed for the saints in heaven.
In 1 Cor 3:12 Paul says that the work of the Christian teacher of faith who continues to build on the foundation , which is Christ, but in doing so uses wood, hay, and straw (i.e., perform bad work) will not stand when it is tested in the fire on the last day, that is, in the manner of a man who , in the catastrop0he of a conflagration, loses everything and barely saves his life (cf v15 “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; yet he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”). This passage refers to a transient purification punishment, literally, by fire.
Mt 5:26 threatens: “Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.” Every petty transgression must first be expiated. So here we see, that nothing in this world is ever free. The stealing, the killing, the philandering, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, in-vitro fertilization, stem-cell - if only the perpetrators know that everything will be paid for, they wouldn’t be so bold.
No comments:
Post a Comment