Where does the Pope get his authority?

[amigo de christo]

GOD makes... CHRISTians.


MAN makes : Denominations

and yet many within christendom KNOW NOT GOD OR CHRIST . another love has fed their flesh right into
the lie that has fed many and cometh of the well favored harlot . She is one sneaky HO too . as is her father the devil .

 

[amigo de christo]

Times running out . Time is , IS RUNNING OUT .
and though hand joins in hand and the denominations merge with the harlot
and though the false religoins too merge
WHAT WILL THEY DO IN THE END THEREOF . FOR THE DOOR WILL SHUT SUDDENLY
and their wailing will BE HEARD .

 

[amigo de christo]

Pray and ponder and ponder and pray and open thy bible and in it DO stay .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

This is all uninspired men!!!

You catholics always try to prove your unbiblical interpretations NOT WITH BOOK, CHAPTER AND VERSE BUT WITH OUTSIDE SOURCES APART FROM THE BIBLE.

This entire post PROVES NOTHING


Commentaries are nothing but MANS OPINIONS

Sooo, you are anti-Protestant!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Translated,
Scripture and catholic church tradition never contradict one another.

That's funny

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

ITS BIBLE TIME!​

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:

1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition"

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 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.

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”
by Dave Armstrong

 

[Titus]

ITS BIBLE TIME!​

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:



Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

Traditions I'm not against.

You try to claim tradition is catholic tradition.
Paul never said catholic tradition.

Paul said to keep the traditions of the APOSTLES.
Acts 2:42,
- and they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship in the breaking of bread and in prayers

Not catholic doctrine!!!
Therefore keeping the traditions are in the new testament, the traditions of the apostles and the new testament church.
Which is not nor ever was the catholic church.

2Thessalonians 2:15,
- therefore brethren standfast and hold to the traditions which you were taught(by the apostles) whether by word(oral) or by epistle(written)

No traditions are to be followed outside what the apostles themselves taught according to Paul.

The apostles doctrine WAS(PAST TENSE) ONCE FOR ALL TIME DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS.
No more doctrine outside the completed revelation of God i.e. Holy Bible

Jude 3,
- I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith(gospel)
Which WAS ONCE FOR ALL TIME DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS

Latter day revelation is condemned by Gods Sacred Scriptures!!!

Galatians 1:6-8,
- I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the gospel of Christ, to a different gospel which is not another
- but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ
But even if we(apostles) or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we(apostles) have preached let him be accursed

No other men can preach anything other than what come out of the apostles mouths in this new testament!!!
You better pay close attention to WHOS TRADITIONS AND WHOS GOSPEL.

It says nothing of outside the Scriptures.
That is heresy.

All additions and subtractions are sin and the punishment is hellfire,

Revelation 22:18-19,
- if anyone  adds to them God will add to him the plagues described in this book
- and if anyone takes away from the words of this prophecy, God will take away His share in the tree of life and the holy city which are described in this book

 

[Titus]

Deut. 4:2,
- You shall not add to the  word which I am commanding you, nor take  away from it
So that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Traditions I'm not against.

You are against mythical tradition of your imagination. Obviously you have no clue what the Bible says about it and you have not addressed as single thing in my last 2 posts.

You try to claim tradition is catholic tradition.
Paul never said catholic tradition.

Neither did I. I gave examples of where tradition is in the Bible that you are trying to disqualify by adding the word "catholic", and even that won't work.

Paul said to keep the traditions of the APOSTLES.
Acts 2:42,
- and they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship in the breaking of bread and in prayers

All Sacred Traditions flow from the beliefs and authentic practices BEFORE the canon of Scripture. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. Scripture and Tradition flow from the same divine wellspring, Tradition is not an add-on as you might think.

Not catholic doctrine!!!
Therefore keeping the traditions are in the new testament, the traditions of the apostles and the new testament church.
Which is not nor ever was the catholic church.

Then you must reject the tradition of the episcopate; (deacon, priest, bishop) the Bible doesn't do that.
Do you at least have a bishop? And if you do, is it a male?

Without the tradition of the episcopate, that you despise, there would be no Bible. Your position is illogical and self defeating.
"Which is not nor ever was the catholic church." Atheists say the same thing about Jesus so your argumentation is devoid of common sense.

 

[RedFan]

Paul said to keep the traditions of the APOSTLES

You're gonna have to show me that one. WHERE?

 

[Titus]

You are against mythical tradition of your imagination. Obviously you have no clue what the Bible says about it and you have not addressed as single thing in my last 2 posts

Biblical tradition. You are trying to include uninspired men that came after the completion of Gods holy book.The passages I already quoted DOES NOT ALLOW NOR INCLUDE "TRADITIONS FROM UNINSPIRED MEN.

Neither did I. I gave examples of where tradition is in the Bible that you are trying to disqualify by adding the word "catholic", and even that won't work

You do out of ignorance.
You try to add to the traditions of the new testament church by including traditions that cannot be found in the Scriptures therefore are not Biblical examples.
The catholic church came after the church of Christ in the new testament.

 

[Titus]

You're gonna have to show me that one. WHERE?

2Thessalonians 2:15,
- therefore brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word( oral) or by letter(written)

nice to meet you RedFan

 

[Behold]

the New Testament was taken FROM Tradition.

That's not true. "cult of the Virgin", seller.

THE NT, was taken from the Apostle's letters..

They are called : EPISTLES = in the NT.

Here is what the NT says about "Catholic Tradition"....It says that it voids, it denies the word of God. = "Made it of NONE Effect"

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

That's not true. "cult of the Virgin", seller.

THE NT, was taken from the Apostle's letters..

They are called : EPISTLES = in the NT.

Here is what the NT says about "Catholic Tradition"....It says that it voids, it denies the word of God. = "Made it of NONE Effect"

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic.
There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

https://www.cin.org/users/james/reference/info_sources.htm#tradition

Sola scriptura, a man made tradition, LIMITS GOD to one mode of teaching. The Bible doesn't do that, but you don't care, you do it anyway.

 

[Behold]

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture

The context of the Verse, is .....

Its the "YOU" who is doing it.. (context of the Verse).....and that is the Person teaching, or the Denomination itself that places "Traditions of Men" as Equal to the word of God, or above it.
And that is exactly what Catholics do... always.
Any Catholic, when they try to teach doctrine, theology.. .always run to : "our Church Father's said".. as their Final Authority.

Often they'll do it like this.

"Now, Augustine said of Paul's verse... that"...

Or.. "Jerome teaches, that Peter's verse, means".

Or...... "recently, Pope Francis said that what Paul means is...."""

 

[Augustin56]

Translated,
Scripture and catholic church tradition never contradict one another.

That's funny

That's not true. "cult of the Virgin", seller.

THE NT, was taken from the Apostle's letters..

They are called : EPISTLES = in the NT.

Here is what the NT says about "Catholic Tradition"....It says that it voids, it denies the word of God. = "Made it of NONE Effect"

Considering that the first writing of the New Testament occurred years after Jesus ascended to heaven, where would the writers have obtained the information to write the books?

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. That would have been very ineffective since only a tiny percentage of humanity were literate until fairly recently in history. He trained the Apostles orally and taught them to do the same. The first first writing of the New Testament wasn't written until about 50 A.D., long after Jesus had ascended to heaven. And it was taking from the oral teaching (Tradition) given them by Jesus.

If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon, everything starts to look like a nail. Jesus founded a Church to spread His truths, not a book. The Church preceded the New Testament, not vice versa. It was the Church that wrote and provided the New Testament.

 

[Behold]

Considering that the first writing of the New Testament occurred years after Jesus ascended to heaven, where would the writers have obtained the information to write the books?

When your "first Pope" said....>that Paul's letters are "Scripture"...then that is the answer you have not been show by the "cult of the Virgin".

The Apostles Letters are the Epistles.

(See any NT for the update) tho not the Douay Rheims "bible" as that one is Satanic.

Your "cult of the virgin" Traditions, mean a lot to you, because you are taught to have that View.

Catholicism does that to your mind.
You are the living proof, @Augustin56

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The context of the Verse, is .....

Its the "YOU" who is doing it.. (context of the Verse).....and that is the Person teaching, or the Denomination itself that places "Traditions of Men" as Equal to the word of God, or above it.

That is your tradition to make reckless airhead statements.

And that is exactly what Catholics do... always.
Any Catholic, when they try to teach doctrine, theology.. .always run to : "our Church Father's said".. as their Final Authority.

No, we don't. The BIBLICAL rule of faith is Scripture, Magisterium and Tradition. all in harmony and one is not over the other. The Church Fathers give witness to what the early Church believed. Not only that, they preserved, canonized, and proclaimed the Scriptures 12+ centuries before the first Protestant was born.

Understand, these are the apostles of the apostles, the Christians who were taught by the very first Christians that Jesus taught. These are giants of Christianity who had direct access to those who heard Jesus’s very words, and touched his flesh. As an evangelical I didn’t even realize that this material exists and when I did, I began to devour it.

As a naive, curious Christian I began to read the Early Church Fathers only to find out that they were startlingly Catholic. The Fathers wrote about Jesus being really present in Holy Communion—not simply as a symbol. They wrote, endlessly, about the importance of submitting to Bishops and respecting the authority of the Church—a Church which, in their minds, Jesus began, the apostles continued, and then passed on to them, by appointing them into places of authority.

When I began to realize that the Early Church didn’t look like the evangelical tradition I had grown up in I was shocked, and then affronted. I was always told, as an evangelical, that “house churches” were biblical—that independent, small groups of Christians meeting in an “upper room” was what happened in the first centuries of Christianity.

Instead, the Early Church is decidedly Catholic in its doctrine and its hierarchical structure, and if you’re not careful, you may come to a similarly shocking conclusion as I did. And then what?

Often they'll do it like this.

"Now, Augustine said of Paul's verse... that"...

Or.. "Jerome teaches, that Peter's verse, means".

Or...... "recently, Pope Francis said that what Paul means is...."""

Jerome, Augustine and Pope Francis teaches with an authority you don't have. Your "authority" is gleaned from anything on the internet that slanders the CC. That makes you a slave or an addict to anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[Behold]

That is your tradition to make reckless airhead statements.

If im making "airhead statements" then you would understand them, perfectly... @Jude Thaddeus

The Church Fathers give witness to what the early Church believed.

Previously i pointed out that every "cult of the Virgin" member, will always talk about "church fathers".

Thank you for being that one.., as i told you .

these are the apostles of the apostles, the Christians who were taught by the very first Christians that Jesus taught. These are giants of Christianity

The "giants of Christianity" would be the original Apostles, + Paul.

The "cult of the Virgin" wants you to believe that the CATHOLIC Church Fathers, (they coined that term) are for you, all you need.
And that is not the case.
Study the NT, instead.

As a naive, curious Christian I began to read the Early Church Fathers

Yes, that is how cults get you.
As baby Christians are looking for Spiritual Light, so, the Devil brings them something that pretends to be "of God" and they dont know that its not....

That is how a person becomes a "cult member"...

When I began to realize that the Early Church didn’t look like the evangelical tradition

True, as there is a lot of difference, theologically speaking, between devotion to MARY and Devotion to CHRIST.

You are correct.

Instead, the Early Church is decidedly Catholic

Not at all.
But, the "cult of the Virgin" teaches you to teach that falsehood.

Jerome,

Jerome is the reason that Luther left the "cult of the Virgin"
'
Luther was a "translator" and He read Jerome's mistranslation of "Repentance" into "PENANCE", that you are still doing.
That is Jerome's LIE, his purposed mistranslation,.. and once Luther saw that, he then researched more and realized he was involved with something man-made and not God ordained.

 

[Augustin56]

When your "first Pope" said....>that Paul's letters are "Scripture"...then that is the answer you have not been show by the "cult of the Virgin".

The Apostles Letters are the Epistles.

(See any NT for the update) tho not the Douay Rheims "bible" as that one is Satanic.

Your "cult of the virgin" Traditions, mean a lot to you, because you are taught to have that View.

Catholicism does that to your mind.
You are the living proof, @Augustin56

There were over 300+ letters, documents, books, etc., that were considered important writings. The Catholic Church, at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, in the late 4th century, chose 27 (only) of those 300+ to be considered formally as Scripture. That was when the New Testament was decided. You have a New Testament on the authority given the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ. Or do you deny that the New Testament is worthy of being called Scripture?

Your prejudice has blinded you to the truth. Far more educated anti-Catholics than you have come to a knowledge of the Truth and converted to Christ's Church, the Catholic Church. Many were Protestant pastors and theologians. Dr. Scott Hahn (ex Presbyterian pastor and theologian), Marcus Grodi (ex Presbyterian pastor), Michael Garcia (Pentecostal minister), James Whittaker (Baptist minister), and many others. You can read their conversion stories here, if you have the courage: Written Stories Archive - The Coming Home Network (There are over 30 pages of testimonies of people who converted to the Catholic Church here through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.)