Tradition is Dead


#1

**Colossians 2:14
obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;

Footnote from the New American Bible,
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:**

The elaborate metaphor here about how God canceled the legal claims against us through Christ’s cross depicts not Christ being nailed to the cross by men but the bond . . . with its legal claims being nailed to the cross by God.

The original greek word for ‘legal claims’ is the word dogma.

My question is, since the dogma, or rituals have been done away with, would Paul preach water baptism, going to confession, taking communion, celebrating christmas, and all the rest, if he were alive today?

:coffeeread:


Baptism and its meaning
#2

Yes


#3

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains Tradition as:
*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.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.*

St. Paul instructed:
2THES 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

St. Paul wrote this before the other New Testament writing even existed.

Mick


#4

Yes.
Gal 1:6-9 is a dogmatic statement by Paul, so how could dogmas have gone away?


#5

In Colossians 2:14, the “dogmas” done away with are those of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has its own “dogmas” which are to be observed.As they [Barnabas and Paul] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions (Greek: dogmata) which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)


#6

**
Gal. 1:6-9 is a dogmatic statement? :hmmm:

Gal 1:6
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

Footnote from the New American Bible,
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Paul, with little to be thankful for in the Galatian situation, expresses amazement at the way his converts are deserting the gospel of Christ for a perverted message. He reasserts the one gospel he has preached (Gal 1:7-9) and begins to defend himself (Gal 1:10).

Would you be so kind at to expand upon your thoughts as to why you think this citation confirms your belief that Paul would support rituals if he were alive today?**


#7

UMMM just a thought here. BUT… could it be that maybe just maybe there were people out who where in the habit of pulling a passage out of the bible and trying to pass it off as something totally different.:rolleyes:

On a side note if you are trying to imply that the letters by the magistrum are perverted messages, than you must not believe out Lords words when He promised that the gates of hell could not prevail against His church.


#8

Tradition is inescapable. One who would claim otherwise would do well to re-examine his paradigms.

Peace,
+N


#9

It was the OT laws with its requirements that were nailed to the cross. Read the whole book to learn its flow of thought.


#10

Christ himself instituted the Sacraments and Paul did nothing to abolish them.

Yes, God made some changes from the old Law and Rituals. But Christ did not abolish his OWN priesthood, which he exercises via his Church and Sacraments.


#11

First of all why do you limit all of the things you’ve cited to Paul?
Isn’t the Bible a cohesive whole? If an issue isn’t addressed by a writer in scripture but found elsewhere, is still affirmed by all in scipture since God is the primary author.
And it is apparent that you read the Bible as do many non-Catholics, with twenty first century lense and with the false idea that every issue in life has to be in the Bible.

Of course Gal 1:6-9 IS a dogmatic statement; either a person preaches the gospel correctly or not. There are many in scripture, and Jesus made a number of them also Mt 10:22.

Paul would support rituals because they aren’t evil within themselves. Rituals are part of Christian worship no matter if one is Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant. You seem to think rituals are evil or wrong for some reason.
Paul in 1 Cor 11:18-34 speaks of rituals that he was taught which come directly from Jesus as Jesus took many Jewish rituals and perfected them culcating them into the New Testament law of grace.
"First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; there have to be factions among you in order that (also) those who are approved among you may become known. When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you. **For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, ****and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” **In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord."
Notice that Paul speaks of Jesus performing a ritual within the liturgy of the Eucharistic sacrifice or what we Catholics call the Mass.

And finally, you are quoting from the USCCB website which is a commentary and doesn’t always address every issue within that commentary either.


#12

Jesus perfected the law. We now are bound to hold it. He gave us many teachings, and he gave authority not to a book but to men and while many like to forget this, it is written in the scripture for all to know.
I would get a better bible study if I were you.
Where are you getting your bible understanding from, if I may ask tabcom?


#13

**
Isn’t Paul referring to standing firm against gossip regarding false claims about the coming of the Lord?

Footnote from the New American Bible,
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

[1-17] The Thessalonians have been shaken by a message purporting to come from Paul himself that the day of the Lord is already present.

Reference to an oral statement and a letter (2 Thes 2:2) and the content here, including a formula of conclusion (cf 1 Cor 16:13; Gal 5:1), suggest that 2 Thes 2:1-15 or even 2 Thes 2:1-17 are to be taken as a literary unit, notwithstanding the incidental thanksgiving formula in 2 Thes 2:13.

By the way . . .

The English word ‘traditions’ in this verse is not the same original greek word used in Col. 2:14.

paradosis (par-ad’-os-is) –

  1. giving up, giving over
    1. the act of giving up
    2. the surrender of cities
  2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
    1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
    2. of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

MickC, I do appreciate your contribution to the thread. However, your citation of 2 Thes 2:15 fails to adequately answer the question in the affirmative.

“Would Paul preach water baptism, going to confession, taking communion, celebrating christmas, and all the rest, if he were alive today? **


#14

Another good reason Not Worthy and myself do not like the NAB.


#15

You may add me to the list of mistrusting not only the NAB, but any English Language Bible.
:bible1: :heart:Interlinear Bible :knight2:


#16

Thank you, but I am very satisfyed with my bibles.:thumbsup:


#17

**The dogma that was being observed can be read in Acts 15:24-29.
Specifically, the apostles and elders had decreed that if a gentile wanted to be a member of the church, that was exclusively jewish at this time, they had to do the following:

abstain from:
things offered to idols
eating food with blood
eaiting food from animals that were strangled
sexual immorality

Thank you for contributing this citation of dogma. But it still does not answer my orginal question.**

[/quote]

**If I understand this correctly, there is 'T’radition, and then there is 't’radition. 'T’radtion is absolute. 't’radition is arbirtray and subject to change and be done away with.

In light of 'T’radition vs. 't’radition catechism; would Paul support 't’radition at all?
**


#18

Again, the Bible is filled with dogmatic statements and this isn’t just a “Catholic” view. My Charles Ryrie NAS (Baptist) study Bible says this about Gal 1:8 in the footnotes…

“accursed. Lit., anathema, or devoted to destruction. Ecclesiastically, it was accompanied by excommunication.”
(page 1770)

Ryrie obviously doesn’t follow the Catholic church, he’s a Baptist, however his quote reveals what I say he recognizes, that Paul had the ecclesiastical authority given to him via Jesus Christ (Luke 10:16) to proclaim those who were preaching a false gospel as “anathema” which would therefore be accompanied by "excommunication."
This IS a dogmatic statement by Paul; anyone who proclaimes another gospel is anathema (excommunicated). Now, when we look to the history of Christianity, who is it that uses the same words as Paul but the Catholic church; and it does so I might add with boldness and authority which gives evidence to its authority and showing itself as holding fast to the Tradition of the Apostles who passed down this authority to anathematize.
Also, many Protestants read the word “anathema” and automatically label it strictly as accursed to hell, as though the Catholic church knows who goes to hell even though when it is used in ecclesiastical documents (as it is being used here with Paul in Gal 1:6-9 and in councils like Trent), it actually means to be accursed in the ecclessiatical sense or excommuncated, NOT condemned to hell.


#19

To be clear, the CC does not make any statement as to who specifically is in Hell.


#20

All revelation was given up to the last Apostle. That all Christians agree upon this is also true. And that it nowhere says in the Bible that all revelation would stop at the death of the last Apostle is also true. Tradition was finished as being given by God, after the death of the last Apostle, however, delving deeper into a better and more clear understanding of the Tradition given to the Apostles continues. It is just like the Trinity. To be a Christian in the first century was to understand that Jesus was divine, as is God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Yet how all three persons in relation to one another of the one God and how they shared in that Godhead wasn’t clearly known until the Catholic council of Nicea 325 guided by the Holy Spirit, authoritatively pronounced the three persons, one God as being “homoosius” or of the same substance and was therefore born a two new words homoosius and Trinity.
This is an example of the Catholic church delving deeper into the understanding into the sacred Tradition given to the Apostles.

Of the acorn and the oak tree. All of the same DNA of the oak tree is also within the acorn even though one young and one older. Yet when the acorn grows it turns into an oak tree so that we can see all of its growth. And you as a baby are the same person as you are now, you have the exact same DNA as when you were born, yet you are grown up. This is how the Catholic church is, it has the infancy of the New Testament and the early church, however in time it appears to be different but it’s NOT for it is the same church as you and I are the same people as when we were infants; just now more grown up. :slight_smile:

If I understand this correctly, there is 'T’radition, and then there is 't’radition. 'T’radtion is absolute. 't’radition is arbirtray and subject to change and be done away with.

In light of 'T’radition vs. 't’radition catechism; would Paul support 't’radition at all?

**

Well, of course. Tradition is infallible because it is from God like the canon of scripture, and other immutable portions of the moral law since they can’t contradict the natural law because it is a universal truth i.e., contraception is always an objectively immoral and grave act even though subjectively some aren’t culpable because of their ignorance.
Small t tradition isn’t infallible and can change like abstaining from meat on Fridays and replacing it with another form of penance, (yes its in the Bible Mt 6:16-18), however, we are always obligated to be under the authority of the Catholic church, and its laws (canon law) since it is the authoritative church established by Christ; which means the Bishop within ones diocese who also can proclaim local traditions which can be changed but are also authoritative to his flock.
An example of this is the Bishop applying a holy day of obligation to be transfered to Sunday from a week day. If the Bishop does not transfer that day, then we are obligated (to the best of our ability) to go on the day it falls upon.**


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.