History and the consistency is important. Most of my protestant friends do not want to read the history of the church, they sometimes say "that's not scripture". It's very frustrating to see and hear the lack of common sense from them.
That's why when I encountered Christ as an atheist I only wanted to be Catholic. Catholics are the OGs, the Real Deal and there are not scared of the Truth. Also the Church is beautiful and irresistible, like Christ.
@BZman7. The vast majority of so-called “Protestants” have no historical ties to the Reformation. You met and befriended some non-Catholics, not actual Protestants. Protestants not only care about history, they declare it theirs. As Calvin similarly commented, “The Fathers are OURS.” To me, I’m sorry, but you all are the ones who don’t know history!
@@bengoolie5197 The command of the Second Council of Nicaea to venerate images clearly contradicts Exodus 20:4-5, no matter how often and how vehemently Catholic and Orthodox Christians deny it.
@@stephenwright4973 Nicaea contradicts your fallible and error-prone interpretation of any and all scripture verses. The Holy Catholic Church, which Jesus built, is the pillar and foundation of truth.
@@bengoolie5197 This is the standard reply, with the standard wrenching of 1 Timothy 3:15 from its context; and it is so revealing of your real position. Confronted with a Scripture that contradicts "Sacred Tradition," the response is always "But the Church has spoken." Your response shows that your ultimate faith is not in the truth of God's infallible word, but in the word of your church. Instead of subjecting your life and practice to the guidance and correction of the Word of God, you subject the Word of God to the correction of later church traditions. My friend, that is the fatal error of the Pharisees, who made "the Word of God" (as recorded in the Scriptures) "of none effect through their tradition" (Mark 7:13). God said, clearly enough, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or ANY LIKENESS of any thing...Thou shalt not BOW DOWN [προσκυνήσεις in the LXX] to them, nor serve them..." (Ex.20:4-5). 2nd Nicaea says, Anathema to those who refuse to venerate (offer proskunesis to) the sacred images, and to those of doubtful mind about venerating them! It's not a question of interpretation. It's a question of which authority you trust more: the Scriptures, or the political appointees of Empress Irene whose "tradition" was imposed on a supposedly infallible church in AD 787, in defiance of the Scriptures and under pain of anathema upon all who dissented or doubted. Protestants decline to place their faith in the word of Empress Irene or her pet bishops. But all Catholic and Orthodox Christians have done so.
If one carefully reads 2 timothy 3:17 we find the New Testament Scriptures are enough .... "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." exartizó = "furnished completely" for "every" good work. That the New testament Scriptures are included here in this passage is confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:15 where St Paul makes reference to the wisdom that the Scriptures provide concerning salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The Old Testament only gives us shadows and types of the coming Messiah. Only in the New Testament do we have his name manifested. Jesus. 2 timothy 3:17 makes it perfectly clear that the man of God has been furnished completely through the Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament) for EVERY GOOD WORK. St. Paul does not say that the man of God has been “partially furnish” … or “somewhat furnished,” but rather the man of God has been exartizó = "furnished completely" for "every" good work through the Scriptures of the 1st century. Likewise, Jesus told His Apostles that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, who would guide them in ALL TRUTH, (See John `16:13). Hence, the 1st century Apostles of Jesus were guided by the Spirit of Truth into ALL TRUTH as related to the faith. Jesus never promised His Apostles that New Revelations of Truth (that is, later traditions) would come centuries later through the Roman Catholic Church. Of course the following Scripture is the corker that slams the door on the traditions of the Romans Catholic Church: Jude wrote the following inspired Words: “... earnestly contend for the Faith that was ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS.” Jude 1:3 makes it clear that the Christians Faith-the body of Christian Doctrines necessary for obtaining life and godliness-was completed and delivered unto the Saints of the Church before the end of the 1st century. And guess what? Our dear Apostle Peter echoes this same sentiment in 2 Peter 1:3, 4 when he writes: “His divine power HAS GRANTED to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he HAS GRANTED to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature …” (2 Peter 1:3, 4) St. Peter makes it clear to his readers of the 1st century Church, that God “HAS GRANTED” (past perfect tense) everything they need to experience life, godliness, and the divine nature. Neither St. Peter nor any of the other Apostles ever stated that there would be subsequent writings, traditions or revelations that would enable us to experience life, godliness, and the divine nature. No, the writings of 2 Peter 1:3, 4 both declare and confirm the writings of our brother Jude who makes it clear that the Faith of the Church has “once for all been delivered (past tense) to the Saints” of the 1st Century.
@harmur80 Excellent answer, you've summarized why we can't trust what Catholics and Orthodox call 'sacred tradition'. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).
Except, 2nd Timothy is specifically speaking of Scripture available to Timothy "from youth". This CANNOT include the New Testament books, and the other books that would most likely be available and understandable to Diaspora Jewish people like Timothy's mother. This would be the Greek Septuagint, including the books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, and others.
Sacred tradition as the word of God? That wreaks of blasphemy. But leave it to Catholics and their apologists to make it sound scriptural. Tradition is mentioned about thirteen times in scripture. Of those, eleven were in a negative sense. Both Jesus and Paul spoke against traditions. The church has not stopped adding traditions throughout the centuries. So why do they quote 2 Thess in defense of tradition. Paul clearly says to STAND FAST and HOLD the traditions that you have been taught. I don't think stand fast and hold need further clarification, right? The it says have been taught, not will be taught. How does scripture in any way imply that it's ok to keep adding traditions? And in the letter to the Corinthians Paul says, KEEP the traditions AS I delivered them unto you." Does keep or "as I delivered them " need explaining? Catholics are the only ones that don't get. They always find a way to corrupt God's word with their interpretation. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the church gives itself sole authority to interpret scripture.
Paul did not read the New Testament to the Thessalonians. The New Testament had not yet been written; the Thessalonians came early in Paul's missionary endeavors.
@rbnmnt3341. Good reply. Catholics don’t actually have any evidence that they possess a single word of Apostolic oral tradition. So there’s really no such thing as Sacred Tradition. It’s just an excuse to infuse more authority into certain teachings that pop up which they wish to maintain. It’s a rather cultic way of dealing with authority. And the Vincentian Canon, which this guy keeps bringing up pretty much disproves Catholicism. Because not one Roman distinctive can be shown to go back to the beginning. What we have instead is what was believed “nowhere, never, and by none.”
Hello I think the problem is putting “tradition” on the same level as scripture What Catholics seem to do is say they can trace their authority back to Peter, and since they think they are a succession of that authority, then what is taught from that seat of authority is truth The problem is that’s the same thing the Pharisees did They sat on the seat of Moses They were supposed to be successors of Moses so their tradition would be true But what did Jesus say about their tradition?? And why did he say it was wrong and how did he conclude it? Compared it to scripture If you teach tradition on the same authority level as scripture and it’s not founded in scripture and contradicts it then it’s wrong So saying “we are successors of Peter” doesn’t make your tradition true, let alone the same level as scripture Because it’s the same thing the Pharisees did “We are successors of Moses therefore our tradition is true and authoritative” Now insert Peter for Moses and that’s basically the Catholic argument I don’t think it works
@Mitchell C, your ignorance of what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us is a bliss, indeed, because this Bible verse definitely supports the Catholic Church's position and refutes every single thing you said and understand here. Little knowledge is dangerous (because it bridges contempt) and ignorance is a bliss (indeed).
@@mitchellc4, go to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers -- they, being the successors of the Apostles -- and their writings -- being the best references for how and what the oral apostolic teachings are -- as being handed down to the early Christians and to the erly Church. I'm actually not surprised you don't know about these... are you?
@@voxangeli9205 Hello Thanks for responding So we should decide whether or not a tradition is good based on whether or not it agrees with the early Christians? Should we measure against scripture too? Or just the writings of the early church?
@@mitchellc4, think, understand and realize this: THAT THE TRUTHS OF THE SCRIPTURE, THE WITNESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS THAT MANIFEST BOTH THE WRITTEN AND ORAL TRADITIONS OF THE APOSTLES, AND THE BELIEFS OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS -- ALL ARE COMPLEMENTARY, CONGRUENT AND COHERENT TO EACH OTHER. Do you know why?...
Looking forward to it! I love Mr. Michuta, what a great guy.
This was a really good show. Gary definitely cleared up what Apostolic Tradition actually is.
History and the consistency is important. Most of my protestant friends do not want to read the history of the church, they sometimes say "that's not scripture". It's very frustrating to see and hear the lack of common sense from them.
That's why when I encountered Christ as an atheist I only wanted to be Catholic. Catholics are the OGs, the Real Deal and there are not scared of the Truth. Also the Church is beautiful and irresistible, like Christ.
@@viviennedunbar3374, wow, beautiful!😇🥰👍
@BZman7. The vast majority of so-called “Protestants” have no historical ties to the Reformation. You met and befriended some non-Catholics, not actual Protestants. Protestants not only care about history, they declare it theirs. As Calvin similarly commented, “The Fathers are OURS.” To me, I’m sorry, but you all are the ones who don’t know history!
Really appreciated this episode!
Beautiful video! God bless! 🙏
This was very insightful, thank you for making this video
I wached Gary ,,in EWTN...realy nice job
When traditions contradict scriptures, how de we do?
Give an example of Sacred Tradition contradicting the scriptures.
@@bengoolie5197 The command of the Second Council of Nicaea to venerate images clearly contradicts Exodus 20:4-5, no matter how often and how vehemently Catholic and Orthodox Christians deny it.
@@stephenwright4973 Nicaea contradicts your fallible and error-prone interpretation of any and all scripture verses. The Holy Catholic Church, which Jesus built, is the pillar and foundation of truth.
@@bengoolie5197 This is the standard reply, with the standard wrenching of 1 Timothy 3:15 from its context; and it is so revealing of your real position. Confronted with a Scripture that contradicts "Sacred Tradition," the response is always "But the Church has spoken." Your response shows that your ultimate faith is not in the truth of God's infallible word, but in the word of your church. Instead of subjecting your life and practice to the guidance and correction of the Word of God, you subject the Word of God to the correction of later church traditions. My friend, that is the fatal error of the Pharisees, who made "the Word of God" (as recorded in the Scriptures) "of none effect through their tradition" (Mark 7:13).
God said, clearly enough, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or ANY LIKENESS of any thing...Thou shalt not BOW DOWN [προσκυνήσεις in the LXX] to them, nor serve them..." (Ex.20:4-5). 2nd Nicaea says, Anathema to those who refuse to venerate (offer proskunesis to) the sacred images, and to those of doubtful mind about venerating them!
It's not a question of interpretation. It's a question of which authority you trust more: the Scriptures, or the political appointees of Empress Irene whose "tradition" was imposed on a supposedly infallible church in AD 787, in defiance of the Scriptures and under pain of anathema upon all who dissented or doubted.
Protestants decline to place their faith in the word of Empress Irene or her pet bishops. But all Catholic and Orthodox Christians have done so.
The audio on Sean's mic is not very good.
If one carefully reads 2 timothy 3:17 we find the New Testament Scriptures are enough .... "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." exartizó = "furnished completely" for "every" good work. That the New testament Scriptures are included here in this passage is confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:15 where St Paul makes reference to the wisdom that the Scriptures provide concerning salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The Old Testament only gives us shadows and types of the coming Messiah. Only in the New Testament do we have his name manifested. Jesus.
2 timothy 3:17 makes it perfectly clear that the man of God has been furnished completely through the Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament) for EVERY GOOD WORK. St. Paul does not say that the man of God has been “partially furnish” … or “somewhat furnished,” but rather the man of God has been exartizó = "furnished completely" for "every" good work through the Scriptures of the 1st century.
Likewise, Jesus told His Apostles that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, who would guide them in ALL TRUTH, (See John `16:13). Hence, the 1st century Apostles of Jesus were guided by the Spirit of Truth into ALL TRUTH as related to the faith. Jesus never promised His Apostles that New Revelations of Truth (that is, later traditions) would come centuries later through the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course the following Scripture is the corker that slams the door on the traditions of the Romans Catholic Church:
Jude wrote the following inspired Words: “... earnestly contend for the Faith that was ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS.” Jude 1:3 makes it clear that the Christians Faith-the body of Christian Doctrines necessary for obtaining life and godliness-was completed and delivered unto the Saints of the Church before the end of the 1st century.
And guess what? Our dear Apostle Peter echoes this same sentiment in 2 Peter 1:3, 4 when he writes:
“His divine power HAS GRANTED to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he HAS GRANTED to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature …” (2 Peter 1:3, 4)
St. Peter makes it clear to his readers of the 1st century Church, that God “HAS GRANTED” (past perfect tense) everything they need to experience life, godliness, and the divine nature.
Neither St. Peter nor any of the other Apostles ever stated that there would be subsequent writings, traditions or revelations that would enable us to experience life, godliness, and the divine nature. No, the writings of 2 Peter 1:3, 4 both declare and confirm the writings of our brother Jude who makes it clear that the Faith of the Church has “once for all been delivered (past tense) to the Saints” of the 1st Century.
@harmur80
Excellent answer, you've summarized why we can't trust what Catholics and Orthodox call 'sacred tradition'. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).
@@stephenwright4973 Now that is a Scripture that we all--protestants and Catholics--need to take to heart. thanks for sharing. harry
Except, 2nd Timothy is specifically speaking of Scripture available to Timothy "from youth".
This CANNOT include the New Testament books, and the other books that would most likely be available and understandable to Diaspora Jewish people like Timothy's mother.
This would be the Greek Septuagint, including the books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, and others.
Sacred tradition as the word of God? That wreaks of blasphemy. But leave it to Catholics and their apologists to make it sound scriptural. Tradition is mentioned about thirteen times in scripture. Of those, eleven were in a negative sense. Both Jesus and Paul spoke against traditions. The church has not stopped adding traditions throughout the centuries. So why do they quote 2 Thess in defense of tradition. Paul clearly says to STAND FAST and HOLD the traditions that you have been taught. I don't think stand fast and hold need further clarification, right? The it says have been taught, not will be taught. How does scripture in any way imply that it's ok to keep adding traditions? And in the letter to the Corinthians Paul says, KEEP the traditions AS I delivered them unto you." Does keep or "as I delivered them " need explaining? Catholics are the only ones that don't get. They always find a way to corrupt God's word with their interpretation. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the church gives itself sole authority to interpret scripture.
Paul did not read the New Testament to the Thessalonians. The New Testament had not yet been written; the Thessalonians came early in Paul's missionary endeavors.
@rbnmnt3341. Good reply. Catholics don’t actually have any evidence that they possess a single word of Apostolic oral tradition. So there’s really no such thing as Sacred Tradition. It’s just an excuse to infuse more authority into certain teachings that pop up which they wish to maintain. It’s a rather cultic way of dealing with authority.
And the Vincentian Canon, which this guy keeps bringing up pretty much disproves Catholicism. Because not one Roman distinctive can be shown to go back to the beginning. What we have instead is what was believed “nowhere, never, and by none.”
Hello
I think the problem is putting “tradition” on the same level as scripture
What Catholics seem to do is say they can trace their authority back to Peter, and since they think they are a succession of that authority, then what is taught from that seat of authority is truth
The problem is that’s the same thing the Pharisees did
They sat on the seat of Moses
They were supposed to be successors of Moses so their tradition would be true
But what did Jesus say about their tradition??
And why did he say it was wrong and how did he conclude it?
Compared it to scripture
If you teach tradition on the same authority level as scripture and it’s not founded in scripture and contradicts it then it’s wrong
So saying “we are successors of Peter” doesn’t make your tradition true, let alone the same level as scripture
Because it’s the same thing the Pharisees did
“We are successors of Moses therefore our tradition is true and authoritative”
Now insert Peter for Moses and that’s basically the Catholic argument
I don’t think it works
@Mitchell C, your ignorance of what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us is a bliss, indeed, because this Bible verse definitely supports the Catholic Church's position and refutes every single thing you said and understand here.
Little knowledge is dangerous (because it bridges contempt) and ignorance is a bliss (indeed).
@@voxangeli9205
Hello
Thanks for responding!
How are we to judge whether a tradition is good or bad?
@@mitchellc4, go to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers -- they, being the successors of the Apostles -- and their writings -- being the best references for how and what the oral apostolic teachings are -- as being handed down to the early Christians and to the erly Church.
I'm actually not surprised you don't know about these... are you?
@@voxangeli9205
Hello
Thanks for responding
So we should decide whether or not a tradition is good based on whether or not it agrees with the early Christians?
Should we measure against scripture too? Or just the writings of the early church?
@@mitchellc4, think, understand and realize this:
THAT THE TRUTHS OF THE SCRIPTURE, THE WITNESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS THAT MANIFEST BOTH THE WRITTEN AND ORAL TRADITIONS OF THE APOSTLES, AND THE BELIEFS OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS -- ALL ARE COMPLEMENTARY, CONGRUENT AND COHERENT TO EACH OTHER.
Do you know why?...
NO...JESUS PLAINLY STATED HE WAS AGAINST IT...