As far as religion I'm talking about true Christianity which is Christ's truths given us both written (Bible) and oral (Tradition).

Hebraic Judaism was God's holy revealed religion. It had both written and oral Tradition as its deposit of the Jewish Faith and so too does Christ's New Testament religion. Like it or not, accept it or not....that's just the way it is.

One Tradition of Hebraic Judaism was the Passover meal. God instructed how it would be and then the specific way they celebrated it was passed down from generation to generation.  That's sacred Tradition. Another example of Tradition is that God taught the Israelites how He wanted them to be in the Temple for worship and sacrifices. That was passed on from generation to generation down to the time of Christ. That's sacred Tradition.

We agree that Christ warned against "traditions of men". Totally agree.

Those Pharisees and were rebellious and not in line with Hebraic Judaism as God had laid out. So they weren't being religious, they were being irreligious. Big difference. When in the Temple, instead of following Tradition, and doing what they were supposed to be doing there; what they had been taught; they had turned the Temple into a marketplace, a den of thieves.  That's why Christ took his cord and made a whip and threw them out.  

So there are two types of traditions...sacred Tradition and traditions of men. You are rightfully warning against traditions of men, but seem to know nothing of sacred Tradition that is found in the Bible.

The Bible does in fact state that some of Christ's teachings were committed to Tradition, that is His teachings were transmitted and handed down by the Apostles orally.

"Stand firm, and hold the traditions you have learned, whether by word or of letters of ours". 2Thess. 2:51.

"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who lives irregularly, and not according to the traditions received from us." 2 Thess. 3:6.

There is no questioning the meaning of those texts. Here St.Paul specifically states that there are not one but 2 criteria of Christian truth; that which was left to the Church via Sacred Scripture, via the written word, and that which was left to the Church via tradition, via the unwritten word, in other words by word of mouth, both of which he says are of equal importance to the Christian deposit of Faith. 

And why was it necessary to give some of Christ's truths to the Chruch via the unwritten word by word of mouth rather than by letter?

The BIble furnishes us this answer....

"This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things, and who has written these things and we know that his witness is true. There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if everyone of these things should be written, not even the world itself, I think,  could hold the books that would have to be written."   St.John 21:24-25.

So we have the Bible's own word for it that there were some things which Christ said and did that were not written down, that did not find their way into the Bible. Not becasue they were unimportant but rather becasue it would have involved an impossible writing assignment.

Had the Apostles and their disciples attempted to record all of Our Lord's doings and teachings, they wouldn't have had time for preaching, teaching and organizing and administering the Sacraments to the soul starved masses, the majority of whom could not read anyway.

They did however transmit all that Christ taught via Tradition, that is by word of mouth. Those truths of Christ have been transmitted to Catholics since Apostolic times.

The Church transmits the fullness of Christ's truths through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We call the fullness of Christ's truths,  the Deposit of Faith.

Right or true religion is important because God's plan of Salvation is important. Salvation is about practicing Christ's New Covenant religion which is the way we get to know, love and serve God here in this world so we can be with Him in eternity.

This is not the problem.  Anything OUTSIDE of scripture is tradition of man.  The letters mentioned here are the same scriptures we hold in our hands today. Their word is NOT going to contradict or go outside what is written down.   The RCC has a boatload of traditions that have NOTHING Scriptually to base them on and actually contradict scripture which we've been over and over before. 

The whole RCC "pillar of tradition" thing is nothing but a convenience to do/say what they want.  The Pharisees did the same thing.  They took the Word of God and made their own traditions from them.  For instance, the one command about honoring the Sabbath turned into hundreds of man-made laws making sure the Jews honored the Sabbath as they saw fit. 

Like I said many times..there's nothing wrong with tradition as long as it doesn't usurp or contradict the written Word. 

I read this today and paid particular attention to the last part which I take very seriously...

Someone has said, "The Bible is God's Word to us. We are to read it to be wise, beleive it to be safe, and study it to be approved. It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's character. Christ is the grand subject, our good is its design, and the glory of God is its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully. It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents."

and Jesus condemned their oral tradition all over the gospels.  That's what I'm saying about the RCC.  Just like the religious leaders of Judaism had their oral traditions and outside books, so too does the RCC. 

You're defending what Jesus condemned.  That's just the way it is. 

Here's an example of an oral law.  They honored their traditions more than written scripture: 

"Then came to Jesus, scribes and Pharisees (religious elect) which were of Jerusalem saying, why do the disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?  for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.  But HE (Jesus) answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?  "  Matt 15:1-3

so the question is...how do you know the oral tradition you so love, isn't exactly the same type of thing the religious Jews not only set up themselves but were burdening their people to follow?  By doing so, they were in effect, the blind leading the blind. 

May I remind you of what the Protestants did with God's written Word?

The Protestant King James Version in verse 13 has added “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and forever. Amen.”

This addition was not Christ’s word and not part of His "Our Father" prayer, yet it's found in the KJV in bright red as though they were Chrst's words.

How about the fact that Protestant revolutionaries ditched 7 OT Books of God's Word?

How's that for trifling wiht its Sacred contents? How pleased do you think Our Lord is with that? 

KFC, I don’t have a bone to pick with religion in general, it is just not for me. However whenever you guys quote your holy words, it always brings me back to what came first the chicken or the egg. In the real world, you cannot just write something down in a book and then just use that book alone to prove anything is even valid let alone true. I am not a theology major nor do I study scripture … why should I as it serves no useful purpose??? You know, it doesn’t matter who I seek out for material because if the material isn’t in compliance with Religious dogma, well then, the author is stupid, doesn’t know anything about scriptures or hates the Church, etc. etc. Even stranger is when one quotes the Bible itself (the presumed word of God), they get slammed for misusing the ‘meaning’ of God’s word, go figure. Creationists are the worst skeptics in the world concerning everything that is not Church sanctioned, but sadly all it takes for absolute proof for you guys is to find what you want in some vague form of scripture or in the Bible and presto it is the undeniable truth. Obviously you do not understand the word ‘proof' in the real world.
 
“I showed you one. Of course you didn't find one because you want to believe this.” Unlike you, I do not have an agenda so I am open to the word of man which you (Church and Co.) openly despise. I cannot believe you actually wrote the underlined words, hehehe. And how is it that this doesn’t apply foremost to you and your religious co-conspirators I wonder indeed??? Well like it or not, the Age of Aquarius is fast approaching and this God issue will be decided for you by the followers of the next messiah (not going to be one though). That is the way of religions as history teaches us. If you wipe out the last few hundred years of reality (bet you wish you could) you might still be riding high but … reality came to pass anyway and you cannot deal with it but I can. The next ‘religion’ (as you are want to classify it) is already here and flourishing and it is this 'new religion' that will ensure no more superstitions gain seats of power in the New Age.
 
Humm … Sacred traditions passed down through hundreds of generations of infallible and incorruptible human beings living in a world of sin (like today). You do remember one of those spreaders of the truth betrayed your Jesus … but he was the only one. Well, there was Judah too among many others so what goes. I know how you can cite number and accompanying parable with nary a falter even though you probably have to look most of them up just the same as I do … but they couldn’t write … or read … or use a Xerox machine.  Continuity my butt … but it must be true … Just remember what I said above as you try to mask the Age of Aries but that is alright because all you are charged to do is contend with your ‘two fish’. Maybe you forgot that God supposedly destroyed all living creatures on the Earth because of rampant human materialism (not sure of the fish though for obvious reasons) except for the contents of the Ark ... so how was it that these Sacred Traditions were maintained, just a thought.

Lula, you need to go back to your Sanctum Sanctorum for a recharge of your CSC (Catholic Superiority Complex), where you can be comfortably insulated from reality, science and common sense. I am just not sure how this can be done is all??? You might ask yourself whether it was God who created dysfunctional man … or was it dysfunctional man who created a dysfunctional God … or my favorite one … that it was dysfunctional man who created a dysfunctional Church who created a dysfunctional God … just for benign purposes of continuity to be sure, hahaha. Anyway you spread it, dysfunctional man was always at the center ... Sacred Traditions like hell.

Flakey101,

Sorry I've taken so long to reply...

Lula posts:

God is the Creator and we are His created ones. For what purpose was man created? Was it for anything in the world? No. God created us for Himself and so our end is God and supernatural happiness. We were created in the image and likeness of God. Likeness, in that we have a spiritual soul which is immortal, makes the body live, endowed with reason and is also gifted with free will.

We were made for God and He has willed that we shall have an opportunity to know, love and serve Him in this world to be with Him in the next...a great destiny. We owe all we have to God and reason and justice demands that we render a suitable acknowledgment to the fact of God which must be expressed in the duties of true religion which implies acts of worship of God, both private and public and obedience due Him in the way prescribed by Him.

God will not have any forced love or service and so we are at liberty to freely side either with God or against Him and to choose between good and evil. 

If man were not free he could not be held responsible for his conduct and could neither merit commendation by good actions nor condemnation for evil actions.

To all men, God gives sufficient grace for their salvation.Again, one spends his time in this life freely choosing for or against God.

Then comes death, judgment, Heaven or Hell.

If one goes to Hell, it will be because he/she freely chose to do so.

The oral "traditions" which St.Paul is referring to here have indeed been held and practiced from St.Paul's day through today and will until the end of time by the Catholic Church.

These "traditions" in which St. Paul was exhorting the Thessalonians (and us) to hold and keep are Sacred Traditions,  NOT  the "traditions of men" which Christ railed against when He was speaking to the Pharisees. Two traditions...one Sacred the other not.

No, I'm not defending what Jesus condemned. You are wrong and it's clear you are sorely confused about the difference between the "traditions" St. Paul is exhorting the Thessalonians to keep and hold on to and the "traditions of men"  

The "tradition" I'm defending was taught first by Jesus to His Apostles and disciples, including St.Paul. The "tradition" I'm defending is the same "Traditon" of 2 Thess. 3:6 and 2:51 in which St. Paul is exhorting the Thessalonians to stand firm on and hold on to. This is hardly the tradition of men that Jesus was condemning!!!!!!!!!

You say:

Good for you for saying so so many times. It's for sure, "tradition" that St. Paul speaks about does not usurp or contradict the Bible. 

Catholics have indeed followed St.Paul's exhortation and stood firm and held on to those Traditions as part of the deposit of Faith of Christ.

How exactly do Protestants follow St.Paul's exhortation and stand firm and hold (Apostolic) tradition?

God's supernatural (Divine) Revelation to us is a big thing. It's the way we "know" God other than by natural reason. 

Yes, I love both Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition which the Church recognizes as equal and must be believed as firmly as the Bible because it contains the unwritten word of God. I'm Divinely guided by both. Can't have one without the other if you want the fullness of God's Divine Revelation. Seems to me a truth seeker who truly wants to "know" God would want the fullness of His Divine Revelation.

Remember there are 2 traditions mentioned in the Bible...Sacred Tradition and "traditions of men." As far as not religious but rather the irreligious Jews, you've given the texts which condemn their "traditions of men" and I've said I absolutely agree.

At the same time, as far as Sacred (Apostolic)Tradition, I've shown that Scripture itself states that it does not contain all that Christ revealed. These truths not found in Scripture are found only in Apostolic Tradition. I've also shown that Scripture itself guarantees Apostolic Tradition to be a sound source of Christian faith and doctrines. That's because Christ Himself established Sacred Tradition as the main vehicle by which His teachings would be preserved in the Church and communicated to all throughout the ages until the end of time.

He demanded Faith in His doctrines as they were preached by the oral teaching of His Apostles. 

Remember  that the first Christians owed their Faith, not to the written word, but to the Church and its Divine authority to preach and teach all that Christ has taught. Before a line of the NT was written, it was the early Church who preached Christ to the first converts. Jesus commanded no writings but told them to preach and teach His truths...all of them...the total deposit of Faith. Jesus promised, "He who hears you, hears Me". It was on the Apostles and disciples testimony that the first converts believed in Christ. The  point is Faith didn't come from reading Sacred Scripture for it hadn't been yet written! The early converts accepted the teaching authority of the CC represented by the Apostles. 

The Apostolic Traditions St.Paul was exhorting the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold on to were not included in the New Testament but have been preserved and handed down completely in the CC.

So, Apostolic Tradition as opposed to Pharisaical "traditions of men" is the revealed truths taught by Christ and His Apostles which were given to the Church only by word of mouth, though they were later put in writing by the Fathers of the Church who were disciples of the Apostles or comtemporaries of those disciples. 

Besides the writings of the Fathers, the truths of Apostolic Tradition may be found in the writings of the Doctors of the Church, decrees of Popes and Councils, and the liturgy of the Chruch as found in the Missal and rituals.

Next up I'll give you some specific examples of the Divine truths of Apostolic Tradition.

I can find no Biblical passages that show Christ's teaching of tolerance.

What I did find is that Christ said, "I am the truth".  Truth excludes error. In St.Matthew, I read that Christ founded His Church and said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." That doesn't sound much like tolerance to me.

Again, He said to His apostles, "He who despises you despises Me, and he who despises Me, despises the One who sent Me." 

And if it's true that Sunday should be observed by Christians, would Christ be tolerant for the those in a church who still insist on the Jewish Saturday? 

If Christ is really present in the Blessed Eucharist as per St.John 6, would He be tolerant of those who deny His Real Presence there?

Christ would say, I don't blame those who are mistaken through no fault of their own, but I object to doctrines that deny the truth I revealed (both written and non written) to mankind. And I cannot be tolerant of those devoted to the diffusion of error.

The Catholic Church affirms truth...Christ's truth. It always has and always will. When the CC denies that all the other religions and churches are right and true; it's really an invitation to the supporters of those others to come to her and get the full truth..the full deposit of Faith.

This is not prompted by hatred, but rather fidelty to and love of Christ and by a desire that all should possess the truth. 

Slavery is an interesting word don’t you think? Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery and yet it was the mainstay for labor throughout these tumultuous times. Nothing is simple when dealing with religions, go figure. Whenever you guys communicate with us mortals you just take the high road. You will accept absolutely nothing outside your particular circle of influence as even remotely-possibly true simply because you claim that only you (and you and you and…) are capable of telling the truth??? From this self-imposed omnipotent (usurped) attitude and with the demeanor of a badger … you expect to communicate with the human race … how??? You belittle and deride everything anyone says contraire to your beliefs (not against you) or anyone you perceive as a threat to your specific dogma … and you classify everything contraire to your specific superstitions as ‘enemies of the Church (surely someone’s Church). This is important … it was never their (our) decision, that onus falls on your shoulders alone (you are your own worst enemy). Anyway … it is not because their arguments lack merit; it is always because of your pompous claims of ‘the truth’ and your inability to concede merit to anyone besides yourselves. You people are so enlightened that you argue particulars ‘of the truth’ even amongst yourselves, go figure. You do not deal well with logic, science, common sense or man’s knowledge because you feel that man is little more than a pet.

Besides knowing God by our natural reason, we can also know Him and His truths from supernatural (Divine) revelation that God has made known to us through written Scripture and unwritten (oral) Tradition...also called Sacred Tradition, Divine Tradition, or Apostolic Tradition. So Tradition begins the gift of GOd the Father at the moment of salvation history when He intervenes and reveals Himself by event and word to His people, and it's accomplished by the incarnate and personal intervention of Jesus Christ.

Pre-Christian revelation may be divided into 3 parts...which I've already mentioned earlier in the discussion.

Primitive revelation made to Adam and Eve. God spoke to them in the Garden of Paradise. Patriarchial revelation made to the Patriarchs. God spoke to Abraham and Noe (Noah). Mosaic revelation made to Moses and the Prophets.

Ancient Israel's Tradition was formulated to make the liturgical acts, demands and legislations of God known and incorporated to the Chosen people.   The main purpose of Sacred Tradition is to actualize events and put the believer in contact with the saving work of God.

Tradition is capable of development. The account of the call of Abraham rested on Tradition that goes back to the Patriarchial period, reveals insights required in the light of later events. The Passover meal was one such sacred Tradition. The essence of Israel's Traditions and the OT is a summary of the ancient Jewish Faith.

God inspired men to write down His revelations.

For pre-Christian written revelation there were 45 Sacred Books composing the OLd Testament. over the centuries they were meticulously guarded by the Israelites, the Chosen people whom God had chosen to keep His truths intact for the instruction of future generations.   

CHristian revelation contains the truths revealed to us by Christ, either directly or through His Apostles passed down by word of mouth. Tradition in the NT builds on the OT, but it is unique becasue its essential content is the saving work of God in Jesus Christ. 

You mention Judas, well, an example of Apostolic Tradition at work is in the early Church, one of the first acts of the Apostles was to choose a replacement of Judas. Since the Church was to continue preaching and teaching and bear witness to the work of CHrist until the end of time, the Twelve has to appoint and ordain by the laying on of hands new successors. This is Sacred Tradition.  

Sacred Traditions are maintained by the Church for strengthening the faith and the salvation of our souls much the same way ordinary traditions are maintained by people. On Oct. 31, the world celebrated the tradition of giving treats to "trick o treaters". Another human tradition that was maintained for generations but is falling by the wayside is the tradition of families sitting down at a table and eating meals together at home.

OK. I understand that now!

Then why hit and run?

The clip does no such thing. It is merely someone's opinion and he is entitled to his opinion as you are yours. 

But here is the point. When it comes to Almighty God and His revelations it is not a matter of human opinions. It's a matter of God's teaching and neither your opinions nor my/KFC's opinions have any value if they contradict that.

As far as your slam against the CC....

The CC and Catholic doctrine is not my opinion, but rather Christ's doctrine who sent the Church to teach in His name.

Until we prove a thing it's a matter of opinion. If Almighty God had never given a revelation about His true religion and Church, it would be a matter of opinion. When the Creator speaks the creature must simply accept. God sent His Son Jesus Christ who establishe done definite Church to which He gave His teaching authority. So here we have God's decision and we must accept it.

If our human opinions suggest anything against the teachings of Christ, or against the teachings of His Church as per Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we just renounce our own fallible ideas as being foolish notions of untaught or ignorant children. 

Every one of the person's in the clip claims can be refuted with the effort of a little research. 

As I see it, the clip is just your way of shooting and reloading!

All these slams against God, mocking the Bible and the Chruch as KFC has already said, tickle only the ears of those who want desperately to hear his opinions. 

Yes, the Holy Bible makes sense...perfect sense.

But making sense is one thing and being easy to understand is another. The Bible is NOT easy to understand and that's why we need the Teaching magisterium of the Church to help us understand it and to interpret it for us. Although people regard themselves as authorities in interpreting the Scriptures, this isn't so....the CC is the authority on the Holy Bible.

The Bible itself states that it is hard to understand.

The Book of Acts is a true account; a short view of the first stages of the early Church. In chapter 8,  there is an account of the deacon St.Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Th eHoly Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethopian. When Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question:

Do you think you understand what you are reading? And even more telling the Ethiopian answers, How can I unless some man show me? And he desired would tell him what Isaias meant. Now Philip was one of those who was commissioned by the Apostles to preach and teach with authority. 8:4-6. His explanation of what the Scriptures meant was legitimate Apostolic teaching. 

The point here is that the Ethiopian verifies the fact that the Bible is hard to understand; is not sufficient in itself as its own interpreter or as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and needs an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand the true meaning what the Bible says. 

I wrote an article about this very topic....you may find it interesting.

https://forums.joeuser.com/307297