2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

Moreover, the Protestant argument is also refuted by the way in which the Church selected the Bible canon. While the last apostle John died around 100 A.D., the Bible was not finally compiled until 397 A.D. The Church was thus required to rely upon the oral apostolic tradition during this 300 year period in order to determine which letters were inspired and which letters were not. The tradition they depended on, of course, did not come from the mouths of the apostles (they were deceased), but from their successors. (There is also no reason to conclude that the Church should listen to the fourth, fifth or sixth generation of apostolic successors, but not to later successors such as those of our day)

Webby,
You're convinced by the Roman Catholic traditions, so-be-it. I'm not. I must say I agree however with your moral and spiritual stance in your relationship to God and the sacred values of life.

The Roman world-view traditionally copies Roman politics on how power is diseminated in Church structure. For me God alone as revealed in Jesus as Lord of the Church and all believers are equal brothers, though there are many servant roles in the body of Christ on Earth. Jesus structural powers were influenced by the Essene community of brotherhood. The early Church in Jerusalem was also influenced by this similar view of social brotherhood.

The Essene community held God as father as John the baptiser's prayer identifies and Jesus taught to his disciples. "Our Father who art in Heaven." One is our Father who is in heaven and all you are brothers. I therefore acknowledge only Our Lord has aythority over me.

Christ alone is the head of the Church. The answer Peter gave to the question of Jesus - "Who am I?" by confession Peter names him as, " You are the Messiah the Son of God". As Jesus then said to Peter you are Petra identifying him by name then contrasting the name enstating Peter's answer in identifying himself by name. Jesus by pointing to himself identifies Peter's confession said upon this ROCK I will build my Church. The rock is the confession of faith the basis on who is Jesus. He is the Christ who has built His Church on that very confession of faith - "You are the Messiah the Son of God".

Peter's not the foundation of the Church. The confession of faith in Christ certainly is. The fact is Jesus Christ our Lord is both the foundation and the founder. He is both the basis of our faith and the builder of our faith: both the author and builder of our faith(Hebrews 12: 2). He said "I will build my Church". He did not build his Church on Peter, but on the ROCK -"You are the Christ?"

Philo you're convinced by the man-made 'reformation' a.k.a. de-formation traditions. I'm not.

The Protestant world-view traditionally copies Luther's unbiblical insertion of his own theolgy which includes his insertion of 'alone' in resepct to both Scriptures and the faith as spoken about bySt paul. There is a curse in the Book of the Apocalyse ( which you Protestants call Revelation, the last book of the NT) in which those who ADD to the Scriptures are accursed for doing so.

don't be precious Philo.Politics ( and Roman is no different to any other)is found in all churches. It is also found in the one true Church as we are not risen and in Heaven yet nor are we angels. This idea that one is perfect like God as a beleiver is a false Protestant idea and is one of the justifications for not accepting the authority of the Church; an authority given her by Jesus Himself.

There is no iblical precedent for Protestant 'altar calls, or Hillsong guitars and preachers on stages like rock stars. catholics priests say Mass which is from the beginning in fulfillment of the OT prefigurements and completed by Our Lord at the last Supper and Calvary. Catholic focus is on the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist at each Mass. Each parish chruch is a Bethlehem ( which means House of Bread) in this case the Divine Presence under the humble appearance of bread.

Christ is the invisible head of the Church until he comes again. Your Lutheran use of the word 'alone' shows your rejection fo the Church.

Webby,
Luther was trained in Catholic Monastries and was a actually a Catholic Priest. He actually studied scriptual texts in the library of the Catholic Church and found the practise of raising money by offering indulgences was contrary to the words of the Apostle Paul.

I suggest you read his life and work sometime, rather than the bigotry you hold toward him. I am not Lutheran, and disagree with a lot of his theology, but I respect the man as a genuine spiritual giant in his relationship to God and the liberation he gave to those oppressed by the corrupt Catholic Church at that time.

I actually belong to a Church were all porsons are responsible to use their spiritual giftings including the ladies, for the edification of each other. We recognise each as equal and each are responsible alone to God. Not to any Priest or Pope.

Dear Philo
Have you noticed that yourself and David Boaz have sidstepped all the biblical quotes I have supplied thus far on this thread, huh. Also, whilst I am happy to answer all your objections the weakness in your approach thus far is to your declining to address one issue at a time. Rather you prefer to raise one objection after another with each fresh posting. That is a sign that you are prejudiced and are afraid to face up to a single issue at any one time.

Of course I know that Martin Luther was a priest. It is good that you acknowledge he studied scritural texts although your fundamentalist mates of which you belong, tell Catholics that the Bible was inaccessible. Strange that Luther found it huh. But I suppose that until the invention of the Wurtenburg Press the arduous hand copying of the bible is all the fault of the Catholic Church in your view. Is that right?
The abuse of indulgences, not indulgences per se, was the problem; ie Tetzel.
Luther was a rapid anti-Semite; the Jews of Germany ran to the Pope for protection against Luther and his whipping up of the German Princes to persecute them. YOU, yes YOU Philo, go read his actual words, Then report back to me.
Also, the handle name Philo ( from philosoher)has a pedigree in Catholic learning. All priest must learn PHILO-osophy to sort out their arguments, and right ordering before they are let loose with the Scriptures. Learn to be true to your handle name.

You are ashamed to even mention the name of your 'church' such is the love you have for it.

An indulgence is a remission through the infinite merits of Jesus Christ and His Saints of the temporal punishment due for sins committed after guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted.

Scripture's example of what's meant by "temporal punishment." Mary, the sister of Moses, was forgiven by God for complaining against her brother. Nevertheless, despite such forgiveness, God imposed upon her the temporal punishment of leprosy and seven days exile from her people (Num. 12). A thief may be sorry for stealing , but is still required to return the money; even do time in prison.

That Jesus has given the Church the power of granting indulgences is implied in Scripture: "I will give you the keys.. you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (St. Matt. 16, 19).

St. Paul's clear example of the Church using this power with respect to the incestuous Corinthian upon whom he'd imposed a severe penance. After learning of the Corinthian’s fervent sorrow St. Paul absolved him of the penance which he had imposed saying: "For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ" (2 Cor. 2, 10 [Douai]).

In this example we have the elements of a true indulgence: (i) a penance (temporal punishment) imposed on the Corinthian by St. Paul; (ii) sorrow on the part of the sinner for his crime; (iii) the relaxation of the penance by St. Paul (the indulgence); (iv) the relaxation done in the "person of Christ."

"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1, 24);

"For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ;...If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (1 Cor. 12, 12-26).