Tradition VS Doctrine?

I definitely agree. The catholic leaders (?priests?) will tell you that sprinkling is traditional, when it is clear that the form of baptism Jesus talked about (and accomplished with john the Baptist) was immersion, which shows a perfect picture of death, burial, and resurrection.

Dogma Vs Doctrine

All de fide Dogmas of the Council of Trent & Vatican 1870, plus the encyclicals taken from the Dogma show the particular references of the Doctors who quote scripture as the REFERENCE. That is what Doctrine is--the exposition and explanation in dogmatic form of Christ's Words.

To ignore the Doctrine is not only wrong, it is to lose the Faith.

The quotation to which you refer as "traditions" was directed to the pharisees who were ignoring "their traditions" in the Old Testament. They rewrote scripture to suit a new message 600 years before Christ came to earth. It is called the Torah. That was the fall of the TRADITION of the Old Testament, the forerunner of the fall of in 1958 of the Vatican scrapping its divine traditions in the New Testament.

Christ came to establish His Church, to prove the traditions of the Father given to Abraham & Moses, to fulfill in His New Testament the prophecies in His New Law, "For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and eternal Testament: the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." (Council of Trent)

Notice the lack of "for all" which invalidates the Consecration.

The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and the Sources of Catholic Doctrine, prove the Church's true traditions from scripture, and no matter how hard they try, the vast vatican intelligentsia cannot overcome the lack of traditions of the Patristic record in their new system through their CCC. Theirs is a work of human hands.

Traditional Catholics at traditionalmass.org/

Work of Human Hands, Fr. Anthony Cekada, 2010, Philothea Press

You don't understand the difference between "traditions" and "Tradition" with a capital "T", also known as Apostolic Tradition. Every church has 'traditions', ways of doing things that have developed over the years, and no church considers these things equivalent to biblical doctrine. However, the original and true Christian Church received many teachings from its founder, Jesus Christ. Everything He taught was the Word of God from the moment He spoke it, because He was God. His teaching would have been the Word of God forever, even if it had never been written down, or never compiled into a book. Some of His teaching did get written down and was eventually put into a book, while some of His teaching was simply passed on through the continuous teaching of His Church, to which He promised "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". That part of His teaching that was not included in the Bible is called "Apostolic Tradition", and it is equivalent to biblical doctrine because it is the Word of God, just as Scripture is.

Yes, "vain repetitions" as practiced by the Pharisees are against the Word of God, and are therefore against both Biblical teaching and Apostolic Tradition. There is never any conflict between Tradition and the Bible, because the Word of God cannot conflict with itself.

A video from an Orthodox priest gave me great insight on the "tradition vs doctrine" debate. You need both. The bible even states in one part for us to hold on to the traditions that God has given us. There are two types of traditions; the tradition of men and the tradition of God. Not everything was written down in the bible because it states, in the Gospel of John I believe, that there was not enough paper in the world to write down the teachings of Jesus. For years the apostles did not write anything down (aside from the Epistles) and they taught only by word of mouth. The Gospels weren't written until later. That is why we have the Epistles actually. The Gospels do not contain all of Jesus' teachings and the Epistles shed more light on it. To this very day we do not know all of Jesus' teachings. You have to separate the tradition of God from the tradition of men, however.

In the Catholic Church, there's tradition with little t and Tradition with capital T. Go to www.newadvent.com to read about it or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is a difference between traditions and doctrines. Doctrines are deemed to have been proven through the church and the pope.

the place the actual Presence of the Holy Eucharist is, there is Jesus Christ. the place Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ prevalent the Catholic Church in 33AD. It grow to be no longer prevalent 3 or 4 hundred years later. The Apostles celebrated the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Acts 2:40 six "day after day, attending the Temple at the same time and breaking bread of their properties…" The Apostles have been visibly religious Jews. They wore the kippah (prayer hat), the tallit (prayer scarf with fringes) and the tephillin (phylacteries). long after Jesus ascended to the father, Peter protested that he had in no way in his existence eaten something unkosher. Acts 10:14 while those Jewish Apostles remembered Christ's command, Lk 22:19 "try this in remembrance of Me," they extra it to their synagogue worship. They began with synagogue prayer and Scripture readings, and then went to their properties to rejoice the Sacrament of Christ's physique and Blood. To this very day, the Introductory ceremony and Liturgy of the notice come immediately from Jewish synagogue worship. The Liturgy of the Eucharist comes immediately from the Apostles' breaking bread of their properties. "The Eucharist isn't a component. it is not a ineffective merchandise. it particularly is Christ, and he's totally alive. Receiving Him with this understanding, we grow to be extra totally alive, so as that we are able to declare with St. Paul, "it particularly is no longer I who stay, yet Christ who lives in me." Catholic Christian †

Scripture is opposed to 'the traditions of men' which contradict Apostolic Scriptures, oral teaching ( Apostolic Tradition or Paradosis)and a right interpretation of the Bible

but the Bible recommends attending to the Apostolic Tradition

We are not to break God's teaching "for the sake of your [legalistic] tradition(Matt15:3 & Mark7:9)' or customary legalistic and often uncharitable and unjust interpretation of the Bible

but we are to interpret the Bible through Apostolic Tradition and not mere human opinion or not-very-old -and rooted church tradition ( such as Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Pentecostal, Holiness, Anabaptist, Adventist, Jehovah Witness, Mormon,etc)

nobody actually goes by the Bible Alone but the Bible read through the lens of some tradition or passed-down mindset or what some preacher says the text says( "seductive philosophies according to human traditon[ rather than divine Tradition]' Col2:8)

We are to follow divine Paradosis he Apostolike, the handing down of the preaching, teaching and oral OLd Testament interpretation of the Apostles,

as taught by St paul in

1 Cor11:2,

2Thess2:15 and 3:6

to keep the Tradition passed on to the Church

rather than mere human traditions and speculations on the Bible

which collection of books came out of oral Mosaic tradition and oral Apostolic Tradition

and which collection was written by, ratified by, collected by and canonized by the early One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

There is a unity and balance of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Christian inspired Bible( with the 7 OT books dropped by the Pharisees), Tradition and Church

God bless

Traditions come from man. Doctrine comes from God. I'm siding with God.

never start an argument with "well based on tradition...."

because then you allready lost, just saying

although religious doctrines are pretty useless as well