BAKERSTREET WRITES: At first the church wanted to completely discard these pagan practices, but when the futility of the process was apparent they decided instead to hijack them and recast them as Christian in nature.

oh, c'mon--for the , "love of life"....the Church never had pagan practices to begin with so she never could have 'completely discarded' them as you say, next.....everything following the word 'but' in your statement strains for credulity.

BAKERSTREET WRITES: Could you explain why, if you believe it to be coincidental, they chose the dates they chose for Easter and Christmas?

I'm staying away from Easter( the date of the Resurrection), but will try to explain more about the timing of Christmastide. It isn't surprising that we have no evidence of Christmas (Feast of the Nativity) before the year 330 because the early Christians were being severly persecuted and practiced the Faith underground in the catacombs. We do have testimonies, sermons and writings that admitted the Feast of the Nativity on Dec. 25th by Church Fathers and Doctors such as Ambrose, Basil, etc.

Even though no one knows for sure the exact date of Christ's birth, there are several theories given as to the date of Dec. 25th. Some argue on the conception of St. John the Baptist. Assuming, gratuitously, that Zachary was high priest and that the day of Atonement fell on Sept. 24, John would have been born on June 24 and Christ 6 months later on Dec. 25th. This is now considered untenable. Others suggested that the date of Christmas was determined from March 25th the date of the Crucification. The ancients postulated that if He died on this date, He must have been been conceived on this date and thus born 9 months later. What was accepted by most Church Fathers is that the Birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice, Dec. 25th. and from the 3rd century "Sun of Justice" appeared as a title for Christ. My Sunday Missal gives little bits of info about the readings that will be given during the Mass and during the season of Advent, it explains that Christmas time was determined by celebrating the return of light after the shortest day or the dawn of God's light shining upon his Creation, particularly us humans. This symbolism of light elucidates what the Lord Jesus is supposed to mean to us CHristians. The reading for the day come from St. John 1:1-18 and 1: 1-5; 9-14. The Gospel uses both the "Word" (God's Word made flesh), and the symbolism of light coming into the world. "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling amongst us." That's what Catholic Christmastide is all about, and what illuminates our heart, not the trees, lights, holly and all the other trimmings. These are all externals that evidently, according to you, were forbidden so long ago, but aren't now.

KFC, thanks for being so good at navigating the Scriptures and explaining that as well as you did. I enjoyed the lesson. Whenever I think of tree, I think of the wood of the Cross.

It is certain that Christ was born after the Roman year 747 and before 749. That is, He was born between 5 and 7 years before the usually accepted year 1 of the Christian Era. Herod who persecuted Christ and slaughtered the Innocents died in APril 750. Herod was in Jerusalem when he sought to destroy Christ, yet left Jerusalem for good in 749. Therefore Our Lord must have been born by then. Herod made inquiriy of the Wise Men (Magi, or 3 Kings), as to the circumstances of our Lord's birth, and decided to kill all the male children 2 years and under. Evidently, Jesus was 1 or even as much as 18 months old. If we deduct that, we get back to 747.

Iconoclast writes: And they all lived happily ever after.

Yea, that's the ticket.....truly ever after.

Religion is natural to man almost as natural as breathing.

Not to be argumentative here, but I believe spirituality is natural to people where religion is about as natural as politics.

Lulabelle: I'm trouble that you don't seem to understand what I am saying. Over and over you appear to be rebutting that the Catholic Church celebrated pagan holidays and no one is saying that.

The Church forbade people from celebrating pagan holidays. Once they saw that the holidays were so entrenched that people were going to celebrate them nonetheless, they decided to recast them as Christian holidays. That's why we have the remnants of the Yule log, the Saturnalia decorations, the Easter bunny, and all the rest.

...like... if people were actually bowing and worshiping Santa...

well I never said that did I? No, I said that Satan uses things and others to distract us from God. Anything that takes us away from the true God is of the spirit of Satan because that's what he does.

Once they saw that the holidays were so entrenched that people were going to celebrate them nonetheless, they decided to recast them as Christian holidays. That's why we have the remnants of the Yule log, the Saturnalia decorations, the Easter bunny, and all the rest.

this is absoultuely correct, although I do believe that when Constantine first announced Christianity would be the State Religion in 323, pagan practices were intermixed with Christianity. Basically the pagan temples were converted into Catholic ones. Luther and Calvin and some of the reformers balked at the mixture and therefore a protest was born giving birth to Protestantism.

Lula,

not sure about all the years you mentioned since I'd have to go back and study up on that but here's another thought. I've also heard that Jesus could have been born in the fall and it's been a while but the argument seemed logical to me at the time. It had to do with the night sky and stars and such. If that was the case, it was brought up that Dec 25 could have been Christ's conception date. And if you think about it, that's more the miracle than his birth. But I do think it's just another one of those things we'll not find out on this side of eternity.

I enjoyed the lesson. Whenever I think of tree, I think of the wood of the Cross.

Thanks, you can see the wood of the cross way back in Genesis where it says in Gen 22:

"Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son........"

and so God the father would stop Abraham and say in effect..."Not your son, but mine. Mine will be the one that will be sacrificed. Mine will carry the cross on his back."

And they all lived happily ever after

ya, what's not to like here? This is a promise that has been given to those who believe.

believe spirituality is natural to people where religion is about as natural as politics.

hahahah yup. That's why I always am saying I'm not religious. Mankind has done much to make religion very unsavory. It's about relationship not religion in my book.

Yea, that's the ticket.....truly ever after.

ya, what's not to like here? This is a promise that has been given to those who believe.

Are you both really so dense or so deeply in denial that you don't see how much the comment I quoted in #155 sounds like a fairy tale?

BAKERSTREET WRITES: The Church forbade people from celebrating pagan holidays. Once they saw that the holidays were so entrenched that people were going to celebrate them nonetheless, they decided to recast them as Christian holidays. That's why we have the remnants of the Yule log, the Saturnalia decorations, the Easter bunny, and all the rest.

Perhaps I'm not grasping your point although I try to understand what I read exactly as it is written, not read into it or think what the writer may be leading up to. Given that, let's give this one more try.

Yes, certainly the Church forbade people from celebrating pagan holidays. Unless you can give me something specific on which you base your claim that the Church recast pagan feasts as Catholic ones, I must go with the notion that you are thinking on the wrong track here. Perhaps I'm not grasping your point, however, you and KFC are mistaken or buying into some wild myths that have been perpetuated for years if you think that the Church condescended her teachings and accommodated or mixed anything pagan. The Church and her teachings stay as far away from paganism and secularism and all that has to do with them and has ever since it's beginning at Pentecost when Christ sent our His followers to teach all nations. Paganism is not being taught or practiced in any way, shape or form. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

The CC is the one true Church established by Christ. Today, you will find the Church around the world teaching it's Catholic teachings---The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, the Mass as a holy sacrifice, the 7 Sacraments, the authority of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the divinity of Christ, the Blessed Trinity, the importance of prayer, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the reality of literal Hell and Heaven, etc. Dial back 500 years and you will find the same Church believing and teaching those very same doctrines. (Once you pass beyond 500 years, all of Protestantism disappears.) Go back another 500 years and another 500 after that and you'll still find the capital "C" Church complete with Pope, priests, bishops, the 7 Sacraments, the Holy Mass and the Eucharist proclaiming, defending, and believing those same doctrines. Now gaze back to the 4th, 3rd and 2nd centuries near the end of the first, and you will see most of the original Apostles have been martyred, as well as most of the early Popes. We are at the close of the Apostolic Age. Here we see the CChurch teaching and proclaiming the Faith in seed form, developing, growing, pushing outward spreading the light of Christ and "ALL things He has commanded" us to believe and obey. The Church is still in its infancy. It doesn't have the external features it will eventually acquire...no Vatican City, no canon law, titles like “Monsignor”, geographical jurisdictions of dioceses, no Index of Forbidden books, the sacramentals, even the churches themselves. These are all of ecclesiastical, not divine institution. So, don't let it throw you that the externals are different, what is important is to recognize that the very same entity teaching the very same doctrines, then as now.

Catholicity does not live its doctrines in isolation from the world; it must continually be in reaction to it. Changeless in its dogmas, it is ever changing in the men who adhere to it, it’s traditions and customs. They can more or less, be adapted, modified, reformed (as in the case of indulgences), and in some cases even abolished. It cannot be any other way if it is to remain until the end of time as Christ promised. The Catholic Church is an extension of Christ on earth. As such her mission is to teach and guide all men to Christ. Divine truth is a deposit committed to the Catholic Church and believe me it is not based, hijacked from paganism and there is no paganism mixed with it. It is a fact that the Son of God instituted a Church to continue His work and that He endowed her with all the means of communicating sanctity. Nothing can destroy these facts. If the Church would have forgotten this Divine Will, she would have disqualified herself forever. And yet, the mystery of the Church is that she is made up of sinful men, including unworthy Popes that have held St. Peter’s chair, as well as unwise Popes who were subject to the limitations of their times. In the course of the centuries, their minds develop and we gain richer insights into Christian Truth.

These same unchangeable doctrines extended back to the 1st century. In AD 80, the Bishop of Rome, Pope St. Clement, exercised authority and issued a letter of encouragement and admonishment to another Church. This is an example of the papacy which non-Catholics reject. Other examples of early Christian belief in doctrines such as the authority of the bishop of Rome, and the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist are St. Ignatius of Antioch circa 107-110 AD, St. Irenaeous of Lyons, 189 AD., St. Justin Martyr 151 AD, Tertullian in 216, St. Cyprian of Carthage 253, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem 350 AD.

KFC----Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, was no doubt a defender and protector of Christianity. However, he didn’t make Christianity a state religion. He issued the Edict of Milan which decreed that ALL religious groups throughout the Roman Empire, including Christians, were free to worship as they pleased. This essentially granted tolerance to Christians and put an end to the pagan persecutions. I think it was the Emperor Theodosius in 392 that made Christianity the official religion.

I find that non-Catholics get all hung up on the word ‘religion’. Your comments make me wonder if you think Christianity is a religion? The practice of Catholic religion teaches that our life journey is about acts of homage toward God by which we acknowledge His dominion over us and we seek His help and friendship (what I imagine you call relationship). Without love of God and practice of that (ie religion) man cannot attain the complete satisfaction of the highest aspirations of his nature.

Some of the confusion in understanding one another as we debate this worthy topic may be that we have to come to some common understanding or agreement what certain words mean----like religion. Now you know what I mean whenever I speak of religion.

I think of religion as a man made entity, it's not from God but from man. I believe it's not the religious that see the face of God as much as it's the spiritual who do. You can be religious but not spiritual. I think of the Pharisees. They were certainly religious but they had no relationship with God. It was all about their rules and regs. In fact, they sought to kill him. That's being religious but lost in my book.

Even today, there are many religions and many religious people. If Jesus was in their midst, they would seek to kill him all over again. You can be religious about anything. Some call me religious. I don't care for that term. Maybe I am but I prefer to say that I'm a follower of Christ or a Christian. I don't consider myself any more religious than Peter, or James or John did.

I kind of look at religion as an outward show. While for some it's an indication of what's happening inside, for many it's all about externals. I don't want to be confused with that.

Again speaking for me it's all about relationship with your creator, not religion made by man.

Somebody said religion is man reaching up to God with their own good works (like the Tower of Babel) and relationship with God is God reaching down and touching man in a way that invites him to follow him leaving all behind (like Jesus did to his disciples). That's how I view the diff between the two.

ON RELIGION: Thanks KFC. Now I have a more clear understanding of what “religion” means to you. I still wonder how you reconcile your definition with Christianity in general? I learned that the word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin word “to bind”, which I find very interesting. The ancient writer, Lactantius said, “We are tied to God and bound to Him by the bond of piety and it is from this that religion has received its name.” My dictionary defines religion as (1) belief in God or gods and (2) worship of God or gods.

Today, I received a booklet from Saint Benedict Center entitled Mancipia. My eyes flew wide open when I read the front page lead article “Christmas, the Antichrist and Triumphalism”. It begins by explaining that it’s not a conspiracy theory that for almost 2,000 years the Church has been defending Christmas against a concerted diabolical attack. Since the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, the truth that God was born a Baby at Christmas has been assaulted with relentless demonic fury.

Then I read the editorial written by Mr. Brian Kelly which goes directly to our discussion about Yuletide, the winter solstice, Constantine and Saturnalia. It certainly cleared up some questions that I still had on my mind. This is what he writes.

The origin of the word, Jul, from which we get the word “yule” for the Christmas season is disputed by historical linguists. The more common theory is that the word is Germanic and designated the feast of winter solstice. This solar event marks the terminus of the sun’s southernmost journey on the horizon (Dec.21), and the end of the lengthening nights. The daylight from that day forward grows longer until the summer solstice arrives on June 21.

It is a traditional belief that our Lord was born on the exact day of the winter solstice. 2,000 years ago that day was Dec. 25th. (I’ll explain why the solstice slipped back on the calendar in a moment.) When St. John the Baptist was approached by his disciples over the fact the apostles of Christ were baptizing, the precursor replied: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” St. John 3:30. Even the sun gave testimony to this prophecy. For as we are told in the Genesis account of Creation, all the elements, the seasons, the sun, moon, and the stars are given to man as signs communicating the wisdom of their Creator. Astronomy aside, the formal reason that the days originally began to grow longer in the northern hemisphere (in which our Lord lived) on Dec. 25 is because the Savior was born that day. “He must increase.” And the formal reason in which the days originally began to grow shorter in the northern hemisphere on June 24 (now June 21) is because the greatest of prophets, who made straight the paths of the Lord was born on that day. “I must decrease.”

Of the bizarre doctrines of the Jehovah Witness arrogantly disseminate is that at the Council of Nicaea (325), the CC was forced by the Emperor Constantine to adopt a pagan festival day as the day on which to celebrate the birth of Christ. To wit, that was the Saturnalia festival days of debauchery, which went on for a week from Dec. 17 to 23. With that artificial confidence, which supine ignorance begets in zealous dolts, their Watchtower publications continue to assert that Constantine was still a pagan in 325 and that, being such, he imposed on the Council Fathers to make Dec. 25 a common feast for Christ and Saturn. First of all, it is debatable whether or not Constantine (whose mother St. Helena discovered the true Cross) still worshipped the stars when he sat in on the opening session---and only the opening session ---of the first ecumenical council.

...In the early 4th century, the Saturnalia festivities ended on Dec 23, not 25. So, if there was (per absurdium) some kind of a syncretic “fellowship” going on, joining the Light of the world with darkness, the date of the Nativity would have been set for Dec. 23.

The Catholic Fathers who attended the Council of Nicaea had suffered intensely for the purity of the Faith. Some had been tortured and maimed for Christ under the persecutions. Imagine these champions of justice and truth accepting an imperial mandate without protest that arbitrarily established a Birth Day for the Savior! Then, imagine these holy men accepting a feast of a pagan god on which to commemorate that Blessed Nativity!

Leaving these Dan Brown absurdities aside, the emperor did issue many decrees in favor of the Christian religion, even forbidding public work on Sunday, and he did support celebrating the Birth of Christ on Dec. 25. The Council of Nicaea did not introduce that date into the Church’s calendar at that time. The Council did settle the date for the celebration for Easter Sunday in the West, but decreed nothing concerning Christmas. Dec. 25th did not officially enter into the Church's calendar until Pope Julius I sanctioned it in 350. This entry prompted an appeal from St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in whose diocese the feast coincided with the feast of Christ’s Baptism (January 6). What is interesting is that the eastern doctor informs the Pope that Rome ought to have the record of the Nativity date because the Roman general, Titus, brought all the imperial records (including the censuses) back to the Eternal City after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Long before Nicaea there were sub-apostolic western fathers who testified that Christ was born on Dec. 25. They include Origen, 254, who opposed honoring any birthdays of our Lord’s, Tertuillian 230 and St. Cyprian of Carthage 258. Although it is hard for us to understand today why, in the early Church,birthdays were not occasions for celebration. Only the emperor’s birthday was celebrated, the “divine” Pontifex Maximus. The Epiphany was deemed a much greater feast than the Nativity; in fact, the former, along with Easter, were the only two major Incarnational feastdays of the early Church.

Since there is no direct mention in the Bible of the exact date of Christ’s birth, how did Dec. 25 come to be accepted? Sacred Tradition! Can you imagine the Mother of God not noting the day that she delivered her divine Son and communicating this information to her family, friends and the Apostles? She and St. Joseph had to have known not only the Hebrew date but the Roman Julian date as well. After all, Our Lady and St. Joseph went to Bethlehem to register in the Roman census of Caesar Augustus, which they did during the day before the Holy Child’s midnight birth. Furthermore, the Romans kept the records of their censuses, and many of the early patrician Christians in Rome could have had access to those.

The reason that the solstice slipped behind 4 days by the year 325 was due to the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar (adopted by Julius Caesar in 50 BC), whose 365 ¼ day year divided into 12 months) was a tad bit short of a solar year. On average, the astronomical solstices and the equinoxes advance by about eleven minutes per year against the Julian year, causing the calendar to gain a day about every 134 years. The Gregorian calendar of Pope Gregory XIII, issued in 1582, corrected this inaccuracy by certain adjustments that there is no space to explain here. This pope actually erased 10 days from the calendar that year (Oct. 5-14) to make up the difference.

Point being: The date for Christmas has nothing to do with pagan feast days, be it that of Saturn or Germanic Yuletide celebrations. Whatever their customs were, good or bad, all pagan societies celebrated the end of the long nights and the return of the sun in late December. The Catholic Church did not choose Dec. 25th for Christmas in order to more easily convert the pagans, nor to make their transition to Christianity less severing, by the authority of her liturgical calendar, that what traditionally and more commonly had been considered to be the date of Christ’s birth, was indeed so.

Long before Nicaea there were sub-apostolic western fathers who testified that Christ was born on Dec. 25. They include Origen, 254, who opposed honoring any birthdays of our Lord’s, Tertuillian 230 and St. Cyprian of Carthage 258.

I'd like to see documentation on this. And please Lula...don't give me "tradition" okay? If you can give me some hard evidence, and not opinion, I'd be interested in this. I'm familiar with these men, but I've not heard this.

Furthermore, the Romans kept the records of their censuses, and many of the early patrician Christians in Rome could have had access to those.

you will NOT find these records anywhere...but go ahead and show me where you can find documentation on the early patrician Christians in Rome having these as well. Betcha......much you will not find this.....  

All the records were burned in 70AD.

Anyhow these records would not have been needed for the early church in Rome. The letter to the Roman church by Paul was written in the late 50's AD. Most of these people were alive when Christ was crucified so verifying records wouldn't have been needed. They were not celebrating the 25th then. Some may have even witnessed the crucifixion themselves. The church was most likely founded by a new convert at Pentecost and that would have been just weeks after the death of Christ.

But by 70 AD when Titus came in and leveled Jerusalem, everything was burned to the ground.

All you can give me Lula is tradition. Again, we really have no clear evidence anywhere that DEC 25 is in fact the day Jesus Christ was born.

mistaken or buying into some wild myths that have been perpetuated for years if you think that the Church condescended her teachings and accommodated or mixed anything pagan. The Church and her teachings stay as far away from paganism and secularism and all that has to do with them and has ever since it's beginning at Pentecost when Christ sent our His followers to teach all nations. Paganism is not being taught or practiced in any way, shape or form. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

Did you figure out what that means yet? Laugh out loud. It's for the really ridiculous, incredulous statements. It's the most fun ever when you say something that unbelievable. Wow, if you really think the church is on a pedestal that high, you have been heartily brainwashed.

Thanks for the good laugh.

The Catholic Church did not choose Dec. 25th for Christmas in order to more easily convert the pagans, nor to make their transition to Christianity less severing, by the authority of her liturgical calendar, that what traditionally and more commonly had been considered to be the date of Christ’s birth, was indeed so.

You should start a show as a stand-up comedian . . . you'd be rich!

Your utter ignorance is not only sad, but it's funny/sad.

Be nice SC! I know you have it in you.

Lula is very dedicated to her church and I give her tons of credit for that. She's not like many I know that go just for show or whatever. She's walking her talk.

Being a non-Catholic, and an ex one as well, I disagree with her on some issues usually regarding the authority of the CC, but we need to give each other the respect they deserve.

Would you like me to dish your belief in Mormonism and call you ignorant for your belief in Joseph Smith?

I don't think so, nor would I.

Well, I have no problem talking religion either. Actually, on the topic of Mormons it's pretty fun. I could talk forever on what I think of it, but I found a ten minute video that sums up what the Mormons really believe. You have to watch the whole clip to get the full picture. It's great. Bakerstreet ,Little Whip and KFC, I want to know what you think of it.

Link

"Long before Nicaea there were sub-apostolic western fathers who testified that Christ was born on Dec. 25. They include Origen, 254, who opposed honoring any birthdays of our Lord’s, Tertuillian 230 and St. Cyprian of Carthage 258."

IN REPLY, KFC WRITES: I'd like to see documentation on this. And please Lula...don't give me "tradition" okay? If you can give me some hard evidence, and not opinion, I'd be interested in this. I'm familiar with these men, but I've not heard this.

Remember KFC, this is not my essay and as I read it, I thought the same as you. On the one hand, I can’t imagine Kelly would pull this out of thin air and write it in a Catholic commentary. On the other hand, I’d like to see what Origen, Tertuillan and St Cyprian wrote as well. I’ve spent some time thumbing through 3 volumes-- “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William Jurgens and haven’t had any luck finding this exact reference. I have written to Mr. Kelly asking him to give me the source on this as well as that about Titus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Furthermore, the Romans kept the records of their censuses, and many of the early patrician Christians in Rome could have had access to those."

IN REPLY, KFC WRITES: you will NOT find these records anywhere...but go ahead and show me where you can find documentation on the early patrician Christians in Rome having these as well. Betcha......much you will not find this.....


I didn’t read it as Kelly saying that the Roman censuses records are available to us NOW OR TODAY for if they were, wouldn’t they have settled the question of when Christ was born? Just as we are doing on this thread, Kelly is asking the question: how did Dec. 25th come to be accepted as the date of Christ’s birth. He posits a rather good argument (at least to me!!!) that (1) Mary and Joseph certainly knew the date and the shepherds did too. The shepherds were chosen for the greatest privelige of all of history---of being the first to know the Christ Child. St.Luke 2:10-12. In verses 16-18 we learn they talked about the birth and (2) the Romans kept the records of their censuses and the locals could have easily gained access to that and thus would have known when Christ was born. Both make perfect sense and could very well have happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC WRITES: All the records were burned in 70AD.

How do you know this?
Kelly asserts that Titus, the Roman general, brought all the imperial records including the censuses back to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem. As a Roman general, couldn’t he have gotten wind of what was going to happen and have had access to these and taken them away before the city went down? Could St. Cyril have told Pope Julius I this? Of course. Hopefully, Kelly will have documentation to have made this point.


The Church Father’s writings referencing Titus, St.Cyril and Pope Julius may be another piece of the puzzle of showing more clearly the reason Dec. 25th was decided as the date of Christ’s birth. I know that by citing the Church Fathers, Mr. Kelly brings up Tradition and you want nothing to do with it only accepting those teachings that you can find in the Bible.

Just because you reject Tradition, KFC, doesn’t mean that Tradition is not so. You see there was no directive from Christ telling the Apostles to write anything when He commanded His Apostles, St. Peter, and by extension their successors, the Pope and bishops, to teach the whole world all the things He had commanded (St.Matt.28:19-20). There is no doubt the successors of St.Peter and the Apostles enjoy the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. St.John 14:26. No where in the Bible can it be found that the men that He had sent to speak in His Name (St.John 20:21) or their successors were to be deprived of their authority. Neither will you find a verse in there that they were no longer to be believed and instead to be replaced with the Sacred Scripture.

Catholics recognize that the spoken Word of God comes from 2 sources of God’s Revelation. The first is Apostolic Tradition which is the revealed Word of God that came down to us entirely outside the Bible. It was transmitted orally from Christ to the Apostles or received by the Apostles and handed down through the ages through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and their successors and Christianity had become a world religion before anyone ever saw or read from the New Testament. The second source of God’s Revelation is Sacred Scripture. And St.Luke makes it clear that the teaching of Christ and the Apostles were transmitted to later generations both through the Written Word and also the oral teaching and preaching in the life of the Church. St.Luke1:1-4.

Even after the Canon of the Bible was set in 397, not many people had one or could even read. How did millions of people who lived from Apostolic times to the printing of the Bible learn the Faith, the Good News, if it was not from Apostolic Tradition handed down by the Apostles successors through the ages?

Also on Tradition, KFC, I would like to get your attention by bringing up the canon of the New Testament. I know that you agree with what the Catholic Church has always taught---that the Bible is infallible (inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity). It is the Word of God. That said, please explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible (as there was no “inspired table of contents” to tell us which ones would be included in the canon.)
To answer this truthfully and honestly, you must recognize that without the trustworthiness of the Magisterium endowed with Christ’s own teaching authority and living Apostolic Tradition of the Church 1Cor.11:1; 2Thess.2:15; 2Tim.2:2, there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Sacred Scripture and which do not. That’s true. The Bible with all its parts cannot be known as a source of Revelation without the witness of Tradition and therefore depends on it.
You must rely on Tradition to know what the NT itself is, and you accept it by virtue of the fact you have a Bible. It took several Catholic General Councils to collect, determine and settle and then send to Rome for confirmation which Books would end up in the Bible that we have today. Those Councils are part of the continuim of Apostolic Tradition.
--------------------------------------------------

KFC WRITES: The church was most likely founded by a new convert at Pentecost and that would have been just weeks after the death of Christ.
And where does this hypothesis come from? (Protestant oral tradition?)

You know the Bible is replete with verses that establish the fact that Christ is a historical person who gave His authority to His Church to teach, govern and sanctify in His place. The historical record also tells us that Jesus established a Church---not a book--- to be the foundation of the Christian Faith. St. Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18 cf. Eph. 2:20;3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1Tim 3:15; Heb.13:7, 17. Christ said of His Church, “He who hears you, hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me. St.Luke10:16.

Scripture tells us clearly that Jesus established a kingdom on earth--the Church with a hierarchy, and the authority to speak for Him St.Luke 20:29-32 St.Matt.10:40;28:18-20.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a Mormon, (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.