I think what was asked was what about when both parties says “X” .s we established in an earlier post, if one Church says “X” and another says “not X”, then one must be in error. I’ll stick with the Church that Jesus founded through Peter.
Gorgias:
I think what was asked was what about when both parties says “X” .s we established in an earlier post, if one Church says “X” and another says “not X”, then one must be in error. I’ll stick with the Church that Jesus founded through Peter.
Umm… if you say so, @mcq72…
may I see the verses for this? Context is everything.
It is framed in light of fact. the text I quoted to you shows actual facts about Protestantism that you cannot deny. The facts that Protestants go to the Bible and only the Bible, that there are many denominations that use this sort of ideology yet are some how divided, and the fact that scripture doesn’t teach “Bible alone.”
I dont believe this is a valid point at all.
well, not totally accurate that SS "removes tradition as an important authority’’. Kind of like saying if tradition is so authoritative, why do we need writ at all, I mean we had no writ from Adam to Moses. Why the pretense of writ’s importance, like its just a history book, not totally necessary, but nice to have around ?? Why the hassle and division of is it 66 books or 72 , or 75 ?
agree
agree, just that the practice of “tradition” has equally done so.
did not know that reformers never look at history or tradition, or father writings, as if also they were not in practice of this when translating bibles also. Did not know Calvin and Luther and Huss and Tyndale totally shunned all councils and any possible consent of the fathers. Did not know that they would shun any "word of mouth’’ coming from Paul or any apostle directly, as Timothy did receive it (directly—isn’t there a context, that Paul is writing to someone who heard it directly, and not two thousand years later ?). Did not know that any “holding” of such is unconditionally infallible by word of mouth as in writ also.
fine I’m willing to decline that part of what i said. But nevertheless, sola scriptura advocates still go for the Bible and nothing but the Bible which is not right
yes Joe, some do unfortunately
The difference is that most non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches do not claim to exclusively be the “one true church.” I have never been taught that my church leadership has access to the “fullness of truth.” The churches I have been a part of all try to point people in the direction of seeking the one true God who has the fullness of all truth. The Scriptures are the God-breathed truths that we have written record of on Earth.As we established in an earlier post, if one Church says “X” and another says “not X”, then one must be in error. I’ll stick with the Church that Jesus founded through Peter.
How do you know why he went to see Peter? And why did he wait 3 years? Paul seems pretty clear that what he preached was from revelation from Jesus and not of human origin.
Ok. What you seem to be saying is that you have a blind spot in your perception, and are thus unable to accept that Gregory of Nyssa appeals as much to the “Fathers”, “Traditions”, and “What we received” or was handed down as he does to Sacred Scripture.
What I think you are saying is that you are unable to see what is present in the historical record. You have stated that you cannot accept what is written in the Scriptures about Sacred Tradition, you cannot accept that God prepared a people for Himself by teaching them how to preserve the Sacred Teachings orally, and that you reject any and all part of Gregory’s writings that refer to Sacred Tradition in favor of focusing only on those that reference the Scriptures as authorative.
Yes, the Sacred Tradition (teaching of the Apostles) was handed down through the paradosis. The Bishops were entrusted with this divine deposit of faith. I understand that, because Gregory calls it by different names, it does not meet the criteria you imposed to define it as Sacred Tradition. Catholics understand these are reference to the Teachings of the Apostles preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the Church.
There is a distinction between human traditions (customs of men) and the Sacred Traditions, which came from the Apostles and are used to define doctrine. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God referred to in the Scriptures. The Apostles commanded that we hold firm to this Word of God, immutable, unchanging.
What makes you think not? Or are you thinking the Apostles is instructing them to “hold fast” to some human customs like haircuts, clothing, or dietary norms?
Yes, we need to go to the Sacred Tradition to UNDERSTAND what is written. As you can see, departure from the Sacred Tradition (primarily by the invention of Sola Scriptura) as resulted in a wide variety of interpretations that cannot reconcile with each other (denominations).
None of the NT writers was making any effort to write a doctrinally inclusive product. They are memoirs (gospels), historical accounts, and letters, with some prophetic content. The NT was never meant to be a full compendium of the faith. The faith was committed to the Apostles, not to writing.
Catholics believe that the public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted from the once for all divine deposit of faith. Yes, Scripture must always be consulted when developments are needed.
Yes.
It is more than a “suggestion”. Jesus makes it clear that we should follow the authority he appointed. He transferred the Seat of Moses to His Apostles. The reason we need a teaching authority is because every person interpreting Scripture on their own causes divisions.
That is nice but not the point of peters text…it is precisely the apostles (his writ, Pauls) that is difficult to understand (name removed by moderator)laces…so it is not applicable here contextually, to listen to an apostle…the point lays elsewhere when an apostle says (writes)something that may seem difficult to fathom.Peter explains it himself .
Yes. For example, the formal cause of some sacraments (exact words of annoiting of the sicks, absolution in confesión, the exact gestures of Christ in the eucharist, etc) A lot of Sacred Tradition is commanded fron God and isn’t in the Bible. The liturgy is fundamental, commanded from God and some of it is not in the Bible. Jesus did a lot if things that are liturgy but don’t appear in the Bible
I think you lost me here!
The faithful are enjoined to accept the Teaching, and pray for understanding. Obey, even if it is difficult or mysterious. God will reveal His Truth.
Of course, and there are levels of authority.
It is not so much the content of Scripture as how it is to be understood. A good example is baptism. The Apostles baptized infants, and taught their disciples to do the same. We see this commanded in Scripture ,but modern children of the anabaptist tradition reject this.