F
feed_me
Guest
Im sorry could you please quote what I said so I know what your talking about?
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
This is the point of my question!feed_me:
Are you saying that God is somehow willing people to be where they find themselves?
Maran atha!
Angel
A
Agathon
Guest
To some degree the Apostles believed they were writing Scripture. But did they have a canon for these books? That is to be determined.Agathon:
Not the complete abridged/unabridged New Covenant Sacred Writings, of course!
Maran atha!
Angel
M
mcq72
Guest
No, just accept the earliest understanding of the “woman” of ch. 12, which says nothing about the Assumption.
F
feed_me
Guest
Yes, i believe he does for some reason. For that reason part I cannot answer why.jcrichton:
This is the point of my question!feed_me:
Are you saying that God is somehow willing people to be where they find themselves?
Maran atha!
Angel
F
feed_me
Guest
If your physically sick you see a doctor for him to help you.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes but not so either/or…it is also what those after the apostles have written also…but the thrust is also being confined to what apostles taught…the best way to now that is from their writings
M
mcq72
Guest
Then by extrapolation (all things being equal, with no speration) all things could be ruled by scripture, that one could just as easily go and teach all nations what is written.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
And yet it is interesting that some new heresies are declared just as after some “current…application” by the magisterium
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
I am sure you believe this, but we have far more substantiation in their teachings. We have liturgy, prayers, and the testimony of those who were taught by them. So we are not limited to what a certain Apostle wrote (most of them did not write anything that remains).
We have followed the Apostolic command:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
This gives us an advantage because we have more testimony that those who are separated from Sacred Tradition.
The fact that there is no contradiction does not equate to the Sacred Tradition having no value.
Perhaps you can give an example? I think history will testify that the declarations are in response to heresies. The first Magesterial council in 50 AD was in response to the Judiazers. The early Church also responded to a variety of heresies, gnosticism, arianism, etc. The proclamations are to protect the faithful from falling into error, because if they do, they will pass through the gates of hell.
M
mcq72
Guest
Agree…who said it had no value?
M
mcq72
Guest
Agree, but there is a difference between substantiating “their teachings” to a gradual substantiating one’s own understanding of “their teachings” (apostles teachings).
I mean just look at content and degree of decrees,teachings from Nicene Council to that of Trent Council, etc, etc…to be continued
B
Benadam
Guest
Wasn’t oral tradition at one time the infallible expression of the Gospel? If so why did it end? Who expressed it’s final word? Why was this gift from God taken away? Would it die because it was written?
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Any Sacred Tradition is dependent on Church affirmation, if it is challenged as a false interpretation.
The Apostles had the special privilege of knowing Jesus first hand, and given powers of signs. This was extraordinary.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes we do. I see no contradiction to Orthodoxy nor protestantism in the writings of those that knew apostles or shortly thereafter.
G
guanophore
Guest
Sounds like “no value” to me!
Z
zeland
Guest
Simple, just look at some of the things Protestants do not believe (or incorrectly believe). They do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (John 6: 40-59; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29), they do not believe in five of the seven sacraments that Christ instituted, including confession (forgiveness) of sins in the manner Christ prescribed (John 20: 19-23, and 2 Corinthians 5:18-12). They wrongly believe in private interpretation of scripture, which the Bible condemns (2 Peter 1:20, and 3:16). They do not believe in Purgatory, even though Purgatory is well documented in both the Old and New Testament… and the list goes on, and on. Even though they may claim to be believers, in reality they are not. At best, they are only partial believers. But then, if you think about it, isn’t’ this what Protestantism is all about? By definition, Protestantism is based on a rejection of many of the teachings of the Christ, as put forth by the apostles and His Church.
Note, in my reply, I am only considering non-Catholic Christian churches.
Zeland
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Well by definition “Protestants” have nothing to do with protesting “doctrines”, but rather the old practice, beginning at Nicene Council, of the use of civil enforcement of religious belief and excercise thereof. This is a generalization of the historical particulars surrounding coinage of the term in 16 th C event.
One can also look at Lutheranism and see not so many differences but rather see so many similarities .
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
True that. The Oral tradition adapts to the changing conditions of the Church. It became a teaching of a teaching with the Holy Father’s. We can thank the Holy Father’s for guarding the teaching of the Apostles. I have a sense of peace knowing there is an authority to interpret Scriptures.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes,amen.Even more thank the Father for guarding His teachings thru Scriptures, unconditionally God breathed.
- Status