F
foundthelight
Guest
Too bad. I was enjoying him. And, he never did answer any of my questions.
- Status
E
e61iuser
Guest
They never will be able to. Oftentimes it’s because of one of two reasons: they’ve been trained not to, or they’ve never thought to ask those questions themselves.
There’s something to be said for respecting the owner of the home you visit.
S
savedsinner
Guest
I like this train of thought.
Let’s run with it:
Peter is appointed an Apostle by Jesus, he is a believer.
Peter is rebuked by Jesus, he is not a believer.
Peter protects Jesus at the arrest, he is a believer.
Peter denies Jesus during the trail, he is not a believer.
Peter tells Jesus he loves him at the shore, he is a believer.
So I guess it is how you are living your life at the end of it to determine if you were an actual believer or not.
Thanks charlye, you have cleared quite a bit up for me.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Dang. charlye got busted.
Here I thought he was being a bit reasonable at the beginning, then went off the deep end.
Once in a while, I like to see good discussions with our protestant bretheren where we can agree to disagree on certain matters and not have the typical “show me-I don’t accept that-show me-I don’t accept that” exchange.
Seems like we have a number of wonderful Protestant brothers and sister on the forum who don’t limit themselves to such arguements, but give thoughtful respect to our Tradition even though they may not agree with it. Thank the Almighty for them.
Here I thought he was being a bit reasonable at the beginning, then went off the deep end.
Once in a while, I like to see good discussions with our protestant bretheren where we can agree to disagree on certain matters and not have the typical “show me-I don’t accept that-show me-I don’t accept that” exchange.
Seems like we have a number of wonderful Protestant brothers and sister on the forum who don’t limit themselves to such arguements, but give thoughtful respect to our Tradition even though they may not agree with it. Thank the Almighty for them.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And, **[s}he never did answer any of my questions.
Yeah, it’s just never bodes well for one to come in and call the host names…:blackeye:
T
tmac1956
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is very true.:aok:Dang. charlye got busted.
Here I thought he was being a bit reasonable at the beginning, then went off the deep end.
Once in a while, I like to see good discussions with our protestant bretheren where we can agree to disagree on certain matters and not have the typical “show me-I don’t accept that-show me-I don’t accept that” exchange.
Seems like we have a number of wonderful Protestant brothers and sister on the forum who don’t limit themselves to such arguements, but give thoughtful respect to our Tradition even though they may not agree with it. Thank the Almighty for them.
T
twb1621
Guest
QUOTE=Pwrlftr;4280620]I already answered this one. Yes, there was a period of time between Jesus’ life and putting the gosples on paper.
then you admit you recognize tradition lead to the Gospel.
No, I don’t accept this. It is true the scriptures don’t record every detail of what Jesus did but they record enough so that we may believe. I don’t believe that what you call “sacred tradition” exists outside of the scriptures.
No you don’t accept these scriptural verses but you accept others? what do you base selecting your choices on. How do you or anyone else dare to render valueless or discredit any works of Jesus just because “they are all not written” saying they are irrelevant. And you believe you have a guarantee of salvation while saying something like this?
What are those traditions that Paul refers to? It’s not like I haven’t read this verse and had it quoted to me a couple hundred times by well meaning Catholics but they never seem to be able to define exactly what it is Paul is calling “tradition” here. so you know this verse but blow it off? you expect the teachings of sacred tradition to be explained to you in ten words or less?Is he (Paul) speaking of the assumption, the treasury of merit, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, …excatly what is he refering to?the fullness of faith and a relationship with the Christ, Jesus.
These traditions can only be explained through the teachings and you are asking for them as those they are a list of words. When you realize you need more than that which you can see with your blinders on, you can attend classes. It is not possible to present the classes to you here. Lets be realistic. Try reading the full Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are serious about wanting to learn, then ask me questions with substance and I would give you all the time I can to help you find answers…
What “tradition” would we have lost? Since you haven’t told us/me what exactly Paul meant by “tradition” in the verse you quoted it seems to me your argumentation is flawed.
You would’t know what the teachings of the sacred traditions where to know what would be lost, would you… You are intelligent enough to know it’s not flawed. This response is only hopeful thinking on your part.
I am interested but would like a simple summary of your answer.
If you were interested, you would be looking for information on classes to attend to learn the fullness of the faith. Right now you seem to have an almost fear to find out you might be wrong about your convictions.
then you admit you recognize tradition lead to the Gospel.
No, I don’t accept this. It is true the scriptures don’t record every detail of what Jesus did but they record enough so that we may believe. I don’t believe that what you call “sacred tradition” exists outside of the scriptures.
No you don’t accept these scriptural verses but you accept others? what do you base selecting your choices on. How do you or anyone else dare to render valueless or discredit any works of Jesus just because “they are all not written” saying they are irrelevant. And you believe you have a guarantee of salvation while saying something like this?
What are those traditions that Paul refers to? It’s not like I haven’t read this verse and had it quoted to me a couple hundred times by well meaning Catholics but they never seem to be able to define exactly what it is Paul is calling “tradition” here. so you know this verse but blow it off? you expect the teachings of sacred tradition to be explained to you in ten words or less?Is he (Paul) speaking of the assumption, the treasury of merit, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, …excatly what is he refering to?the fullness of faith and a relationship with the Christ, Jesus.
These traditions can only be explained through the teachings and you are asking for them as those they are a list of words. When you realize you need more than that which you can see with your blinders on, you can attend classes. It is not possible to present the classes to you here. Lets be realistic. Try reading the full Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are serious about wanting to learn, then ask me questions with substance and I would give you all the time I can to help you find answers…
What “tradition” would we have lost? Since you haven’t told us/me what exactly Paul meant by “tradition” in the verse you quoted it seems to me your argumentation is flawed.
You would’t know what the teachings of the sacred traditions where to know what would be lost, would you… You are intelligent enough to know it’s not flawed. This response is only hopeful thinking on your part.
I am interested but would like a simple summary of your answer.
If you were interested, you would be looking for information on classes to attend to learn the fullness of the faith. Right now you seem to have an almost fear to find out you might be wrong about your convictions.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Usually the moderators will let heated discussion go on as long as it sticks to the topic and doesn’t get personal or nasty…and people don’t seem to get banned if they slip up once and make nice.
It may be that there are some of charlye’s posts that may have been deleted or edited, either in this thread or in another one; I don’t want to speculate or insinuate that she(?) wrote something really nasty, so let’s just say that the moderators do an excellent job of enforcing when things either get or are getting out of hand.
But your question is best answered by reviewing the forum rules.
Now back to the topic…
Related to my OP, somewhat, is the conclusion that one either accepts or rejects Tradition and magesterial authority in scriptural matters or not, and that that authority in itself is biblical as well as the doctrine and dogma which eminates from it.
“Biblical”, in this sense, not necessarliy being explicit.
It may be that there are some of charlye’s posts that may have been deleted or edited, either in this thread or in another one; I don’t want to speculate or insinuate that she(?) wrote something really nasty, so let’s just say that the moderators do an excellent job of enforcing when things either get or are getting out of hand.
But your question is best answered by reviewing the forum rules.
Now back to the topic…
Related to my OP, somewhat, is the conclusion that one either accepts or rejects Tradition and magesterial authority in scriptural matters or not, and that that authority in itself is biblical as well as the doctrine and dogma which eminates from it.
“Biblical”, in this sense, not necessarliy being explicit.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Discussion Forum Rules
From discussion’s I’ve had with the Mods over time, I’m of the opinion that it takes something pretty excessive to get yourself banned here at CAF. As most of us “old timers” :yukonjoe: know the staff here tends to allow a great deal of freedom as long as it stays charitable and within the rules there’s generally not a problem.
Most times, you’ll never see why a person gets banned because generally if it’s that bad then it’s too bad to stay on the boards. This is probably the best forum I have ever posted on.
We need to move on and get back on topic because discussions and speculations like this can get a thread closed.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
is it written in the Bible that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found and supported by scripture?
I believe that this (Sola Scriptura) is an errant modern new wind of doctrine that hasn’t got the scriptural support that it demands of all other doctrines.This should put us back on topic.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I didn’t say I didn’t accept the scripture, it’s your twisting that I don’t accept.
All you have to do is somehow demonstrate that you or your church knows what those traditions are that Paul is talking about and you will have a point. At this point it’s only certain that Paul mentions “tradition”. That is a long, long, looooooong way from proving that Paul was talking about all those various doctrines that make up what you refer to as sacred tradition.
I have read the catechism and I don’t recall seeing it define exactly what Paul was referring to. Maybe I have forgotten, and if I have, please give me a couple of paragraph numbers.
I don’t want you to explain the traditions I just want you to somehow demonstrate that you know what exactly it is Paul was referring to. Were those traditions Paul was talking about defined in scripture or do they make up a seperate body of revelation and how do you know this?
T
twb1621
Guest
Maybe this will shed some light for you;
New Advent Def:
"it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ’s doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.
The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Briefly the Church continues Christ in its mission to teach as in its mission to sanctify; its power is the same as that which He received from His Father and, as He came full of truth no less than of grace, the Church is likewise an institution of truth as it is an institution of grace. This doctrine was intended to be spread throughout the world despite so many obstacles of every kind, and the accomplishment of the task required miracles. So did Christ give to his Apostles the miraculous power which guaranteed their teaching. As He Himself confirmed His words by His works He wished that they also should present with their doctrine unexceptionable motives for credibility. Their miracles were the Divine seals of their mission and their Apostolate. The Divine seal has always been stamped on the teaching authority. It is not necessary that every missionary should work miracles, the Church herself is an ever-living miracle, bearing always on her brow the unexceptionable witness that God is with her."
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
New Advent Def:
"it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ’s doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.
The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Briefly the Church continues Christ in its mission to teach as in its mission to sanctify; its power is the same as that which He received from His Father and, as He came full of truth no less than of grace, the Church is likewise an institution of truth as it is an institution of grace. This doctrine was intended to be spread throughout the world despite so many obstacles of every kind, and the accomplishment of the task required miracles. So did Christ give to his Apostles the miraculous power which guaranteed their teaching. As He Himself confirmed His words by His works He wished that they also should present with their doctrine unexceptionable motives for credibility. Their miracles were the Divine seals of their mission and their Apostolate. The Divine seal has always been stamped on the teaching authority. It is not necessary that every missionary should work miracles, the Church herself is an ever-living miracle, bearing always on her brow the unexceptionable witness that God is with her."
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Thanks, I’ll take a look at it.
T
twb1621
Guest
Your very welcome. also, this may give some additional clarity of what it is.
Jesus spoke to his disciples long before the things he taught were written down. While tradition means a “handing down,” Sacred Tradition means the handing down of divine revelation from one generation of believers to the next, as preserved under the divine guidance of the Catholic Church established by Christ.
The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), defines Sacred Tradition as what “the apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with him, and from what he did, or what they learned from the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (DV 7). Sacred Tradition, of which Sacred Scripture is a part, is a deeply penetrating, living reality. It is transmitted to us through the practices of the Church since apostolic times. These include official professions of faith, from the Apostles’ Creed (circa A.D. 120) and Nicene Creed (325) to the Credo of the People of God by Pope Paul VI (1968); the official teachings of the 21 ecumenical councils of the Church, from Nicea I (325–381) to Vatican II (1962–65); the writings of Church Fathers and doctors; papal documents; sacred Scripture; sacred liturgy; and even Christian art that portrays what we believed and how we worshiped over the centuries.
Many non-Catholics today claim to base their faith on the Bible alone, a doctrine known as sola scriptura. This was a phrase coined by the Reformation Protestants who broke away from the Church in the 1500s. In addition to rejecting papal authority in all matters, daily governance, teaching authority, et cetera, the Protestants reject Sacred Tradition.
But where did the Bible come from? It came from the Church, not vice versa. In apostolic times most people were illiterate. So what Christ said and did was passed on orally. Christ instructed the apostles were to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). How could Our Lord order them to “preach the gospel” at a time when the gospels themselves did not exist in written form? Unless one is to accuse our Lord of being unreasonable, the only answer is that the gospel (“good news”) already existed in oral form as a part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, “handed on . . . from the lips of Christ” (DV 8).
From the year of Christ’s Resurrection until roughly 100, the New Testament itself was not completely written. And in the view of many nothing was written prior to the year 50. Yet this was a period of tremendous growth for the Church. How could it have grown intact, with the same teachings being passed on orally and consistently, unless the Holy Spirit was safeguarding the transmission of Sacred Tradition? How were so many converted without the aid of Sacred Scripture, if not with the aid of Sacred Tradition?
Many Protestant churches, in order to circumvent the Sacred Tradition issue, maintain that the Catholic Church fell into error at some point before the Reformation. And they are somehow in a position to judge where God and his Church have gone wrong.
But Sacred Scripture contains many of Christ’s promises to protect and safeguard his Church until the end of time. He tells the apostles, “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Again he promises, “I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16–17). Jesus promises, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). And Paul calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). These verses are quite clear: The one, true Church Christ founded cannot err because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, protects it for all time.
Another place Sacred Scripture is quite clear is the divine origin of the papacy and therefore its divine authority. Our Lord says to Peter, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19).
For the entire explanation; catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea3.asp
T
twb1621
Guest
excerpt from DEI VERBUM
…"in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
…"in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).
- And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
- Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition…"
J
JRKH
Guest
Allow me to make a couple of quick points.
- Paul wrote most, if not all, of his letters before any of the Gospels were written. Therefore at least some of what Paul calls tradition was later recorded in the Gospels.
- Anyone who has spent much time posting on boards such as this will understand the difficulty in conveying feelings in the printed word. (That is why we sometimes use smilies) So not only are the words important, but so are the inflections and various other “non-verbal” aspects of the Gospel which can be communicated “orally” and can be “taught” but could not be written into the text of the time.
- We hold to certain beliefs and structures because this is what was handed down from the days of oral teaching by the Apostles themselves. The Oral teaching that included the items I mentioned in point number 2 above. In addition there were certainly additional oral explanations given by the Apostles to their disciples giving greater and fuller understanding of the Gospels than can be had by a simple reading of any text.
- The Bible is not something seperate from sacred tradition, but rather it is a very important and integral part of it. One cannot seperate the Bible from the Traditions of the Church without grave peril as demonstrated by the thousands of different interpretations of these “infallible” texts.
Peace
James
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Thanks James. I appreciate yoru post.
I understand pretty well what you guys refer to as tradition and I guess my point is that if a Catholic apologist wants to use 2Thess2:15 as evidence of “sacred tradition” they have to somehow prove what exactly Paul means by his use of “tradition”.
To the best of my knowledge your church does not claim to know exactly what is meant by tradition in this verse. At least there is no claim to my knowledge of an index of what falls under the “traditions” Paul was referring to.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Thanks for the effort you put in. I don’t agree with you on this but I do appreciate the time you have spent in posting what you have.
J
JRKH
Guest
I became involved in a conversation along these lines in another thread awhile back. Anything that was brought up was immediately pounced upon by non-catholics as being wrong because it wasn’t in the Bible. I’m not saying you would do this, but it points up the difficulties in “Proving” something like this.
The problem here as I see it is that you want something that is definatively “provable” and the only way to do that is if it is written down somewhere. Then we come to the problem of it “not being biblical” and therefore not inerrant or somesuch argument.
The fact is that “Tradition” as refered to by Paul could mean any number of different things from docrinal issues such as the Orally taught Gospel of the time, to practical issues such as the order of the mass as practiced at that time.
In fact, I will offer the order of the mass as a tradition not recorded in Scripture yet passed down from the Apostles to us unchanged in it’s source and essence. Now this does not mean the the Order of Mass has not changed and evolved over time, certainly it has. But from Pentacost until today we have gathered together for the Holy Mass as Jesus Commanded us and we have done so in a manner, not described in the Bible, but rather developed and evolved by the Apostles and their successor Bishops.
Tradition, singularly put, is the sum total of the workings and teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Church over the course of 2000 years. It simply cannot be adequately summed up in a short paragraph. Particularly to someone who is unfamiliar with the concept.
Peace
James
- Status