Tradition of the RCC says that Christ is building His Church on the person Peter.
Tradition of the EO says that Christ is building His Church on the Faith of Peter.
Actually, the RCC says that the person and faith of Peter are inseperable.
Scripture says Christ is building His Church on this rock
Scripture says Christ is this Rock **
Scripture says Christ is the Rock in one place, it says the Apostles are the Rock in another place, and it says that Peter is the Rock in another place. The only time Christ tells someone who the Rock is, however, is when he tells Peter that he is the Rock. In Aramaic, Peter’s name is Kepha, which literally means “rock”. There is no other way to interpret the passage but to interpret it as Jesus calling Peter “Rock”. Whether it is to refer only to his profession of faith or to his person as well is a different discussion, but you can’t argue that Peter is not named “Rock” by Jesus.
**
Who is right?
Tradition of the RCC says that the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven RCC says you must believe this EO says you can believe it or not
If I remember correctly, the EO Church says that Mary “fell asleep in the Lord” and that what happened then is a mystery. I don’t know exactly what that means, but I don’t think they simply say you can believe it or not.
Tradition of the EO says that the Virgin Mary died and was buried RCC says you can’t believe this EO says you can believe it or not
I don’t think that’s correct. I don’t know of any official belief of the EO that says Mary was buried. Could you link me to something?
No scripture
No Scripture or any other records saying “Mary died and was buried” either, though. We have records, though not in Scripture of the Apostles dying where they are buried. Why not Mary?
Who is right?
Tradition of the RCC says Mary was born without sin One of two people in the whole world that was. Adam and Eve were created. RCC says you must believe this EO says HUMM Strange Tradition
And this is one of the seperating points of the RCC and EO. It is quite a complicated issue, so I would rather not discuss it in this thread, since it doesn’t really deal with the topic of Lutherans.
Tradition of the EO says Mary was born without sin. But they also believe that all children are born without sin. RCC says you can’t believe that all children are born without sin, EO says Why not?
Same answer as above.
Scripture says “full of grace” ambiguous, no other scripture defines that statement.
That is not the sole reason for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, merely a strong support of the doctrine from Scripture.
Who is right?
See our thinking on what it means by scripture and tradition are two different mind sets.
See I know what is Truth – Scripture Alone is the only inspired and infallible Truth.
I will ask you again, if Scripture is the SOLE RULE OF FAITH, then it contains ALL beliefs, doctrines, ect. does it not? So it should be absolutely no problem for you to cite where in the Bible it says that the Bible (which, of course, didn’t exist when anything in it was written) is the sole rule of faith and that Tradition is not a rule of faith (and not the “traditions of men” argument).
I’ll keep my mind on Christ and Him Crucified and what that means for me and you and the rest of the world. and I will do that by Grace Alone, and by Faith Alone.
Sola gratia is not sola fide. James says “faith without works is dead”…how in the world can Protestants say that we need only faith when the only place in the entire Bible the words “faith alone” appear is in that passage???
God Blessings on you and yours
And yours as well.
But didn’t Jesus tell the Jewish people that they were to FOLLOW the Traditions and laws made by their leaders? Something about following those given authority over them even if it was difficult and even if those leaders did not follow their own rules? I can’t cite chapter and verse at the moment - could probably find it eventually but someone here surely has a better memory than I and knows what I mean…?