Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[Jon_S_1]

Then why do we have to say Tradition is as inerrant as Scripture?
.

Because it is not men’s tradition. Big T tradition is the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles. The sermons they gave, advice the offered, stories they told over dinner.

If God wanted us to have only a book, he could have delivered one. He instead wanted to teach us and some of that teaching, not all but some was written down. It frankly was designed to be oral teaching only later being written down, or in the case of the letters, written because they were too far apart to speak.

So yes tradition is important. It’s what Christ gave us.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Totally understand. If I were Catholic I would say the same thing. Just that it cuts both ways. Others see Rome as historically doing the power grab, even using scripture to that end.

Those “others” have one tough obstacle to overcome: actual historical facts.

Not that that will necessarily stop those “others” just as the facts of the Ferguson report don’t stop people from their “hands up - don’t shoot” revisionist history.

Putting politics aside maybe one can see Korah and the rebellion for what it was. It was a power grab for Korah and some other princes. Do you really think he wanted to supplant Moses so that all could be a “pope/Moses/Aaron” to themselves, Korah then himself just being one of a million "leaders/priests’’ ?

Do you think Luther & Calvin had similar motivations?
Calvin persecuted those who disagreed with HIS interpretations of scripture, for instance.

It is a bit of a stretch to say reformers were shunned malcontents and used theology for power, that they were not genuine in their call for reform.

Absolutely, definitely, couldn’t disagree more.

 

[KathleenGee]

How I understood my papacy classes, as you recall Benhur…the persistant and ongoing effect of the Church was the great peace and unity of communion experienced by those in the Church.

Whatever the Church had decreed, and I am not addressing controversial topics because they are usually quite complex according to their times…assuming a past pope, the response would always be quiet acquiescence to whatever ruling. People would accept in great peace…not power grabbing.

Again…it is not about power, it is about the fullness of faith in Christ and how it is lived out…insured by the Church. Whenever a pope made a ruling over a particular bishop…it was because the bishop was severe…and the pope would retract the bishop’s ruling and administrate the situation at hand more in a pastoral spirit…shepherding the flock.

 

[Denise1957]

Totally understand. If I were Catholic I would say the same thing. Just that it cuts both ways. Others see Rome as historically doing the power grab, even using scripture to that end.
Blessings

Who is it exactly who sees Rome as historically doing a power grab, and using scripture for that end?

 

[benhur]

Who is it exactly who sees Rome as historically doing a power grab, and using scripture for that end?

I suppose those not in union with her. They do not say they are being disobedient in their non-alliance. As far “scripture”, that might be implied for it is said in a positive light that her claim to her traditions also have a scriptural basis.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Don’t think they did what CC did either, and elevate Tradition as inerrant dogmatically .

.

First off, most of the New Testament is based on what was handed down from the Twelve on what Jesus said.

Second off, the end of the Gospel of John explicitly states this: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25 NABRE)