No, Lampo, you’ve got the gist of it right. Aventist like to think that there were people with Adventist docterine hiding out from the evil Catholic Church all throught history. They have yet to prove this. It is all smoke and mirrors.
When have I ever had a “ranting about Protestants”?
Absolutely. To think otherwise tortures logic and commonsense.
If Peter was more important than any written words, why was a canon created in the first place? If a canon was necessary how come more works by Peter aren’t in it? How come a Catholic council included Paul more than Peter? If these were Catholic leaders, why even put a canon together? Why not keep handing down their traditions rather than the Gospels, epistles, etc?
Where did you come up with this notion? I don’t think anyone is saying that St. Peter is more important than Scripture. I don’t think anyone would say that Scripture is more important than St. Peter either. All of Holy Church is equal in itself. Maybe someone can articulate that better than I.
Did not Jesus use analogies in His teachings without always taking everything into consideration? For instances calling believers “branches” as in John 15. Branches don’t have minds, hearts, will and not made in the likeness of God and yet i would think you know what He meant. So it is with my analogy that the church was like a paintbrush that an artist uses to paint a picture.
Where are you getting this idea from? I have never said such a thing. What should blow your mind is that the catholic church claims to be the only authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet they have interpreted less than 20 verses. That is the mind blower.
If father Rocky said this he is mistaken. Here is what Jesus said about this:
There was already the OT scriptures at this time.
Oral teachings yes. Not sure what you mean by tradition.
whatever girl said that traditions (words of Peter) came before the canon. If that is the case, why was a canon even necessary? Why would Paul be in the canon more than Peter if we have very few, if no other existing works by Peter? You place a very high value on Peter, yet he exists only minimally compared to Paul. It is pretty obvious Paul got the church up and running all throughout the Mediterranian, and he is the only one who brought up the notion of “spiritual fathers”, so why does he not get a higher place than Peter? If Peter is the rock, why do we not have more about him and by him in the canon? Regardless of whether you think it is a legit notion, I believe they are legit questions that no one has been able to answer yet.
Justasking4, see if you can answer this for me: if what the Church Fathers were so important, how come many of them were not included in the canon, especially if they could be used to reinforce all of Catholic teaching (not that I am against all of Catholic teaching)?
I didn’t say that Peter was ‘more important’…Father Rocky’s point this morning however, was that Jesus never said to only follow Scripture. What did people do in the meantime…before Scripture was officially published? There were a few hundred years in there --did nothing take place or did a church exist? Peter took the command from Christ–and built His Church. Later…much…did the Scriptures actually come. The point is that nowhere does Jesus discount oral traditions in the Bible, and nowhere did He say to only rely on Scripture. So…BOTH Scripture and tradition go hand in hand–together.
A theological system is different than the scriptures.
I’m not sure what these 23 Rites in the catholic church are. How are they different?
Are you claiming all that your church teaches be it by pope, councils and individuals is by His guidance?
2 Timothy 2:12 addresses this when Paul writes:
Where did Jesus say to follow tradition?
tradition as it relates to HIS words, not a man’s interpretation of those words. the words were combined into a canon so there would be no doubt what CHRIST said and how it played out in the lives of His followers. The epistles already existed and they were circulated widely the entire time before a canon came into being. The Roman world was growing and expanding and the greatest way to a.) cement the truth to avoid controversy, and b.) to get the “word” out was to combine it. You speak like it was only tradition that carried the words of Christ. Wrong. Those words were they for all of those years before the canon came into being. They were widely circulated so that people would know the words of Christ not the traditions of men.
The main reason was that the fathers were not apostles. Only someone who was an apostle or closely associated with one would count. Take the gospel of Mark. Mark was not an apostle but he is closely associated with Peter. Keep in mind this was not the only criteria that was used to determine what should be in the canon.
There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today
So…what took place until Scripture was penned to paper, then published? How did people worship? The Catholic Church, whether you believe that or not, was truly the first organized church on earth. Luther protested against it…against what? Against other faiths? another church? He protested against the RCC. I’m afraid we cannot make up history to suit our contemporary beliefs. The reality is that the Bible does not reveal everything about Christ…it doesn’t. Christ never said that we should solely follow Scripture…if He did, could you help me to see where it states that?
He makes it clear that His words take precedence throughout all of Scripture. The words in the canon were written on purpose so there would not be any doubt as to how we should live. I.e, to keep people from perverting what Christ said. Paul makes that abundantly clear. And by the way, I am not making up history to suit myself. Luther did not protest the CC; he protested some of their sick and unscriptural practices that derived out of tradtion. So it would stand that if a man does the opposite of the words of Christ-which I put more sotck in than the words of man-he should be called on it. That is all Luther did. So please do not start on a rant about how Luther led a heretical movement because we have been smacked with that enough. When you are confronted with historical truth about the Reformation there is nothing that can be brought up that negates it other that “well, the church teaches…” Even John Paul II said Luther did not do anything heretical, so why is that constanly brought up here? Christ never referenced tradtions; He spoke of what HE said, and what He said is exactly what Paul was handing down.
Well if that is the case why are the church fathers given so much credit? Should we not follow the words who were there or extremely close to the ones who were there rather than clinging so tightly to ones who came YEARS after?