SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pixie_Dust
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You speak nonsense… I have never lied on these threads. You want to bring a couple of examples of your accusations to the table please do so we can see if in fact they are lies or something else. Can you do that?

I can, but won’t. I did just that on the other threads, go refute me there, instead of ignoring me as usual. From now on, I’ll simply ignore you and the lies that you tell. I’m not doing your homework for you, I’m merely exposing your lies.

:knight1: Great. We all appreciate your dilgence… 👍

I’m sure you don’t, but then again, it’s not about you. You have ceased to matter.
 
You may want to focus on your own leaders instead of me since i’m not part of your church. The doctrines that you are believing come from your own leaders and teachers and i think you are very troubled by what we have discussed about these matters. i don’t blame you.
Not really, we’re just trying to set the record straight for those who read your calumny and anti-Catholic bigotry.
 
It is not false to say that the Jesus and His apostles never taught about these things. They never taught that you are to baptize infants who cannot repent or believe.
So the households that were baptized in the NT had no infants?
They never taught you are to pray to the dead.
We don’t pray to the dead, we ask the saints in Heaven (who are very much alive, more so than you and I, in fact). You can find them doing so in Revelation.
Scripture is the final ultimate rule in which all doctrines and practices are to be measured by since they alone are inspired-inerrant. There is no higher authority than them.
Where does Scripture say that it is the “final ultimate rule in which all doctrines and practices are to be measured by” and where does Scripture say that it is inspired-inerrant? If Scripture is the highest authority, why are there so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations? How do we know which interpretation is the correct one?
 
sodak;3579852]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You speak nonsense… I have never lied on these threads. You want to bring a couple of examples of your accusations to the table please do so we can see if in fact they are lies or something else. Can you do that?

sodak;
I can, but won’t. I did just that on the other threads, go refute me there, instead of ignoring me as usual. From now on, I’ll simply ignore you and the lies that you tell. I’m not doing your homework for you, I’m merely exposing your lies
.
You have done nothing to support your unfounded accusations. This is slander.
justasking4
Great. We all appreciate your dilgence…
sodak;
I’m sure you don’t, but then again, it’s not about you. You have ceased to matter.
i may not matter to you but to others i do. Otherwise i would not have so many responses to my comments.
 
Pixie Dust;3580017]
Originally Posted by justasking4
It is not false to say that the Jesus and His apostles never taught about these things. They never taught that you are to baptize infants who cannot repent or believe.
Pixie Dust;
So the households that were baptized in the NT had no infants?
It does not say specifically. Secondly even if there were it does not mean they were baptized for the mere fact infants cannot repent and believe which is required first before a person is to be baptized. They are unable to fulfill this requirement.
Quote: justasking4
They never taught you are to pray to the dead.
Pixie Dust;
We don’t pray to the dead, we ask the saints in Heaven (who are very much alive, more so than you and I, in fact). You can find them doing so in Revelation.
Of course you pray to the dead i.e. those who have died and you believe are in heaven. You also do not know what the nature of life is in heaven in regards to this matter. It has not been revealed.
The Revelations passages that you refer to is not about someone here praying directly to anyone in heaven. Rather it speaks of “bowls of incense which are the prayers of the saints”.
Quote: justasking4
Scripture is the final ultimate rule in which all doctrines and practices are to be measured by since they alone are inspired-inerrant. There is no higher authority than them.
Pixie Dust;
Where does Scripture say that it is the “final ultimate rule in which all doctrines and practices are to be measured by” and where does Scripture say that it is inspired-inerrant?
Scripture does not say this. The argument is based on the nature of the scriptures i.e. inspired-inerrant which the catholic church also believes. 2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of the inspiration of the scriptures themselves as you may know.
If Scripture is the highest authority, why are there so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations?
There are a number of reasons:
1- not enough knowledge of the background of the passage
2- reading into passages our theology
3- not considering all relevant passages
4- drawing the wrong conclusions about the text.

These are just some of the factors that can impact interpretations. Howerver, there is a wide agreement on some very important doctrines.
How do we know which interpretation is the correct one?
Study. In many cases you can determine the correct interpretation by knowing the context and how the words in passages are being used. In many cases you can find other passages of Scriptures that may give you a better understanding of what you are trying to understand.
Also, scholars and good Bible teachers can be of a great help.
 
There are a number of reasons:
1- not enough knowledge of the background of the passage
2- reading into passages our theology
3- not considering all relevant passages
4- drawing the wrong conclusions about the text.

These are just some of the factors that can impact interpretations. Howerver, there is a wide agreement on some very important doctrines.
Of course billions of Christians lack the knowledge of the Bible except you and your church right?
 
Originally Posted by justasking4

There are a number of reasons:
1- not enough knowledge of the background of the passage
2- reading into passages our theology
3- not considering all relevant passages
4- drawing the wrong conclusions about the text.

These are just some of the factors that can impact interpretations. Howerver, there is a wide agreement on some very important doctrines.

fdmilkis
Of course billions of Christians lack the knowledge of the Bible except you and your church right?
no.
 
Not really, we’re just trying to set the record straight for those who read your calumny and anti-Catholic bigotry.
So the pursuit of the truth is “calumny and anti-Catholic bigotry”? :confused:
 
It does not say specifically. Secondly even if there were it does not mean they were baptized for the mere fact infants cannot repent and believe which is required first before a person is to be baptized. They are unable to fulfill this requirement.
So an 8-day-old Jewish boy had full awareness that he was joining the Covenant when he was circumcised?
Of course you pray to the dead i.e. those who have died and you believe are in heaven. You also do not know what the nature of life is in heaven in regards to this matter. It has not been revealed.
The Revelations passages that you refer to is not about someone here praying directly to anyone in heaven. Rather it speaks of “bowls of incense which are the prayers of the saints”.
You do know that “pray” just means “ask” right? And how do you even know that I pray to those who are no longer on this earth? Are we neighbors? Do you have hidden cameras set up in my bedroom? :eek: I know that Jesus says there is joy in Heaven when a sinner comes to repentance, Hebrews 12:1 says we’re surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Those in Heaven do not have the same limitations we have on earth.
Scripture does not say this. The argument is based on the nature of the scriptures i.e. inspired-inerrant which the catholic church also believes.
Yes the Church believes that the Scriptures are inspired, but not that Scriptures are the “final ultimate rule in which all doctrines and practices are to be measured by” because it was impossible for the first and second century Church to use it as such. They might have had a few letters and a Gospel, but they didn’t have a complete NT. They had the teachings of the Apostles, which by the power of God has been preserved for almost 2000 years.
2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of the inspiration of the scriptures themselves as you may know.
The inspiration of the OT, yes. Most of the NT wasn’t written at the time Paul was writing to Timothy.
There are a number of reasons:
1- not enough knowledge of the background of the passage
2- reading into passages our theology
3- not considering all relevant passages
4- drawing the wrong conclusions about the text.
These are just some of the factors that can impact interpretations.
Exactly why I trust the men who actually penned the NT to know how to interpret what they wrote, and have passed down their teachings on the NT for nearly 2000 years.
Howerver, there is a wide agreement on some very important doctrines.
Yep, every doctrine that all non-Catholics agree on is also a teaching of the Catholic faith! 😃
Study. In many cases you can determine the correct interpretation by knowing the context and how the words in passages are being used. In many cases you can find other passages of Scriptures that may give you a better understanding of what you are trying to understand.
Also, scholars and good Bible teachers can be of a great help.
So I study the Bible and just come to my own conclusions, leaning on my own understanding, eh? Doesn’t sound Scripturally sound to me. Isn’t that why we have so many different denominations today?

Sure, scholars and Bible teachers can help, but as a non-Catholic, I found that when I would ask about a passage that appeared to contradict what they had been teaching me, they found a way to twist and turn and explain away the passage in question so as to leave their theology intact. It was quite troubling. Imagine my joy when I discovered that there was a Church that had been around, teaching the same doctrine as the Apostles for almost 2000 years, and I didn’t have to struggle with making the Bible fit my theology!
 
You may want to focus on your own leaders instead of me since i’m not part of your church. The doctrines that you are believing come from your own leaders and teachers and i think you are very troubled by what we have discussed about these matters. i don’t blame you.
Indeed my focus this week has been entirely riveted on our Holy Father, who is big in the news during his visit.👍

I have been moved to tears many times by these events, such a great witness to our Lord.

On the contrary, ja4, Jesus only founded One Church, therefore, all who are members of His Body are part of that One Church. I am very troubled that you don’t recognize this, and because you do not, you rip and tear at the Holy Bride of Christ.

Catholic beliefs do not come from the “minds of men” as you have suggested, but from the Teachings of Jesus through the Apostles.
.
You have done nothing to support your unfounded accusations. This is slander.
On the contrary, ja4, you have been presented with the truth of what Catholics Teach and believe for a year and a half now, almost on a daily basis! Yet you continue to represent otherwise. This is bearing false witness against your neighbor. You have persisted in the disingenuous questionining that you have used as a basis to send members of the board on wild chases in an attempt to correct your gross misunderstandings of the faith, the findings of which you deny and contradict. You have made it clear that you are not here to learn about our faith, but to convert Catholics into “bible christians”.
. i may not matter to you but to others i do. Otherwise i would not have so many responses to my comments.
Rarely there have been other bigoted fundamentalists that have supported your dance, but the vast majority of us who support the forum are concerned primarily for those who read the fora with genuine desires to learn. We respond to you so that the negativity, divisiveness, and falsehoods you place here will not be out there left hanging, a pitfall into which the hapless may stumble. Your presence here is a painful thorn in the flesh, over which you gloat with glee. It seems that you are driven by a supernatural force, some type of mocking spirit. 🤷
 
It does not say specifically. Secondly even if there were it does not mean they were baptized for the mere fact infants cannot repent and believe which is required first before a person is to be baptized. They are unable to fulfill this requirement.
This is interesting. You can admit that scripture does not specifically preclude the baptism of infants, becuase infants are not excluded from the “households” that were baptized. And you place your own requirement (never mentioned in scripture) that a person must repent and beleive before baptism?
Of course you pray to the dead i.e. those who have died and you believe are in heaven. You also do not know what the nature of life is in heaven in regards to this matter. It has not been revealed.
This is an example of misrepresenting the facts, ja4. You have been repeatedly reminded of Jesus’ words:

Mark 12:26-27
27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."

Yet though you will not accept correction from Catholics, you will not even accept it from the mouth of the Lord HImself! :eek: You are right when you note that this troubles me.

We know some things about the nature of life in heaven through the teachings of Jesus. One of the things we know is that humans are sentient, and can interact with those here on earth, and are aware of earthly events. We know that even death cannot separate us from God, and that we are all members of His One Body, and that part of His Body in heaven is not “dead”, but that to be absent from the earth is to be present with the Lord.
The Revelations passages that you refer to is not about someone here praying directly to anyone in heaven. Rather it speaks of “bowls of incense which are the prayers of the saints”.
Indeed. And in this passage we see that the saints are alive in heaven, and that the prayers of the saints (both in heaven and on earth) are joined together and offered to God. It is one “revelation”, by the way, not many.
Scripture does not say this. The argument is based on the nature of the scriptures i.e. inspired-inerrant which the catholic church also believes. 2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of the inspiration of the scriptures themselves as you may know.
Since it was written by Catholics, you are right that we do know. Those Catholics that wrote the NT never intended for it’s contents to be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced them, as you have done.

I find it interesting that, when Catholics pronounce docrtines using this criteria (it is an arguement based on the nature…) such as the assumption of Mary, this is ridiculed by you as “non -bibilical doctrine”, yet when you use the same arguement, it is somehow acceptable. 🤷
There are a number of reasons:
1- not enough knowledge of the background of the passage
2- reading into passages our theology
3- not considering all relevant passages
4- drawing the wrong conclusions about the text.

These are just some of the factors that can impact interpretations.
You have done a good job demonstrating all of these here on CAF, ja4. Congratulations on your fine role modeling of the problems associated with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. 👍
So the pursuit of the truth is “calumny and anti-Catholic bigotry”? :confused:
Let’s be honest, ja4! You are not here in “the pursuit of truth”. You already hold tightly to the things you beleive are true, and don’t accept anything Catholic, even from the mouth of Christ Himself! You are here to bite and tear against the Holy Bride of Christ, to find fault with Catholic doctrine, and to try to pull Catholics away from their faith. You have been quite clear since your arrival that you believe the Catholic Church has been infiltrated with false teachers and that Catholics should confront them with Scripture.

You are not here in search of the truth, but to further your own private agenda of resentment.
 
guanophore;3581473]
Originally Posted by justasking4
It does not say specifically. Secondly even if there were it does not mean they were baptized for the mere fact infants cannot repent and believe which is required first before a person is to be baptized. They are unable to fulfill this requirement.
guanophore
This is interesting. You can admit that scripture does not specifically preclude the baptism of infants, becuase infants are not excluded from the “households” that were baptized. And you place your own requirement (never mentioned in scripture) that a person must repent and beleive before baptism?
It is true a person must repent and believe before he can be baptized. You admit as much yourself by this quote from the thread “All have sinned… including Mary.” :
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes. However, do they need to be baptized to be saved as if pouring water on them or dunking someone who does not understand really save them as if there is some special power in the water to do so?

guanophore
The special power present in baptism comes from Jesus, ja4. Your statement here indicates that you have not understood the Scriptures:

" And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:15-16

In baptism, a candidate calls upon the Name of the Lord, and his sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus.

"… that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, Eph 5:26

It is required that the participants in baptism understand this, otherwise, it is not a valid baptism.
I agree with this last statement and the let me show you where this leads to: infant baptism’ would not qualify as being valid for the reasons you give. They are incapable of understanding.

Originally Posted by justasking4
Of course you pray to the dead i.e. those who have died and you believe are in heaven. You also do not know what the nature of life is in heaven in regards to this matter. It has not been revealed.
guanophore
This is an example of misrepresenting the facts, ja4. You have been repeatedly reminded of Jesus’ words:
Mark 12:26-27
27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."
Yet though you will not accept correction from Catholics, you will not even accept it from the mouth of the Lord HImself! You are right when you note that this troubles me.
Where in the passage that you quote does it say that the dead can hear your prayers here?
We know some things about the nature of life in heaven through the teachings of Jesus. One of the things we know is that humans are sentient, and can interact with those here on earth, and are aware of earthly events.
In these passages that you are thinking of, was this the norm? Was this something that Jesus or His apostles taught that this was the grounds for communicating with the dead i.e. those whose bodies are in graves?
We know that even death cannot separate us from God, and that we are all members of His One Body, and that part of His Body in heaven is not “dead”, but that to be absent from the earth is to be present with the Lord.
It looks like you are appealing to Romans 8:35-39 which says
35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 Just as it is written,“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Where in any of these verse does it say communication with those who are in heaven can hear your prayers? Notice also that the “separation” has to do with the “love of God and Christ” and not with us in this world and the next. To say that is to read into the texts what is not there.
 
So the pursuit of the truth is “calumny and anti-Catholic bigotry”? :confused:
Not at all. You, however, are not in pursuit of the truth, you are simply spreading lies and anti-Catholic bigotry. You’ve been called on it in other threads, and I’m calling you on it in this thread.

You have no intention of learning here. This is a CATHOLIC forum.

Get that through your head.

The purpose of this forum is NOT to try and be divisive and make Catholics question their faith through unsupported innuendo and repeating false claims. This is what you have been doing.

Again, I couldn’t care less what you choose to call it, I just want to make sure that those coming through and reading these threads realize the pettiness and falseness of what you have been doing here.

Often times, the response that you get is NOT because people adore you and your idiotic posts. We want to make sure that the record is set straight for others.

You think I’m slandering? You know very well which threads that I’m speaking of, where you have been doing this constantly. I’m still doing my best to get you banned and bounced off of this forum for good.

Keep it up, I’ll be ready to jump in as soon as you step over the line and call it to EVERYONE’s attention.
 
It is true a person must repent and believe before he can be baptized. You admit as much yourself by this quote from the thread “All have sinned… including Mary.” :
40.png
justasking4:
Yes. However, do they need to be baptized to be saved as if pouring water on them or dunking someone who does not understand really save them as if there is some special power in the water to do so?
40.png
guanophore:
The special power present in baptism comes from Jesus, ja4. Your statement here indicates that you have not understood the Scriptures:

" And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:15-16

In baptism, a candidate calls upon the Name of the Lord, and his sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus.

"… that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, Eph 5:26

It is required that the participants in baptism understand this, otherwise, it is not a valid baptism.
I agree with this last statement and the let me show you where this leads to: infant baptism’ would not qualify as being valid for the reasons you give. They are incapable of understanding.
Well, we see it differently, ja4. According to the Apostolic Tradiion, those present that are able to make a profession of faith are the parents, godparents, and faith community. Baptism is the initiation into the New Covenant, and replaces circumcision, the initiation into the Old Covenant. Obviously, God was clear that every male in the household committed to God was to be circumcised.

" In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." Col 2:10-12

Do you deny that baptism is the replacement of circumcision?

Do you deny that circumcision was given to all in a believing household, consent or not?

Do you deny that Mary and Joseph presented Jesus for circumcision?

Baptism of infants is based upon the faith of the parents and godparents, just as circumcision was. 👍
Of course you pray to the dead i.e. those who have died and you believe are in heaven. You also do not know what the nature of life is in heaven in regards to this matter. It has not been revealed.
Where in the passage that you quote does it say that the dead can hear your prayers here?
We believe what Jesus taught, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. All are alive unto Him. Since we are not limited to the Scripture, we can confidently trust in the Teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. Just as Jesus conversed with those who had passed from this life, we can have confidence that all those who are absent from us are present with Him.

2 Cor 5:8-9
we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
In these passages that you are thinking of, was this the norm? Was this something that Jesus or His apostles taught that this was the grounds for communicating with the dead i.e. those whose bodies are in graves?
I am not sure what you mean when you say “was this the norm?” If you are speaking of the time prior to Christ’s resurrection, then I would say unequivacably no. Even though Samuel, Moses, and Elijah appeared before that time and demonstrated they were aware of events on the earth, the communion of saints had not yet been established by Christ.

Jesus created a Body, and made it clear that nothing, including death, would separate us from HIs love. It is His love that binds us one to another, therefore, to the extent that we are all in HIs love, we are connected both to Him, and one another.
It looks like you are appealing to Romans 8:35-39 which says
35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Where in any of these verse does it say communication with those who are in heaven can hear your prayers?
Actually, no, I am not “appealing” to Scripture. Asking the intercession of those who have gone on before us in the faith is an Apostolic practice. It just so happens that some of the rationale for this is found in Scripture.

Those in heaven can hear whatever God wants them to hear. This was the case with Samuel when appeared to Saul, and when Moses and Elijah appeared at the Transfiguration.
Notice also that the “separation” has to do with the “love of God and Christ” and not with us in this world and the next. To say that is to read into the texts what is not there.
Separation and division is the fruit of the Reformation, of which you are a child. On the contrary, apostolic teaching makes it clear to us that there is only One Body, and that death does not separate us from it. It is the love of Jesus that makes use members of His Body, and members one of another.

It seems that this teaching about us being members one of another really grates on you, ja4, because I guess you don’t want to be joined with any Catholics. However, you do seem to accept the scripture, and it states very clearly that all that have been baptized into Him are members of the One Body. It is a mystery to me why you think that Jesus would have “dead” members of Himself. 🤷
 
Sure, scholars and Bible teachers can help, but as a non-Catholic, I found that when I would ask about a passage that appeared to contradict what they had been teaching me, they found a way to twist and turn and explain away the passage in question so as to leave their theology intact. It was quite troubling. Imagine my joy when I discovered that there was a Church that had been around, teaching the same doctrine as the Apostles for almost 2000 years, and I didn’t have to struggle with making the Bible fit my theology!
Did you ask a priest or someone the same questions i.e. “about a passage that appeared to contradict what they had been teaching me” and what did they say? Can you give me an example of a passage that troubled you?

Secondly, the catholic church has not been teaching what the apostles taught for the past 2000 years but have added much. There is a lot things in the catholic church that the apostles never knew nor taught.
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
Can you give a couple of examples of “the oral preaching of the Apostles” not recorded in the scriptures?

BHTech
One of the simplest examples of Oral Tradition that eventually became Dogma is that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. i.e. Doctrine of the Assumption.

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html
We know the apostles in their writings never spoke of her like this and we have no oral tradition or traditions of the apostles that is not in Scripture. In fact the catholic church admits it does not know what happened to her.

Since these things are true, where did this idea come from?
 
the catholic church has not been teaching what the apostles taught for the past 2000 years but have added much. There is a lot things in the catholic church that the apostles never knew nor taught.
This is what Jesus meant when he said that the mustard seed would become a great tree. The understanding of the Divine Deposit of Faith has grown over the years. We can even see this in the NT.

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 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. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” John 16:12-15

The Spirit has continued to take from Jesus and declare it. 👍
We know the apostles in their writings never spoke of her like this and we have no oral tradition or traditions of the apostles that is not in Scripture. In fact the catholic church admits it does not know what happened to her.

Since these things are true, where did this idea come from?
Sorry, ja4, what is true for you is not true for all! We receive the Traditions from the Apostles as the Scriptures instruct. We have not separated the Holy Writings from the Holy hands that produced them by the power of God. It is your perogative to reject the Word of God, but why attack us for accepting it? If you wish to reject part of the Teachings, you are free to do so! Somehow you feel you must stomp out those of us who have received the commandment:

" So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thess 2:13-14

We are not here to force the Sacred Traditions we have received upon you, but neither are we here for you to pursuade us to abandon the faith that has been entrusted to us. Will you not respect our right to guard our beliefs?

"…guard what has been entrusted to you…1 Tim 6:20
 
Did you ask a priest or someone the same questions i.e. “about a passage that appeared to contradict what they had been teaching me” and what did they say? Can you give me an example of a passage that troubled you?
There were several such passages that had no answer in my former non-Catholic theology, which had answers in Catholicism. The Bread of Life discourse in John 6, the Lord’s Supper, the authority to bind and loose, the admonishment to endure to the end, that good works (not works of the law) do actually matter.
Secondly, the catholic church has not been teaching what the apostles taught for the past 2000 years but have added much. There is a lot things in the catholic church that the apostles never knew nor taught.
In your opinion. It seems to me, from my study of the Early Church Fathers, that many of their teachings were removed or thrown out during the 16th Century by those with no authority to do so.
 
guanophore, I could have not said it any better myself. You mentioned the scripture readings that I had in mind. If one wants does not believe in sacred traditions, they are welcome to believe that. God gave us the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe but if one wants to know the truth, the truth is in the scripture and sacred traditions is also important. Nice to see someone that studies and understands the scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top