I do know what “ordinances” are and I do believe Paul did refer to them in many of his epistles to the members of the church and as you can see from this verse :
No you don’t. If you knew what they were you would be truthful and admit that these are not written down in the bible anywhere and if you were rational and had a healthy logic you would then conclude that some things mentioned and references in the bible are simply not in the bible and you would then have to admit that there is a thing called “tradition” and passed on oral teachings. But you can’t do that because your pride prevents you from admitting that your false doctrine of sola scripture (Leeann’s version) is wrong and arbitrary. So all you are doing here in your labored squirming is admitting that the verses I gave you prove that there is a thing called proper teaching and The Church, The Catholic Church is who Christ authorizes to teach.
But if it makes you feel better to imagine you are correct - you go right ahead and continue believing what you want since you obviously imagine you are above The Church and know it all.
Leeann;4706642:
Yes…thanks to Good Fella, I believe, he outlined in quite some detail the Mass/Eucharist a few posts back. While very elaborate in detail…it in no way
resembles what Paul describes as he reminded the church members what he himself had received to be passed on…and which he
“had” passed on already…
Don’t be ridiculous - it is materially the same thing.
And now you try to confuse the issue at hand as if “passing on” was a done deal. Did Paul just give them a bible 400 years before it was published?

And Paul did not show up to confirm them and encourage them in the faith? Now why would he do that Leeann? Could it be they stared to doubt their faith under trials and were in need of a reminder on the faith that was handed down???
And please don’t be so duplicitous and disingenuous in your smug denial of truth. Do you mean to say you actually believe in what you are arguing in circles with on the liturgy? Do you even receive communion and believe in real presence or are you just a hippocrate who likes to argue for the sake of argument to make themselves feel relevant?
So you see Leeann you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. In no way do your private interpretations of scriptures resemble the true Christian teaching handed down by the apostles. It’s really as simple as that.
I am done with you Leeann. You lack the fundamentals of reason and rational objectivity necessary for anyone to be able to appeal to reason. As well you are puffed up with an obstinate pride and self righteousness that reduces everything shared in an exchange with you to a childish contest of “opposition for the sake of opposition”. So it appears to me you are here not to have constructive dialog with anyone and to learn but to have a forum where you can feel as though you have an audience to preach your own private religion or to entertain your own nonsence.
I won’t waste anymore of my time playing your game of argumentation for the sake of argumentation.
James