Tradition is a necessary part of Christianity

[Mikeoffaith]

Here’s the thing…Before the reformation the Church was One. If Luther had not thrown the baby out with the bath, it would quite possibly still be One. All those endowed with the gift of teaching would all the teaching One Truth. We would all be One as the Son and the Father are One. This is Jesus’ prayer [John 17].

Just an observation.

Hi Little Mary-

But just an observation since your knowledge of church history seems to be lacking, by the time Luther came around and the official date of the Reformation of 1517, the church had been less than ONE for 463 years. Look it up, the church had been split between East and West since 1054 and it still isn’t ONE in that aspect no matter how much John Paul II liked to talk about lungs.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Little Mary-

But just an observation since your knowledge of church history seems to be lacking, by the time Luther came around and the official date of the Reformation of 1517, the church had been less than ONE for 463 years. Look it up, the church had been split between East and West since 1054 and it still isn’t ONE in that aspect no matter how much John Paul II liked to talk about lungs.

Hey again Mike,

You seem to be pushing the two Churches pretty hard, on more than just one thread. Why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox if you believe it to be the original Church?

Also, please provide the documentation where Martin Luther denied that the Catholic Church was the original Church please.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Blessings Jon!

My friend, simply because universal jurisdiction was not articulated as elaborate as today,does not mean it did not exist or was a later invention. Can anyone give me one Apostle who articulates and defines the Trinity like the Council of Nicaea in 325 or 381? All doctrines take time to understand, explain and define. It is called doctrinal development. It is not like baking a cake where we get the results rather quickly.

God Bless my friend.

That may be the case. If you are looking at Ecumenical Councils as being the places of doctrinal definition and understanding for the entire church, which Ecumenical Council was it clearly defined so that it was excepted by the entire church not just the Patriarch of Rome and those bishops under him?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hey again Mike,

You seem to be pushing the two Churches pretty hard, on more than just one thread. Why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox if you believe it to be the original Church?

Also, please provide the documentation where Martin Luther denied that the Catholic Church was the original Church please.

Hiya PS-

I’m not pushing for one church or another. I just see that at one time there was one Church. Then there wasn’t. Now we have two churches. Well from each ones perspective they are both the ONE TRUE CHURCH and the other is a heretical band of believers or however each of you want to describe each other. My point when I put out there when the question of which church was founded by Christ on Pentecost in 33AD, then I will gladly say both, but then the argument goes down from there and the response is: They can’t be, Jesus founded only ONE CHURCH and that is the one whose current leader resides in Rome and all the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome." This automatically negates all of Orthodoxy. And I don’t see it that way. But if I can only choose one, I would rather choose the Orthodox. It seems that there are enough people on here to support Rome, so I choose to support Constantinople in that argument.

Why am I not Orthodox? Because I am Lutheran.

Now on to Lutheran. JonNC or Pastor Gary will have to weigh in on this one, I don’t remember coming across anything from Luther regarding a particular opinion on the Orthodox except by holding them up as an example of their beliefs. So I can’t form an opinion that Luther had one way or another about who was the ONE TRUE CHURCH. I don’t know if he saw that he had to make a choice or if he cared at all. He was a part of the Western Church and his issues were with Rome.

I guess a more appropriate question to ask of you is why don’t you believe that the Orthodox are the ONE TRUE CHURCH that Christ founded?

My apologies to the OP of this thread this is completely off topic.

 

[Nicea325]

That may be the case. If you are looking at Ecumenical Councils as being the places of doctrinal definition and understanding for the entire church, which Ecumenical Council was it clearly defined so that it was excepted by the entire church not just the Patriarch of Rome and those bishops under him?

Papal -universal jurisdiction is doctrine? And what council prior to Nicaea ever gives a defined and clear understanding of the Trinity? Was it only validated until the 4th century or did the basis already exist? When papal infallibility get clearly defined? 1870…right? Was it merely invented?

 

[JonNC]

Papal -universal jurisdiction is doctrine? And what council prior to Nicaea ever gives a defined and clear understanding of the Trinity? Was it only validated until the 4th century or did the basis already exist? When papal infallibility get clearly defined? 1870…right? Was it merely invented?

Not speaking for Mike or other Lutherans, but for me, this is the crux of the matter. When the Trinity, or Theotokos, etc, were decided in council, it was truly ecumenical, east and west. This wasn’t the case in 1870. So, as I’ve said before, when the east accepts universal jurisdiction as Rome views it, I will too, just like I accept the Trinity and Theotokos.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Not speaking for Mike or other Lutherans, but for me, this is the crux of the matter. When the Trinity, or Theotokos, etc, were decided in council, it was truly ecumenical, east and west. This wasn’t the case in 1870. So, as I’ve said before, when the east accepts universal jurisdiction as Rome views it, I will too, just like I accept the Trinity and Theotokos.

Jon

Blessings my friend.Yes it is true that Vatican I did not include many Eastern churches.Orthodox Christians do not accept any councils after 4th COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 869.However,the East does not refer strictly to those not in Communion w/Rome. The Catholic Church also includes the Eastern Rites
( Chaldaeans,Melkites, Armenians) who are in communion w/Rome.

Again, I am truly sad that Christ Church is divided due to errors on both sides and selfish pride. I have never considered or viewed Orthodox Christians as inferior or it is their ‘fault’ for the break up. Blame goes both ways. I continue to pray for unity.

God Bless Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;7569722]Blessings my friend.Yes it is true that Vatican I did not include many Eastern churches.Orthodox Christians do not accept any councils after 4th COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 869.However,the East does not refer strictly to those not in Communion w/Rome. The Catholic Church also includes the Eastern Rites
( Chaldaeans,Melkites, Armenians) who are in communion w/Rome.

Yes, this is true, as well.

Again, I am truly sad that Christ Church is divided due to errors on both sides and selfish pride. I have never considered or viewed Orthodox Christians as inferior or it is their ‘fault’ for the break up. Blame goes both ways. I continue to pray for unity.

And the same is true in the west, as the CCC says, there was blame enough on both side.
As you know, I share your prayer for unity.

Jon

 

[Little_Mary]

Hey again Mike,

You seem to be pushing the two Churches pretty hard, on more than just one thread. Why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox if you believe it to be the original Church?

Also, please provide the documentation where Martin Luther denied that the Catholic Church was the original Church please.

Thanks Prodigal Son. I don’t mind being corrected if I post something inaccurately, but there 's a nice way to do it. Ya know?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, this is true, as well.

And the same is true in the west, as the CCC says, there was blame enough on both side.
As you know, I share your prayer for unity.

Jon

Indeed. I remember when the late John Paul II apologized for the mistakes of the past. Humility…humility…:bowdown2:

 

[JonNC]

Indeed. I remember when the late John Paul II apologized for the mistakes of the past. Humility…humility…:bowdown2:

His humility and his efforts did much to energize ecumenism. I have felt for a very long time he was the greatest Christian leader of my lifetime.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

OK. Some specifics. A Tradition or scriptural source for papal universal jurisdiction.

Jesus specifically entrusted Peter with the care and feeding of the lambs/flock. Of course, all the Apostles shared in this, but Peter was the visible sign of unity among them.

When Satan demanded to “sift” them, Jesus told Peter “but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not”. This was said in singular, therefore, if we all want to have unfailing faith, we better get in on the prayer for Peter!

To Peter, because he was given this grace to fail not, is given the unique responsibility to strengthen the brethren. These together are called the Petrine gifts (unique to him), and the responsibility of them was handed on to his successor.

I think we miss the mark when we project a human/secular perspective into the role of the successor of Peter. Jesus was clear that they were not to “lord it over” one another. Personally I dislike the notion of “supremacy” for that reason.

But since Peter was given the care of the whole flock, we understand this to mean “jurisdiction”. Clearly the early church did not understand this jurisdiction to trample over others.

Can you name an ECF that articulates universal jurisdiction the way that Rome now, today, portrays it?

I think the state of the church in the world today was probably unfathomable to the early fathers.

CYPRIAN:

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]). Optatus*

 

[guanophore]

Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

OPTATUS:

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church". (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wow alot going on here…

There remains only one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church today in both East and West.

**Some! not all Orthodox (Eastern) Rite Catholic church’s **have REMOVED or DENIED themselves out of commuion with the Pope’s and those Eastern Orthodox and Western bishops who remain in full communion with the Pope.

These FEW orthodox communities who willfully deny communion with the Pope and the world wide magisterium in full communion with him, have seperated their communions only, They do not possess the power to seperate the body of Christ in the Catholic Church, because ALL (both East and West) possess Valid holy orders, Valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession from her sacramental Character from the blessed Trinity and the True presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus body, blood soul and divinity.

THE SACRED TRADITIONS HANDED DOWN FROM JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES WHICH ARE baptism, True body,blood present of Jesus in the Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction =Viaticum.

Which are authenticated (validated) by the Sacred Tradition handed down from the successors to the apostles in the Popes, bishops, priests, deacons are all part of the Sacred Traditions handed down, practiced and believed from Jesus and his apostles. Just to name** a few **Apostolic Sacred Traditions still practiced in both East and West Catholic Church communities.

The official term used by the Catholic Church is a “tear” (schism) has occurred in matters of authority determining or defining definitions of the practiced Apostolic Traditions handed to them such as infallibility, Holy spirit procession, Immaculate conception, purgatory, transubstantiation. These do not constitute as seperate church’s as expressed from posters. But in reality deals with internal complicated issues deciding church doctrinal matters from “authority” and “definitions”.

The Few Orthodox who maintain out of communion with the Pope and (world wide) magisterium, is not the same seperation as described by Protestantism which removed itself from the sacred Traditions from valid apostolic succession, valid holy orders and valid sacraments. Although the Roman Catholic Church recognizes some protestant sacramental marriages and baptisms.

As time goes on this authoritative, doctrinal definition “tear” is getting closer and closer to disappearing as “True” ecumencial “behind” the scenes are underway. What we view from the outside is “no communion” from the Orthodox side only, this tear “no communion” does not exist nor professed to our Orthodox Catholics from the Roman Catholic Rite side of the church and all the other Eastern Rites in communion with the Peter’s chair in the Pope.

Another sacred Apostolic Tradition handed down to us from the apostles is “Mary is Mother of God” incarnate, to use the Orthodox term “Theotokos” who have also remained to their Orthodox faith in the blessed Virgin Mary.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;7571071]Jesus specifically entrusted Peter with the care and feeding of the lambs/flock. Of course, all the Apostles shared in this, but Peter was the visible sign of unity among them.

When Satan demanded to “sift” them, Jesus told Peter “but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not”. This was said in singular, therefore, if we all want to have unfailing faith, we better get in on the prayer for Peter!

To Peter, because he was given this grace to fail not, is given the unique responsibility to strengthen the brethren. These together are called the Petrine gifts (unique to him), and the responsibility of them was handed on to his successor.

OK, guano, in what way are they handed on to his successor, and how was this perseived then, as opposed to now from the Catholic perspective?
What is the evidence that they were handed on to his successors?
Are these gifts exclusive to the Church at Rome?

I think we miss the mark when we project a human/secular perspective into the role of the successor of Peter. Jesus was clear that they were not to “lord it over” one another. Personally I dislike the notion of “supremacy” for that reason.

This would certainly soften my position.

But since Peter was given the care of the whole flock, we understand this to mean “jurisdiction”. Clearly the early church did not understand this jurisdiction to trample over others.

Same here.

I think the state of the church in the world today was probably unfathomable to the early fathers.

CYPRIAN:

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]). Optatus*
Would not all of this have the reference of how his primacy was viewed then, not how that view has “developed” until today?

Jon

 

[guanophore]

OK, guano, in what way are they handed on to his successor,

Since the succession of Matthias the passing on of the office of the bishop has always been the same. The pattern is portrayed in the book of Acts, and it has not changed.

and how was this perseived then, as opposed to now from the Catholic perspective?

It is hard to know, aside from the Sacred Tradition and the writings that we have from them. Each successor of Peter was responsible for the care and feeding of the flock, and to strengthen./confirm the faith of his fellow bishops.

What is the evidence that they were handed on to his successors?

The duties of a bishop are evident in the Scripture, as are the responsibilities given to Peter. From the time of Linus until the present all the successors of the See of Peter in Rome have been charged with this responsibility.

Are these gifts exclusive to the Church at Rome?

All the successors of the Apostles have specific duties charged to the Bishops. However, Peter was given certain specific responsibilites that the others were not.

This would certainly soften my position.

I think it would for most of Christendom.

When the Western Empire collapsed, and the Emperor moved the Roman center to Constantinople, there was no structure or individual capable of managing the affairs of the abandoned city. The Bishop of Rome,a nd the ecclesial organization was the most capable of handling the affairs of governance, so the Emperor turned the local control over to the successor of Peter. He was given a tiara, and a title (Pontiff) to signify that he was empowered in secular rulership.

I think this was the beginning of the end for the Western Church. From that point, until the Reformation, the Church governance was conflated with secular rulership. There was a blurring of boundaries, and ruthless, greedy, and ambitious men sought the office of bishop for the control and esteem that could be garnered. The flock suffered for care, and the sheep were not fed and cared for as Christ intended.

Would not all of this have the reference of how his primacy was viewed then, not how that view has “developed” until today?

Jon

Yes, as many of the other elements of the church function have developed, the role of the successor of Peter has as well. But the fact that the role has developed does not make it invalid. The bishops all over the world have taken on more and different responsibiliites as the church grew.

 

[jblake]

Javl;:

The Eastern Churches claimed that the Western Church was too controlling and kept putting its nose in private disputes.

Inasmuch as the Bishop Of Rome was preaching and teaching heresy, and point blank refused to heed the correction of his superiors, calling it a political dispute is an admission of guilt that the Pope was a de facto heretic.

Yes, “sola scriptura” has splintered the Church with over 30,000 denominations, each going its own way.

Historically, splits have occurred because one group says “we believe/practice x” and a second group says “we believe/practice y”. One group says, “we can live with that difference”, but the second group says “we can’t live with that difference”. Thus, one group gets thrown out of the other group. “x” and “y” need not, and usually are not theological in nature.

• The Salvation Army was formed only after The Methodist Church, and every other denomination refused to accept, much less teach, the converts that William Booth was making. “The dregs of society are not worthy of God’s Grace” was the refrain Booth was presented with;
• The Methodist Church was formed, because the people the Wesley brothers were converting, were not accepted by The Anglican Communion. “You are boorish low-class, pedestrian, and consequently unable to sanctify God’s Kingdom”, was the anti-Methodist refrain;
• Metropolitan Community Church was formed, because those people were rejected by other denominations;
• The Church of England was formed, when The Bishop of Rome, purely out of spite, refused to grant a divorce to the King of England;

Sometimes splits are for political reasons:

• Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk was formed to be the state church of Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek.
• Dutch Reformed Church in Africa was formed purely for blacks in Southern Africa;
• Dutch Reformed Mission Church was formed purely for coloureds in Southern Africa;
• Association of Northern Baptists and Association of Southern Baptists;

To the extent that Church of Christ (One Cup) and Church of Christ (Non Institutional) can be considered independent denominations, the split is purely on the basis of whether or not one cup may be used, or must be used. A position that Scripture is silent upon.

If you wander through “Protestant denominations”, you’ll find that the majority of differences are not based upon that which is found in Scripture, but upon that in which Scripture is silent.

One other datapoint, is that various Protestant denominations and groups are in talks with each other, trying to find common ground, so that they can merge into one church. Evangelical Lutheran Church In America has probably done the most work to that end, being in full communion with six or seven other denominations.
(For those that play the "this organisation is in full communion with that organisation that is in full communion with the third organisation, that is in full communion with some other organisation, and treat these all as equivalent and fully transferable game, ELCA is in full communion with the The Catholic Church.)

jonathon

 

[jblake]

JonNC;:

the dogmatic statement that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven?

It is found in one of the Gnostic Gospels.
(Sorry, I’ve forgotten which one. It is not included in either my concordance to sacred literature, or Gospel harmony that includes both canonical, and non-canonical texts.)

Catholic Theology also uses Rev 22 to support that thesis.

jonathon

 

[guanophore]

Inasmuch as the Bishop Of Rome was preaching and teaching heresy, and point blank refused to heed the correction of his superiors, calling it a political dispute is an admission of guilt that the Pope was a de facto heretic.

Frankly, jb, this statement does not make much sense. For one thing, the Bishop of Rome HAS no “superiors”. The buck stops with him, just like it does with every bishop. Second, the Pope was not “preaching and teaching heresy”. The heresies were found in his private correspondence (if I am understanding the case you are citing here). Third, of course the pope did not make an “admission of guilt” about being a heretic, because he believed his view was the correct one, which would make his opponents the heretics.

Historically, splits have occurred because one group says “we believe/practice x” and a second group says “we believe/practice y”. One group says, “we can live with that difference”, but the second group says “we can’t live with that difference”. Thus, one group gets thrown out of the other group. “x” and “y” need not, and usually are not theological in nature.

This is disingenuous, jb. Of course the disputes are theological. That is what the “beliefs and practices” are all about. They are disputing and splitting over anything else. If it were not “theological” then they would not have to separate their religious affiliation, would they?

* _Metropolitan Community Church_ was formed, because those people were rejected by other denominations;

I think all of your citations here are misrepresentations. I challenge you to produce a single document from any of these ecclesial communities to support your assertions.

The doctrines/practices of the MCC are rejected because they justify behavior that is considered sinful by the Church founded by Christ. No one rejects the PEOPLE in these communities. Whether they are “dregs” or not, all are welcomed by Christ, and by His Church. Sin is not welcome.

* _The Church of England_ was formed, when The Bishop of Rome, purely out of spite, refused to grant a divorce to the King of England;

While I am sure there was a healthy amount of spite on both sides of this conflict, Jesus taught that divorce is a sin, and is “hated” by God. So, even if the pope had no “spite”, it would still have been wrong to grant it.

… A position that Scripture is silent upon.

This is a very essential point that is germaine to the thread topic. Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, and is silent on a number of critical issues. That is one reason Jesus founded a Church, rather than writing a manual.

If you wander through “Protestant denominations”, you’ll find that the majority of differences are not based upon that which is found in Scripture, but upon that in which Scripture is silent.

I dont’ think so, jb. I think most of the dissention has to do with how what is written is interpreted.

One other datapoint, is that various Protestant denominations and groups are in talks with each other, trying to find common ground, so that they can merge into one church.

Yes, it seems like the fragmentation is finally starting to reverse itself, Glory to God! However, they need not strive over it. They can just return to Rome, and they will be back on common ground.

It is found in one of the Gnostic Gospels.
(Sorry, I’ve forgotten which one. It is not included in either my concordance to sacred literature, or Gospel harmony that includes both canonical, and non-canonical texts.)

Catholic Theology also uses Rev 22 to support that thesis.

jonathon

I don’t think it is a Gnostic gospel you are thinking of. However, it is immaterial, since the Catholic faith is passed down to us from the Apostles, and not extracted from writings, whether they are Sacred, or not.