Was the early Church Catholic? And Authority of tradition

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That’s funny.

Only because a seed does not look like the tree it becomes.

Why would you do this? You quote literally a word from an entire sentence? You quote the word “no” from a post that said this… (And anyone else reading this, please check the up arrows on the right of a post to see what I mean. This was really not an honest reply. Actually this is the very example of that!)

No offence but care to share this?

Again why would you do this. That “no” has absolutely no connection to any of my posts here in the answer. It said “no offence” (which I meant) and asking a question.

Please De Maria. We will need to start and be honest before we can even try and have a conversation. You are not doing this right. Actually you are construing it in some way in your favour by very bad means. I cannot answer you in any way if this is the case. Either you are not reading or something much worse…

Regards

Lol! It’s funny that you would make such a big fuss over a little bitty word that didn’t even have anything to do with my rebuttal. I addressed the words under it and disproved your contentions.

Just to make you feel better, I’ll go back and remove the little offending word.

Wow? Really?

 

[De_Maria]

Again why would you do this. That “no” has absolutely no connection to any of my posts here in the answer. It said “no offence” (which I meant) and asking a question.

Exactly! So why are you making such a big deal of it?

 

[jas84173]

The thing that amazes me is there was no official New Testament. For over 300 years readings in church could have been from the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, there were many churches that read from the Apocalypse of Peter on Good Friday. How awesome would that be!?

 

[MichaelP3]

Then why did you do it, It was the start of this rebuttel? A “No” just like that whith nothing else is not just a little word in the least. No little word at all there De Maria. It is not funny at all as you put it. This may be humour to you which explains a lot?

I really question your intentions regarding this forum.

 

[MichaelP3]

Hey. You are the one seeming dishonest quoting a “no” out of nowhere (or somewhere totally unrelated). So don’t say exactly to me. You are the one who did it for who knows what reason?

PS. Still wondering why…

 

[po18guy]

Well, it certainly wasn’t Protestant! 2,000 years ago, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the those who protested.

 

[MichaelP3]

There, it’s gone.

As the old saying goes, “methinks, the lady objects too much.”

Perhaps now, you’ll address the rest of the points I made.

Removing it but replacing it with a snotty remark is still a long way from being sincere. If I am to devote more time in addressing your post I do feel I need a bit more sincerity from you…

 

[runningdude]

Scripture arose from Tradition; the Canon was based on which texts were considered authoritative according to tradition. Scripture and Tradition are inseparable and complementary.

 

[goout]

…
Scripture and Tradition are inseparable and complementary.

Yes
Like Jesus of Nazareth and the Second Person of Trinity.
Like married man and wife.
Like vine and branches.

Love the great both/and!

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

There, it’s gone.

As the old saying goes, “methinks, the lady objects too much.”

Perhaps now, you’ll address the rest of the points I made.

Removing it but replacing it with a snotty remark is still a long way from being sincere. If I am to devote more time in addressing your post I do feel I need a bit more sincerity from you…

Lol! Devote more time?

Michael,

You can respond or not. That’s your decision to make. I rebutted your simplistic telephone game objection and apparently it’s tearing you up that you have no answer.

Well, do something or get off the pot. You either do or you do not. There is no try.

 

[steve-b]

Brittany:

The early Church was very much Catholic. Research on what the early Church believed reveals this.

No offence but care to share this?

I see this assumption a lot (together with the Catholics that wrote the Bible) yet the Early Church would look nothing like the Catholic Church today.

What I am getting to is that many start an argument like this is a fact. Yet that premise isn’t even agreed to begin with.

It’s not an assumption. It’s fact

The following post covers the subject for the first 4 centuries, (condensed for space) for the Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church. Why is Protestantism wrong? - #53 by steve-b Note my links in that post, gives the history, properly referenced, in 3 internal links named from another thread I participated in trail of blood , also note those posts, are unopened.

 

[MichaelP3]

Lol! Devote more time?

It is an English way of saying that I will “set aside more time” or “focus more on what you have said” or something like that.

Michael,

I guess that is me

You can respond or not. That’s your decision to make. I rebutted your simplistic telephone game objection and apparently it’s tearing you up that you have no answer.

I think we are still very far apart with regards to sincerity on here but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will respond in due time.

(I remember in kindergarten thinking, this person cannot answer, therefore they are wrong. And then I grew up)

Well, do something or get off the pot. You either do or you do not. There is no try.

Again very snotty for the person misconstruing another post. But okay, I did say I do give you the benefit of the doubt. So soon I will answer.

Side note: Still wondering why you did it? A simple “I was wrong and made a mistake” would have sufficed and it would have been a done deal. Makes you wonder about 90% of the discussions on here in the first place…

Regards