I often get the general impression from the conservative Romanists on this board that you wish Roman Catholic authorities had burned or drowned more of the Evangelicals when they first appeared in Luther’s day. Perhaps if they had, in your opinion, this pernicious split would have been avoided?
Since you seem to know your stuff, just a few questions that have kept popping up and no one seems to be able to give a good answer on this forum... I know that it is a lot to cover, but has gone unanswered for a while.
>Since I do not belong to the Church of nmh, and since neither Christ nor Scripture itself says sola scriptura, I will go with the unbroken teaching of the Christ passed down through His Apostles and their successors, rather than nmh or what might well-have been the 16th century equivalent of Catholics for a Free Choice. The only tragedy of the Council of Trent is that it was about 50 years too late.
So where is this unbroken teaching of traditions? The Protestants claim that this is only found in the Scriptures. Do any of the Early Church Fathers suggest “Hey, Peter taught me this...” ? Or is it just assumed and not really mentioned anywhere?
Since Luke 1:1-4 clearly states that Luke did a bunch of research and told the story as best as he could put it together, as completely as he could, probably even interviewing Mary, and the other Apostles, why is it that much of what Rome claims is not included, but instead merely claimed that you gotta get the whole story via a mysterious tradition that no one can actually point to?
Is the claim by Paul that the whole gospel which he has taught is shown in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, why is Mary’s central role not shown, neither is the concepts of purgatory or the saving grace instilled by the sacraments?
How do we know that the slow development of the doctrines of Rome are not of the false brothers seeking to lead the flock astray which the Apostles did write about in nearly any of the letters in the NT?
Since nearly none of the Early Church Fathers seem to 100% agree with each other, how do we know which Tradition to follow, or why does the RCC adopt a ‘cafeteria catholic’ attitude with them, taking what it seems to think is ‘inspired’ whilst rejecting a lot?
If the ECF’s were all apostolically taught, what gives the RCC, a johnny-come-lately, the right to reject or perhaps choose which doctrine was taught by the Apostles and which are just added, but not inspired? If there is THAT much that is added but not inspired, does this not make the entirety of the traditions suspect?
Should we weep that Beckwith didn’t convert to the Russian Orthodox church rather than revert to the Roman church of his youth?
If it is rather the “burning in the bosom” of the Pope and the Councils, why do I not look to the JW’s or Mormons, as they have the same claim, just not the pedigree or the billions in art and real estate?
I know, I know, I must trust Rome to give me the right teaching...
Perhaps you don’t realize it, but your tone has a tendency to put off potential Tiber-swimmers. Reasoned discussion, as practiced by certain other members of this forum, can have the opposite effect.