Replies

Protestants may seek, but they're incorrect. They haven't restored anything, but they have deviated. All studies of Early Christians show that their beliefs were CAtholic, their practises, their liturgy was Catholic. As you read in the Didache, you see the same line down to the CAtholic mass.

Christian Scripture did not exist for 1st century Christians, yet they were true to the faith as handed down in Tradition. And even when scripture was put together, it was birthed with Holy Tradition.

For 1500 years no one ever saw any difference between Holy Tradition and SCripture.

For 1500 years there was no SOLA scriptura.

And then the reformatting came across and dragged millions of Christians away from Christ and into the realms of either heresy or increasing weirdness (as we see in the 4th generation protestant groups like Mormons, Assemblies of G, JWs, Unitarians etc.)

Protestants may seek, but they're incorrect.

Sigh. We're only 'incorrect' if Scripture is 'incorrect'. We follow SCRIPTURE. So basically you're calling God fallible. I'd be careful with that one.

They haven't restored anything, but they have deviated.

They have restored true faith in Christ as opposed to oh, I dunno - Mary Worship. And again you keep quoting the Magisterium (FALLIBLE MEN) rather than Scripture. Who's deviating again?

Christian Scripture did not exist for 1st century Christians,

More error. The Old Testament existed. The New Testament may not have been complete but much still existed:

Matthew (Written 35 A.D.)
Mark - 42 A.D.
Luke - 59 A.D.
John - 42 A.D.
1 & II Corinthians - 56 to 57 A.D.
Galatians - 53 A.D.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Hebrews - 61 to 63 A.D.
Romans - 57 A.D.
1 & II Thessalonians - 50 to 51 A.D.
James - 40 to 41 A.D.
Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus - 63 A.D.
I, II & II John - 63 to 64 A.D.
I & II Peter - 64 to 66 A.D.
Jude - 66 to 67 A.D.
II Timothy -67 A.D.
Revelation - 95 A.D. - Even the LAST Book was well within the confines of the 1st century!

As far as 'being true to the faith as handed down in Tradition' correct - IN SO FAR AS TRADITION WAS CONSISTENT WITH SCRIPTURE! When it deviated - they were quick to confront and proclaim it error.

For 1500 years no one ever say any difference between Holy Tradition and Scripture....For 1500 years there was no SOLA.....

For 1500 years the Scriptures were kept away from the common man.

Proof Text:

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) proclaimed: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary." Look it up.

Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) - "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit."

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Your church purposely kept the Scriptures away from ordinary people who couldn't read Greek or Latin. Nobody saw any differences because they were not allowed to read any Scripture outside of the clergy. I would remind you it was a clergyman - Martin Luther - who while studying the Book of Romans discovered the errors and then posted his 99 thesis on the Doors of Wittenberg. The Reformation itself is PROOF that Christ will not be mocked and he intervened and made sure His Word became available again to the common people, and by doing so, preserved His Church. The real one.

And then the reformatting came across and dragged millions of Christians away from Christ and into the realms of either heresy or increasing weirdness...blah blah blah

You mean like this?