Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Primacy of Peter
V for Victory ^ | August 3, 2012

Posted on 08/04/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-122 last
To: Natural Law
Apostolic Succession has been the docrine of the Church from the first century ...

Name the current twelve ...

101 posted on 08/06/2012 8:30:15 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"Name the current twelve ..."

Who said anything about there being only 12? There are currently 5200+ Bishops of the Catholic Church world wide.

Peace be with you

102 posted on 08/06/2012 8:59:40 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Who said anything about there being only 12? There are currently 5200+ Bishops of the Catholic Church world wide.

I'm really only interested in those 12 who can trace their succession to the first apostles.

103 posted on 08/06/2012 9:22:34 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"I'm really only interested in those 12 who can trace their succession to the first apostles."

All Bishops and through them all Priests and Deacons can trace their succession to the Apostles. I do not, however, believe that any amount of information provided will convince those who do not want it to be so.

"“To one who has faith, no proof is necessary. To one without faith, no proof is possible.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

Peace be with you

104 posted on 08/06/2012 9:37:30 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
"According to the Greek Lexicon,"

Which Greek Lexicon would that be? (Note: You wouldn't be the first "non-Roman" to not know that most lexicons and concordances used in Protestant apologetics are highly flawed, deriving their Greek meanings from the KJV interpretations rather than beginning with the Koine Greek meanings.)

Peace be with you

105 posted on 08/06/2012 9:56:09 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

How about you show me a Greek Lexicon that says otherwise and prove yourself?


106 posted on 08/06/2012 10:00:43 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
"How about you show me a Greek Lexicon that says otherwise and prove yourself?"

I’ll see you one and raise you six more:

1) Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon “places 1 Cor. 3:15 as the example of where zemioo has the meaning of ‘be punished’”;

2) Gerhard Kittel’s, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 299:

1.a. Disadvantage may take the form of monetary or material "loss" or "damage." b. It may also be moral or spiritual in the sense of "hurt" or "ruin," with a subjective nuance of "unpleasantness”;

. . . The same sense [1.b.] is probable (rather than "penalty") in 1 Cor. 3:15 in contrast to the reward of v. 14. What is at issue is "hurt" or "loss" in a general sense, not in a financial sense or as loss of salvation;

3) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, gives the meaning of zemioo as “generally, to punish”;

4) Louw-Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, the “first, or primary, definition of zemioomai in 1 Cor. 3:15 is to‘suffer punishment;’”

5) Strong’s Greek Dictionary (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2210.htm) states the following definition of zemioo, “From zemia; to injure, i.e. (reflexively or passively) to experience detriment; be cast away, receive damage, lose, suffer loss”;

6) Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977, word #2210, p. 272) defines zemioo in this passage as "to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss”;

7) UBS Greek Dictionary states “the meaning of ‘be punished’ is the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 3:15.

Peace be with you

107 posted on 08/06/2012 10:39:27 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
So the RCC actually teaches not apostolic succession of authority, but rather apostolic distribution of authority.

"“To one who has faith, no proof is necessary. To one without faith, no proof is possible.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan, who is now a believer in Jesus Christ.

108 posted on 08/06/2012 10:59:28 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
You wouldn't be the first "non-Roman" to not know that most lexicons and concordances used in Protestant apologetics are highly flawed, deriving their Greek meanings from the KJV interpretations rather than beginning with the Koine Greek meanings.)

What an utterly ridiculous assertion.

109 posted on 08/06/2012 11:03:24 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"So the RCC actually teaches not apostolic succession of authority, but rather apostolic distribution of authority."

Perhaps you could enlighten me on your level of training in Catholic doctrine; who you trained under, where, when, etc. so that I can determine if you are maleducated or simply uneducated in this field. I find it is usually one of these two cases when a non-Catholic assumes a position of authority in arguing against and contradicting educated Catholics on the real teachings and meanings of Church doctrine.

Does this change of attack mean you you have conceded the point on the real meaning of zemiothesetai?

Peace be with you

110 posted on 08/06/2012 11:18:45 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"What an utterly ridiculous assertion."

Are you asserting that my seven corroborating sources are ridiculous?

Peace be with you

111 posted on 08/06/2012 11:23:17 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I read it! Great book!


112 posted on 08/06/2012 11:45:10 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Does this change of attack mean you you have conceded the point on the real meaning of zemiothesetai?

Here is where you have made a subtle exegetical blunder with the language.

If you look at every occurance in the NT of this word and its various forms, you would have seen that this word ONLY occurs in the passive voice in the NT. Therefore, you should be looking at the sections in the lexicon that show the definition when the passive voice is used. With this critical information, the lexicon would offer its meaning as "to suffer loss, to forfeit something."

Baur, Gingrich, et. al. have clearly documented usage of this word outside the NT; the sub-title of their combined lexicon affirms this. But the NT usage is restricted to the passive voice.

For example, Matt. 16:26, "what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but ζημιωθη his soul?"

The context clearly indicates the loss of something previously possessed, not the punishment of the soul ... but its complete loss. All the other occurances are the same, passive voice, meaning is clearly "loose something that you could have had, or loose something that you previously had."

Similarly with Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25, 2 Cor. 7:9, and Phil. 3:8. All passive voice, like 1 Cor. 3:15, all meaning "to loose something."

Are you asserting that my seven corroborating sources are ridiculous?

No, I'm asserting that with proper care, these resources can guide you to the correct exegetical understanding of the passage in question ... which, unfortunately, has eluded you to date.

113 posted on 08/06/2012 12:52:56 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"Here is where you have made a subtle exegetical blunder with the language."

I made no blunder because I do not rely upon forensic exegesis to reshape what Tradition already confirms.

The concept of purgation was widely known throughout the first century Mediterranean. The process of purgation was used in food preparation (i.e.; snails were purged before cooking) Medicine ( i.e.; blood letting induced vomiting, sweating, etc.), population control and even criminal and punishment. It was seen as both cleansing and redemptive. The transition of the soul of a sinner from a condition of sin to a fully cleansed state suitable for entry into heaven was considered a purgation. Purgatory was merely that state of being where/when purgation occurred. The Church never described it as a place.

By the way, it really is silly for Protestants to take a lawyerly approach to the development of the language used to refer to the new ideas of Revelation and try to link the inception of the idea to the branding of it.

Peace be with you.

114 posted on 08/06/2012 1:37:38 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I made no blunder because I do not rely upon forensic exegesis to reshape what Tradition already confirms.

I have to tell you, its frustrating to have a catholic try to argue from the text, then when someone comes around and challenges RCC exegetical conclusions, they just sweep the analysis under the rug of sacred tradition. Your attempt to mold the text to make it say what you want it to say at least tells me that you have some desire to follow the Biblical text, for that you should be commended.

But when you appeal to tradition to justify what is clearly in contradiction to scripture, you are doing just what the leaders and religious people of Jesus' day did.

Matthew 15:1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Mat 15:1 NAS)

He had harsh words for them ...

And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Mat 15:6 NAS)

Do you understand what it means to invalidate the Word of God? It means "to make it have no effect." By adhering to your traditions you are making the word of God to have no effect in your life.

I realize you have much invested in your religion, perhaps your whole family, friends, your spouse. But if that investment is in the wrong thing, built upon the wrong authority, arrived at through the wrong beliefs ... what will it profit you?

115 posted on 08/06/2012 2:35:10 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from the same well-spring and coequally form the deposit of Faith. When it appears that to you that they contradict one another your interpretations of one or both are in error.

Peace be with you

116 posted on 08/06/2012 2:52:51 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Here is the usage of “Zemioo” within the New Testament. Where Zemioo is used the word is bracketed:

“Mt 16:26 -
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and [lose] his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and [lose] his own soul?

Lu 9:25
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and [lose] himself, or be cast away?

2Co 7:9
NowI rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might [receive damage] by us in nothing.

Php 3:8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but [loss] for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the [loss] of all things, and do count them but dung, thatI may win Christ,

(In this one, Zemia is translated as the first loss, while Zemioo is the latter.)

Zemia, which is a noun form, is used here:

Ac 27:10
And said unto them, Sirs,I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much [damage], not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.

Ac 27:21
But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and [loss].

Php 3:7 -
But what things were gain to me, those I counted [loss] for Christ.

Now, let’s finally compare with 1 Cor 3:15

1Co 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

It says “If... any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss:” He suffers “loss” if his works are burned.

In every usage given, the word Zemioo or its relatives is used to refer to a financial or a physical loss on persons or things belonging to persons. It is never used to say “to be punished” which is what your original claim was, though you changed that in your post.

You would have us believe that this scripture reads “if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer punishment (to be punished).” However, the loss is obviously of his “works” that are burned, which fits with the pattern of its usage in all the other scriptures. It does not say that he will be punished, as you fantasize.

“1) Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon “places 1 Cor. 3:15 as the example of where zemioo has the meaning of ‘be punished’”;

2) Gerhard Kittel’s, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 299:”


I notice you do not quote the actual relevant section in those books on the word. Have you read these Lexicons? I tried searching to see the entire quote for myself but had no access to it. In the one you do quote, it does not say “to be punished.” It only reiterates what I have just told you.

“3) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, gives the meaning of zemioo as “generally, to punish”;”


Can we see why Liddell and Scott make this claim, even though the word, generally, refers to loss,damage and so on and so forth and not “to punish?” I tried searching, and again it is not something I have access too. There was a 1883 edition, but it would not open and, secondly, it had no search feature with what little did open.

“5) Strong’s Greek Dictionary (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2210.htm) states the following definition of zemioo, “From zemia; to injure, i.e. (reflexively or passively) to experience detriment; be cast away, receive damage, lose, suffer loss””


So Strong’s Greek Dictionary agrees with me and not with you.

“6) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977, word #2210, p. 272) defines zemioo in this passage as “to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss”;”


Another one that agrees with me. I think you’ve sniffed so much Popery that you’ve forgotten your original argument. Popery, like crack, it’s a hell of a thing.

“7) UBS Greek Dictionary states “the meaning of ‘be punished’ is the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 3:15.”


Does it say the meaning of the entire sentence is “to be punished?” Does it mean the word, in just that one instance, means “to be punished”? We can’t know, since again it is not a Lexicon you bothered to quote in its entirety and, apparently, is another one I can’t access without paying 69.99 for.


117 posted on 08/06/2012 6:58:03 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Dear friend, if anything is a forgery, it is the nonsensical trash posted at your link.

What does the link say that should be considered a "forgery"? Are you saying that the common knowledge that the Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore ARE forgeries is "trash"? Better tell the good folks at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm, because they readily admit it happened. They say:

    Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries. These documents, to the number of about one hundred, appeared suddenly in the ninth century and are nowhere mentioned before that time. The most ancient Manuscripts of them that we have are from the ninth century, and their method of composition, of which we shall treat later, shows that they were made up of passages and quotations of which we know the sources; and we are thus in a position to prove that the Pseudo-Isidore makes use of documents written long after the times of the popes to whom he attributes them. Thus it happens that popes of the first three centuries are made to quote documents that did not appear until the fourth or fifth century; and later popes up to Gregory I (590-604) are found employing documents dating from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, and the early part of the ninth. Then again there are endless anachronisms. The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud. Two cardinals, John of Torquemada (1468) and Nicholas of Cusa (1464), declared the earlier documents to be forgeries, especially those purporting to be by Clement and Anacletus. Then suspicion began to grow. Erasmus (died 1536) and canonists who had joined the Reformation, such as Charles du Moulin (died 1568), or Catholic canonists like Antoine* le Conte (died 1586), and after them the Centuriators of Magdeburg, in 1559, put the question squarely before the learned world. Nevertheless the official edition of the "Corpus Juris", in 1580, upheld the genuineness of the false decretals, many fragments of which are to be found in the "Decretum" of Gratian. As a partial explanation of this it is enough to recall the case of Antonio Agustin (died 1586), the greatest canonist of that period. Agustin seriously doubted the genuineness of the documents, but he never formally repudiated them. He felt he had not sufficient proof at hand, so he simply shirked the difficulty. And it is also to be remembered that, owing to the irritating controversies of the time, anything like an impartial and methodical discussion of such a subject was an utter impossibility. In 1628 the Protestant Blondel published his decisive study, "Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes". Since then the apocryphal nature of the decretals of Isidore has been an established historical fact. The last of the false decretals that had escaped the keen criticism of Blondel were pointed out by two Catholic priests, the brothers Ballerini, in the eighteenth century.

You can read more about this scandalous "wool" that got pulled over MANY eyes - including Thomas Aquinas - at the link.

As to Cyprian's comments that you claim prove the primacy of the Pope of Rome, I direct you to http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php, where we learn:

    At the time when the controversy concerning baptism broke out between him and Bishop Stephen of Rome (255), Cyprian stood undisputedly as the prominent and most influential leader in the Christian Church. The Roman Church held that baptism administered in due form was valid, even when administered by a heretic, and admitted baptized heretics and schismatics by simple imposition of hands; while Cyprian protested that there was no baptism outside of the orthodox church, and baptized, or rather re-baptized, heretics and schismatics, before admitting them into the church. The Roman view held the ground; but it is very instructive to notice the relation in which Cyprian places himself to the Bishop of Rome. Acknowledging Rome as the natural centre of Christendom, and the successor of Peter as primus inter pares, he recognizes the precedence as one of honor only, and by no means as one of power. Of a feeling of subordination, of a yielding to a higher power of jurisdiction, there is in all his tracts and letters not the least trace. The papacy was not yet born. On the contrary, it is Cyprian who is styled Papa by the Roman bishop; and he does not give back the title to his interlocutor.

I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has history on her side to prove that the Pope of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter and head over all Christendom, has always been a tenet held by the Christian community. That there HAVE been numerous splits and dissension from such a concept is indisputable and the false Decretals only prove that some people will stop at nothing to insist it is true - even to deceit and blatant forgery all in the name of Christ.

118 posted on 08/06/2012 7:12:05 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
The scripture is clear that it is not us who live, but Christ who lives in us. It is by His righteousness, and not our own, that we merit heaven. And it is by His sacrifice, not the Eucharist or any ritual you go through or any holy work you do, which makes you clean as snow.

AMEN! Scripture is SO clear that we do not earn or merit salvation by anything we do but by the unmerited, unearned, undeserved GRACE of Almighty God. If we could be saved by our own good works or human perfection, then Jesus Christ died in vain. But, praise the Lord, when we were YET sinners, Christ died for us. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin. When we by faith receive Him, believe on Him, accept Him, we are made children of God who will never be cast out, lost or plucked from His hands.

It amazes me when anyone sneers at or mocks the truth that we are saved by grace THROUGH faith and NOT of ourselves. It is like tossing God's gift back in His face with a curt, "Thanks, but I can do it myself!". There is obviously a spiritual blindness that comes over some people that keeps them from seeing just how destitute and without hope we all are without Christ. We love Him because He FIRST loved us.

Thank you for your stand for the truth of the Gospel.

119 posted on 08/06/2012 11:15:09 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“I recall that particular episode when it aired on EWTN. She has the most remarkable gift of simplifying the complex. When it comes to the apostles, she brings them to life by reminding us of their humble origins and the daunting task entrusted to them. Have you read Raymond Arroyo’s book, “Mother Angelica, the Remarkable Story of a Nun”?”

~ ~ ~

Thank you so much for posting Mother Angelica’s pic. It makes you smile to see her again. She named other outstanding qualities about Peter besides the two posted and proof from Scripture to show they are true.

I gave a different book by Raymond Arroyo about her to my sister, I have not read the one you mentioned. Humorous, Raymond has told the story of how Mother Angelica hired him, she sure had a way and always, God’s grace.

You know me and “private revelation”, Mother Angelica
didn’t believe all was revealed in the 3rd Secret of Fatima.
To me, the version the Vatican released is about another Holy Father, maybe Pope Benedict XVI not beloved Pope John Paul II. And, Mother Angelica believes in Garabandal.


120 posted on 08/07/2012 12:16:17 AM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from the same well-spring and coequally form the deposit of Faith. When it appears that to you that they contradict one another your interpretations of one or both are in error.

When you say that tradition is at the same level as scripture, you either elevate tradition ... or lower scripture.

Jesus clearly taught that tradition is secondary to the scriptures, the scriptures are above tradition, not coequal with it. He condemned the Pharisees for holding to the tradition of the elders above the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-14)

His condemnation is a quote from Isaiah ...

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

When you elevate tradition to the same status as the scriptures it leads to vain worship ... you are worshipping God in vain. What does the word vain mean? It means "lacking substance or worth." When you worship God in vain there is no substance or worth to the worship, it is meaningless and He receives no honor from it ... it is not true worship.

John 4:24 ... "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Truth is not found in elevating tradition to be coequal with scripture, "Thy Word is truth." True worship is dependent on having a Biblical understanding of the living God. What is the outcome of worshipping God in vain?

Matt 7:21-25
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Does He know you as one of His? Are you sure of that? Do you have absolute assurance that when you pass into eternity ... that He knows you? Or do you cling without full assurance to a hope that when you die you have done enough to get you there?

In Matt 7 above Jesus never denied that those who vainly call Him Lord weren't sincere in their service ... look at everything they did do in His name ... but the heresy is they were counting on that service making them acceptable to Him ...

It is my sincere prayer that you will repent so that you will not hear the words ... "I never knew you ... depart from Me ..."

John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

What is biblical belief? This text, and many others, assures us that we can know that we have (present tense) eternal life.

121 posted on 08/07/2012 8:02:11 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"When you say that tradition is at the same level as scripture, you either elevate tradition ... or lower scripture."

You aren't going to get anywhere or prove anything arguing the primacy of Sola Scriptura with anyone knowledgeable in Church history and Catholic doctrine. Nor will I accept any premise that tradition is the same as Sacred Tradition.

For the first 350 years of Christianity there was no Bible, there was only Sacred Tradition. It was from the Sacred Tradition, the Holy Spirit guided consensus of the Faithful that first the Creeds and then the Canon of Scripture were produced. The application of a human technology,l the writing down of the Revealed Word did not elevate it.

Protestantism teaches that Scripture and Tradition are antithetical or at least that one must be subordinate to the other, that one must follow either Scripture or Tradition. That was a necessity of those who sought to differentiate themselves from the Church and assume unto themselves the authority for interpretation of Scripture, not in the context of Tradition, but in the context of the Reformation.

Catholicism teaches that both Scripture AND Tradition are divine and synergistic. After studying both extensively I completely agree.

Peace be with you

122 posted on 08/07/2012 1:58:20 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-122 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson