Posted on 04/01/2017 11:09:53 AM PDT by marshmallow
Your “snarky” is simply someone else’s question.
So, it's my imagination? Then Protestants need to phrase their questions more carefully as to not give the impression of snarkiness or sarcasm. It lessens the weight of their arguments to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
“So, it’s my imagination? Then Protestants need to phrase their questions more carefully as to not give the impression of snarkiness or sarcasm”
Fix:
So, it’s my imagination? Then posters of any denomination need to phrase their questions more carefully as to not give the impression of snarkiness or sarcasm
Catholic traditions are not truth? Says you? That’s just silly
Then we Catholics are good. : )
As to the passage of Scripture you quoted, we have no list of those traditions Paul referred to. As such, none of the traditions you hold to are known Apostolic traditions.
It is from the teaching of the Church that we know what are the Apostolic Traditions. Church history bears this out. If we were to insist that they be listed in the Bible then they would be Scripture, not Tradition.
Most arose later in history.
More aptly applied to Protestant traditions that arose 1500 years after our Lord.
“It is from the teaching of the Church that we know what are the Apostolic Traditions. Church history bears this out. If we were to insist that they be listed in the Bible then they would be Scripture, not Tradition.”
There is no list in existence of the traditions Paul referenced. If there were traditions directly from the Apostles, we’d have a historical record from before 100ad. We simply do not.
“Catholic traditions are not truth? “
Of course not. They are simply praxis.
Nor do we have an historical record from before A.D. 100 of what was considered Scripture. By your own standard we should not be able to know what is the Bible. Nor do we have any evidence that the early Christians held to Protestant beliefs. But we can see what the early church taught and practiced as handed down from the Apostles. The early Church was just as careful in preserving Apostolic Traditions as they were in preserving the Bible. Read the Church Fathers.
Nor do we have an historical record from before A.D. 100 of what was considered Scripture.”
We have actual copies and fragments.
Unlike that missing list of Paul’s Traditions.
The oldest complete codices only go back to the 4th century. This is also the time that the definitive canon was settled by Catholic bishops.
Unlike that missing list of Paul’s Traditions.
As oral tradition there would be no "list," but only the day to day teaching and practices that were universally held. You can find this by reading the Church Fathers. BTW, they do not include the writings of Luther or the Scofield Bible Commentary.
“The oldest complete codices”
Not necessary. We have actual fragments that are used to confirm originals.
No fragments of Paul’s List ever existed. Any claim of rwhat they were is a guess or a wish from a later date.
We also have fragments of Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants deny, and of the Apocryphal books which are not part of the Bible. What we do not have from before A.D. 100 is a list of which books do and do not belong in the Bible.
No fragments of Paul’s List ever existed. Any claim of rwhat they were is a guess or a wish from a later date.
Not a wish from a later date but the continuing faithfulness of the early church to what they were taught by the Apostles, which just as reliable as the Scriptures that this same church has handed down to us.
“What we do not have from before A.D. 100 is a list of which books do and do not belong in the Bible.”
Not nessary at all. They had the foundation of the church - the apostles. They also had 2/3 of Scripture from Israel.
The Faithful Holy Spirit inspired and preserved it all.
The Faithful Holy Spirit inspired and preserved it all.
Sounds like a good description of the Catholic Church. : )
Without the Church we would not know which books belong, or do not belong, in the Bible. The very list of the books of the Bible is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
“Without the Church we would not know which books belong, or do not belong, in the Bible.”
Only a prideful rooster believes his crowing makes the sun rise.
God uses people as tools, but it is God who purposes and accomplishes his decrees.
And He continues to use His Church. God did not abandon it in the (fill in the blank) century. He continues to be with His Church as He promised. Only a prideful person would belief that his possesses an infallible ability to interpret the Bible on his own that the entire Church founded by Jesus Christ does not. God did not sleep for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation.
“God did not sleep for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation.”
I’d suggest you review the history of the nation of Israel...
The Catholic Church has been asking for this for decades. What goes around comes around. But you still can't get "conservative Catholics" to see it.
You're saying there was a Roman Catholic tradition of kneeling before Mary and praying to her in the New Testament?
There was a tradition of praying the Rosary in the New Testament?
Where ion the Bible does it state that traditions are not allowed
Nobody prays to Mary, the Other of Jesus
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.