Catholic Cardinal: No Obligation to Follow a Pope Who Betrays the Church [China]

What Is Up With The Synod ^ | 10/22/16 | Hilary White

[Elsie]

It's "proven" -- this is his criterion --- by the customs and practices of the churches. What they actually do.

Golly!

What can we learn about the PRACTICES of the 7 CATHOLIC churches that John wrote about in Revelation?

[Elsie]

...you wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition...

Why did Rome leave out some books of the apocrypha found in the Septuagint?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Short answer: it was the custom of the churches. The books already widely or universallu accepted for liturgical use in Christian churches were considered canonized by use.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Evidently some of them were caught up in sin.

BTW sinfulness doesn't necessarily indicate doctrinal error. I'm not sure they deviated in doctrine from the faithful churches. Perhaps they didn't practice what they preached. This happens.

[daniel1212]

I do think that Jaroslav Peliken put it most succinctly when he said, as regards the OT canon, that we can rely on A.D. Pharisee/tannaitic communities, councils and sources which were explicitly anti-Christian (e.g. the Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai and his successors) or we can rely on Christian communities, councils and sources. He opts for the latter, and I find this persuasive.

Which reasoning is contrary to that of many ancient Catholics, since simply because it is Jewish does not mean it is correct, and reasoning that the Christian conclusion is correct because it is "Christian" is not how the the church began. We can see that the itinerant preachers the church began with were correct over the Jewish magisterium, not because they claimed perpetual ensured veracity, but because they established their claims upon conclusive evidence. Likewise the church today must evidence that it is of the living God by substatial manifestation of the Truth. But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2) But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God...(2 Corinthians 6:4)

Likewise is the status of writings of God established. But the reason the issue of the canon came up was because of the absence of certain traditions of Rome in Scripture, and thus your rejection of Scripture as deterministic of Truth, and appeal to "apostolic tradition," and which is really appeal to the authority of the RCC, for Scripture, Tradition and History is what she says it is, based upon her premise of ensured veracity. Thus your list of books as if to show the essential need for this authority, therefore, what she says about such things as celibate priests, prayer to created beings in Heaven, etc., is what must be true.

However, the church began because common souls correctly discerned both men and writings of God as being so, before there ever was a NT church. And the basis for the true apostolic tradition which we see in Scripture was that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Therefore Scripture must be the standard by which we judge the Truth claims of Rome or SS preachers.

As for Pelikan, he once found,

"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity..." “...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position...“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. (Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 46-47)

But he ended up a Eastern Orthodox, which "opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

And more.

Thus you have tradition wars, and while you and I agree on many core Truths due to their manifest Scriptural teaching, we differ on things such as listed here due to the absence of the same, and contrary nature of them.

May women at the clinic choose life, along with those who defend it.

[Elsie]

BTW sinfulness doesn't necessarily indicate doctrinal error. I'm not sure they deviated in doctrine from the faithful churches. Perhaps they didn't practice what they preached.

Perhaps?

Not Sure?

No need to be ignorant of what was going on in those 7 Catholic churches SO close to the Apostles teachings; read for yourself the first 3 chapters of...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Doctrinal deviations in the seven churches of Asia (vs plain old sin). Sincere question, though I’m not sure what the relevance is. But you tell me, OK?

[Elsie]

Sincere question, though I’m not sure what the relevance is.

#9

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Doctrinal deviations in the seven churches of Asia (vs plain old sin). Sincere question, though I’m not sure what the relevance is. But you tell me, OK?"

This was the question I asked, about the seven churches in Asia (Revelation>.)

[Elsie]

They question that I asked was;

"How could Rome's teachings/practices get so screwed up so fast?"

[Mrs. Don-o]

Honest, I don’t know what you’re referring to. Does this have something to do with the Seven Churches in Asia? Are you associating them with Rome, to some reason? Not Constantinople?

And what is the time frame? Within the lifetime of John the Apostle? Or is he prophesying about the future? (Of course Constantinople wasn’t even founded until the early Fourth Century.)

You may have to spell this out for me.

What were these church’s doctrinal deviations, if any?

[Elsie]

Playing dumb is no longer cute.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please. What are you talking about?

[editor-surveyor]

.
Obviously there was no “catholic” church until the mid 4th century, when Constantine and Eusebius invented it.

The “Seven Churches” were the Notzerim that had wandered off the teaching of the Notzer, except for the church at Philadelphia, which was still holding firm to Torah.

None of those churches became the “Roman Catholic Church,” it was a special creation of Constantine & Co.
.

[Elsie]

Obviously there was no “catholic” church until the mid 4th century, when Constantine and Eusebius invented it.

That ain't what ROME teaches!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

So, Rlsie, what’s the timeline for the existence of the Catholic Church, according to you?

[Elsie]

So, Rlsie, what’s the timeline for the existence of the Catholic Church, according to you?

So; Mrs. D; what’s the timeline for the existence of the Catholic Church, according to ROME?

[Antoninus]

So; Apostolic Tradition trumps scripture.

No. Sacred Scripture is the product of Apostolic Tradition.

Scripture doesn't even exist without Apostolic Tradition.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Is there some reason why you won't answer questions lately?

According to the Catholic Church: the Catholic Church's birthday was Pentecost. So: approx. 33 AD - present.

That was before there was a "Church of Rome" The Diocese of Rome didn't exist until maybe 2 or 3 decades later. That's one of several reasons why, for the sake of clarity, Catholics generally don't use the term "Church of Rome" except when referring to the Diocese of Rome.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So, Elsie, what’s the timeline for the existence of the Catholic Church, according to you?