Does Jewish Oral Tradition Equal Roman Catholic Oral Tradition? (Also, Are They Similar In Nature?

You provided a list --- which when checking 5 or 6 did not do what you said it did. Not even once. None ever asked Peter to ask FOR them, anything. Or -- bring the evidence.I asked that in part, for none of them do what you originally claimed they would, as you worded it.

When those are seen in context, they do not at all do what you seem to be now saying either (for end result -- singular Papal Supremacy) for the wider settings show more often than not Christ addressing all the disciples in reply, with in the case of verses in Matthew 16 said to form much of the basis for "Petrine primacy", Jesus again raises the same subject two chapters later, addressing them all as to having powers of binding and loosening. With Peter there not having "asked" a question leading directly to Jesus then talking to them all about this binding and loosening, which are what the "keys" previously in Chapter 16 were said to be able to "do". It won't help to go look it up and see Peter ask another question immediately afterwards (in chapter 18, of which I speak) for the horse as it were, had already left the barn, bearing keys for all.

But now you [slightly] change the story, but without acknowledging your own wording (to which I objected) was erroneous.

While relying upon coupling of the word "ask" with use of first names.

And you can easily check out “Peter ask” in any online bible search and find 40 more. Then try, “Jude ask.” Nothing? Try “Andrew ask.” Nothing? How about even “James ask.’ Nothing.

I can think of one question asked directly by another disciple, who was quite near to Christ when he asked what he did, without doing a "search".

The question asked by this other disciple came about in quite telling context & setting, if we are to be now reading into texts meanings which then will carry over to all seen as "successors" to individuals, by way of identifying those today by their own functions, as in what they can be seen to "do" as part of "the church".

Can you guess? Just one instance, but it is enough to invalidate your use of the word "nothing", with the entire scene sketched there in the scriptures having much additional & significant implications.

Do they all have the formula, “Oh, Peter, please, we dare not ask Jesus, so ask for us?” No, or course not.

All? how about NONE have any of the other disciples asking Peter to ask Jesus for them" or even asking Peter to ask Jesus, without adding the words "for them".

I had repeated stressed (in two comments towards you) by underlining and repetition -- your own words -- which was the issue. I was hoping you would notice and provide some acknowledgement.

Now you slightly change it into "formulaic"? huh? There is no formula indicating the other disciples asked Peter to ask Jesus --- even ONCE, but which you had said was often the case. Or else bring that (as I asked) to these pages directly to see if that is actually true.

Otherwise, if you could have come out and said that you had misstated the facts, that would be a big help ---to do before --- now trying to re-state them.

But the point is to demonstrate again and again and again that Peter asked for the disciples.

And the answers provided, including the authority He said would be their own, which He (Christ) was in effect calling them all to exercise in His Kingdom, Christ gave to all -- not "Christ gave to Peter" for Peter to then distribute & administer to all the rest --- much less later persons claiming themselves Peter's sole successor have administrative authority to that degree, for as your own words now also suggest, Peter asking "for" other disciples, the answers were given to all more equally, with Peter serving as example of sorts.

In the earliest centuries of the Church -- that was the sense. As compared to a later arising (among men of the "church") labeling of notions or concept of "Petrine primacy", which ONLY those of Rome put forth as being the qualifying condition for need that thru "Peter's successor (a single one at any one time) to all the rest of Christianity in total, or to put it another way--- to rely upon Peter's own singular personal authority, which would then later be passed down only to those who may later occupy any one particular office of bishopric.

Are you listening? I doubt it. It comes across to me, that Romanists willfully adopt a form of "invincible ignorance" which admittedly is likely to come across as being rude, but which by way of even greater rudeness "Rome" (who invented the terminology) speaks of all those whom will not submit to herself on terms which she unilaterally dictates.

The fact of the matter remains, that this sense of Peter being "chief" and would pass down some chief role forever, to be in one bishopric only, which was to hold administrative rule over and above all others (or even "rule of love" as some of the slithering sidewider's put it here of late, trying desperately to keep hold of past, ill-gotten gains, any way they can) was not seen in the church for centuries.

As late as Gregory the Great, that Roman "Pontiff" himself wrote of the See Of Peterbeing in three places (the other two being Antioch & Alexandria) while also writing (in another of his letters) against the very idea of there being as it was spoken of at that juncture by another 'pope', a singular "Universal Bishop", or conceptually --- bishop of bishops --- having supremacy of rank over all others.

The mixed bag even the idea of Patriarchate holds (which in the West, in the Latin church became conflated and distorted to there being a single of what is equivalent to the in past times concept of patriarchate, with Rome alone turning that concept into singular "papacy") but which more limited original concept for has still to this day living proof for, along with valid claims of succession for those offices of Patriarchate having existed from earliest times in the church, in part by their mere existence, assist in refuting the Romish claim that all others owe to Rome now or at any time in the past, singular, unidirectional obiesence to a bishop of Rome, beyond a hoped for (but not always seen in the history of the church) collegiality of consideration and deference shared much more liberally among all, even to extent each held their own autonomy -- even as they each had full freedom to be "wrong".

In this case, it is "Rome" which is indeed wrong in such as the dogmatically proclaimed "All must be subject to the Roman Pontiff" if but for reason of sense of meaning there conveyed that did not include something along lines of "and the Roman Pontiff must be in turn equally as much subject to all the rest".

And that's on the best days, and among the best and kindest, most generous of consideration...

I have no interest in getting into a proof-texting war (since I follow the interpretation of the Scriptures of the ancient Christians who knew what they were talking about.)

Really, which ones, since they were often not in concord. Including on Mt. 16:18. For another, do you agree with Jerome's exegesis of Scripture and conclusions on virginity versus marriage? Or do you mean you selectively agree with them, insofar as they agree with RC teaching, as she judges them more than they judge her. Or is your basis for assurance that of objectively examining the evidence in order to ascertain the validity of RC teaching?

The Council of Trent uses Protestant to refer to people who abandoned the Catholic Church in which they were raised to join those making war against it. That doesn’t describe modern Catholics.

No, it refers to many of us here, glory to God. But we did not formally abandon Catholic Church membership in which we were raised in order to to join those making war against it, but the latter was a consequence of being born again and seeing the contrast btwn institutionalized religion, Catholic or Protestant, and life in Christ.

Is it your opinion that non-Christians *do* go to Heaven?

No, as OT saints were implicitly Christians, so all must come by Christ as contrite damned+destitute sinners, casting themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ, which implicitly means a denial of all other gospels, though they may have very little understanding of Christ. Cornelius was not saved until he heard and believed the simple gospel, but as he obeyed light he had by God's salvific grace, thus he was given the gospel.

"Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." (Luke 8:18)

Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. (John 12:35)

Frankly, 99.99999% of the time it’s cited on FR, it’s cited by a Protestant trying to use it as a Catholic “admission” of Protestantism, unaware that its purpose was not at all apologetic and simply reflected the general understanding of history in 1913 mid-America. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered a Catholic citing it.

I see this as erroneous. The CE or anything does not have to be an apologetic to be cited in apologetics, and yet it often does indeed engage in apologetics, and in fact I have seen RC apologists using its arguments.

Moreover, much of what is cited from it is not history but doctrinal views as valid representations, while its version of history is pro Roman and which i have seldom seen RCs object to except as regards the canon, but of course they object to and impugn anything that disturbs their image of Rome, while Trent providing the first infallible canon is also affirmed by modern scholars, as well as the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

In addition, rather than CE not being cited by Catholics (and incredible statement), it is often cited by and recommended by them, (http://www.catholic.com/search/content/%22catholic%20encyclopedia%22; https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia, etc.) even by Trad. RCs, as a trustworthy source, and no less an apologetic site than Catholic Answers in 2006 "began the process of creating an authoritative reproduction of this classic, world-renowned reference by scanning 14,000+ pages from the original volumes and processing the scans with OCR software" and calls it "the largest, most authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia resource on the web." http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Home

And the reason both cite it is because it is both overall held in high esteem by RCs, though sometimes and there is no comparable Encyclopedic resource as comprehensive on the Web.

Meanwhile, as said, i see the typical reason some RCs dismiss it is when it does provide substantiation against unsubstantiated ideas of RCs.

Seriously? You write that as if one would expect that RCs think they shouldn’t disagree about the utility of an encyclopedia.

Yes, seriously. RCs love to point to their church as the solution for determining and knowing Truth, yet she fails to provide even one official commentary on Scripture or an encyclopedia, let alone an infallible list of what magisterial level each teaching fall under. And the number of things RCs can disagree on is extensive, and if separated into groups based on beliefs you would have many divisions.

the Catholic Encyclopedia does bear a Nihil Obstat, merely meaning nothing in it is contrary to Catholic moral doctrine

Then why is the standard definition of Nihil Obstat (nothing stands in the way) and Imprimatur" (let it be printed) that of "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book is free of doctrinal and moral error?" Or is your version to be accepted over others?

It may not be meant to assure historical or any errors are not present, but nothing contrary to faith and morals (though a wrong record of history could be).

And canon law places significant weight on such approval

Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

Along with that, you have the ambiguous "cause" clause that allows you to debate here:

Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM

And if the stamps have merely has becoming meaningless, then Rome is failing to protect its flock, and requires them to become more like evangelicals in using their fallible human reasoning, to examine evidences and determine the veracity of Catholic teaching, which means of determining truth is elsewhere impugned.

And these stamps have quite a history, “To prevent the incursion of opinions that conflict with the church's teaching, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, created in 1542, has the authority to ban books which it adjudges to be dangerous to the faith and morals of the faithful. The catalog of such books is called the ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ and Roman Catholics are prohibited from reading any book on the Index without permission..." "The Index prohibits, the Imprimatur protects". - Jaraslov Pelikan, historical scholar, later Orthodox, “The Riddle of Roman Catholicism “(1959); http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/imprimatur-watch-what-youre-reading-my.htm l

Not even the pope’s version of history is infallible.

At least we agree on that! To which i would add there is no assurance he will be on anything, which was not the basis upon which the church began, not necessary.

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.