Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OLD REGGIE
I would be interested though in learning the earliest dated original documents you use to prove this so-called Tradition.

So would I. I am not a historian (I am a computer engineer). But the difference between Scripture and Tradition is precisely that Tradition is self-correcting, while Scripture is not. If I need to understand the passage I suspect is not self-evident, I can read the Catechism or talk to a priest, till that process brings a better understanding. Usually, a reference to the early Church writings closes the deal, if the Catechism is silent. That way, the meaning of a particular verse, say, Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:28, is understood not through some archaeological analysis of surviving copies, but by evidence of understanding common to the Fathers.

2,019 posted on 02/27/2006 1:30:09 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1864 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
"...Tradition is self-correcting,..."

Baloney!
2,027 posted on 02/27/2006 1:54:00 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2019 | View Replies ]

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