Posted on 05/17/2008 9:41:37 AM PDT by markomalley
“500 papers” can still be (and are) 500 wrong papers.
Sorry; I’m going with the Protestants on this.
Hoss
bttt
>In the history of Roman Catholic dogma, one can trace an evolution in the theory of tradition.
>>Indeed; since all doctrines develop throughout history, we would fully expect to see the Christian understanding of tradition undergo this development also.
So, when God instructed the prophets and they said “Thus says the Lord!” further development of His word was expected beyond what the Lord instructed? Whoa, Nellie!
That is why Sola Scriptura is necessary, so that further developments, man-made developments cannot be inserted. This is forcefully illustrated in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. This is why Galatians is such a different book than say, 1 Corinthians, for the Corinthian church, though shot through with sin, was not trying to add new, man-made doctrines, and lead man to a different Gospel, and hell.
This right here should make anyone that listens for the voice of the Lord to pause in fear!
But of course, being led by a divinely-inspired Pope, you are totally within your rights to disagree, as I am to say he is leading those that follow his doctrines to Hell.
Is this Armstrong guy part of your living breathing magisterium and are his 500 papers part of that never-ending perpetually-evolving Tradition.
Hey, what’s going on here?
The only Christian denomination which can be criticized on FR is Mormon.
Every other is absolute truth, whether by doctrine or tradition.
/sarc
Ummm, your credulity is nearly outdone by your audacity, but both are no match for the arrogance of comparing the johnny-come-lately cult of Mormonism to the Church.
Can I say "bwahahahahahah" without triggering some freaking "religion safe zone" alarm?
An incredibly insightful article, and judging by the caliber of response on this thread, a complete waste of time. None so blind as those who will not see and all that. The Catholic Church is always wrong to a large contingent here. Always.
I take it you didn't get the memo?
I’m glad you posted it, but the font, font size and font colors make it hard to read.
No doctrinal errors are NECESSARY, sola scriptura included.
Sorry; I’m going with the Protestants on this.
“No one is trying to be dishonest. Everyone claims to be hearing the Word of God. But the indisputable fact of the matter is that Lutherans, Presbyterians, sectarians, liberals, conservatives, East Lansingites, East Berliners, Southern Americans, Southern Africans, Indonesians and Ghanians, all read the same Scripture and ALL HEAR DIFFERENT THINGS.”
Robert McAfee Brown (Protestant Scholar)
Then I suggest that we start by eliminating that development of doctrine that arose 1500 years after Christ known as the Protestant Reformation. BTW, that would also eliminate that novelty unknown until then called Sola Scriptura.
Hi Petrosius!
Should we not look to the church as founded by Peter and Paul, and allow all the traditions that were added since to be judged by their words written, as we both agree, under the direct inspiration of the Spirit of God. The Catholic church would sure look a lot different if they still followed who they claim was their founder. But I guess much like the LDS, the Catholics pick and choose what to listen to, and what to add to...
(Btw, can anyone on your side of the Tiber tell me what Vatican II really means? I need an infallible resource to interpret it... of course it looks like the Catholic Church is still looking for an infallible interpreter for that one.)
But Catholics, by their own reckoning, do still follow the teachings of Peter and Paul (and of course Jesus Christ). Catholic teaching is heavily dependent upon Scripture and we would never consciously violate the Word of God. Despite all the claims from Protestants that we do not follow the Bible what we are really arguing about are different interpretations of the Bible. So the question is not "Should we follow the Bible", but "By what authority do you claim that I should follow your interpretation of the Bible."
Vatican II, despite claims to the contrary, was basically a long-winded sermon that did not change any of the teachings of the Church.
Burn! I love a good burn...
The custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.
The Apostles didn't write about the custom of not rebaptizing converts? That's the quality of oral tradition? Sounds more like a topic that wasn't worth writing about by the Apostles and a topic not worth Augustine worrying about.
Actually looking at the words Augustine used...
may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition
just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church
therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles
So the worth of oral tradition is that we can suppose it's true, because there are many things observed by the church, and some of them may have been held by the Apostles?
To state it even simpler, it's good to follow oral tradition because some of it may be true. Wow, that's a winning proposition...
Which ones?
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.