Because Jesus told his apostles three times the night before he died that he would send the Spirit to guide them in the truth (Jn 14:17, 15:26, 16:13). Paul confirms that the Church is the bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15). My Bible says that Jesus left his deposit of Truth with his apostles. I also take 2 Pt 1:20 seriously, that scripture is not a matter for me to interpret privately. At the Last Supper, Jesus said that those who accepted his apostles accepted him (Jn 13:20). That's good enough for me.
It is much more prudent to simply stick with the Word as best we can,
I mean no disrespect, but what's prudent for you doesn't seem so to me. If Christianity were a religion strictly by the book, wouldn't the book explicitly tell me so? My reading of the Book says Jesus founded a Church, not a how-to manual.
neither inventing things not found therein,
Something is not necessarily an invention because it's not found in scripture. John himself says not everything about Jesus is or can be written. Furthermore, Jesus said on Holy Thursday that he had more to teach the apostles in the future (Jn 16:12-15). Yet scripture records little Jesus said after the Resurrection.
A new and different Gospel, differing from the original, being a much amended one, is highly suspect.
Yes, it would be. But you haven't yet given me any scripture that says the New Testament contains all of Christ's teaching. Or that it prohibits oral teaching. So you haven't proven that the Catholic Church preaches a "much amended" gospel.
Take it up with the former Catholic, Webster, whom I was quoting.
I have no interest in what Webster thinks. I'm interested in why you'd cite Cyril as a sola scriptura adherent when he taught doctrines you claim are not biblical. Either he's a bad Bible scholar or you're not familiar with what he actually taught!
You may then need address your argument (if you actually have one) to his own cited sources also.
I have no argument with Cyril. His writings comport quite nicely with my beliefs. Not so much with yours apparently.
Peace be with you.
Excuse me? This thread is concerning the doctrine of Purgatory. What secret info came to light, given by Christ or the Apostles concerning it?
When? Where? Who?
Another put forth 1 Corinthians 3. We can see the stubble of man's doings being burned --- but do we really SEE fully formed Purgatory in that? One has to stretch the imagination to see Purgatory from that.
I have no interest in what Webster thinks. I'm interested in why you'd cite Cyril as a sola scriptura adherent when he taught doctrines you claim are not biblical. Either he's a bad Bible scholar or you're not familiar with what he actually taught!
Yes, one thing he (and many others) taught was to rely upon Scripture. Warning too that he should not be believed if support for what he was saying could not be found therein.
If we find on the whole he may have been somewhat inconsistent in following his own advice, what would that make him but so typically human?
Otherwise, as you seem to have side-stepped or overlooked, those fighting against Gnosticism (in it's various forms) used Scripture. No where that I know of did they use yet more "gnosticism" --- the claim that somehow they had received from Christ or the Apostles secret knowledge that others didn't. Or if they did, they were not successful nor much supported...
By what other secret methodology, this unrecorded passing of information from Christ and the Apostles, did precepts & doctrines arrive in the Roman church, much of the time surfacing only centuries later?
let's have a chain of custody hearing on those sort of "things"... that "oral tradition" Catholics are taught "was passed down from the Apostles" or the like, concerning first --- Purgatory.
We can approach other controversial subjects later. But I'll need to ping a few here for assistance.
No sir, it is not incumbent upon me to prove oral testimony and teachings was prohibited (for it was not).
But what IS called for in light of this, is the RCC to provide documentary record of precisely WHAT "tradition" was passed down in this manner (to only surface hundreds of years later?) and from who it was passed, to whom.
I realize that the RCC has an extensive PR apparatus, and something of a "marketing" wing selling the idea of the "fuzzy infallibles" as part of it's own public, and internal face to the world...
But you tell ME. Where do they get this "secret" info, that is not written in the Scriptures? They won't answer, they just keep changing the subject when it's brought up.
Time, place, persons. Let's track how doctrines developed. After we do that for awhile, it's my guess those whom wish to rely upon "oral tradition" will see that in many cases it most certainly is not traced BACK to "all of those things Christ said and did, not written", or even as direct teachings attributable to the Apostles. Ah, and even then, at those few occasions (Apostle to successor or another, as related by the successor or another) we can see some personality come into play, some of the usual limitations of speech & rhetoric. Leaving their words enough to be at times instructive, but not enough to make it equal to Scripture --- OR THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE DONE THAT more near the time. But What did they (the church) really do when faced with such questions early on?
They said; Rely upon Scripture Foremost.
It wasn't until much later, some centuries later people started elevating "tradition" to be equal, and that's when errors, both subtle and more aggressive, began creeping in.
Like Yogi Berra once said -- "you can see a lot just by observing".