Yes they are, in a material sense, but not a formal sense. I think it would be dishonest for an individual of the 21st century to say they could arrive at the understanding of God as three persons in a Blessed Trinity devoid of 2,000 years of Church history and teaching. The same for the understanding of the hypostatic union. Which, incidentally, is a term not found in scripture (same for Trinity), but is believed. So as an aside I don't understand why Protestants gave Catholics grief over Transubstantiation. All are valid examples of doctrinal development.
Yes it does. All doctrines must be provable by scripture. Now prove the assumption and veneration of Mary from scripture and not some addition to scripture. Catholics, Mormons and Muslims start with scripture and add to it or change it.
This is still a fallacy. Divine Revelation is transmitted in two modes: Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. One doesn't exist without the other. Christ instituted a Church. A teaching Church. He did not institute a book.
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
As for Muslims, I wonder, what is the practical difference between A protestant's understanding of Scripture and a Muslim's understanding that it was dicated to Mohammed by Allah. Sure the protestant will tell you that th writers of scripture were inspired, but does that hold any practical difference for them, apart from the Muslim understanding? And how I wonder whether if Protestants worship a book as opposed to Christ.
Because Christ said He was speaking spiritually and that the flesh profited nothing.
>> I think it would be dishonest for an individual of the 21st century to say they could arrive at the understanding of God as three persons in a Blessed Trinity devoid of 2,000 years of Church history and teaching.<<
Say what? One can easily come to a belief in a triune God today simply by reading scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>> So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)<<
Now prove that the “traditions” talked about in that verse are the “traditions” taught by the Catholic Church.
>> "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).<<
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
>>And how I wonder whether if Protestants worship a book as opposed to Christ.<<
Would that also mean that Catholics worship the RCC as opposed to Christ?
But address the doctrine of sola Scriptura and it's dismissed off the cuff by Catholics because the exact words of *Scripture alone* are not found in the Bible.
So why, all of a sudden, is doctrinal development not legitimate in THAT case?
Let me guess.....
If it supports Catholic doctrine, it's valid. If it supports non-Catholic doctrine, it's not valid.
Rules for thee but not for me.
It's called *hypocrisy*.