Posted on 12/05/2014 7:18:21 PM PST by Salvation
I didn’t mention anyone.
Simply false. To the best of my knowledge, all that supports the deuterocanonical books within the DSS are four: Sirach, Tobit, Jeremiah's Epistle (Baruch 6), and Psalm 151.
One might add that there was only one copy of Sirach found, and but fragments of Tobit, While there were (around) dozens of copies of Enoch 1 and Jubilees (both rejected by western canon), and between four and dozens of every book contained within the (proto)Masoretic scriptures (excluding Esther, of course).
Likewise, one might also note that without a doubt, DSS supports the Masoretic Tradition to a very high degree...
And lastly, of all books which might be found, the most doubtful of all would be Maccabees - a book which glorifies everything the Qumran community hated.
The Alexandrian Canon used by Jesus includes the deuterocanonical books rejected by protestants. This canon is referred to by Jesus Himself in the New Testament.
Again, false. Jerusalem and environs used the Hebrew Scriptures authorized by the Temple. Synagogues used Hebrew Scriptures authorized by the Pharisees. The only people using otherwise would have been the Hellenists, who were not favored by the population at large, and certainly not by Jewish governing bodies.
” But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.”
Logically, this statement is simply incorrect, and it is an example of something that Catholic Church supporters often do, which is to claim that because something is possible, it has to be so. An infallible decision on what to include in the Bible does not, logically, guarantee infallible decisions hundreds of years after that. It is a possibility which is something in the Catholic Church’s favor, worthy of consideration, but logically speaking, it does not prove future decisions are also infallible. What also has to considered then, is other evidence, and it’s in that evidence that evangelicals see reason to conclude that the Catholic Church’s decisions in later times shouldn’t be taken as infallible.
There’s no need here to talk about all the evidence that’s considered, but one thing that should be looked at is the question of whether or not it’s the same church. For one, it’s not made up of the same people, and not at the same place in Christianity’s development. And for another thing, the true Church is made up of all those who are truly the Lord’s. The Bible says He knows those who are is. The true Church is eternal, and even if you refer to it as universal, or “catholic,” that’s still not necessarily the same Church as the earthly Roman Catholic Church. Having a name , like “Christian” or “catholic,” might or might not be the truth. Jesus in Revelation said to a church that it had a name that said it was alive, but it was actually dead.
And the Catholic Church of later centuries is different from the Church that canonized the Bible in other ways, too. The fourth-century church was that much closer to Jesus’ Incarnation and the witness and discipleship of His apostles. The Lord in His infinite wisdom gave those earliest followers such convincing experiences that they suffered death rather than deny who Jesus is. The church was built on that foundation, using persecution and martyrdom, but with the Roman Empire’s acceptance of Christianity, that condition changed. However, the Bible was canonized only decades after Christianity’s acceptance, essentially by the foundational era of the Church. What concerns evangelicals, though, is that as the centuries went on, what developed into the Roman Catholic Church became more like an earthly kingdom and a corporation, with positions in the clergy offering power, security and a comfortable living, and especially to those in the higher ranks.
And too, the Church leadership changed radically when celibacy became required. It’s not the only radical change, as over time it seems that the relationship between official Church leaders and laymen became more formal and distant, but it’s particularly notable. From what I’ve learned, as Christianity took on authority in government, it began to take greater steps to stamp out homosexual acts through criminalizing it. And given just what’s come out about the Catholic Church, present and past, you have see signs of a homosexual underground existing throughout the clergy, including at the highest levels.
Evangelicals, then, see that there is doctrine in the Catholic Church that has come into being over the centuries which conflicts with God’s Word and character as already revealed. And while Catholics will often say none of Catholic doctrine does, the priesthood is more cagey on that point. When Pope Francis recently said that room had to be allowed for God to do “something new,” he was really only expressing a perspective that the priesthood has accepted for a long time. The priesthood essentially sees itself as God’s Word living on earth, and the Bible as inspired and essentially true, but at a point where Christianity was “less developed” and the Church is above it because it has more of the “Christlike spirit” - in, for example, rejecting slavery - than the Bible has. I’ll stop here on this, but there is plenty more evidence that shows the Catholic Church considers the Bible to be more of a guide than God’s inspired, infallible Word for Christians to conform to.
Then, on another claim this author makes, on the question of whether or not God’s Word is “obvious” and “self-authenticating,” he’s inaccurate on what the evangelical view is.
To begin with, the two examples from Scripture that he points to - the child Samuel not recognizing God’s voice, and a man of God being misled - don’t support his argument. First, Samuel was only a child, in the process of being taught, and second, we can believe that God had control of the situation, and had reasons that had to do with Eli as well for why He had Samuel go to him. You get the sense from this episode that through it the Lord was showing Eli how far he was in his heart from truly being the priest he should have been, since little Samuel was hearing the Lord’s voice, but he wasn’t.
Then in regard to the author’s second example, he fails to mention what happened next. The man of God was told this:
” 21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee,
22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.” 1 Kings 13
The point is that the man heard God’s Word, but disobeyed it, and was punished by God for that reason. The problem was with the man, which God exposed, not with God’s Word not being clear.
And as we look at the Old Testament, we should not forget all the examples of people hearing God’s Word and following it. God made clear there, too, that the problem with those who didn’t wasn’t with them not hearing it, but with them not be willing to obey it. And the point of the New Covenant God made with man, through His Son, is that God Himself would put His Spirit in man, giving him the mind of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, as well as a new heart that loved the Lord and His ways. This would make the spiritually dead come alive.
In the New Covenant, then, we can know we’re following God and His Word. The point of both Covenants is that we come to recognize and accept that we are to depend on the Lord as our highest and, ultimately, only true authority. We’re to put aside all of the other “gods,” including ourselves and other people, that we turn to, and come to Him humbly, asking Him to direct us. Evangelicals believe that those who had charge of the early Church did that, but see evidence that as the centuries went on, the official Church leadership drifted away from that, and became worldly. But again, the true Church isn’t of this world, but is spiritual and eternal, and its authority can only come from the Holy Spirit, which guides us to go to God and ask Him about anything and everything, as we go about our daily lives. That is God’s ultimate purpose for us, so that we’re restored to fellowship with Him, and unlike Adam and Eve, will forever depend on Him alone.
That is not the question.
No one asked you that.
The questions bounced back into metmon's lap were those which she first posed to another.
Would either yourself, verga, or Mrs. Don-o care to address those questions? We know Sal won't...
I do notice, that for all the badgering, verga has not lifted one tiny finger towards answering those questions himself.
So can verga badger or can he badger -- is more like it.
What I myself find rather amusing, is whenever any set of questions arise on *some* people's doorsteps --which either may take a lot of effort to answer, or the answer may prove inconvenient to the positions they were just previously espousing --then the crickets start to chirp.
Roman Catholic crickets --right in verga's front yard. Speaking of what can be called, like wild turkeys answering a box-call, those chickens crickets -- have come home to roost! [said in my best Rev. Jeremiah Wright voice]
chirp-chirp
I also did not include another I made brief mention of, as something of a small favor to that individual. 8^")
We all recognize diversionary tactics when we see them.
I haven’t received an answer to any of them yet, although I think one RC FReeper made an attempt to answer them at one time.
But still no source documents were listed or linked to.
What is the use of the chain-letter repetitious badgering which you have been putting metmom through?
Though the "question" posed to her was a bit different then the ones which she had posed to another, they are nearly identical in most all ways --- I for one can see the intent (and the speciousness) which is most likely behind them, for it the same reasoning we saw in the article (blech) and then came to fruition in yourself, verga, having then went to the inevitable non sequiter;
DO you think of metmom as a "prot" as you use that term?
If so, then you yourself displayed a degree of ill-logic (among other flaws of reasoning and question begging) in then going on to this line of questioning at #113;
one aspect of ill-logic being your having previously also identified her as "a prot" and then right afterwards also said;
If metmom is "a prot" and according to you "prots" believe in the Palestinian canon as you termed it, then "prots" obviously must accept "the bible" (though minus the disputed OT books, those same which Jerome termed Apocrypha when he wrote of those in his prologues) for otherwise I do not believe there are any honest grounds for anyone to try and say of other-than-Roman Catholic Christians ---who are usually on these pages criticized for being adherents to Solo Scriptura, that they "refuse to accept the bible".
This type of discourse (which you are engaging in) is reminiscent to me of when those tormenting Christ would strike Him and then demand "prophecy! who hit you?" by it's spirit and tone.
These so-called "prots" must obviously be accepting of NT canon as it is -- or else there would have been nothing there to have badgered her (and Christians whom are not Roman Catholics) with.
All of which results in not adding up to metmom not accepting the bible.
But geez louise, such ill-logical, ill-mannered discourse -- again -- is entirely unbecoming for one who has publicly fancied himself on these pages as "a theologian".
You had also said;
WHere do you get the information that the OT canon was set "several hundred years BC"?
Do you not know what Jerome (that would be St, Jerome, the one who translated much of the Scripture into Latin) said about the LXX?
Not only himself, but others also have written that the original LXX, which I believe is what you were referring to when you said the OT canon was "set" "...several hundred years BC" was Greek language translation of the books of Moses, known as Torah (although some use that term to refer to entire Hebrew Tanakh and did not then encompass the remainder of OT as that is known.
If that be when the canon of the OT was "set", then that would result in the OT canon being limited to the Torah -- which again would render your statement made against her in your if this, then that display of ill-logic based upon faulty premises, be even more FUBAR, thus undoing your very own words, by the inherent inner conflict of them, when one statement or pair of sentences are then examined in light of other statements made in the same comment.
But I've got to hand it to you, you really can pack in and compound errors -- one on top of another.
OK, let's take Tradition-with-a-capital-T 101. Truths that we have from Apostolic times, which are not, themselves, found in print in the Scriptures.
Why would I mention more --- Worshiping together on Sunday. The basic form of Divine Liturgy. Monogamy. Getting married in church, with a priest/deacon as witness. The other Sacraments understood as such: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Penance, Anointing of the Sick. The special loving regard for the "Theotokos, Panagia" and ever-virgin Mary,"Beata Maria Semper Virgine" --- if you don't even see that the written Scriptures themselves depend on MUCH WIDER* oral or unwritten sources for their composition, compilation, preservation, transmission, translation, interpretation, and distribution?
What was the Rule of Faith, what was the Standard of Belief, during the decades before even the first of the Four Gospels were even written? during the 6 or 7 decades before the canon was closed? During the literal centuries when almost nobody would have possessed the entire canon of Sacred Scripture in writing?
Your own (and our own)precious, indispensable, inerrant written authority --- the Bible --- rests on the underlying, wider authority of Tradition; and the whole shebang rests on Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church on Her pilgrimage through history.
I can only thank the Holy Spirit, Divine Author of Scripture and Guardian of Apostolic Tradition.
MUCH WIDER *
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
And again, *tradition* does not give anyone license to make things up that are not found or even supported in Scripture and pass them off as truth and teach them as truth.
Nor does it give anyone the authority to make believing in something that can’t be found or substantiated in Scripture as binding on the believer.
Also, extrapolating the justification for *sacred tradition* (teaching that something not found or substantiated in Scripture) from the claim that acceptance of Scripture as authoritative is wholly based on tradition, is not a valid argument for it.
Scripture is NEVER subservient to tradition, no matter how that tradition is packaged.
Nor is the Holy Spirit ever credited or named in Scripture as the *Guardian of Apostolic Tradition*.
That’s a total fabrication by the Catholic church.
At every turn, the Catholic church seeks to diminish the integrity and validity of the very God breathed Holy Spirit inspired word of God.
Whether it’s by putting it under the authority of tradition, or the claims that it’s merely written tradition, it’s diminishing God’s word.
Has God REALLY said.....????
I agree completely!
"Nor does it give anyone the authority to make believing in something that can’t be found or substantiated in Scripture as binding on the believer."
I substantially agree (!), but with this amendment:
"Nor does it give anyone the authority to make believing in something that is not in harmony with, or which is directly and unambiguously contrary to Scripture, as binding on the believer."
That's where the disputed questions really begin. Fortunately, we (you and I and the whole Church) are not without recourse to the Holy Spirit.
I am convinced there is an explanation. Tagline.
OK. Where does Scripture state that Mary was perpetually a virgin or even imply in light of the multitude of verses that refer to Jesus’ siblings?
Where does it teach at all that she was immaculately conceived? Especially in light of all the verses that address the sinfulness of man and even Mary’s own testimony that she needed a savior.
And those are only TWO examples. There are plenty others that can be addressed.
Who wrote the four Gospels?
Why do you think this?
Let's not confuse O.T. tradition and Apostolic tradition with Catholic tradition, okay? The names of the authors of the Torah?? The Catholics are claiming credit for that?? Please.
The authors for the N.T.?? #1 Known BEFORE the RCC and #2 Nice to know but have nothing to do with doctrine. The RCC gets real sticky when it comes to credit and not so much when it comes to (a multitude of) blame.
I wasn’t able to join this discussion sooner, but have read the more recent comments and hope to have time to reply to at least some here. But I did post at 123 and want to make sure some concerns I have about the Catholic beliefs stated here in this article are considered, so I’m pinging some of the recent contributors to the discussion.
Briefly, in that post I addressed just a few things. One was that Catholic Church defenders often argue that if their church holds some position and it is in some way possible, then it must be so, which is not logical. And along with that, I brought up the question of whether or not the Church of the Fourth Century which compiled the Bible is the same of later centuries, since this article’s author claims that the Catholic Church made an infallible decision then, so it’s only logical, according to him, that it must have been the same church and continued to make infallible decisions, up to the present day. But the Catholic Church in later centuries is not the same people, at the same point in Christianity’s development, and was much further removed from Jesus and the witness He left with His disciples, while the Church which compiled the Bible was essentially still the foundational Church, built on the Apostles’ witness as well as centuries of persecution and martyrdom.
And the author’s two examples from Scripture about the ability to hear God’s Word also didn’t truly support his argument, since Samuel was only a child, and the man of God was told he would be punished for disobeying God’s Word (and he was), so we know God’s Word was clear, but he wasn’t faithful to it - and that is essentially the whole issue. God speaks clearly, but man disobeys. Through Jesus, though, the Lord gives us a heart and mind that recognizes our total dependence on Him alone, and desires to serve Him obediently and faithfully, and this is the Spirit of the true Church.
I’ll also add to what I already wrote is that one other example of the Catholic Church leadership using the Bible only as a general guide which it also sees as something somewhat “outdated” and so open to modification is that it has allowed the idea that Mary is “co-redemptrix” to creep in. In no way does Scripture support anything but the utter rejection of that idea, yet it has some de facto acceptance among Catholic leaders, and Benedict said there was no reason to make it official, since the thought is already included in other titles for Mary, it departs **too far*** from Scripture (meaning departing from Scripture is acceptable to a degree) and it would “complicate” evangelical efforts. But again, God’s Word makes clear that there is Creator, and creature, and He will not share His glory. ALL goodness comes from Him and Him only, and when He bestows some on creatures, it is both gifted to them, and required that they not take any credit for it themselves (”I earned or deserve what good God has given me,” as if He could owe us anything), but give all credit to the Lord. The very reason that Satan and the angels were cast out of Heaven was their rejection of their proper place, and as creatures God’s good will for us, so that we can know the way of true love, joy and peace forever, is that we take and keep to our proper places before Him.
I like your postings. They make sense.
Now THAT is not entirely true. And to the extent it hold element of truth, molehills are being made into a veritable mountain range...
Centuries? Almost nobody have the entire?
Not unless we consider how it was frequent enough for a few to be missing one or more of the minor "catholic" epistles, or say, the Epistle to the Hebrews, as that was a bit late, later yet to gain widest acceptance...possibly due in part to gain actual acceptance by all whom knew of it, for reason the actual original may well have been written in Hebrew language(?) and then delayed yet additionally in being spread earlier and further by events in AD 70? No one now living perhaps truly knows, now, unless the Lord has revealed the details to them.
Where is the "oral tradition" to explain that-- other than the writing itself as that has come down to us...although there are some writings concerning it, which those who know the languages and enough of the literature have themselves read, and then written in English about it --so I myself could know a little bit about it.
Some of the foot dragging in regards to acceptance for that one -- was due to it not being known of as early and as widely for almost all the rest? Something like that...but most of the rest not known by ANY for literally centuries? Even Revelation became fairly widely known of in the early 2nd century, so you could be correct only marginally so - IF THAT, and that not enough to make the case which you appear to me to be attempting to make.
When it came to defining what was and what was not actually apostolic -- the measure was whether or not many either had a copy (from earliest times) or else some real and primary accounting of such amongst the oldest apostolically founded churches whom had the autographs themselves, or knew of the ones which they may not for a time had possessed having been told of them or written to including mention etc,.. .with the writings themselves being also ratified as authentic by Apostles themselves and other 1st generation witness to them, if those witnesses not witness to Christ also (being that many in Israel did see Him with their own eyes, even possibly be among the five hundred or so who Paul later wrote of whom personally witnessed the Risen Christ.
So yes, by oral tradition of that manner, and likely yet more little ways, oral tradition did indeed serve to help establish ---- what had been properly as from the Apostles and Luke, who was not an Apostle per se, but was obviously present with, or had gained significant in-depth knowledge (likely--as personal & direct) witness to the Apostles and earliest church years, in Jerusalem, himself mentioning also "how many had attempted to write accounts of the events" with himself writing to set the record straight, so to speak.
Then for the other latest arriving book --Revelation, being dated by most in-the-know concerning such things date that the year 90 AD.
Coming late, and also being quite different than the greater bulk of the remainder of the NT, and also possibly far too much resembling early Gnostic religious *fantasy* led many to long doubt that book -- which even if not everyone (every or *most all* churches) possessing full copies of the greater bulk, the main trunk of the NT Scriptures (the Gospels, most all Pauliine Epistles, 'twas enough when coupled with early oral traditions).
As far as I have so far been informed by the time of the writing of Revelation, most all of the churches near regional to the near Middle East, North Africa, Rome itself, were well enough aware of at least the existence of the rest (save for some not knowing this one or that among those small catholic epistles as I mentioned) with churches of any size and influence (and remember, there were not many at ALL which were not in fairly regular association with their parent churches, most acutely when less than many days travel away from one another) which those whom purposefully traveled from place to place among them (as spoken of in the Didache) would not have failed to bring -- at least spoken mention, at least, of whichever letters and writings flowed out over span a few decades (which a few here or there may have continued to lack for some decades-- but NOT centuries) from sources authenticated as apostolic from those whom had walked with Christ.
The writings were most certainly cherished, and then purposefully shared as they came about. That spurred the efforts to copy, and purposefully share what each a had received.
So no, dear it did not take "centuries" in order for most everyone to know what had been circulated.
The simple pointing toward OT AND NT canons as you did, and then waving the word "Tradition" over them, in no real way equates with those whom then later possessed the texts would adhere to them properly, and then, by their own "traditions" also, always then produce the perfect will, or desires of God spoken of by and through tradition; which must then be taken 'as Gospel truth' (as it is written, even infallibly inspired, coming down from on High through prophets, etc.) on the same level as that which the Jews had recognized as Scripture, and then later, in ways I have touched upon explaining, for the Christians, the NT texts -- as "Bible" or canon, the Jews possibly having been the ones who had invented the precept of canon-- certainly -- in regards to the One true God.
If not, and I if am wrong enough about this (as for no one being able to trust "tradition" unreservedly -- not in this day and age) and yourself instead entirely correct --- then we should all be Jews or convert-- and still follow the Sanhedrin in whichever form we can find them, even tossing aside Christ for reason He opposed them.
Yet even though the Jewish religious authorities of that era were not entirely correct (not beyond correction) and in fact were quite painfully wrong about some ideas or ways of thinking, even in how they taught the inerrant Law of God, He still used them to illuminate for all whom have eyes to see, man's inherent wickedness, even also as that can work itself into and quite near the very things of the One, true God.
But we do not reject Christ.
Christ rebuked these 'teachers' (I know the Scriptures and what they say) for *some* (but not all) of their traditions, yet previously you had remarked, somewhat massaging NT texts, that Christ had directed everyone to follow them, the teachers (He does appear to say such a thing -- but not quite as you had represented it) even as you had also linked to Oral Tradition wiki-link which there spoke of alleged 'rabbinical' writings which paralleled the books of the Law, etc.
Well let me tell you something extremely significant about that tradition, particularly now that you have linked and compared the traditions of those 'teachers' with the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church;
So there goes the instructions to follow *them* --- for to do so could lead one to be opposing His will in yet other ways.
Sorry, but I will NEVER trade Sola Ecclesia (do what we say) for having mind towards having always in ready reserve the very Word of God itself --- It is Written! Have these laws written upon your heart!
Do not ever again probe me or prod me towards allegedly being required to trade Scripture for some collection of jack-wagon's declarations that their church is "God on earth" and that depite what Scripture can informto the contrary, they and they alone have 'authority' of Sola Ecclesia.
Nope.
Do you not know -- that is how the most wicked cults operate?
Why can't Roman Catholic trust God Himself when He said "None can come unto Me unless the Father which have sent me draw them." and also recognize at the same moment that the written word, the word of God is more powerful than a two edged sword, dividing even the bone and marrow? And for this...only for those whom have the Holy Spirit present within themselves, that Spirit being sent from on High, and though possibly present within at least some of Roman Catholic faithful, is also simultaneously present within at least *some* so-called "protestants"?
Or is that too difficult to wrap one's mind around?
Did you or did you not here on these pages testify that you yourself experienced the inflowing or baptism of the spirit, in setting of a Pentecostal church? ding, ding ding, hello? is there anybody home in there?
This following which you wrote to me, I find to be extremely freighted with mistaken projections upon myself as to what I accept -- and what I do not.
although I understand how that apologetic came to be a part of Romanist thought.
Yet I say to you -- that simply that a thing or precept have or hold elements of that which can be well enough determined to be true (at least true in part, or better yet -- intent?) does not equate with those precepts as they are then further spoken of, applied and even enforced (as much as a church can enforce anything) make them into being entirely true, or on the same plane as that which we hold to be Scripture.
It did not for the Jews of old -- and THAT was part of their own traditions, for none of them would dare to broadcast to others that 'rabbinical writing' was anywhere nearly on par with that which they regarded as Scripture, even as they did at time err in allowing their own body of [ahem] traditional thinking and talking about Scriptures to perhaps too fully within their own minds substitute for the written Word of God, which written word Christ Himself came to fulfill, and did, to the utmost extent.
I could go on, including how as Origen is attributed to having noted --- that the idea of perpetual virginity for Mary, was not at all written of until some time after the pseudographical writing now referred to as the Protoevangelum of James came about.
I understand too, that many web pages featuring RCC apologetics, or writings concerning "Mary" try to place the date for that aforementioned pseudograph as early as 120 AD -- but the more scholarly take on that has solid reasons for determining no earlier than 160 AD to 180 AD.
Origen himself remarked that it seemed a pious idea to him, even if it was not supported in earlier writings (of which he had a significant amount -- many we likely have scarcely heard of or at all been able to read)
So that's one more thing in this capital "T" "tradition" which itself is apparently erroneous although also began to be widespread from quite early on -=- but not before that fake, phony pretender-to-be-written by James the brother of Christ book was for a time accepted by more than a few (but never by all) before after some 60-80 years? something like that was given enough of the rhetorical-mention BOOT that afterwards it not be regarded as genuine NT writing -- but only after it had introduced it's collection of erroneous information which still lives on to this day within "Catholic" tradition, for from time to time even on the pages of FR -- I see stuff from there which in regards to "Mary" otherwise has no earlier source (that I know of) beyond the simple change from hailing her as "blessed Virgin" to "Blessed Ever-virgin", etc.
Traditions in regards to Mary's alleged assumption I has studied somewhat also -- convincing me that Traditions are not always what they are cracked up to be. I am sorry, but I am a realist also -- and although I more than believe in God, and in Jesus as he is portrayed and written of in the Scriptures -- for I do not simply believe that God is real for I instead know (and that IS different then belief) for He has intervened in my life in ways so powerful I am not sure you could believe if I was able to explain -- but -- HE has made a believer out of me.
Men? Even the Church (and specially the Church) I do not entirely trust to get it right, or ever get it entirely, flawlessly, "right" regardless of all the hopeful talk represented as fact that among all ecclesia that there has ever been on earth --- the onliest one which has never erred -- is that one which has formally the bishop of Rome, as it's "pope".
You may continue to attempt to convert me if you so please -- but I have now abundant enough reason (going on for days) beyond what I have written, in this one single letter to you.
Unh, uh.....
Nope.
I asked first and have not yet got an answer. The default reaction to any question a Catholic can’t/doesn’t want to/ refuses to answer, is always.... I’ll answer your question if you answer mine back to you first.
Been there enough and I’m not going there.
I would expect *you* to keep your word about answering, which is not something I expect out of any of the other FRoman FReepers who virtually always end up deflecting and then fading into the woodwork, but they are not conditional questions. They are questions that I am more convinced by the day have no answer what with the amount of evasion I see when they are posted.
IOW, basically, there are no documents recording what the traditions are to which Paul was referring, there is no way to verify that they are what Paul in particular taught, there is no way to verify that they have been passed down faithfully, and there are no links to the sources for the non-existent documents.
When did the Catholic Church come into existence? Please cite your sources? I am talking about legitimate secular sources. No one with an axe to grind either way. Acceptable sources include Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia etc...
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.