Really? Yes. The oral tradition was carried by the early Church fathers. If you have even the foggiest idea of early Church history you would know- as even prominent Lutheran theologians now admit- that the books in the Bible were assembled by infallible Petrine authority and that authority did not disappear eleven centuries later with the Reformation.
Bible Christians can swim only in the shallow end of scriptural interpretation, take them over to the deep end and they drown. Hence, the reference to this “Neuhaus fella’
Is this the best you could do?
The Church is to not just for intellectuals and scientists, but also sinners and saints. But of course the deep understanding of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict go over the heads of Bible-Christians: Moonies, Rev. Schuller, Rev. Wright, Billy Graham, Jim Jones and the rest of the heretical interpretations.
If you had THOROUGHLY read ALL the "church fathers" you would find THEY did not agree with what Rominists call tradition and they did not always agree with each other... so tell us steelfish how does one "cherry pick" the truth from false teaching or error ?
Such a tired line. You do realize that the Roman Catholic New Testament wasn't settled with infallible Pertine authority until the council of Trent, which opened in 1545 and wasn't accepted by the Pope until 1564. You know this right?
Even New Advent acknowledged this by stating, "The Catholic New Testament, as defined by the Council of Trent".
Before Trent, the Roman Catholic Church has never made an infallible Pertine decree about the canon. What about the council of Rome in 382? eclectic, but not ecumenical, so it wasn't infallible and wasn't universally binding.
Sure, there were plenty of people who gave their opinion, but it never met the criteria to be considered infallible. The protestant reformation begin 47 years before the Roman Catholic Church determined canon with infallible Petrine authority.
Quite a list. Would you add Leo X, Medici princeling and pope, a cardinal at 13, Renaissance family dynast and warlord, patron of the arts, rumored to be homosexual, seller of indulgences, remembered for "God has given us the Papacy, so let us enjoy it," and probably second only to Martin Luther as an architect of the Reformation?
I think you were discussing infallible Petrine authority.
Fine words, but they do not make the problem of corrupt or abusive authority go away. The Roman Catholic Church is a noble institution with its fair share, and more, of saints, scholars, and heroes. But it also has its Leos, and that is what the Reformation was about.
A benevolent and wise monarchy is a wonderful thing, until it throws up an incompetent, a fool, a scoundrel, a criminal, or all of the above. As sooner or later it will. And did. Which is why Martin Luther turned to scripture and right reason as an answer to and refuge against corrupted authority, and off we go.
I don't have much opportunity to rehearse Reformation history these days except when young Mormon missionaries come around, and I raise the question of prophetic and (Mormon) Church infallibility. I don't get a good answer from them either.
That wasn't Christ's Christianity, that was/is Constantine's religion...
Peter the apostle wasn't given any 'Petrine' authority...He had no more authority than any other apostle...The only Peter in Rome at the time was Simon 'Peter' Magus...And he had a LOT of followers...
Bible Christians can swim only in the shallow end of scriptural interpretation, take them over to the deep end and they drown. Hence, the reference to this “Neuhaus fella’
Bible Christians swim around in belief of the scriptures, not the unbelief and private interpretation of the Roman Constantine Church...