Maybe I am thud-headed from my allergy, but this is the second sentence (one long sentence) of your reply, and I don't quite get what it means:
The "our acceptance" of what you refer to as "Sacred Tradition", as that could be conceptualized or understood to be includes more than a few considerations which cannot be found in, as you otherwise mentioned;
manuscripts, hymns, old lists, monuments and inscriptions, and above all, the actual customs and practices of the churches, and make reasonable inferences, usually from converging lines of evidence.that would be old enough to make them undeniably "Apostolically" sourced, which in ending result leaves this same Sacred Tradition (which I assume you are referring to) not required by anyone really, to be taken as Gospel (good news & truth) in it's present-day entirety.
|
Could you break that sentence down a little for a thud-headed, ignorant woman? Does this have something to do with the authorship of the Gospels? |
Beware the Jabberwocky, Mrs. Don-o!
LOL
Leni
Thank you, I thought I was the only one that was confused by that.
Why no, it doesn't.
It has to do with origins of some particular aspects of what I understand encompasses what you referred to as "Sacred Tradition", as I explained.