[daniel1212]

Interestingly, in Acts 10;14, Peter tells God that he had never eaten anything unclean.

Indeed, and was silent when Christ told vocal protester Peter (what Catholics imagine) to literally consume His body and blood. But with recourse to amorphous "oral tradition," Catholics can argue that the Lord could have explained eucharistic theology to him, even if not that Gentiles could be saved now.

And how do we know what oral tradition contains? Well, on Rome's say so, as possessing ensured conditional magisterial veracity . And how do we know that Rome possesses this? Because she says tradition teaches this, even if not in Scripture.

Time now for me to get some sleep, by the grace of God.

[metmom]

And how do we know what oral tradition contains? Well, on Rome's say so, as possessing ensured conditional magisterial veracity . And how do we know that Rome possesses this? Because she says tradition teaches this, even if not in Scripture.

And yet offer no solid proof of what they claim. It's just their say so and we're supposed to take them at their word as if they have never lied or done anything wrong in the past, ever.

Reminds me of the FBI investigating itself and finding no evidence of wrongdoing.

How very convenient.