Rome’s claim on “tradition” wrongly presupposes their theology on topics such as the Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, the Mass in only Latin, etc were a part of the oral teaching in the NT. Yet none of these, especially the Marian dogmas, were included in scripture. You’d think something that something as essential for salvation such as the Marian dogmas (claimed by Rome but not scripture) would have been included in the texts.
the Mass in only Latin, etc were a part of the oral teaching in the NT
Have you been reading Loraine Boettner?
I’d love to see who else claims that the Church has claimed that the Apostles said the Mass had to be in Latin. He is by far the most likely “credible” candidate. Princeton was, I guess, trying to show that they could do worse than Wilson.
At the time of the Apostles, Greek was the working language in Rome, and the Roman Liturgy, Kyrie Eleison, remained in Greek until the Pontificate of Damasus I, ca. 380.
Greek was much less prevalent in Africa, which was where the original Latin traditions had earlier roots.
Then there’s the issue of being sure that those doctrines were allegedly held in the very early church, that they were indeed taught by the apostles, and that they were handed down faithfully and without change or corruption.
Without written records of such beliefs, there’s no way to verify so people are forced to take their church’s word for it.
And looking at how doctrine and theology and rules have changed in the last 2,000 years in Catholicism, I find it improbable that some were passed down that faithfully and without corruption.
Catholicism can’t even decide if priests should be able to get married and how to deal with homosexual sin and pedophilia within the clergy.
WHY would anyone think they could trust any other decisions or teachings they adhere to that are not explicitly stated in Scripture.
Which, for the record, remains unchanged for thousands of years as we have ancient texts that verify its changelessness.