Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Catholicguy
From William Webster:
It is true that the early church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of apostolic origin. It is interesting; however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in church history. Just because a certain church father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles. There are numerous practices in which the early church engaged which it believed were of apostolic origin which are listed by Basil the Great, but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.

121 posted on 01/07/2003 10:59:59 AM PST by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]


To: lockeliberty
<> Inconsequential gibberishness.

The date was the issue, not the FACT of Easter. sheesh...Ya call that an arguement?<>

128 posted on 01/07/2003 11:33:25 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

To: lockeliberty
<> BTW, who is Webster?<>
129 posted on 01/07/2003 11:34:06 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

To: lockeliberty
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num49.htm

<> Hewre is a site that refutes William Webster and David King. You are following lies. I have done my Christian duty by warning you<>
137 posted on 01/07/2003 12:08:14 PM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

To: lockeliberty
This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice.

LOL. And nothing has really changed since...
Thank you for your excellent posts. Ask them sometime why they ignore basic Scripture.
"Drink of it, *all* of you". They never reply when I ask them this.

164 posted on 01/07/2003 5:49:48 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson