And the Roman Catholic Organization "notion" of "sola pope infallibility."
So there, shill.
ECT DEFINING SACRED TRADITION
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
And the Roman Catholic Organization "notion" of "sola pope infallibility."
So there, shill.
Following God / playing God.
Cruciform
New member
Now go ahead and post your proof for both unsubstantiated claims.
You remind me of Letsargue. I wonder why? I guess you're a Catholic version of him?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Sacred tradition is a neat weapon to have in your arsenal, saint john. It can be unbiblical and something never dreamed of by the first century church, but all you have to do is whip out the ole sacred tradition card.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I believe Cruciform to be a pompous poor lost religious soul.
Cruciform
New member
Come back if you ever manage to come up with an actual argument that engages with the OP.
Nope, always on topic. We are in the current dispensation given by Paul. The real Church started with Paul, not Peter.
Cruciform
New member
Nobody cares about your latest entirely non-authoritative Protestant interpretive fad---it will be replaced by some other contrived and fabricated hobby horse soon enough, and you'll all be running after that bandwagon. :yawn:
Back to Post #18 above.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Oh Great Pompous One, you have spoken.
HisServant
New member
Comments or Questions?
This just proves that the RCC doesn't want to be accountable to anyone but themselves. Not the Holy Spirit, not the Ekklesia, not to anyone. Simply because it has refused to qualify what the exact traditions the original apostles taught and have used that absence of fact to say whatever it wants and to re-codify it and expand on it to its heart desires.... all for the purpose of bilking money out of its congregants.
Cruciform
New member
Now post your documented proof for this latest collection of inherently bigoted---and wholly unsubstantiated---anti-Catholic claims.
(Wait for it...)
Dona Bate
New member
"Condemnation is ready for scoffers, and beating for the backs of fools" Proverbs 19:29
No exception's mentioned for MADist's or anybody else for that matter....Ouch!
God Bless!
Sent from my HTC One M8s using Tapatalk
Dona Bate
New member
Dona Bate
New member
"Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out, and quarreling and abuse will cease" Proverbs 22:10
:thumb:
God Bless!
Sent from my HTC One M8s using Tapatalk
Aletheiophile
New member
Although not catholic myself, I acknowledge that without the catholic traditions we would not have the modern church. I believe that there is annointing and saving grace in the catholic tradition. There would not be the written tradition of scripture without oral tradition, and I am very thankful for the early fathers.
However, I do prefer pre-Vatican II catholicism to post-VII. In fact, I prefer pre-VII catholicism to armenianism and dispensationalism. But it is also important to remember that there is another branch of the early church - Eastern Orthodoxy. I believe that the majority of failings of Catholicism come from the reasons the East and West split: The Papacy and the Filioque.
Luther and the reformers recovered many of the things lost in the split, but in a Western mode. I greatly respect some of the renaissance Catholic scholars like Erasmus and Lorenzo Valla, if only the church had heeded to their criticism.
I can see where there is a proper place for works according to faith. And even that in representing Christ and manifesting Christ we can participate in our salvation, but only because it is our perfection and maturation in being more conformed with Christ. Not that the act itself is the means, but that Christ is the means, manifest in the act.
But there are many aspects of Vatican II that are purely unChristian, such as interfaith principles and denial of the uniqueness of Christ. Cruciform, do you abide by Vatican II?
However, I do prefer pre-Vatican II catholicism to post-VII. In fact, I prefer pre-VII catholicism to armenianism and dispensationalism. But it is also important to remember that there is another branch of the early church - Eastern Orthodoxy. I believe that the majority of failings of Catholicism come from the reasons the East and West split: The Papacy and the Filioque.
Luther and the reformers recovered many of the things lost in the split, but in a Western mode. I greatly respect some of the renaissance Catholic scholars like Erasmus and Lorenzo Valla, if only the church had heeded to their criticism.
I can see where there is a proper place for works according to faith. And even that in representing Christ and manifesting Christ we can participate in our salvation, but only because it is our perfection and maturation in being more conformed with Christ. Not that the act itself is the means, but that Christ is the means, manifest in the act.
But there are many aspects of Vatican II that are purely unChristian, such as interfaith principles and denial of the uniqueness of Christ. Cruciform, do you abide by Vatican II?
Cruciform
New member
In its entirety, yes.
Aletheiophile
New member
Even when it is essentially interfaith by giving weight to Judaism and Islam? How is that sacred tradition? According to the OP, how does that conform to the strict sense of only that which was given orally by the apostles?
Cruciform
New member
I'm no more free to deny or reject any formal teaching of Christ's Church than I am to deny or reject Jesus Christ himself---as the Head goes, so goes the Body (Lk. 10:16; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). Whether or not I adequately understand or am personally comfortable with---or happen to "like"---a particular doctrine is entirely irrelevant with respect to a teaching's truth-status.
Are you familiar with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on this point?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Last edited: