ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY

[Cross Reference]

Is there some verse in the scriptures where Jesus addresses Mary as His mother? I don't believe so and believe that is a reason Paul never spoke of her __ and John either, in his letters.

 

[Vincent Lerins]

I don't recall expressing a certainty in sola scriptura but rather am concerned about RCC tradition causing problems. In that, I am far from a lone skeptic in need of snuffing out. I already conceded we need oral tradition to interpret scripture and am aware catechism teaches that scripture is the "principal source".

Indeed that is a valid concern. Does what it teaches contradict or agree with scripture. Something one would be remiss if one didn't answer for ones self.

If the RCC had a bit more sola and less oral then the gulf between Rome and the average catholic might close a bit.
Semantics. If not "adding" then corrupting confusing and misinterpreting. These are major concerns.

Yes. Concern about adding or corrupting/confusing would be something to seriously consider.

The measure of catholic truth seems (from the outside) to be whether the source is officially recognized.

That is not incorrect necessarily at all. The church in its early years deciding what the correct/incorrect interpreations and teaching wsa in the jerusalem council about how much of the old covenant to keep etc., deciding which books were in the new testament and which were not, continues in the present and the history in between in saying which teachings agree with what it teaches and what does not.

I know of little resembling the kind of fact checking, evaluation of internal and external coherency, consistency, and validity to which we subject scripture. As if there could be no other source, and, additionally, none of the human error that pervades every other aspect of our lives.. Right. Our great God gave me more common sense than that.

There does exist that to a degree but as you say not to the same level as scripture. Primarily because all outside of scriptures is not on the same level as scripture by definition.

Isn't this a question of material sufficiency?

It is an important question one must decide. Not all will agree. I reached a decision when I became Catholic, most here would not agree with it. But I reached it through prayer and study of the Bible. We don't have to agree but we can certainly have a polite conversation, which is what I hope for always.

Peace to you.

 

[Cruciform]

I gave seen your "documentation", my conscience remains clear.

Your conscience is entirely irrelevant in light of your own posted statements, which are public testimony to your lies (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).

That is just another statement if your preferred man-made traditions.

Already answered:

The exact Traditions that Paul is referring to are any and all teachings delivered verbally by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac.15:6, 22; 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp---unless you've been conditioned by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to simply and willfully not "get" it.​

Thanks for merely proving my point. :doh:

Just as soon as you give is the list of the exact traditions Paul was referring too in his letter.

See just above.

Remember, Paul, "... You have been taught..." Which us past tense...

...and which included the apostolic doctrine of the authoritative Magisterium consisting of the apostles and their successors, the bishops (see just above). Therefore, all teachings delivered by the Magisterium are included in the Church's binding Tradition---not just those given during the Apostolic Era, as you wrongly assume.

That is no different than you. Most of what the Catholics teach is just man-made personal preference by the men who lead the church.

...just as 1st-century Catholic teaching was delivered by "the men who led the Church," that is, the apostles. Are you claiming that the teachings of the apostles were, therefore, "man-made personal preference by the men who led the Church"? If not, then neither are the teachings of the Magisterium today.

The only valid teachings that any "bishop" can teach are those that Jesus and His Deciples taught.

Just one more corrupt tradition fed to you by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

They never taught the Marian doctrines the Catholics teach...

How do you know? In any case, try again.

If somebody tells me I must believe something that is nit in God's word, why should I believe such a wolf?

That one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself could hardly be called a "wolf," could she---except by one who is himself a wolf.

In any case, it should be noted that you yourself believe in not a few notions that are nowhere found in Scripture (the biblical Canon, sola scriptura, etc.), so why are you following the wolf (your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect) that teaches such falsehoods?

God's word has been around for a long long time.

The Tradition of Christ's one historic Church has been around even longer. Indeed, Scripture is itself merely part of the Tradition.

All Protestants have done us abandon the traditions of the RCC...

...and replace them with the corrupt traditions of men concocted by the tens-of-thousands of man-made non-Catholic sects that have been invented over the past few centuries.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Old man]

Sadly for GO its his anti Catholic doctrine's which are in fact the traditions of men condemned in scripture. His latest screwball doctrine is well and truly refuted in Acts where we actually find Apostolic Tradition in action. Here we see the apostles (men) along with the* elders (also men), ALL actually making decisions together, consented to by the whole church (wow! even more men).

The apostles AND elders considered together in Acts 15:6.

The apostles AND the elders decided, WITH the consent of the whole church in Acts 15:22.

The decisions of the apostles AND elders were delivered from town to town for observance in Acts 16:4.

There you have it, new oral Church traditions being decided by the Church to be taught and handed on as it has traditionally been done by the Church to this very day.
God Bless!

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim.2:5

NOT the oral Church tradition decided by the Church taught and handed down as confessing ones sins to a priest, a X number of ring around the rosary to the mother Mary or a different saint for each situation.

When you pray enter your own closet and the Lord will hear you, you don't have to enter the Churches confessional closet and confess to a priest.

Such oral teachings of the Church are teachings against the Scriptures all created to give the Church power over life and death of an individual WHICH ONLY BELONGS TO GOD.

 

[republicanchick]

The church of Rome has no authority to say if something contradicts scripture.
The church of Rome sold that right for a mess of pottage when it climed in bed with the emperor of Rome.

"I will build My Church and the [very] gates of HELL will not prevail against it" [emphasis added]...Mt 16:18

what part of that promise do you NOT understand?



:noway:​

 

[republicanchick]

"Such oral teachings of the Church are teachings against the Scriptures all created to give the Church power over life and death of an individual WHICH ONLY BELONGS TO GOD.

well, since you and most humans "thinks for himself" it would seem there is nothing to worry about (?), right?

so why all hot and bothered?

afraid u may be deceived just the same?? hmmmmm

 

[Old man]

well, since you and most humans "thinks for himself" it would seem there is nothing to worry about (?), right?

so why all hot and bothered?

afraid u may be deceived just the same?? hmmmmm

I don't see the point you thought you were making?

But yes, I do think for myself (do you?), I'm not some Church robot who believes everything some man tells me, like the pope is infallible, praying to dead so-call saints, I should confess my sins to a man instead of God, etc.

I am fully capable and able to read the Scriptures for myself and determine what are the non-Scriptural added traditions of men and what is the Word of God.

How about u? hmmmmm?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

What Martin Luther prescribed Sola Scriptura to be and what it's assumed to be today are two vastly different things.

It was only ever meant to take front and center for one's personal works and central belief.
It was not intended to take the center stage of theology, or be the only assumed location of information and edification.

 

[TIPlatypus]

I agree that the Bible is not the churches only authority, but to say that the Catholic church is the other authority is going a bit far. I have no problem with Catholicism. However there are many other ways of following Jesus.

Secondly, I feel that traditions are good to follow if they are still useful and good and relevant. I do not think that traditions are useful and good and relevant because they are good to follow. That does not make sense.

 

[TIPlatypus]

The Bible is the final authority for all doctrine. If a doctrine contradicts the Bible, the doctrine in question is false. No question.

Except that the New Testament is against doctrine in General. The Old Testament laws were made redundant because something better than rules and doctrines had come. I am not saying that doctrines are bad. They are useful if you do not want to think too much, and it is good to have a general viewpoint which fits most of the time. But nothing fits all the time. Being correct is not important.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Except that the New Testament is against doctrine in General.

I wouldn't say in general. Doctrine is needed with church, not so much with things like discipleships and monasteries.

 

[republicanchick]

I don't see the point you thought you were making?

But yes, I do think for myself (do you?), I'm not some Church robot who believes everything some man tells me, like the pope is infallible, praying to dead so-call saints, I should confess my sins to a man instead of God, etc.

I am fully capable and able to read the Scriptures for myself and determine what are the non-Scriptural added traditions of men and what is the Word of God.

How about u? hmmmmm?

you don't see the contradictions and hypocricies in your own words here?

you do not accept the pope being infallible

but you accept YOURSELF as being infallible???

uh... whatever



I choose the pope myself

 

[republicanchick]

What Martin Luther prescribed Sola Scriptura to be and what it's assumed to be today are two vastly different things.

It was only ever meant to take front and center for one's personal works and central belief.
It was not intended to take the center stage of theology, or be the only assumed location of information and edification.

Luther literally believed in oncesavedalwayssaved

literally believed that if you believed in Jesus, you could do ANYTHING, absolutely anything and not lose Heaven...

LIE!

the whole Bible refutes this STUPID lie...

Mt 25:31-46 is probably the best one to refute it


==

 

[Cruciform]

Except that the New Testament is against doctrine in General.

The New Testament is against divinely-revealed truth?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Luther literally believed in oncesavedalwayssaved

literally believed that if you believed in Jesus, you could do ANYTHING, absolutely anything and not lose Heaven...

LIE!

the whole Bible refutes this STUPID lie...

Mt 25:31-46 is probably the best one to refute it


==

OSAS is a doctrine which proposes that the only one's who are saved are those who maintain their faith. If you give up God the last minute of your life, then you were never saved.

It's predestination theology, there is no going back and forth on one's eternal status. At the same time, God cannot justify those without faith.

Luther did a mighty job at liberating the faithful and condemning atheists, in other words. It's in fact Calvin who sort of bounces back and brings up a strict ideology of sainthood, which as far as I can tell all of Christianity fails at. That's why you see Presbyterian churches water it down :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your conscience is entirely irrelevant in light of your own posted statements, which are public testimony to your lies (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).

Actually, God convicts us in our conscience first. That my conscience is clear is a very good indicator that I have not lied.

Already answered:

The exact Traditions that Paul is referring to are any and all teachings delivered verbally by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac.15:6, 22; 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp---unless you've been conditioned by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to simply and willfully not "get" it.​

Thanks for merely proving my point. :doh:


See just above.



...and which included the apostolic doctrine of the authoritative Magisterium consisting of the apostles and their successors, the bishops (see just above). Therefore, all teachings delivered by the Magisterium are included in the Church's binding Tradition---not just those given during the Apostolic Era, as you wrongly assume.


...just as 1st-century Catholic teaching was delivered by "the men who led the Church," that is, the apostles. Are you claiming that the teachings of the apostles were, therefore, "man-made personal preference by the men who led the Church"? If not, then neither are the teachings of the Magisterium today.


Just one more corrupt tradition fed to you by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


How do you know? In any case, try again.


That one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself could hardly be called a "wolf," could she---except by one who is himself a wolf.

In any case, it should be noted that you yourself believe in not a few notions that are nowhere found in Scripture (the biblical Canon, sola scriptura, etc.), so why are you following the wolf (your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect) that teaches such falsehoods?


The Tradition of Christ's one historic Church has been around even longer. Indeed, Scripture is itself merely part of the Tradition.


...and replace them with the corrupt traditions of men concocted by the tens-of-thousands of man-made non-Catholic sects that have been invented over the past few centuries.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Since you are now just pounding your shoe on the podium in a vain attempt to distract us from the fact that you cannot answer the questions that were asked, we can conclude that you have give us all the answer your are capable of providing.

 

[Cruciform]

Actually, God convicts us in our conscience first.

Chapter-and-verse, please.

That my conscience is clear is a very good indicator that I have not lied.

...declared every monumental liar in history (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).

Since you are now just pounding your shoe on the podium in a vain attempt to distract us from the fact that you cannot answer the questions that were asked, we can conclude that you have give us all the answer your are capable of providing.

Rather, "all the answer that is needed". Back to Post #387 above. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Chapter-and-verse, please.

I don't need one, it's an old Catholic tradition courtesy of my mom.

...declared every monumental liar in history (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).

Since you can't post any alleged lies...

Rather, "all the answer that is needed". Back to Post #387 above. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Oh no, much more answer is needed, you have given all that you are capable of giving.

 

[Cruciform]

I don't need one, it's an old Catholic tradition courtesy of my mom.

Since your mom doesn't speak officially for the Catholic Church, you'll need to cite the paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that "God convicts us in our conscience first."

Oh no, much more answer is needed, you have given all that you are capable of giving.

Rather, all that is needed. Whether or not you allow yourself to be convinced by the more-than-sufficient answers is entirely up to you. Again, the problem is you, not the evidence.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[republicanchick]

Except that the New Testament is against doctrine in General. The Old Testament laws were made redundant because something better than rules and doctrines had come. I am not saying that doctrines are bad. They are useful if you do not want to think too much, and it is good to have a general viewpoint which fits most of the time. But nothing fits all the time. Being correct is not important.

this sounds unintelligible

and ignorant

you have no respect for other humans, it seems... you act like everyone but you and those who believe exactly like you are STUPID and robotic and etc

at one time I didn't believe in the "doctrine" against this one particular sin... doesn't matter what it was

I found out the HARD way that the RCC was RIGHT about it all alone. I was the one who was wrong. Imagine that.

could it be you who hate the Church are also wrong?


Hmmmmm...

(and poster thought about this for a minute or 2... and then said... "NAH!")




++
h