Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy).
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5].
….Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Here's a teaching which meets the requirements for an infallible papal teaching (ex cathedra).
Do even Catholic believe it anymore?
Before Vatican II, there were about 14 infallible papal teachings. Now we're down to two, and it's arguable if they meet the requirement for papal infallibility.
Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #21RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 17 by showme]
This is correct. And Scriptural so ironic to add the phrase to whom Jesus is said to have given. In fact, as we see in Scripture Jesus did say these words.derived from his role as the apostolic successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.
Everything else you posted is simply anti-Catholic propaganda that you have chosen to share <sigh>
Simon bar Jonas was called petros, which means small stone. The "church" was to be built on petras, which means foundation stone, and refers to the Spirit of Revelation, such as "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). And the reason for Simon bar Jonas to be called "stone", was that he was the doppliganger of Shebna, who was in charge of the house of David, who would "shame your master's house" and "carve a resting place for yourself in the rock" (Isaiah 22:16-18).
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #22RESPONSE: "Tradition" is based on the thinking that if people believe something long enough, it must be correct. It's claimed when there is no real evidence.RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 19 by polonius.advice]
Yes, do keep that in mind. Proving it was via Sacred Tradition that we receive our instruction.And keep in mind that the four evangelists wrote between 70 and 95 AD, and were not witnesses to what Jesus said.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #23[Replying to showme]
“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .� The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Below are reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:
1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas'� (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.� There would have been no “small rock� to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
2) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock� to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock� in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,� “rocks,� or “rocky� in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.� However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie� or “Priscilla� in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
3) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large� or “small� with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…� D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks� in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone� when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.� Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,� or “pebble.�
A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.
Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.� Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock� (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.
6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father� in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes�). Jacob (“supplanter�) to Israel (“One who prevails with God�). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father� over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father� in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope� or “papa,� as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock
I think you’ll find this a very thorough explanation.. The "little pebble theory" has been debunked long ago. Your Biblical analysis seems to be lacking . . .Simon bar Jonas was called petros, which means small stone. The "church" was to be built on petras, which means foundation stone, and refers to the Spirit of Revelation, such as "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). And the reason for Simon bar Jonas to be called "stone", was that he was the doppliganger of Shebna, who was in charge of the house of David, who would "shame your master's house" and "carve a resting place for yourself in the rock" (Isaiah 22:16-18).
“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .� The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Below are reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:
1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas'� (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.� There would have been no “small rock� to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
2) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock� to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock� in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,� “rocks,� or “rocky� in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.� However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie� or “Priscilla� in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
3) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large� or “small� with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…� D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks� in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone� when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.� Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,� or “pebble.�
A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.
Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.� Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock� (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.
6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father� in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes�). Jacob (“supplanter�) to Israel (“One who prevails with God�). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father� over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father� in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope� or “papa,� as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #24[Replying to post 22 by polonius.advice]
RESPONSE: "Tradition" is based on the thinking that if people believe something long enough, it must be correct. It's claimed when there is no real evidence.
There are times when it can mean that, but you’ve made the mistake of thinking it always means that. It is also a naïve, arrogant and foolish position. G.K. Chesterton explains it best . . .
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.� To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. –G.K. Chesterton
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.� ― G.K. Chesterton
RESPONSE: "Tradition" is based on the thinking that if people believe something long enough, it must be correct. It's claimed when there is no real evidence.
There are times when it can mean that, but you’ve made the mistake of thinking it always means that. It is also a naïve, arrogant and foolish position. G.K. Chesterton explains it best . . .
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.� To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. –G.K. Chesterton
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.� ― G.K. Chesterton
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #25Your problem is that the "dead", your "fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19), "in the day of distress", such as the "awesome day of the LORD" (Joel 2:32), the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood".RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 22 by polonius.advice]
RESPONSE: "Tradition" is based on the thinking that if people believe something long enough, it must be correct. It's claimed when there is no real evidence.
There are times when it can mean that, but you’ve made the mistake of thinking it always means that. It is also a naïve, arrogant and foolish position. G.K. Chesterton explains it best . . .
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.� To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. –G.K. Chesterton
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.� ― G.K. Chesterton
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #26RightReason wrote: [Replying to showme]
Simon bar Jonas was called petros, which means small stone. The "church" was to be built on petras, which means foundation stone, and refers to the Spirit of Revelation, such as "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). And the reason for Simon bar Jonas to be called "stone", was that he was the doppliganger of Shebna, who was in charge of the house of David, who would "shame your master's house" and "carve a resting place for yourself in the rock" (Isaiah 22:16-18).
“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .� The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Yeshua's testimony was presented using parables so that the "wicked", those without ears to hear, could not understand (Matthew 13:13)(Daniel 12:10)(Isaiah 6:10). Neither the Protestants, who claim the rock the church is built on is "you are the Christ, the son of the living God", nor the Roman Catholics, who say Peter is the rock the church is built on. Both are taking Matthew 16:16 our of context, and as both are daughters of Babylon, their days are numbered.
The context of the quote is: "And Yeshua answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven...… upon this petras I will build my "church' ". The insertion of the naming of Simon Barjonas, is to help fulfill the Scripture of Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas the "worthless shepherd" of (Zechariah 11:17) would be in a position to "shame your master's house" (Isaiah 22:18),and "carve a resting place in the rock" (Isaiah 22:16), because that was the what Yeshua had come to do, fulfill Scripture (Matthew 5:17).
Peter is not the rock the "church" is built on, it is the "testimony of Yeshua", the "spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:1), the tested stone (Isaiah 28:16) upon which the tabernacle of God is built, using "justice as the measuring line" (Isaiah 28:17), and "righteousness as the level". Anyone who does not build on that foundation will "fall" (Matthew 7:24-27). You should not worry, because it is the "many" that follow that "broad" "way" (Matthew 7:13). You will apparently be in the company of the "many".
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #27[Replying to showme]
Tradition has been vital in history in man getting to where he is. It is also the means Christ intended, so much so we were given His Church first (Sacred Tradition), and His Church gave us the Bible (Sacred Scripture). Many today trust Sacred Scripture and believe Sacred Scripture alone is our authority, failing to recognize by even accepting Sacred Scripture you have already accepted Sacred Tradition.
I’m sorry but that is not what Tradition is. Tradition is acknowledging that those who have gone before us, those who lived when Christ lived, are doing and carrying out that which Christ asked of them and gave them the authority to do. We are told to follow their example, whether it has been written down or passed on by word of mouth.Your problem is that the "dead", your "fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19), "in the day of distress", such as the "awesome day of the LORD" (Joel 2:32), the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood".
Tradition has been vital in history in man getting to where he is. It is also the means Christ intended, so much so we were given His Church first (Sacred Tradition), and His Church gave us the Bible (Sacred Scripture). Many today trust Sacred Scripture and believe Sacred Scripture alone is our authority, failing to recognize by even accepting Sacred Scripture you have already accepted Sacred Tradition.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #28[Replying to post 26 by showme]
So, forget proper Bible analysis and just call those who don’t share your false interpretation the whore of Babylon. LOL! I provided the thorough evidence why Peter cannot mean small pebble. I also provided the evidence showing the order of the sentence, the syntax, and the context, and word choice all prove Peter is the rock. Seems like you have a lot to address but seem to be unable to so. Instead you do what others do when they are desperate because they have nothing to argue -- start quoting verses like this:
Perhaps following faulty tradition is preventing you from correct interpretation.
Yeshua's testimony was presented using parables so that the "wicked", those without ears to hear, could not understand (Matthew 13:13)(Daniel 12:10)(Isaiah 6:10). Neither the Protestants, who claim the rock the church is built on is "you are the Christ, the son of the living God", nor the Roman Catholics, who say Peter is the rock the church is built on. Both are taking Matthew 16:16 our of context, and as both are daughters of Babylon, their days are numbered.
So, forget proper Bible analysis and just call those who don’t share your false interpretation the whore of Babylon. LOL! I provided the thorough evidence why Peter cannot mean small pebble. I also provided the evidence showing the order of the sentence, the syntax, and the context, and word choice all prove Peter is the rock. Seems like you have a lot to address but seem to be unable to so. Instead you do what others do when they are desperate because they have nothing to argue -- start quoting verses like this:
. Is that really the best you can do?You should not worry, because it is the "many" that follow that "broad" "way" (Matthew 7:13). You will apparently be in the company of the "many".
Perhaps following faulty tradition is preventing you from correct interpretation.
"acknowledging" verses "assuming"
Post #29Right Reason tells us that:
RESPONSE: Wow! Isn’t that “assuming� rather than “acknowledging�?
“We’ve always believed that so it must be true.�
Do you "acknowledge" Psalm 104 which tells us that the earth doesn't move, and Joshua’s story of the sun standing still which proves that the sun revolves around the earth?
. Tradition is acknowledging that those who have gone before us, those who lived when Christ lived, are doing and carrying out that which Christ asked of them and gave them the authority to do. We are told to follow their example, whether it has been written down or passed on by word of mouth.
RESPONSE: Wow! Isn’t that “assuming� rather than “acknowledging�?
“We’ve always believed that so it must be true.�
Do you "acknowledge" Psalm 104 which tells us that the earth doesn't move, and Joshua’s story of the sun standing still which proves that the sun revolves around the earth?
Re: Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven
Post #30RightReason wrote: [Replying to showme]
I’m sorry but that is not what Tradition is. Tradition is acknowledging that those who have gone before us, those who lived when Christ lived, are doing and carrying out that which Christ asked of them and gave them the authority to do. We are told to follow their example, whether it has been written down or passed on by word of mouth.Your problem is that the "dead", your "fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19), "in the day of distress", such as the "awesome day of the LORD" (Joel 2:32), the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood".
Tradition has been vital in history in man getting to where he is. It is also the means Christ intended, so much so we were given His Church first (Sacred Tradition), and His Church gave us the Bible (Sacred Scripture). Many today trust Sacred Scripture and believe Sacred Scripture alone is our authority, failing to recognize by even accepting Sacred Scripture you have already accepted Sacred Tradition.
Isaiah 29:13 The LORD says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."
