A question asked on the road

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because the traditions did not exist in the first century.

If they were supported in the first - they would have been quoted 79 posts ago and you would have no quandary with me.

The holy traditions did exist, but that does not mean that people in 2024 are in possession of written sources from the first century that document each and every holy tradition. Existing and documenting are not the same thing.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The holy traditions did exist, but that does not mean that people in 2024 are in possession of written sources from the first century that document each and every holy tradition. Existing and documenting are not the same thing.

They did not exist before the third century - think about how many documents and codex's from the early church - hundreds in number - not one mentions Peter in a position of authority over the church, the moment the Church is Romanized, it is filled with traditions never mentioned before.

Not one mention of the one who Jesus supposedly made the foundation - what the church was built on. Not one mention of Peter being the 'first pope', not one mention of his authority - not one mention of Peter settling a dispute - not one mention of Peter opening or closing heaven - not one mention of Peter having a greater authority than the 12. It is as if the early church fathers included all kinds of information except Peter's position of authority. What is portrayed in tradition as one of the most important, if not the most important, person in the formation of the church universal is never spoken of. That doesn't raise questions? It did with me.

Then the church is Romanized and ka boom! thousands of documents claiming tradition of something the fore fathers never said.

I apologize, but that is why Peter's Roman Catholic traditional stance is and has been so widely rejected.

I applaud your loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church and it's traditions - I just do not follow them anymore. Much to the chagrin of my father who graduated from St. Peter Seminary in Ontario Canada.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They did not exist

That's just repeating the same objection. It does not address what was in my reply.

The holy traditions did exist, but that does not mean that people in 2024 are in possession of written sources from the first century that document each and every holy tradition. Existing and documenting are not the same thing.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That's just repeating the same objection. It does not address what was in my reply.

It is a direct address to your unsubstantiated position.

If the tradition was there, what is your proof beyond “because I say so”