Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Considering the huge amount scripture I've seen you and other Catholics use in most debates y'all are at least 95% scriptura.
Is Infant baptism an apostolic tradition?
Scripture was/is the foundation for all those heresies and objections to church practices that you mention. Both sides used the bible. That's why the church, with her historic legacy of beliefs from the beginning and the guidance of the HS, is necessary.
That's what ended up occurring, however, even as some valid churches continue to observe Saturday rest along with the observance of the Lord's day. In any case, it is no longer necessary for a Christian to observe one of the ten commandments as revealed-because of the beliefs and practices of the early church. And this change is in no way clearly recorded in the bible.
The problem I have with that argument is that I've been in several sabbatarianism debates and I've seen a whole lot of scripture being used against it. While there's not a direct statement per se, there is still a preponderance of scriptural evidence that supports Christians not being expected to keep the 4th commandment.
No argument there.
Not at all-even if you seem to want to cling to that notion for some reason. In apologetics with Protestants we have little choice as they won't listen to any other source. But what you fail to understand is that the particular Catholic interpretation of Scripture by the church is already informed by Tradition, by experience, from the get-go, which is why, again, RC teachings and practices just happen to align in most every way with those of the eastern churches, even after centuries of isolation, as well as the early fathers,
If we're honest with ourselves there's really very little Scriptural support; as with the doctrines of Mary Scriptural evidence is sketchy, certainly nothing direct as in an instruction. And that makes apologetics on it somewhat frustrating. Going by the bible I would not mess with one of the Ten Commandments. But knowing that this practice was an early change made within and by the church makes me understand they knew more than we do, going by the bible alone. It's only since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura arrived on the scene that some of these doctrines have been questioned, in fact.
The point is that Scripture was used by those holding to heresy just as it was used by those defending the true faith. And summing up their decisions the latter also used words such as, "This is what the universal church of God has always and everywhere believed."
I'm all for including 1st and 2nd century church fathers into it.
The keyword being "always". I don't think there's much debate over what's always been held. When the earliest source of a tradition is St. Bob from the 5th century, then it becomes more prone to debate.
I'm probably more EO and Catholic than you might think.
I thought always meant always as in from the beginning.
"Saint Bob of the 5th century" is still 16 centuries closer to Christ's crucifixion than we are, his times still had books and people who knew the culture of Christ's day better than we do. And if he is a bishop then he is in the line of succession of the apostles and received teaching and knowledge that you and I have not.
I believe God had his new covenant church settled within the time of the apostles and the apostolic fathers. Just as God had his old covenant church settled within the time of Moses and Joshua. From that point forward it was man who made additions and changes.
