All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Which traditions not recorded in the Scripture did the apostles consider inspired-inerrant?

Give a couple of specific examples that I can check.

All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament because Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament.

Do you not know that Jesus did not write anything down? Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Sacred Traditions. The Church then wrote down those Traditions in the book you now refer to as the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official catechism of the Catholic Church. All Catholic Traditions are there, either implied or explicit.

But Sola Scriptura is absent and Sola Scriptura contradicts the New Testament. That is plain for all to see. Even you. Yet you continue to embrace that manmade tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God

Anonymous said...

So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?

If I'm wrong, please show me an example of a tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant.

Confession. The Tradition that the Church ministers to and absolves repentant sinners:

John 20:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Now you. Show us why we should believe in and practice Sola Scriptura, when you have admitted it is not in Scripture and you stated that anything which is not in Scripture is not binding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Simon, tu eres Pedron

MT says:
In other words, why use "petra" at all, unless something or someone other than Peter is in view?

Hello MT. Since you claim to understand Spanish, I wonder why you are having trouble with this subject.

The same situation occurs in Spanish. There are masculine ways of signifying rock. For instance:

Significado de la palabra pedrón
pedrón.
1. m. aum. de piedra.

But the more common usage is "piedra".

Therefore, because of the gender issue, it is more polite and exact to say:

Simon, tu eres Pedron, y en esta piedra edificare mi iglesia.

That is why St. Matthew did the same thing. For the gender to be correct. Otherwise, he would be calling Simon by a name more fitting for a girl.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The doctrine of Scripture alone invalidates itself

Anonymous said...
Scripture does not need to say "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority."

Anonymous also said:
Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. 

Therefore, since Scripture does not say, "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority", this doctrine is not binding. It is a false doctrine of men.

This does not in the least change the idea that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God.

Again, produce the teaching from Scripture or by your own rule, it is invalid.

It follows from the necessity of the case that something that is inspired-inerrant by definition is the highest authority in the church. This is based on the nature of the Scripture itself. 

Scripture says that the highest authority is God. And Scripture says that God established the Church as authority over men in this life.

Did the apostles consider anything else to be inspired-inerrant Word of God?

God, the Church and His Traditions.

Sola Scriptura is not mentioned in Scripture

Anonymous said...

I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.

Nor is Sola Scriptura mentioned in Scripture. And the fact that Sola Scriptura is absent from Scripture tells us that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men. In fact, Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture which tells us to keep Tradition (2 Thess 2:15).

What we do know about Scripture is that it alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is the Word of God. 

Chapter and verse please.

What I see is Scripture says that Scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16). But it is the Church which tells you which books are Scripture and teaches that Scripture is without error.

Scripture also teaches that men are inspired of the Holy Spirit to speak and then to write the Scripture (2 Pet 19-21).

I also see that Scripture tells me that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. I suppose that the Wisdom of God is also inspired-inerrant, wouldn't you agree?

I see no verse saying that Scripture ALONE is inspired-inerrant. So, please produce the chapter and verse.

What follows from this is that there is no higher or equal authority to the Scripture.

God is the highest authority in all matters. Scripture has no authority except as a rule upon which men can meditate to learn the Will of God. But the Church has been authorized to teach the Wisdom of God and to rule over men (Matt 28:19-20). And even to forgive their sins (John 20:22-23).

That is why its teachings are binding. Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. 

You admitted in your first sentence that Scripture does not address the doctrine of Scripture alone. Therefore, by your own admission, Scripture alone is a false doctrine.

Eating meat on Friday during lent is an example of a teaching-practice that is not apostolic and thereby not binding. 

Abstinence from meat on Fridays is a Church discipline. And, as I have shown, Jesus Christ gave the Church authority over His disciples. Anyone who does not obey the Church is treated as a heathen (Matt 18:17).

Other doctrines of your church such as the Marian dogmas would be not binding nor apostolic.

Marian doctrines are in Scripture either explicit or implied. Sola Scriptura is totally absent from Scripture and contradicts the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria