Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stephen Weller's avatar

please correct this article to reflect what i wrote. you deliberately misrepresented what i wrote to straw man the catholic faith. i am appalled. i wrote: "For me the three arguments that are convincing are, 1, its proclaimed by the pope, 2 its also been testified to by saint visionaries, and many miracles (Think about Lourdes!), and 3 its fitting with the revelation of the bible, also with natural reason for Mary to be without sin and concieved without original sin." a miracle decided the council of nicea against the arians, but thats apparently not traditional to you. how did they decide on the word substance when it wasnt always everywhere used? they saw the hand of God in the miracle of St Nicholas recieving his mitre in prison. what got so many jews to break with the traditions of the old law, well the miracles of the saints following the resurrection of christ, or thats what we read in the bible. but miraculous activity has always been apart of discerning what is and isnt tradition. you speak of patristic tradition, how is not not merely what is constituted by these three things, proper aurthority, extraordinary sanctity attested to by miracles, and scripture. "but to proclaim a dogma requires that it it has already been universally held as a belief." says who? and this means the IC is not in continuity with tradition. the same quote misunderstood could be used to reject any council of the church. again, please show some integrity and at least change what you wrote to reflect the three things i mentioned.

Expand full comment
Stephen Weller's avatar

"I was surprised that these could possibly be criteria for justifying anything dogmatic," what are you talking about? what is tradition? tradition says to heed these very things really what?

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts