[Tj3]

You're beyond my understanding - this is not a good thing. Your discussions here are disingenuous and not in the spirit of good debate - this is not a good thing. Some other ulterior motive is driving your responses -this is a very bad thing. I don't want to deal with that.

Truth is my ulterior motive. I am sorry to hear that you don't want to deal with it. You should stop trying to judge everything that anyone who disagrees with you says. The question that I am raising is quite legitimate and represents a key issue that those outside of your denomination have with your denomination's tradition. Just brushing it off as being the result of some evil ulterior motive of others leaves one feeling that you have no answer.

[Wondergirl]

That was my earlier question and a repeated question back again - where is tradition written down that we can see what it says. And the answer that I received was something along of the lines that it was the teachings of the denomination's leaders. That being the case, those recognized as "doctors" of the denomination for their skill in sound doctrine as defined by the church would b best placed to define that. So if we cannot rely upon them, where is tradition defined that we can see what it contains?

Here's where I have been going to figure out what's being said in this thread --

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

[Tj3]

Here's where I have been going to figure out what's being said in this thread --

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

I am very familiar with that. But it does not address the concerns that I am raising.

[De Maria]

Then I presume that you have read "Glories of Mary".

Here are quotes, with page references:

"At the command of Mary all obey-even God."

Page 155 in the paperback version that I have, a short ways into Chapter VI.

"The Way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary."

Page 143 in the paperback, but if you read the entirety of Chapter V, you will see this restated over and over and over many times so that it is abundantly clear.

"The Holy Church carefully teaches us her children with what attention and confidence we should unceasingly have recourse to this loving protectress; and for this reason commands a worship peculiar to Mary"

- Immediately after the reference to worship, on page 107, he refers to here as the "Divine Mother" (his capitalization. This term is used from end of the book to the other.
- Page 112 and elsewhere suggests that her mercy never fails, but because Jesus is also our judge, and thus it is better to go to Mary than to Jesus for salvation since we can be assured of her mercy and compassion
- She can be blasphemed (p114) someone which can only be done against God
- Though Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our salvation, we can only be saved through Mary since she dispenses the blood (P.116)
- She conquered Satan, hell and the demons and crushed the head of Satan (which scripture says was Jesus). p.117
- At the name of Mary, the devils tremble and every knee bows (p.123)

Now that I have shown that what you called impossible to be true, please answer my question - when tradition contradicts scripture, or contradicts itself, what do you do?

I asked you to start another thread with this question so this one would remain on topic. Since you didn't, I did. You'll find the answer there.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1446189

[JoeT777]

Even if Ligouri wrote what you c/p-ed, what does that have to do with Tradition? The worship of Mary is not a Tradition (capital T) in the Catholic Church.

Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

[Tj3]

I asked you to start another thread with this question so this one would remain on topic. Since you didn't, I did. You'll find the answer there.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1446189

This deals direction with the question of tradition and scripture.

[Akoue]

Well, Tom, it's tricky. The last time you asked where Tradition is written down and I answered (I said the early Fathers) you accused me of denying oral Tradition. When I corrected that misapprehension, reminding you that Scripture is that part of the part of Tradition that has been written down, you went away for awhile. So what are you asking now that's different from what you were asking then, which I answered?

Tradition is not, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread, a body of doctrine alone. But if you want a place to start, look at the Catechism.

Geez, this answer and question thing is starting to feel really one-sided. I wonder why that might be.

[Akoue]

thank you, i was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

Lol!

[Tj3]

Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

Sigh! Can we not avoid the abusive personal remarks and discuss a topic respectfully?

[Tj3]

Well, Tom, it's tricky. The last time you asked where Tradition is written down and I answered (I said the early Fathers) you accused me of denying oral Tradition.

No, I didn't. I asked if you were. Because if it defined by what is written, then it is not oral. If it is oral, then it must be defined elsewhere.

Tradition is not, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread, a body of doctrine alone. But if you want a place to start, look at the Catechism.

This represents that issue that I raise, though. If you cannot define what it is that tradition teaches, then it cannot be used as a definition of sound doctrine.

[De Maria]

This deals direction with the question of tradition and scripture.

No it doesn't. It deals with your problem with what St. Alphonsus Liguori said.

[Tj3]

No it doesn't. It deals with your problem with what St. Alphonsus Liguori said.

Follow the thread. It was an example. And I might add, an example which was requested.

[Wondergirl]

Thank you, I was too busy looking for dead end quotes cited by posters of dubious character .

You're welcome. I'm Lutheran, by the way, but hate to see pots get stirred unnecessarily.

[De Maria]

Follow the thread. It was an example.

And a poor example as I explained.

[Akoue]

I just read the other thread, De Maria. You're nothing if not thorough!

[Tj3]

And a poor example as I explained.

Well, you are of course welcome to your opinion, but it brought out the point that I was trying to make regardless of what you may think of the example.

[Wondergirl]

And a poor example as I explained.

And if even a lowly Lutheran can see that...

[Akoue]

You're welcome. I'm Lutheran, by the way, but hate to see pots get stirred unnecessarily.

And Lutherans and Catholics have been having very productive conversations for the last fifty years. In Germany they're in communion.

[JoeT777]

Sigh! Can we not avoid the abusive personal remarks and discuss a topic respectfully?

How do you know I was referring to you? Do you feel guilty of having a characteristically dubious nature?

JoeT

[Tj3]

How do you know I was referring to you? Do you feel guilty of having a characteristically dubious nature?

JoeT

Where did I say it was me? Does it matter who? Is it okay to be abusive to some people but not others? Why don't you just stay on the topic and lay off the abuse? Do you feel guilty?