Message from @Spydig
Discord ID: 591325997228490762
But if they used that authority to contradict scripture is nullified?
Can anyone define doctrine who isnt of the historical lineage?
Not really, like they can, but it wouldn't be as reliable
Of course we have layman biblical scholars and everything
They can’t contradict any of three things. A. Sacred Scripture B. Sacred Tradition C. Sacred Magisterium
But that's not the same as the teaching authority of the Church defining a doctrine
Now, I know this may be a bit difficult but do you have any sources that proves absolutely that either an apostle or a disciple of an apostle believed in doctrine such as infant baptism, the veneration of saints, or a literal interpretation of the bread and blood?
Not necessary
Is that a no?
Did I say no?
You didn't give a direct answer
I was asking if you had it
brb
back
My answer is that it’s not relevant. I can provide sources that the college of bishops, as the direct successors to the apostles, have defined dogmatically the real presence of the Eucharist. And have authorized and recommended both infant baptism and veneration of saints
My issue is whether we confirm that these traditions are truly apostolic
I answer yes
And what source would you cite?
Veneration of saints wasn’t because *there weren’t any at the time*
Oh btw
Regardless of view
inb4 “muh female minister of communion”
muh female minister of communion
It’s an angel, fuck off
You wouldn't happen to have something that documents Irenaeus and John's relations would you?
OOF, I'm sorry, no, Irenaeus was Polycarp's student and *Polycarp* knew John
He mentions that in these two
Oh Spy
So
I have a study bible coming in the mail today 😎
Thank you
Silly Phil, Catholics don't read the *Bible*!!!
JK, that's great! 😃
I was torn between didache and ignatius
The Didache isn't that long tbh
Neither is my understanding of scripture Yeet