Posted on 10/22/2019 1:32:11 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Well, I finally found something you and I agree on. Is this an historic moment? 😁😆 You are right, it is a TOTALLY impossible task. I did, however, believe that in the past. 👎
Including my own bishop --- and I am publicly rebuking him on his own Twitter account. I truly think some of these gents aren't even Christian, let alone Catholic.
I thought the Romans wiped Carthage off the face of the map. Did someone rebuild it? 😁😆🤣🤗
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
You mean that an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings was established (even if not uniformly) by the time of Christ (who could thus expound "in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" - Luke 24:27), in conformity with those who sat in the seat of Moses?
Impossible! For
"the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)
People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;
Therefore, since one needs faith in Catholicism and instruction by it in order to know what writings are of God, then (to avoid circular reasoning),
when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration" - Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility)
By which appeal the candidate for conversion is sppsd to be able to ascertain that the RCC or the EOC is of God, even though it is impossible for said candidate to know that which God-inspired writings are of God.
However, when and if the candidate finds that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. which best shows the NT church understood the OT and gospels), then the argument is made that "we gave you the Scriptures," and thus you need to submit to US.
Which is nothing new:
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)
And based upon the Catholic recourse to "we gave you the Scriptures and thus you need to submit to US" then guess who 1st c. souls should have submitted to?
Let’s all publicly rebuke Mitt Romney for his Twitter account too. What a nerd.
Yet there simply was no official version of the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible, and due to the variant translations of the Vulgate and the errors among them, a standardized official version was attempted, resulting in the it resulted in the first edition of the Latin Vulgate authorised by a pope, that of the scandalous work of Pope Sixtus V, the Sistine Vulgate which resulted the death (likely murder) of its fanatical papal translator, besides only blaming copyists for its many errors, and seeking to buy up all copies, in order to destroy them. If you can find one you can be very rich. And the the variations among Protestants, as with variations among Catholics today, were mainly due to interpretation.As a result of persecutions by RC Bloody Mary, the first edition of the Geneva Bible was published in 1560, which became the most popular translation in English. But because annotations or notes in the Geneva Bible were overall Calvinist and Puritan in character, which resulted in the King James Bible of 1611.
But which in turn is not much different than the 1750 Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible, and it would mainly be the notes (which canon law requires Catholic Bibles to have) that correlate to variant interpretations. Meanwhile, if maintaining the authenticity of the content and the meaning of Scripture is the reason for Catholic translations, with some of its required notes, then Catholic can hardly recommend their official American Bible .
The onion continues to be peeled.
I waste too much time on FR to have a twitter account!
“ Even statues know enough to swim the Tiber away from the Vatican”
......
BLAHAHAHA!!!
How’s the LT coming along now?
You mean something like,
"if someone wants to argue that chanting to and bowing before figurines of naked women does not count as worshiping strange gods, well, who am I to say?" (https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com)
does not correspond to what Catholics argue as concerns praying and bowing before figurines of their Mary?
Meanwhile, that
"church authorities [should] be on guard against setting up objects widely and reasonably seen as representing pagan deities in Catholic sacred spaces"
is a subjective "eye of the beholder" basis for judgment, since for "what is widely and reasonably seen as representing pagan deities" can certainly be applied to the adoration of Mary via graven representations of her.
The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary)
That's a pretty damning statement from the CE and flies in the face of what RCs claim that "this was always done".
Rome's own documents continue to condemn what they say was practiced. Further, it illustrates how ill-informed RCs are exactly what their denomination teaches.
ΥΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΣΗΝ ΕΥΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΙΑΝ ΚΑΤΑΦΕΥΓΟΜΕΝ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ. ΤΑΣ ΗΜΩΝ ΙΚΕΣΙΑΣ ΜΗ ΠΑΡΙΔΗΣ ΕΝ ΠΕΡΙΣΤΑΣΕΙ, ΑΛΛ’ ΕΚ ΚΙΝΔΥΝΩΝ ΛΥΤΡΩΣΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ, ΜΟΝΗ ΑΓΝΗ, ΜΟΝΗ ΕΥΛΟΓΗΜΕΝΗ.
Which translates:
Under thy compassion
we take refuge, O Mother of God (Theotokos).
Do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,
but from dangers ransom us,
Singularly Holy, Singularly Blessed
Also, there are numerous examples of early Christians referring to Mary as the Mother of God or Theotokos. Examples: Hippolytus of Rome and Origen in the second century, also Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria.
So there are three ways to go after at. Personally, I’ve been using the P470 papyrus lately because it so irrefutable. It demonstrates that Christians in Egypt were already using highly devotion language in prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary by AD 250. Some scholars even push the date back further. Perhaps AD 200.
"Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared," - Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59,
yet this did not prevent Rome to "see" what it wants, and "remember" a historical event that did not evidentially occur, and then dogmatically require all to affirm as a historical event what she says imagines was Tradition.
It shows there was error in the early church already.
It does indeed sir. But, weren’t most, if not all the New Testament books written to correct errors, as well as things like end times prophecies?
Most of Paul's letters were for that reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.