Posted on 03/14/2017 11:16:36 AM PDT by Gamecock
“... or they ain’t Catholic...”
You mean like a bunch of priests, bishops, cardinals and popes who don’t “hold to the Deposit of Faith”??? Like I’ve said before,
“If you accept Vatican 2, you think your Church is alive,
If you reject Vatican 2, you know your Church is dead.”
The simplicity of Christ's direct answer to a direct question:
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-23
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
Catholics do not have different denominations.
There are different rites — but they all say the Mass.
Oh, so now I get it. All those early Church fathers, theologians, scholars, and historians with an erudite understating in Hebrew and Greek, simply did not know how to read plain English, or at least as you do.
Those ECFs assembled the book that details the corruption in the Catholic church in the first 3 chapters of John's Revelation.
Most ANYONE can walk into a Catholic bookstore and buy an approved by Rome copy and read; in English; for themselves.
I attend the Tridentine Mass exclusively and find most of what came about from V2 to be a bunch of mealy mouthed nonsense at best, and I don't know that the Church is dead at all. In crisis, yes, but that's happened before. The gates of hell will never prevail against Christ's Church, and Christ's Church will never "die".
The writings which now compose the NT, although initially having been somewhat separated and distinct from one another, much as the "books" are today, were not themselves "in thousands of fragments" which had to be sifted through and reconstructed. This holds true irregardless of possibility of partial translations having been in the hands of some.
The main (and slight) differences which remain today among extant (and old) texts can be seen in comparisons between what is often referred to as Alexandrian, uncial texts, and Byzantine miniscule. This mention is about variance among extant textual copies themselves, so does not address issue of canon directly, but can serve as something of a glace in the rearview mirrors, to see where we all "have been" by spying direct reflections of the very objects in past history...
What did I just post to you? Was there something wrong about it? Here, again.
All the New Testament writings existed from the first century of the Church, and were very much imposed upon the Church by the Apostles. That there were other, later arising imposter type of writings, and a handful more innocent, but which still not cut the mustard as authentic accounts of Christ and the very earliest, primitive Church attests to the facts pointed towards in the first sentence [of this paragraph].
Yet you went on to say;
"This is why it took some 300 years where the early Church fathers, theologians, historians, and popes sifted through these scrolls and with the guidance the Holy Sirit..."
300 years you say; To filter out the pretender texts, and including what had arisen from within the Church (during those 300 years). Some of those writings which were more along line of ecclesiastical writings, possibly good for instruction, not entirely dissimilar from good sermons --- not exactly inspired Word, but which a few among the custodians of the Church had included within their own listings of what was proper to be read from within the Church(es).
When all the later sorting was completed (which was in the main -- to remove what was spurious, not truly apostolic) -- what remained but what I recall having said to you many times over the years --- only what had been imposed upon the Church by the apostles? I'm not sure why this is apparently so difficult a concept for you to grasp...other for myself left guessing towards reasons why.
Truly inspired "authority" you say? As if comparable to the Scripture itself it is being implied, I take it. And you have the nerve to write about "rivers of contradictions!?! If it was ever truly authority of the level there, and it had disappeared, the disappearance was long prior to the Reformation (or else the Reformation would not have occurred).
There is something important here that you are overlooking. Not very much of the earliest re-organizing of NT canon was done under leadership of the Latin Church (although they did have some degree of input) and that input for most anything of significance was arguably much lesser until about 300 years after Christ, when that Church began it's first stirrings towards usurping the previous widely, more equitably shared 'apostolic authority', to eventually heap Supreme "authority" upon itself --alone.
That erroneous appropriation of overweening claim to authority over all the rest of the Church (which bishops of Rome eventually made more plain) was not "of the Spirit". We can know this by checking the Scripture, and the earliest Church traditions BOTH. Just ask the Orthodox.
Your assertions are to significant degree invalid. That there was canonical process, this "sifting" you refer to, in no wise leaves the Latin Church as being the only ecclesiastical organization in the world which has never entered into theological mistake of any kind.
As towards modern-day free-wheeling jackwagons such as Creflo Dollar, there were always (and sad to say) will always be those who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction (and even more sadly -- to the destruction of others).
That does not equate to the Latin Church itself, alone being free from all error within what has arisen in the nearly two thousand years since the Christ's birth, life & ministry, death & resurrection.
I personally have no "rivers of contradictions" that I know of, or that you could successfully point out (that I know of) not regarding the written Word. I've never even heard of a "Mary Bagpipe". That person would mean as little to myself and my own beliefs as they possibly would to yours. Possibly less. Speaking of rivers, while we're at it, Perhaps you could check yourself more carefully?
I am capable of "sifting through" and seeing through the Creflo Dollars of this world simply by reading and understanding the Bible as the spirit of the Lord (and many well skilled exegetes among Protestant camp) help bring that better into my own understandings.
We can see where persons such as Mr. Dollar err by consulting the same Word of God (which the Dollars of this world misuse) more carefully, and more entirely.
If that were not true, then among adherents to the principles of sola scriptura (Scripture itself as Supreme authority) we'd all (Christians other than Catholic) be blinded by the charlatans each and every time. That is simply not the case, and quite frankly never has been.
If what you are asserting were true, then none other than this Catholic Church you mention would be able to recognize Mr. Dollar's mistakes.
You must have a fluid definition/identification system for what denotes 'Catholic Church', or else you'd need possibly agree with Orthodox traditionalists with their own views towards such things as papacy (as that known among and by the Latin Church) -- and adjust the doctrines within the Latin Church to more actually harmonize with the Orthodox instead of the superficiality of later agreements having been wrested out of isolated Orthodox prelates agreeing to wordings including 'primacy of honor' be attributed to bishop of the Latin Church (aka The Pope).
As towards ability to interpret the written Word, that belongs to not one ecclesiastical organization, but to all, as it always has.
There may be disagreements arise, but the ones whom hewed most closely to the Word, rightly dividing that, were the ones who won the day among competing disputations -- back in the old days. That old time winning was most often carried out by membership of ecclesiastical organizations not owing their own foundational inceptions to the Latin Church --at all.
That you had apparently based your own claim for singular ability to authoritatively interpret the Bible be exclusive to [Roman?] Catholicism upon false representation of the process of canonization of Scripture undermines your here assertions into near-irrelevance. Every single thing you have said since then displays ignorance on your part as for the subject matter. RCC apologetic writings is no place to obtain healthy grasp of history.
Best known? What's this "best known" jazz? That's yet more Romish artifice (for the greater part). Newman was well known in his own day prior to his capitulation, but save for a few scant others --not many "well known". Not well known until they converted over to [Roman] Catholicism, that is, and were then paraded around as if they were war trophy.
Some of the more recent war trophy converts-turned-apologist have suffered having key portions of their arguments shredded by the likes of James White. There are hours upon hours of theological debate posted on youtube of such.
James White's debates with Islamicists are worth their hours weight in golden almonds...(no really, you and I and everyone should check it out. The man politely shreds. hoo-baby does he pull back the covers and leave them spewing, or else gobsmacked - that last if they've got a brain, and are "intellectually honest").
Your "some of the best" proposition would be more meaningful if it wasn't for the numbers of converts being comparatively so low, and the proposition woefully neglectful of the far greater numbers of theologians who remain anything but convinced of some superiority attributable to Roman Catholic theological positions. Far greater numbers are firmly convinced of more the opposite, once what does overlap (the basic narrative as that can be read, and plainly enough understood in Gospel accounts, along with the apostle Paul's arguably at places, more difficult to grasp theological descriptions, those being underpinned by Tanakh and some amount of Jewish religious traditions of that era regarding the meanings of Christ's own bodily sacrifice as both; ransom for ourselves, and propitiation of our sins). I do wonder how many times I must go through this explantory in rebuttal to your own overly simplistic, erroneous claims, all over again...
If compared to your latest (which is about the same as it always has been on the pages of this forum) perhaps the word "drivel" wouldn't be the best to describe either. Full of beans maybe? Of course I knew when I initially posted to you, it would be as if I pulled a finger. pew=pew=pew. Sounds and smells like mistaken, partial & incomplete digestion of blend of nonfactual and factual information...
Same old "stuff", different day. When you have some new thesis, or can come up with something than off-the-wall assertion sourced from the ignoramuses who've been providing the information to you that you've asserted here, then feel free. If reply will be just the same bagful of sailboat fuel, try using that for something useful like flying a kite.
Unfortunately, this riposte opens up the Word of God to multiple interpretations.
The Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself: the Acts of the Apostles reveals the Church’s self-image as a body at the service of Christ’s saving Gospel, acting in the ways and structures taught to them by Christ himself. The Apostles are keenly aware of the authority that has been given to them by Christ, and of their own need to remain ever faithful to Christ as they exercise that authority.
Additionally, this same Church authority is the only thing that guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible itself. It was the Church that selected the books of New Testament and defined the canon of the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is reliable, are in fact relying on the Church’s testimony that the New Testament books accurately reflect the faith & teachings of the Apostles, which is in turn grounded in the faith & teachings of Christ.
You simply cannot dispute the fact that there were many other writings available that were not selected to be a part of the Bible because their contents were flawed in some way. The Church itself made the selection many years after the death of the Apostles, based on its living witness to the Faith, guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
What of Rome's later theological "developments"? They, nor anyone else were given authority to preach any Gospel other than what had been preached by the Apostle Paul (and those in company with/in agreement with Paul). Straighten Romish errors out - weed them all out -- then you'd have an actual argument!
Provided whatever followed adhered to what was preached at that time (that it was written).
The issue is that it has not.
You've got nothing much (in way of argument) as for those things which still divide 'Rome' from the majority (of the rest of Christianity). It all comes back to Rome saying it has final word say-so. That was not the truth of the matter from the initial foundations of the Church, nor is it now.
I'm not even going to hassle with working to untangle the rest of latest repetitions of previous claims already dealt with numerous times, other than to say again that the original Apostles imposed the NT texts upon the Church. There-- right there, with the original Apostles lay "authority". Authority to rightly testify of what they had seen (with their own eyes) and heard (with their own ears).
You haven’t answered the core issue: ONE teaching authority to ONE Church.
It yourself who refuses to answer, other than from within realm composed of and continually well-guarded by faulty circular logic.
Use the sailboat fuel previously mentioned ---for what I previously suggested.
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.