Posted on 10/05/2005 11:05:11 PM PDT by Salvation
That was the site that wished for the days killing heretics and etc. to come back.
And from what the other person Posted he had been horrified at what he had seen at that site as well.
So what do you do or say that might make you inject yourself into this context -- I want to understand?
He discovered Hell too?
So that reading the bible and study of would enhance the Catechism and expanding the vista's of its meaning and references in the Bible.
I will continue to agree that you are my brother, in Christ, as long as you offer me the same courtesy.
Jumping into this thread a bit late here. I'd like to see a specific citation of the source material for this. I can't put a handle on it, but I think I've seen this somewhere before...Lorraine Boettner's infamous "Roman Catholicism," perhaps?
The Latin, as written, seems to check-out okay. But it's not all that hard to find anti-Catholics who know enough Latin to mimic a Church "document" that suits their own polemic.
All of your argument about the pope "could give credence to any doctrine of devil or God at any time" presupposes the worst potentialities, because you are not Catholic. Part of the papal charism, from a Catholic perspective, is that the Holy Spirit will PREVENT the pope from defining any doctrine that deviates from the Deposit of Faith.
At least try to understand the Catholic definition of terms from the Catholic perspective first, before you read the worst case scenario into it.
You do not have Catholic faith. Certainly not in its fullness, at any rate. We believe that THAT faith comes from God. Read into this the proper implication.
The problem with these arguments is that the terminology is not mutually understood. Nearly 500 years after being cut off from its last contact with the Catholic Church, it's understandable that Protestantism finds some Catholic statements to be alarming departures from its own collection of traditions of understanding.
But let's be clear. If your traditions of teaching that differ from the Catholic Church's are right, then the ENTIRETY of church teaching was wrong right up to the 1500's. You can only be comfortable with that if you presuppose that Almighty God did NOT have a providential inclination to safeguard His Church's teaching from error, despite Jesus promise of the same in Matthew 28:19-20 and His prayer for unity in John 17.
You ignore the vehicle that Christianity travelled on right up to Luther as irrelevant, but, were it not for that vehicle, there would be no Christianity at all today, for it would have long since disappeared from the world, and Luther and the rest would have nothing to rebel "from."
The reason you, and some others on threads like this, dislike Catholic teaching so much is that your branch of Christianity has been so long removed from the vine that you can't recognize it for what it is. Your own highly developed theologies justifying a 500-year-old split take umbrage and offense at things that the whole of Christendom took for granted for the first 3/4 of Christian history to date. Is this simply arrogance on your part, or did it really take that long for some segment of Christianity to "finally" figure out the truth? The implications here should be pondered a bit before a snap answer is made.
Are you quoting something here, or is this simply your own definition? If it's your own, you are simply creating a straw man argument, putting words into the mouth of the Catholic Church that it does not hold as its own. If you are quoting something, it is most definitely not anything Catholic, and I suspect it's most likely from some anti-Catholic screed. Either way, it's devious on your part to phrase things this way, as some not-too-careful readers may get the impression that this is how the Catholic Church actually sees itself in relation to Scripture.
There are obvious disagreements between posters on this thread. That's fine. But make your case, don't just flail around with ad hominems and non sequiturs, please.
Somewhere along the road that vehicle blew a tire. Luther got out, changed the tire, and drove on. You are still sitting on the side of the road going nowhere. The vehicle has left the garage. You need to get on board.
The anti-Catholic screed I cut & pasted this from is "Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica, necnon ascetica, polemica, rubricistica, historica", by Lucius Ferrarisa. The "Catholic Encyclopedia" lists him as an eighteenth-century canonist of the Franciscan Order. The exact dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was born at Solero, near Alessandria in Northern Italy. He was also professor, provincial of his order, and consultor of the Holy Office. His work has went through several editions and the Encyclopedia remarks that it is "which will ever remain a precious mine of information..." I found it so!!
Sure. Go for it. What you have here, though, is slightly different from what I wrote in post 108.
The Church is not a car. You imply that the Church Our Lord Jesus Christ founded could be in some way defective or able to fail in an ultimate sense. That is impossible because He is God.
And Luther didn't change a tire and drive on. He declared the car to be "antiChrist," blasphemed it, spat on it, and walked away saying "vroom, vroom, vroom".
I answered who the "infamous" author on the following post:
112 posted on 10/06/2005 12:22:51 PM PDT by gscc
I, too, can post things out of context...
The Bible says "there is no god."
See what a difference it makes when I drop off "The foolish man says...?
What does that say about your out of context posts which do not say anything about being above God?
Regards
Did you actually look it up yourself, or are you going by a secondary cite in a Protestant polemical source?
I ask because I have seen such sources make up quotations out of thin air, and then attribute them to popes, cardinals, priests, bishops, councils, etc. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigbor" goes right out the window when "thy neighbor" is a Papist. One of the more infamous examples is a completely fabricated "citation" from the Bull "Unam Sanctam" that has the Pope claiming to be God.
The "Catholic Encyclopedia" lists him as an eighteenth-century canonist of the Franciscan Order.
That's nice. Even assuming your quotes are accurate, he's one priest, expressing one priest's opinion. He's not teaching the defined dogma of the Church.
His work has went through several editions and the Encyclopedia remarks that it is "which will ever remain a precious mine of information..."
I find Dr. Albert Mohler's work to be a rather precious mine of information. Dr. Mohler is a Southern Baptist, and I am a Catholic. Am I really a Baptist, because I find his work agreeable and helpful in some areas?
If you can't find it reiterated in the Catechism, or in the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, or in the solemn decrees of the Popes, it's one priest's opinion. Nothing more.
Did the book, the one your used as your source, the one you have access too since you cited it as your source, have an imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat? Is it part of the dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium or is it a scholarly work of a man: interesting but not infallible and binding?
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.