[Teófilo]

Blunders of a technical nature and typos all mine. The most updated version is found in the blog.

[Teófilo]

PING!

[irishtenor]

***All I can do is to witness to the soundness of Catholic teaching and to hope that someone, somewhere, would be moved by grace to accept this teaching and be thus empowered to attain eternal life. ***

Are you saying that those who do not accept this Catholic teaching are not saved?

[old-ager]

Nice bit of sophistry. Papism is undermined by the Pope's arrogation of Christ's office. Vicar of Christ indeed. Not to mention Mary-worship.

[ConservativeMind]

Well, I can say that any Christian can criticize what anyone does or claims the Bible says that cannot be supported in Scripture.

For instance, one cannot hold that God puts animals on the same level as humans. There is nothing in Scripture, Catholic, or otherwise, that can support that. Likewise, there is nothing that can support the concept of Mary worship, as Mary is barely mentioned in the Bible and there is nothing mentioned that states that praying to the dead and not to God through Christ accomplishes anything.

So yes, one can criticize what others add to supposedly Christian practices and belief.

The same holds for those who believe being an active homosexual in ministry is okay are also wrong. And it remains correct to hold them accountable, too.

[irishtenor]

***Scripture can't stand separate from the Church. ***

Right... sigh.
If, as it says in John 1, that the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and the word IS scripture, then you are saying that Jesus can't stand separate from the church. Holy scripture is not Holy because the church says so, it is because God says so.

[nmh]

Yeah, the Bible has it all wrong. God is wrong. Look to fallible men with an agenda on how to follow Christ. Saracsm off.

Is it any wonder that people try to help you in pointing out verse after verse after verse, from the dreaded Bible, that shows something completely different to what fallible men would have you believe. Still the Bible is rejected and posts like this pop up to justify unBiblical beliefs and practices.

Of course this silly post isn't Bible bashing ... nah that's a one sided word to only be used when a Catholic is confronted with Biblical truth and contrasted to what has been taught by their church.

Believe whatever you wish!

[Petronski]

The deeply ironic problem with "sola scriptura" is that "sola scriptura" ain't in "scriptura."

[ConservativeMind]

Based on Sola Scriptura, Protestants cannot close the canon!

The Protestant Bible is made up of letters written by those who were directly in contact with Jesus or an Apostle.

How many legitimate writings occurred at 150 AD that the Catholic church didn't think were legitimate? How could they say otherwise?

The safest way to go is one that brings in only those letters that existed to the best of our knowledge at that very early time from those who are unquestioned in their authority.

All others are hearsay.

[irishtenor]

*****The sign of Mary’s Assumption plays fundamental role in Christians’ journey and mission. "By contemplating Mary in her celestial glory," the Pontiff said in conclusion, "we understand that the earth is not our final homeland, that if we live constantly focused on that which is eternal, we can share one day that same glory. For this reason, despite our many daily challenges, we must not lose our serenity and peace. The luminous sign of the Assumption of our Lady in the heavens glows brighter than the sad shadows cast by sorrow and violence. We are certain that from high above Mary follows our steps with sweet trepidation. She brightens our life in its dark and stormy hours and reassures us with her maternal hand. Conscious of this, we continue confident along our path shaped by our Christian commitment wherever Providence takes us". *****


Where, exactly, is this found in the Bible? Mary's assumption? Her glorification? Mary follows our steps? This is your Pope speaking, not the Bible.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Wish I was Catholic instead of Episcopalian BUMP!

[Fester Chugabrew]

As I understand it, Sola Scriptura simply means the biblical texts are the source and norm of faith. They are the means whereby God creates and sustains a saving faith, which faith clings to the merits and righteousness of Christ Jesus, Who alone is the living Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

The catholic church is comprised of none other than Christ and those who cling to His righteousness by faith.

It seems a bit disingenuous to suggest certain branches of Christendom cannot produce an unbiased hearers and interpreters of the biblical texts, while only the Church of Rome can. No man is the source of Truth. All are hearers who bring baggage to the table of interpretation by virtue of being descendants of the first Adam.

Where there is proper expression and interpretation of the biblical texts, God be praised. It is His work, and it is precisely what He wants to do in our midst.

[Alex Murphy]

Anglican FReeper sionnsar posted an excellent article on the origins and definition of sola scriptura (from an Anglican perspective) about two weeks ago. I find it odd that none of the FR Catholics protesting it here saw fit to make any objections to the content of that thread.

Could it be because most FR Catholics have no clue what sola scriptura actually meant to Protestants during the Reformation?

[Iscool]

I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on just about, every point...

Sola Scripture...Catholics are told they can't understand the bible on their own...You guys need your church to interpret it for you...Your church certainly took away any incentive for you to read or study the bible...You can't understand it anyway, so why bother...You can only repeat what they told you...

Your church cites a verse where an Ethiopian requests help in understanding the bible as proof that a 'majesterium' is needed to 'interpret the bible for you...

Yup...The Ethiopian needed help...What's more fascinating is the the Ethiopian was carrying around a copy of the scriptures...Copies must have been pretty plentiful back then...Plus,

The scripture reference is of course, the Crucifixion of Jesus...Since about 80% of the Old Testament is prophecy, it's no mystery to me why the Ethiopian, not yet being saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, could not understand the prophecy...

Bible believers aren't against teachers...Your church made that up...The bible is full of teachers...And contrary to what you've been taught, we bible believers rely on teachers...But you don't know what the difference is...

Very often in the bible, when the apostles or even Jesus was asked a question, the answer was, 'what do the scriptures say about it...That is the key...You interpret scripture with other scripture...I find it amusing that your church uses this verse to attack bible believers: 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.

You know what's comical??? This verse applies to your magisterium as well...You go in there with a simple mind and a humble heart and ask God to show you something...And if you can get beyond the milk, He'll give you a little meat...And the interpretation is accomplished by, "What saith the scriptures..." And of course, being filled with the Holy Spirit is the #1 requirement to understanding the scripture...

Surely the Pope gave a public testimony at some time...Can you tell me, what did the Pope do to get filled with the Holy Spirit???

[ckilmer]

there were five points in the reformation
sola fida
sola gratia
Solo Christo
Solo deo gloria
Sola Scriptura

Likely my conjugations are off.