Posted on 11/09/2006 8:44:45 AM PST by policyforever867
The Holy Trinity
No. The Catholic Church does not teach anything that is *contrary* to the Bible.
-A8
How can you square the stuff in blue with this statement?
I explained it in post #154.
-A8
How do you presume to know what Cardinal Gibbons is thinking and on what authority do you presume to be able to explain a Cardinal's dictates on FR?
As you are well aware....I'm am no defender of Martin Luther. This is probably his biggest mistake....not reestablishing the Sabbath as the Protestant Day of worship in his theology. If he would have done that, the break with Catholicism would have been legitimate and a move back to the original "Church of God" of the New Testament would have been accomplished. As it turns out, the Protestant Churches are nothing more than Catholicism "lite".
I know a bit of Catholic theology, and I know that Cardinal Gibbons thinks in terms of Catholic theology. That helps me understand exactly what he is saying. If a person doesn't know Catholic theology, it will make is much easier to misunderstand what he is saying.
Ironically, that is exactly my point about Scripture. Trying to understand and interpret Scripture apart from the Church is a recipe for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
I don't presume to speak with any *authority*, however. If you want *authoritative* Catholic answers, seek out a bishop.
-A8
-A8
No.....I'd just attempt to purge all the Paganism from the Church. I would not be entirely successful....being a mere mortal, but it would probably be much more than Martin did.
-A8
-A8
Perhaps, but you have one major hurdle to overcome. Have you ever wondered why Catholics claim to have a monopoly on the scriptures? Seriously, every time non-Catholics argue from scripture, some Roman will pipe up and claim that we are using "their" Bible. This is the root of the matter here, and I believe a major component that you are missing here in the debate. The church at Rome believes is existed for 300 years prior to the Bible and thus, the Roman Church created the Bible, not the other way around. This is a very important idea for a Catholic to understand about his faith. The Church cannonized the scriptures. Therrefore, the Church does not have to adhere to the scriptures. Sure, it is nice when it happens, but in all actuality, the Church needs no Bible whatsoever because of Mat 16:18. You seem to think that everyting the Church teaches is Biblical, when nothing could be further from the truth. I have posted quotations from several leaders in this Church who plainly state that the Church is not bound by the scriptures, nay, not even by the God Breathed Commandment, yet you persist in this notion that Sunday is scriptural.
I want to make this perfectly clear. If Sunday is scriptural, then the men I quoted are liars. They specifically say that the scriptures show Saturday to be sanctified, not Sunday, and you alone are making the claim to the contrary.
"But the Protestant says: How can I receive the teachings of an apostate Church? How, we ask, have you managed to receive her teachings all your life, in direct opposition to your recognized teacher, the Bible, on the Sabbath question?" The Christian Sabbath (2nd ed.; Baltimore: The Catholic Mirror, 1893), p. 29, 30.
"The (Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh Day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant." "The Question Box," The Catholic Universe Bulletin, 69 (August 14, 1942), 4.
"The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church." Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89.
Don't you understand that by claiming the Catholic Church teaches within scripture, you are actually denying the very power that said church claims to be its very basis? If Rome does not have the power to contradict scripture, and Sunday worship is scriptural, then what are these men talking about? Can you please point me to the scripture that commands the Christian to keep Sunday holy apart from any writ of the church at Rome?
Because the Scripture comes from the Church and therefore belongs to the Church.
Seriously, every time non-Catholics argue from scripture, some Roman will pipe up and claim that we are using "their" Bible.
That is exactly right. And if you read the early church fathers, you will say them saying the very same thing to the heretics.
This is the root of the matter here, and I believe a major component that you are missing here in the debate.
No, I'm quite aware of it.
The church at Rome believes is existed for 300 years prior to the Bible and thus, the Roman Church created the Bible, not the other way around.
That's right.
This is a very important idea for a Catholic to understand about his faith.
I *do* understand it, thanks.
The Church cannonized the scriptures. Therrefore, the Church does not have to adhere to the scriptures.
That's an egregious non sequitur.
Sure, it is nice when it happens, but in all actuality, the Church needs no Bible whatsoever because of Mat 16:18.
The Church was able to exist in the years before the Apostles wrote anything down, so technical it is correct that the Church does not *absolutely* need the Bible.
You seem to think that everyting the Church teaches is Biblical, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I said repeatedly that nothing the Church teaches is *contrary* to the Bible, and you have yet to produce a single teaching of the Catholic that is contrary to the Bible.
I have posted quotations from several leaders in this Church who plainly state that the Church is not bound by the scriptures, nay, not even by the God Breathed Commandment,
That's true, if you understand "bound" in terms of 'sola scriptura'. But if by "bound" you mean having divine authority, then the statement is false, for in that sense the Church *is* bound by Scripture.
yet you persist in this notion that Sunday is scriptural.
I've never said that Sunday is "scriptural".
I want to make this perfectly clear. If Sunday is scriptural, then the men I quoted are liars. They specifically say that the scriptures show Saturday to be sanctified, not Sunday, and you alone are making the claim to the contrary.
You are misunderstanding those men, as I already explained in #154. If you knew Catholic theology a bit better, you would realize that you are misunderstanding them. They are saying that from the point of view of 'sola scriptura', Saturday is sanctified. But the Catholic Church does not look at Scripture from the point of view of 'sola scriptura'.
"But the Protestant says: How can I receive the teachings of an apostate Church? How, we ask, have you managed to receive her teachings all your life, in direct opposition to your recognized teacher, the Bible, on the Sabbath question?" The Christian Sabbath (2nd ed.; Baltimore: The Catholic Mirror, 1893), p. 29, 30.
Yes, that's exactly right. Protestants (and all who claim to hold to 'sola scriptura') are inconsistent by worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday.
"The (Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh Day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant." "The Question Box," The Catholic Universe Bulletin, 69 (August 14, 1942), 4.
That's exactly right!
"The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church." Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89.
Yes, that's exactly right!
Don't you understand that by claiming the Catholic Church teaches within scripture, you are actually denying the very power that said church claims to be its very basis?
I never claimed that the Catholic Church teaches [only] "within scripture". I said that the Catholic Church teaches nothing *contrary* to Scripture.
If Rome does not have the power to contradict scripture, and Sunday worship is scriptural, then what are these men talking about?
Sunday worship is never enjoined in Scripture.
Can you please point me to the scripture that commands the Christian to keep Sunday holy apart from any writ of the church at Rome?
No, there are no such passages!!!
Take some time to think through this post very carefully. You don't understand the Catholic position yet, so your criticisms are off the mark.
-A8
You really want me to answer all these questions? You might be surprised by some of the answers.....for instance...I don't believe I have ever said I an "Sola Scriptura". I am just a simple first Century type Christian. You have me confused with the Protestants.
By the way....being a first century type Christian means that I beat out your organization by a few hundred years!
So, if Scripture is not your only authority, then to what other religious authorities do you submit (other than God, of course)?
-A8
Why are you so hung up on Polygamy? Aren't you happily married?
Purging paganism would get rid of a lot bad things.....don't you agree? Like Sun worship, statue veneration, prayers to dead folks that cannot hear you....cause they're dead, Sabbath ignoring, kneeling and repeatedly muttering meaningless [Matthew 6:7] babblings to a dead woman......while fingering little beads.
These are some things I would do away with. Many more can be mentioned....but you get the idea.
It also leads to over simplification, which was the point of the loving the teenager example.
The truth may be simple, but its articulation may require nuance and patience. You are not going to understand what the Catholic Church teaches with this approach AND those who disagree with you will not be left with an impression of the strength of your position but rather a sense that you never quite udnerstood what they were saying.
It's hard to touch hearts with a clenched fist.
This is a FINE example of what I mean by over-statement.
First there is a distinction between a statement made in error and a lie. It COULD be that the men you quoted were in error. But you immediately assert in a manner destined (I said "destined" not "intended")to create bad feeling, that they were liars. You do not seem to be painstakingly looking for the truth, but looking for a score in a debate.
Second, he is not alone in the assertion that there is Scriptural warrant for celebrating "the Lord's Day" rather than the pre-resurrection sabbath. But I'm sure as heck not going to discuss that on a thread which was allegedly NOT about whether the Trinity is a good Doctrine to hold but just what exactly the heck the doctrine is. (And, for the sake of completeness, I'm probably not going to debate it at all on Free Republic. Threads of this kind do not seem to contribute to charity or edification.)
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.