Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
If they don’t, they’re morons.
Next question, please.
Absolutely. Catholics standards are the Church and the precepts handed down. When the Church states there is a purgatory, Mary is the Queen of heaven, the Eucharist is the actual body and blood, etc.; they are reciting Catholic standards.
Protestants believe the standard is the word of God and only the word of God. Protestants can find none of these issues in scripture. We point this out many times but it is ignored because that isn't what the Catholic standard (the Church) teaches.
I will continue to insist that Catholics are using the wrong standard by which evaluate their walk simply because it is at odds with what the scriptures teaches; scripture which was declared infallible by the Church. At one time "infallibility" meant something to the Church. That is no longer the case as Catholics are more likely to quote from Trent or the Vatican II than they are from scripture. If you think this is an incorrect assessment, count the number of times Catholics quote Church fathers verses the number of time they quote scripture.
>>The fact remains you accused me of excerpting from a non-existent website.<<
Where?
>>Perhaps I missed your answer, but why did you refer to the word-for-word excerpt from #460 of the RCC catechism as a “lie.” <<
You mean the edited document at #140?
And she sent me a very nice FReepmail and a post stating that she was wrong.
If I got that from some people here, I'd hyperventilate!
>>If they don’t, they’re morons.
Next question, please.<<
Thanks!
>>Remember what I told you Mom. You can’t win on this one. There are very few humans on this earth who can unfailingly interpret the Catechism.<<
This has less to do with interpreting the Catechism than it does editing documents to spin them, using the correct links to reference and adding documentation to one’s post.
I want to tell you, right on the thread how brilliant you are and how much it is a dirty pity that your posts have basically been ignored.
The Church, via a Council of Infallible statement by the Pope never ruled Galileo a heretic. For the record, Galileo, as Copernicus remained in good standing with the Church there entire lives. As I stated, he used a telescope, which had been discovered since Copernicus’s death, to observe the natural world and thus provided some data to support the Copernican theory, which was published in 1543. Still, this theory was not provable for some 200 years later, and even the theory proposed by Galileo was somewhat off, even though in substance correct, as we now now that neither the sun (heliocentrism) or the earth (geocentrism) is the center of the universe as it has no center that can be detected.
Shortly after Galileo published his book “The Starry Messenger” in 1610, the Jesuit Father Christopher Clavius, who some consider the greatest mathematician of his age as he was the one who came up with the Gregorian calander, wrote to Galileo that his fellow Jesuits had observed the same things Galileo had and wanted him to come to Rome.
The leading Jesuits and many Cardinals supported Galileo and he was told he could teach the “copernican theory” as a valid hypothesis. Of couse, there was that declaration by some theologians in 1616 declaring Galileo’s views “false and absurd”, but theologians have not authority over sceince. They did not then and do not now, and there was no papal statement confirming these statements. Despite that declaration, Galileo went about his business, but he would still teach the “copernican system” as a proved truth, not a “hypothesis”, which he was allowed to do. He did this in a book called The Dialogue, where he called his opponents “Simplicius” and in his book he stated the “copernican theory” as fact. In the end, this is what got him in trouble.
Eventually, he was brought before the Roman Inquisition and on June 16, 1633, he was censured for “suspicion of heresy” and was told to not even teach the “copernican theory” at all any longer. So censured for “suspicion of heresy” is not condemned for heresy. In fact, one can argue that it was disobedience that he was censured for.
Warren Carroll in his work “The Cleaving of Christendom: A History of Christianity Vol 4” (p. 540) sums the issue up nicely when he states “The declaration of the Holy Office that the Copernican Theory was false was never personally stated, let along taught, by and Pope; in fact, Pope Urban VII specifically declared that it was not heretical and never would be, despite the fact that he did not think it would ever be confirmed as undoubted truth. He certainly never taught anything about it ex cathedra. Doctrinal infallibility of the Pope was preserved. On a number of occasions, in its long history the Church has condemned an innocent man, whehter by misjudgment of the evidence or duress of the Pope. The Catholic has not protection against this except the respect for justice by fallible men—and on his judgment of individuals, even the Pope is fallible. It is right to condemn the injustice to Galileo. It is wrong to say that it disproves the authority of the CHurch.”
So in the end, The Church has never made a statement about Scientific truth as that is not in the domain of Theological Truths (Salvific and moral Truths) for which Papal infalliblity is related to. In addition, look and see what some of the Protestant leaders of the era said about the COpernican theory. In fact, it was the attacks of the Protestants on Galileo and the Copernican theory that were first, not the Catholic Church.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/galileo-myths-and-facts.html
Well thanks for the compliment. I have been Blessed by God with my education and opportunity to teach at a major University in the Southern U.S. Also, my local Catholic Diocese has a 3-year program (21 College Credit Hours) that is taught by a Benedectine Seminary available for Laity, like myself. This program is required for Men studying for the Permnanet Diaconate in my Diocese.
I have been here almost a year and “have never” posted a Thread about a Protestant Groups Doctrines and with a misrepresentation of those doctrines. Unfortunately, it seems sometimes that is what some folks like to do with respect to Catholicism. I have no problem stating I have disagreements with certain Protestant Doctrines, but I have posted here almost 300 times and have never intentionally misrepresented what Protestants believe. In fact, where Catholicsm and Protestant Doctrines converge, I have always tried to point that out.
As for the Protestants here ignoring me, well, they are not my students, who if they did so, it would cost them big time on their Grade, LOL.
Regards and thanks again
>>it would cost them big time on their Grade, LOL.<<
LOL!
Roman Catholicism teaches a false Gospel of faith plus works.
Amen.
Actually it plundged it into the Dark Ages.
I had a guy tell me when Pope John Paul II died that “the Pope is dead, and taking a billion Catholics to hell with him.”
>>I had a guy tell me when Pope John Paul II died that “the Pope is dead, and taking a billion Catholics to hell with him.”<<
I guess that people think they can even read Our Lord’s mind. That’s sad.
Since all the Creeds confess the orthodox doctrine of the “resurrection of the body” (Apostles Creed) and “We look for resurrection of the dead” (Nicene Creed), the Doctrine of the Incarnation is important and related to these statements as we will continue to have our bodies in heaven.
No -- wrong doctrine. It's the Doctrine of the Resurrection that is more important here. We will not have our present bodies in the Resurrection but resurrected bodies, just as Jesus is not in his Incarnated body right now but his Resurrected body -- which raises another question as to which body of His the RCC claims to be receiving in the Eucharist -- his Incarnated body or his Resurrected body.
Well I appreciate your honest question and it is a fair one. The two (Incarnation thelogy and Cross Theology) are related. We will have “Resurrrected Bodies”, I agree with you here, but we will still have bodies, not just souls. Our bodies will be like CHrist’s Glorified Body, which is what Theosis is talking about.
Although St. Ireanaues of Lyons taught the doctrine, Theosis is a doctrine that is more from the Eastern Tradition. That is correct. St. Thomas Aquinas developed it in more detail in the Western Tradition, but this would have been after the split between Rome and Constantinopile in 1054.
As I noted earlier, Catholic Theology does not pit the Incarnation Theology against the Theology of the Cross. For example, Pope Benedict links Incarnation and Cross together (p. 269) when discussing St. John’s Gospel by stating “In this Chapter the theology of Incarnation and the Theology of the Cross come together; the two cannot be separated. There are thus no grounds for setting up and opposition between Easter thelogy of the Synoptics and St. Paul, on one hand, and St. John’s supposedly purely incarnational theology, on the other. For the goal of the Word’s becoming-flesh spoken of by the prologue is precisely the offering of his body on the Cross, which the sacrament makes accessible to us”
Anyway, hope this helps
I get “all this stuff” in the Bible.
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.