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.
She did not.
Since I posted the excerpt directly from a Catholic website, as now everyone admits, the fact remains Netmilsmom called the exact words of that excerpt from the RCC catechism #460 as a "lie."
>>Therefore when I said I posted from Vatican.va you had no reason to question that fact and instead accuse me of posting from some anti-catholic website.<<
You couldn’t have posted 140 from Vatican.va. No footnote numbers.
And YOU said you posted from Vatican.org. Not me.
Post 552 “The verbatim excerpt I posted was “lifted” from Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)
Post 533 “The bottom line, however, amidst all this deflection, is that you as a Catholic challenged the words which I posted which were verbatim from the catechism of the Catholic church, via Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)
>>Netmilsmom called the exact words of that excerpt from the RCC catechism #460 as a “lie.”<<
You mean this?
To: Dr. Eckleburg
>>For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods<<
Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.
169 posted on 05/16/2008 5:59:03 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Gee, no where do I mention the WORDS.
I am not arguing and I am well aware Galileo spent the last 3 to 4 years of his life under house arrest. I was challenging your incorrect statement that the Catholic Church taught “the sun revolved around the earth”. Again, the Catholic Church has never done so via a Church Council or Papal statement. The basic theory of the Universe before the Copernican challenge was the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic Theory, with some modifications. As the time of Galileo, the two leading astroners of the era were Brahe, who accepted the Aristolelian-Ptolemy system and Kepler, who agree with the Copernican Theory.
So it was a legitimate scientific debate and as I stated earlier, the Jesuits used their observatory in Rome, analyzed the data, and in agreed with Galileo’s conclusions regarding the Copernican theory.
In closing, the Catholic Church has never made a dogmatic statement regarding Science.
Junior high grammar is dizzying?
Since I posted the excerpt directly from a Catholic website, as now everyone admits...
In #387 you did. But this dispute started with your post #140.
...the fact remains Netmilsmom called the exact words of that excerpt from the RCC catechism #460 as a "lie."
Not a fact, as demonstrated.
I will also note that we are not talking about the Roman Catholic Church Catechism. It is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not merely of the Latin rite.
ROTFLOL!!!
You mean "what is the definition of 'is?'"
This just gets better and better.
RCC Catechism: >>For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods<<
Netmilsmom: Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.
You are very clearly here labeling the WORDS I posted from the RCC as a "lie."
And I provided a link from the RCC catechism.
Why did you feel the exact words from the RCC catechism to be a "lie?"
She is not. It is a conditional statement, and the condition failed.
Earlier upthread you acknowledged that you knew Catholics "clarify" a teaching, we don't "change" one. Given this, I don't see how you can make the statement above.
In post #61, you gave a list of things that (I suppose as of this post now), you claim prove the Church has "changed" over time. Even if one takes your list as accurate, it still doesn't prove the church changed over time if one acknowledges, as you did, that the church doesn't "change" it "clarifies teachings".
More precisely, our understanding of dogma changes over time, but not the dogma itself. For example, to a child, a square might not be a rectangle, until the child's understanding of what makes a rectangle a "rectangle" increases. Thus, just as the concept of a rectangle itself doesn't change just because understanding of it does, similarly for dogma.
To prove that Catholic teachings "aren't constant", one must show an example of where the Church explicitly taught one thing, and then later in time reversed and taught something completely different. Again, your list in #61 only shows that understanding increased, not that something necessarily changed. IOW, there's no evidence, for example, that before AD 431, it was common Catholic teaching to forbid calling Mary "Theotokos", in fact, it was a controversy at the time (see Nestorianism ), but it obviously wasn't universal belief at the time, or else there wouldn't have been a reason to call the council in the first place. So, the Church didn't "change" (reverse) then, the Church defined, once and for all, that "Theotokos" is indeed not heretical.
The only response to that is, "Well the Church was wrong about that", which then necessarily implies "My personal interpretation of Scripture tells me that".
>>You are very clearly here labeling the WORDS I posted from the RCC as a “lie.”<<
Let’s look again.....
To: Dr. Eckleburg
>>For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods<<
Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.
169 posted on 05/16/2008 5:59:03 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Now, why would I call the words a lie if I used them in quotes for a Google search string?
The question was “well golly, where could this have come from with no footnote numbers? Surely not the official Vatican site!”
It is this most unchristian of doctrines that lead Calvin to execute countless numbers of his fellow citizens of Geneva who could not understand a creed that believed a man's actions here on earth had nothing to do with salvation and salvation was Predestined through grace alone.
The horrifying consequences of this unforgiving and uncharitable bit of heretical doctrine should be anathema. It is right up their with marxism and fascism for the blood it has caused to be shed over a morally indefensible "teaching."
Please please please answer this one question.
How could the excerpt I posted have come from Vatican.org when Vatican.org does not exist?
And when it was brought to my attention that Vatican.org did not exist, I immediately linked to Vatican.va.
Not only are you attributing motives to me that I clearly did not have by the evidence of the above, but you appear to be using that as a deflection from answering the first question I asked (when I excerpted directly from the RCC catechism) --
Why did you label the exact words of the RCC catechism as a "lie?"
You have every right not to answer any question. But let's all make an effort to keep these discussions as clear as possible.
And yet some say it's an anti-catholic website and accuse others of posting from it when vatican.org doesn't...even...exist.
Go figure.
She did not.
>>How could the excerpt I posted have come from Vatican.org when Vatican.org does not exist?<<
I don’t know. Why did you tell us that you did, twice.
Post 552 “The verbatim excerpt I posted was “lifted” from Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)
Post 533 “The bottom line, however, amidst all this deflection, is that you as a Catholic challenged the words which I posted which were verbatim from the catechism of the Catholic church, via Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)
(that’s until I posted that some guy in Canada owns Vatican.org)
>>Not only are you attributing motives to me that I clearly did not have by the evidence of the above, but you appear to be using that as a deflection from answering the first question I asked (when I excerpted directly from the RCC catechism) —<<
I’m only cut and pasting posts.
>>Why did you label the exact words of the RCC catechism as a “lie?” <<
Didn’t. Called the “cut and paste” reference a lie, because there were no footnote numbers...see?
To: Dr. Eckleburg
>>For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods<<
Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.
169 posted on 05/16/2008 5:59:03 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Had it been “Lifted” from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” it would have had footnote numbers. It came from another site or was doctored to remove reference numbers.
>>And yet some say it’s an anti-catholic website<<
Who does that? Can you give us a post number? Surely not Post 169!
Vatican.org is not even mentioned!
I posted from vatican.va and deleted the footnote numbers as I do when I post from the WCF. I then posted again with the footnote numbers which did not change the words nor meaning of the RCC excerpt in the slightest.
As shown over and over, I could not have posted from vatican.org since that site does not exist.
You owe me an apology from saying I posted from an anti-catholic website when I clearly posted from (and linked to) vatican.va.
460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:[78] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”[79] “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”[80] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”[81]
78 2 Pt 1:4. “by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
It's as Petronski stated, netmilsmom said in her post 169, "Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie."
From your post #140, Dr. E, to her post #169, no one, including you Dr. E. posted a link to the CCC, thus, how is netmilsmom saying what you posted a lie?
netmilsmom said, basically, "IF you (Dr. E) post #460 from a website that is clearly Catholic, THEN I will believe what you posted is accurate. Until then, I see no reason to believe it is, especially given the search I just performed on Google".
She wasn't saying that the words you posted were NECESSARILY wrong, she was saying that she had never read that in the Catechism before, and thus, would like PROOF of what you were claiming before she would respond further.
Why don't you quit castigtegating her for her ignorance of that portion of the Catechism, and respond to some of the explanations offered on this thread for it, like CTrent's post #498, for example.
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.