Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
I’m sorry you don’t know what it means.
Amen, sister.
When we allow others to dictate truth we become victims to the prevailing philosophy of the day.
Thanks, I take the Scripture seriously, and I’m always surprised how many Catholics don’t understand the teachings and dogma of their own Church. It pays off having 12 years of Catholic doctrine education, a mother-in-law who is a Catholic Education director for a local parish, and a few cousins who are ordained Catholic priests. And to be the only Protestant at family gatherings...;) We have some good theological discussions!
In fact, it was my mother-in-law who explained the fact that the Church is not always infallible, and exposed me to the fallible nature of the ordinary magisterium.
Then educate me on the infallible nature of the ordinary magisterium.
Or will you simply back out saying “nyah nyah I don’t want to play”? This is your chance, show me I am wrong and I will openly claim my error.
Why would I explain what I have not claimed?
This is your chance...
That's so generous...
The teachings of the Catholic Church are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. They are without error.
This could have been settled back in 688. Who's the one playing games?
If you want to waste time, so be it. You show a lack of consideration or respect for others and your own Church when you pull such stunts. I forgive you; I only hope you have not misled others into heresy with your statements in this thread.
That'd be you.
If you want to waste time, so be it.
If I wanted to waste time, I'd continue playing your gotcha game.
I only hope you have not misled others into heresy with your statements in this thread.
That sounded so sincere!
Wow! Post 56 in an over 650 post thread and not ONE person replied to you?
Why is that....hmmmmm....
Maybe, just maybe, nah...couldn’t be...hmmm...well, yeah!
Maybe because you’re right, and they cannot dispute it? Just ignore it, and hope it goes away, or attack some lesser mind’s argument, that’s not as good as this one?
It appears so!
God Bless You!
Not really, just didn’t have the patience to read through a post that long when many of the points had been raised elsewhere.
I see this thread has now turned to the Eucharist. I think my post [#677], it is somewhat long, gives the Eucharistic Theology of the Catholic Church, and links the Catechism with respect to Scripture and its interpretation as understood by the Church and early Church Fathers (e.g Typology).
For the record, you will not find one Church Father or Early Council of the Church [Nicea 325 AD; Constantinopile 381; Ephesus 431 or Chalcedon 451] that interpreted the Eucharistic passages the way you all are doing and it was the Fathers of the Church and the Councils of the 4th century that settled the biblical canon.
With respect to the Church Fathers, Pope Benedict Notes in PRinciples of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a fundamental Theology (p.148) “Tge canon of Holy Scripture can be traced to them, or, at least, to the undivided Church [he is speaking of undivided Latin West and Greek East] of the first centuries of which they were representatives. It is through their efforts that precisely those books that today we call “New Testament” were chosen as such from among a multitude of other available literary texts, that the Greek caon of the Jewish Bible was joined to them as “Old Testament”, that it was interpreted in tersm of them and that, together, the two Testaments came to be known as “Holy Scripture”.
And again, there are no Church Fathers that interpret the Eucharist with the theology that you are suggesting. Rather, the theology of the Eucharist of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is supported by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as expressed by the Church Fathers and Councils of the early Church.
Pax et bonum
FWIW, thank you. I've enjoyed reading your posts, wonderful Christian apologetics. You don't always reach the one you intend to, but others hear you.
Well, when you get a chance, please do! I’d like to hear your opinion on it.
There are many things on this thread I find interesting, and while hotly fought, I sense there is still a Christianly discourse. Some of the arguments (on both sides) are really grasping for straws, but on the whole, there’s some real enlightening thoughts.
Thanks, can’t really claim to be an apologetic. Ravi Zacharias is the ultimate in that area, JMHO.
I just like to argue and am trying to do what I can. Jesus has made a huge difference in my life.
Confusing post, you state we are all wrong but we have different positions.
Amen!
I don't read it that way. I read it as the Bible (ie instructions) are to teach us how to conduct ourselves in church. That would indicate the Bible is the authority over the Church.
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The entire post seems to be based on this first passage. So if I cannot agree that the Church has authority over the Bible the remaining points become moot.
Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree--even on major doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth."
Pot calling kettle black? The Bible is the foundation, all else is made by man and subject to human inadequacy.
To me, the transubstantiation or not of the Eucharist is really a minor point; we are not saved by communion but by faith.
Baptism and communion are outward expressions of our internal faith, but are not required for a person to gain salvation.
***It’s across the Tiber.
And it’s within the boundaries of Rome. The Via Cipro runs to the West of Vatican City, and that is within the city of Rome. Not to mention it wasn’t it’s own “country” until 1929.
Rome surrounds the Vatican; you cannot enter the Vatican without passing through Rome.***
It is now. It was not then. We must get things straight. The Vatican is NOW its own country; it was not until last century; thanks for your accuracy.
***There is no evidence that the letters of Paul, written before most of the rest of the NT, were written by him with the understanding that they would be considered Scripture.
Yes, Paul would not assume his words would carry the impact of those of the rest of Scripture; oh that the office of the Pope - with his ex cathedra claims - were so humble.***
Sorry if you disagree with Jesus. Your privilege. See how free will works both ways?
***“At any rate, Paul thought that celibacy for the Catholic priesthood was a good thing”
That must be why he made it a requirement for Elders and Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.***
Most of the deacons of the Church of Jesus Christ are or were married. The requirement is that the diaconate be the husband of not more than one wife. We are not LDS, you know.
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.