Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
As I’ve stated, it doesn’t matter WHAT VERSION of the Bible you want to considered INSPIRED. We could say the Catholic version is the inspired scripture. It doesn’t matter. The question is what is the meaning of INSPIRED.
Somehow you’re not grasping this concept.
Sure I get it, any old Bible is inspired according to Pope Harley D, right?
Sure I get it, any old Bible is inspired according to Pope Harley D, right?
No answer? What are you worried about?
The venom surprises me--we have far more in common than not--why can't we rejoice where we are alike, seek common ground where possible and not worry about the minutiae?...I had a co-worker today tell me that I was heretic because I prayed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and HE prayed to Jesus Christ...Again, minutiae--a difference without meaning.
Bzzzzt.
The Catholic Church does not say that.
Bzzzt.
False.
{{{{{CRICKETS}}}}}
I have yet to hear what the Catholic Church has to say. No one seems to know.
So you just made something up.
That is SO typical.
The left side of your mouth said
...just as the Catholic definition states.The right side of your mouth said
I have yet to hear what the Catholic Church has to say.There's a rather severe consistency problem there.
Mad Dawg wrote: Will you at least grant that your position tends to the more rigorist side?
verdadjusticia responds: I’m afraid that any position other than “all who are nice are saved” is rigorist today. That is why no one is too worried about their standing as far as salvation is concerned, everyone but Adolph Hitler is in Heaven, and to some, even he is in heaven.
Mad Dawg wrote:
I think a lot of ignorance is a good deal more invincible than people consider,
verdadjusticia responds:
“Invincible ignorance” has no dogmatic status. I would not bank my salvation on it. I would not even bank my salvation
on so-called “baptism of desire”. God can keep anyone alive long enough to convert them. God can get the water to anyone. No one dies by “accident”. Catholics need to teach dogma, not un-infallible theories.
Mad Dawg wrote:
re: and that some of the resistance to the Church is because of our failings.
verdadjusticia:
True. However, anyone of good will get’s past that, and becomes a better Catholic than those bad examples. Any baby can get baptized and be called a Catholic in adulthood. That means nothing. Hitler was a baptized Catholic.
Mad Dawg wrote:
re: my childhood best friend was thoroughly indoctrinated against the Catholic Church, to the point where I would think it would take therapy before he would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively.
Of myy greater family, like 300 people, all cradle Catholics, I doubt that 20 go to mass every Sunday.I too “would think it would take therapy before they would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively”.
We should forget non-Catholics till you convert Catholics. In order of priority:
1) convert ourself (pornography, fornication, no contraceptives, divorce, sins. Go to mass and confession.)
2)convert our children and wives to behave as #1
3) convert our parents nad close relatives
4) convert our greater family
Do the above and the world will convert to our good VISIBLE example.
Forget about making excuses for why others don’t convert and how they’ll be saved outside of the Church. If I not not gamble my salvation on fallible theories like invincible ignorance and baptism of desire, why would I teach that to anyone else? Till Invincible ignorance and baptism of desire become infallible defined, I’ll stick with dogma.
Hmmmmm....I guess my statement should have read "I have yet to hear what the Catholics have to say.
I believe that somewhere way back (#385) someone pointed out the Catholic Church's definition of the inspired works of God from New Advent. That definition gave inspiration as ...Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term. This encyclopedia goes on to explain:
Care to comment on the nuiances of the logic of the Catholic encyclopedia than on my terms?
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTUREI sincerely hope this advances your understanding of Catholic teaching on the topic.One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
The entire segment of the Catechism excerpted here can be found at this link.
According to your Catechism, #82 states rather clearly that not all revealed truths come from the holy Scriptures. This, of course, negates anything special about the scriptures. It also raises the question of how you can determine "tradition" to be inspired. As I stated earlier, this isn't any different than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses who uses extra-biblical material to boaster their claims.
Simply false.
A ) It does not say the Roman Catholic church , there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church there was simply the catholic church.
B) What does that scripture REALLY mean, (as opposed to the Vatican reading of it?)
GATES are not an OFFENSIVE weapon, one puts up GATES to keep people OUT or IN
You do not bring gates to FIGHT a battle, you put up gates TO KEEP THE WAR OUTSIDE YOUR PROPERTY.
Reading this verse with the correct definition of gates,this verse means that believers will storm Hell with the real weapons of our warfare
2Cr 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds (Gates) 1) a castle, stronghold, fortress, fastness
2) anything on which one reliesand every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
The elect / the saved are to storm the gates of hell with the weapons that God has given us AND WE WILL PREVAIL
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
One more time, there is no supportive scripture to the very foundational doctrines of the Roman church
There is no scripture support for the priesthood in the new testament church, no apostolic succession, no papacy , no transfer of the infallibility of God to the church or any man .
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.