Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
I know that you are OPC and RNmom is PCA.
I have no idea what bizarre sects that many of the other non-Catholics belong to on these threads. I do know that I see a lot of Arianism and Nestorianism being embraced, so I certainly don't think they are Protestants.
Come to think of it I almost NEVER see mainline Protestants like Lutherans or Anglicans on these threads. Why do you think that is?
So far, it would appear that every time you've referred to an "anti-Catholic," you have been addressing Protestant Christians on this forum.
And those Protestant Christians you have declared to be "actually serving Satan."
Is it driving you crazy that I'm not saying which non-Catholics on this thread I consider Christians and which I consider Satanic anti-Catholics?
I'm sure you know that I have been FRiends with at least two former Catholics on here for many years. I disagree with them on some theological issues, yet still consider them dear sisters in Christ. I have no problems debating theological issues with non-Catholics, but when deliberate falsehoods are introduced that is typically a good indication that there is an evil agenda at work.
Those "crickets" you may be hearing are coming from Rome. Talking out of both sides of the mouth is audible.
As your catechism says...
"they (the authors) consigned to writing whatever (God) wanted written, and no more."
Your problem is not with me, but with your own church.
“God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”
LOL!!
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you dare:
Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit"
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE 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." 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".
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
"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."
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."
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
There it is in black and white in your own post, and somehow Roman Catholics still miss it.
Astounding.
Your memory is short which is possibly the reason your reading comprehension is so poor. You wrote
“So Rome has now stayed so far from orthodox Christianity as to deny the inspired Scriptures are God-breathed. Your own catechism refutes your error...”
I showed you that the Church does believe Scripture is inspired. What part of that do you not get? The authors did not act as automans but were the authors acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Using their own words they conveyed what God revealed to them. It is without error and is infallible and binding upon the faithful.
Calling even one Christian a servant of Satan, is blasphemy agaist the Holy Spirit.
Probably because many of them have joined the OPC and the PCA. I know several on this forum who've done exactly that.
Is it driving you crazy that I'm not saying which non-Catholics on this thread I consider Christians and which I consider Satanic anti-Catholics?
That kind of demonic rhetoric reflects on your mind and heart, not on mine.
I doubt it.
Their circuses occur in their ‘churches.’
I doubt it.
Their circuses occur in their ‘churches.’
Though some Pentecostals sure give them some competition.
AMEN.
While we denounce errant beliefs and practices, some RC apologists "make it personal" by denouncing Christians as "a servant of Satan."
Apparently they don't understand the difference. No wonder they so glibly can call for a return to the Inquisition.
I was trying to show why Wagglebee (?) wrote “God did not say it St. Paul wrote it (I think that was the phrase) You took that to mean we deny the inspiration of the Scripture. We take it to mean that human agency had a part in the writing of the Scripture. That St. Paul did not lack free will while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I admit she phrased it badly but it was not to show that St. Paul’s writings are not inspired.
Just so you’re not all wrapped up in white hankys.
I agree, that's why I never have and never would do such a thing.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
Free agency? You mean the authors of Scripture wrote something other than what God wanted written?
Does that make sense to you?
That St. Paul did not lack free will while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Did Paul have the "free will" to go off script and write his own dialogue?
Your own catechism denies that possibility.
Welllllllllll it helps me to realize
repeatedly
that we are exchanging little squiggles on screens from some distance . . .
We have bought into the conventional notions that there are real people on the other end
talking about their real beliefs . . .
and for some,
the reality stops there . . . as beliefs are founded on
hollow history
brazenly baloney for ‘bibles.’
etc.
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.