Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
Easy.
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
John 21:25
Scripture is reliable and accurate and true. But it does not encompass all of Christ.
I see you do not believe in the Pope Pius IX words in the UBI Primam of 1849 (which I quoted) and dogma in 1854. Is this not actionable in the Catholic Church?
Never read that before, but its not surprising. I am sure his defenders will claim, thats not what he really meant or that the comments were not his official teaching and was only commenting as a private theologian.
I thought the Popes words "Ex Cathedra" were infallible. Thus when your Pope Pius IX says "ALL SALVATION" is from "Mary", this is DOGMA for you.>p? I'm waiting for you to convince me that the 'Sacred' Tradition, laid down by Pope Pius IX - "ALL SALVATION" is "obtained" through Mary - is correct.
I certainly am NOT a catholic any longer and would never defend Pius, especially for the Sham, rigged Vatican I council where he rammed thru papal infallibility.
I am not sure what he meant, but his defenders will I suppose let us know.
Offcourse, Its all about how Mary was born without original sin and there after sinless. What does Jesus have to do to get a good word every so often? :) Why is the rosary 10 prayers to Mary and only 2 to God?
I said:
“Built his Church.”
Past tense, referring to Christ.
Nope. Sorry, that’s not what the Church teaches. One cannot be saved unless God chooses to save you. Salvation is a free gift from Him, we can choose to accept or reject his offer.
Again, are you saying the RCC teaches salvation is by Grace alone, thru Faith alone, in Christ alone?
“Isaiah 22:19-24 - Shebna and Eliakim were real historical people, addressed in this oracle by Isaiah. It has nothing to do with Peter, apostolic succession or the Church. It does violence to the clear meaning of this passage to imply otherwise. Believe what you wish, I could not be intellectually honest and insert what isn’t there.”
I never said this passage in Isaiah refers to Apostolic Succession, to the Church or to Peter.
What I did say is that Matthew refers to Isaiah.
What it does say is that the Key of David is hereditary to pass on to his sons and so on.
This is the key point. I’m not inserting anything into the passage as written. The parallelism to me is striking, between the binding and loosing and between the opening and closing.
To me that suggests that the two keys are similar.
I’m saying exactly what it says on the tin. That salvation is by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.
Why doesn’t the mass pray the rosary?
>>You are NEVER a former Catholic. Once a Catholic, your soul is marked forever. You are ALWAYS a Catholic and will remain ALWAYS a Catholic — answerable to the Lord as to why you stopped practicing your faith at the moment of your death.<<
So you would say that Salvation is through the Catholic Church, not through faith and trust in Jesus alone?
A reference would be exceptionally handy.
Not all that is claimed the Papacy has said, has actually been said by the Papacy.
Do you take up arguments based on what you’ve heard, or been told, without researching primary sources?
To say that Jerome didn’t state clearly that the Apocrapha wasn’t part of the canon, is to either (1) be ignorant of a fact, or (2) to lie.
Luther isn’t final authority. While his hermaneutic towards the NT was largely correct (particularly salvation by grace), he and other reformers still allegorized the OT, carrying on a RCC tradition since Augustine.
His error led to spiritualizing the OT, which allowed the continual theology of the day of not separating Israel from the church (because the church wasn’t present in the OT). This has major impacts on eschatology.
In other words, he wasn’t correct in all things: but he got the main things right. And those things he got right came from a plain, normal, litteral interpretation (hermaneutic) of the Bible.
That is where Sola Scriptura comes from.
No, think of it this way.
If you are baptised, can you ever become unbaptised?
The Catholic Church has fallen far from it’s original foundings. See post 127
“To say that Jerome didn’t state clearly that the Apocrapha wasn’t part of the canon, is to either (1) be ignorant of a fact, or (2) to lie.”
I never said that he didn’t say this. I simply argued that we have evidence these books were used as seen in the Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Vaticanus includes all of these books, save Maccabees.
“That is where Sola Scriptura comes from.”
Which is why you are arguing with me about Jerome. Jerome has zero argument wrt NT canon. He also provides zero evidence that the Church did not have the authority to determine which books ought to be included in the NT Canon.
Fr’instance, Sinaiticus includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd. Books that didn’t make the cut.
Luckily I didn’t need to because I am very familar with the word and the concept. Which is why I asked you what you meant.
Don’t worry about it; I’m sure if you had an answer you would have been able to express it by now.
Sheeesh. You Catholics are techy when asked questions. (I know, I know, I’m just assuming you’re Catholic, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.)
>> If you are baptised, can you ever become unbaptised?<<
So you believe “once saved always save” like the Baptists!
Heh. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
One, Baptists will rebaptise you, so clearly you CAN become unbaptised.
Two, Baptists don’t believe that baptism confers salvation.
Why doesn’t the mass pray the rosary?
Because the mass is re-presenting the exact same sacrifice that was done on the cross at calgary. Immolating Jesus in an unbloody manner on the alter. It's not the main time for petitioning Mary and saints.
J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.
Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, ('See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18) and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)
How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture.
Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this:
For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.[ Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 133.]
In fact, the apostle Paul himself states that the gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the written Scriptures.[ 'Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:1-4).]The church as a whole, up to the thirteenth century, never viewed tradition to be a source of revelation.
Sorry, what is a “tin”?
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.