Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
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.
Certainly, I am still Catholic in the original sense (universal), just no longer Roman.
What will you say to God when He asks you why you should be allowed heaven?
“Protestant teaching of sola scriptura”
I cannot understand how you can at the same time affirm scripture and decimate scripture. You cannot affirm what you tear away.
This is why I believe that scripture does not teach sola scripture, and why we never see any of the Church fathers use the term. Until Luther.
“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.”
This is true.
“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.”
Not so. Your quote from Iraneus refers to the fact that the Apostles had the teaching authority to preach the word, and that from these words, the bible was written. So clearly, Tradition came first, and did refer explicitly to doctrine, the bible itself could not be written.
“Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture.”
Iraneus readily accepted Scripture as approved by the Apostles, so clearly, Tradition wasn’t subordinate to Scripture. Had books come down to him that were not approved by the Apostles do you think they would have been considered Scripture? No.
This the problem.
‘Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture’
Which is why the Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative. To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.
To say that the Catholic church goes so far to say that Tradition ought to be independent of Scripture, is also false.
So let’s stop arguing against straw men. The Church teaches scripture and tradition.
Protestants argue a mutilated scripture to uphold a mutilated tradition.
Oh right. Americans...
Tin = Can.
But if we teach that Mary is God, then clearly the mass should have prayers to her too.
Let’s be fair here. Mary *is* important and probably the most important of the Saints to Catholics. But she’s not Christ. I realise that some find her off putting. Frankly, I liked this part of the Catholic church, and I’m glad they do accord her honour.
>> To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.<<
Then find Scriptural proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or praying through the dead.
But if we teach that Mary is God, then clearly the mass should have prayers to her too.
Don't know anyone who says that! As far as I know, Mary is only the Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix of All Graces, Mother of the Church, Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix, and hundreds of other things, but don't be silly, she is not God. :)
They made the same claim to the authority of tradition that many Roman Catholics make, and it blinded them to Christ.
I claim to be (small ‘c’) catholic and simultaneously an evangelical Lutheran.
Logos is XP in st. John 1:1. Sola Scriptura is upheld at that verse, referenced back to Genesis 1:1-3
That is soooo good. ‘-D
I wouldn't laugh to hard if I was you...
As one poster correctly stated, God spoke and the world was created...
God said his words would always be here...HE said his words would be preserved forever...
How do you suppose he preserved his words??? Regardless of how error filled your religion is, it couldn't even exist in it's current form without the 'book'...
Just curious...How are you going to justify yourself to God when explaining why you added words to scripture to make it mean what you want it to???
The verse doesn't say 'but' one wife...
Can you explain why that is true???
You have some scripture, or an authoritative source for that piece of information???
The Apostles AND the Disciples had the authority to preach the Gospel...Even this Disciple...
Revelation account of the final judgment and the separation of the sheep from the goats.
We have to answer for our sins.
Have you read anything pertaining to Near Death Experiences? I’m readings a fascinating book right now by Dr. Jeffrey Long.....in it the people who have been through the near death experiences relate either a panoramic view of their past life or several incidents. Really worth the read if you believe anything about science or anything about life and death.
“I never said this passage in Isaiah refers to Apostolic Succession, to the Church or to Peter.”
Good! Whew!
“And there you have it. The Key to the House of David is heritary. It is intended to be passed down from father to son, and so on.”
Shebna and afterward, Eliakim, served an administrative function for the House of David. In this instance, the key was a symbol of their authority to act.
In verse 25, Eliakim FAILS, despite being an administrator who represented the House of David, and will be cut off.
Only the throne of David goes to a descendant forever - finding it’s rightful owner, Christ.
This Isaiah passage has nothing to do Matthew’s words.
They are similar in that they mention a key. They are
dissimilar in many ways.
I don’t know why you added this, if you did not think it
had some support for your claim of continuing Apostolic
authority on earth.
In any case, I certainly wish you the very best,
ampu
“This Isaiah passage has nothing to do Matthew’s words.”
You don’t think that the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven and the Key of David are in the least similar to one another? That they represent two hereditary offices where the authority can be passed on?
That is the only point I’m trying to show here. That the keys of the kingdom of heaven were intended to be a heriditary office.
“I don’t know why you added this, if you did not think it
had some support for your claim of continuing Apostolic
authority on earth.”
You misunderstand. You said that Isaiah referenced Matthew. No. Matthew references Isaiah. This is the reference that Christ was making when he gave the Key to Peter. Why give him a key at all?
Then why doesn’t Iraneus speak of the Gospel as received from the disciples. He specifically says, the Gospel as received from the Apostles, that they had teaching authority in the Church because they were Apostles.
“How can a man be born again”.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.