Posted on 01/03/2014 12:22:14 PM PST by redleghunter
As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority, and in light of "living tradition." De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the "Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records."
This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tr adition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
What a wonderful passage of Scripture.
In what dictionary does “profitable” mean “necessary” or “sufficient”?
In John 20, John Himself under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says this.....
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Doesn’t the Bible contain more than enough to deal with already?
Scripture gives me more than enough to keep me busy, for a lifetime.
Why do Catholics need or want to add more to Scripture?
Why would you want to do that to yourselves?
When we are delivered up into the courts is one example of when the Holy Spirit will be with us. But reading the whole 16th chapter in context Jesus was saying (paraphrasing) "I'm leaving but the Holy Spirit will take my place for you and guide you as you go". He also said (paraphrasing) "You can't bear all the truth at once". So just as the disciples couldn't conceptualize all the truth even though they walked with Jesus, neither does the Holy Spirit slam all truth at once to anyone. The Holy Spirit guides a believer to truth, just as Jesus did his disciples.
I hope that I never implied that there was such a thing (a doctrine that, IIRC, was invented somewhere in the 19th Century by Darby...but I'm no expert on Protestantism, so I could well be mistaken)
No, I didn't think you implied anything about any rapture. I just wanted you to know I don't believe in it. Everyone assumes most Protestants believe in the rapture theory. I, for one, don't.
Just curious...Since you believe as I do that the true believers will be put into prison then hauled before the antiChrist's courts, what do you think the Catholic Church will be doing at this time?
It gets rather tenuous when someone follows “some guy who told them that God sent them” rather than follow the words of those who were with Christ and appointed by Him personally.
I know a good chunk of Protestants don't believe it. It is a relative novelty even for Protestantism (no offense intended).
Just curious...Since you believe as I do that the true believers will be put into prison then hauled before the antiChrist's courts, what do you think the Catholic Church will be doing at this time?
I think that most of the Faithful will go apostate...they will either be attracted to the World by a desire for current pleasure, forgetting about the beatific vision, or will be pressured into apostasy...because they won't be willing to be martyrs under pressure.
While I don't, under any circumstances, believe that the Holy Father (either this one or any one in the future) will go apostate, I believe at some point he will have to go underground...as will the remnant of the Faithful who refuse to go apostate.
When that happens, the same spirit that guided the likes of Nero and Diocletian will guide the world.
If you are actually interested, I'd recommend the book Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson. ***NOTE: This is not a official teaching of the Church; rather, it is a work of science fiction*** -- this book encapsulates as close to a Catholic understanding of the end of days as I have ever read. The link takes you to Project Gutenberg, where you can download it (in multiple formats) for free.
LOL And I’ve noticed some do better with few tools than others.
Well thought-out post.
So you see the apostasy as people leaving the Catholic Church. I assume you think that Protestantism is the main culprit for this and will help usher in the antiChrist.
It's not my purpose to offend you or harden your heart but I look at the four antiChrist dynasties of the end times, and to me they must be highly organized for them to be a dynasty:
1. Financial: the Federal Reserve, the corporate city of London, the corporate city of DC, the corporate Vatican City with the Vatican Bank
2. Education: Speaks for itself, colleges and public schools are highly atheistic, Jesuit schools with their homosexual leanings
3. Political: The UN, DC, the Vatican
4. Religious: the Vatican/Islamic alliance, groups like the Freemasons
When I use the word "corporate", I mean that these three cities (DC, City of London, Vatican City) incorporated themselves...they are unique in the world in this respect.
So when I see us hauled before the courts I'm seeing another inquisition, this time with a man everyone thinks is Jesus Christ returned heading the thing, and using his 4 dynasties to put this inquisition in motion.
So we can watch events. If it appears the Catholic Church is having to head underground then you may be right. If it appears that they are allying with haters of true believers and gaining power from it then I may be right. Or it could be that it suffers a deadly wound then is resurrected by the antiChrist.
Again it's not my intention to offend but Pope Francis is the first Jesuit pope and it appears he's laying down lines of battle making people pick a side. His side appears to be the socialistic anti-freedom side with his attacks on Reagan and the free market. It looks to me like the time for beating around the bush is over, now souls are at stake, and that's why I'm being so forward.
Actually, no. I see pantheism (a/k/a environmentalism), hedonism, and atheism as being the primary threats here, not Protestantism.
1. Financial: the Federal Reserve, the corporate city of London, the corporate city of DC, the corporate Vatican City with the Vatican Bank
The IOR doesn't have anywhere near the assets required to be that major a player (they only hold about €6 bn or so; that wouldn't even qualify as a second tier bank in the States).
2. Education: Speaks for itself, colleges and public schools are highly atheistic, Jesuit schools with their homosexual leanings
It's a little more complicated than that: you'd have to do some research on the Land o' lakes accords back in the 60s...and what has happened with that. But I don't argue that most (but not all) "Catholic" institutions (Jesuit and others) do more harm than good these days.
3. Political: The UN, DC, the Vatican
It would be helpful if the Vatican actually had any political influence. They don't. (they are an "observer" -- represented as an international NGO, no more)
Other than trying to call people to examine their consciences, I cannot think of one, single piece of international law that the Vatican has seriously influenced.
4. Religious: the Vatican/Islamic alliance, groups like the Freemasons
Oh, please. Freemasonry has been condemned (with an automatic excommunication) since the 18th Century. For example, Clement XII wrote the following in 1738:
Now it has come to Our ears, and common gossip has made clear, that certain Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles called in the popular tongue Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; and men of any Religion or sect, satisfied with the appearance of natural probity, are joined together, according to their laws and the statutes laid down for them, by a strict and unbreakable bond which obliges them, both by an oath upon the Holy Bible and by a host of grievous punishment, to an inviolable silence about all that they do in secret together. But it is in the nature of crime to betray itself and to show itself by its attendant clamor. Thus these aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted. For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light. Indeed, this rumor has grown to such proportions that in several countries these societies have been forbidden by the civil authorities as being against the public security, and for some time past have appeared to be prudently eliminated.
Therefore, bearing in mind the great harm which is often caused by such Societies or Conventicles not only to the peace of the temporal state but also to the well-being of souls, and realizing that they do not hold by either civil or canonical sanctions; and since We are taught by the divine word that it is the part of faithful servant and of the master of the Lord's household to watch day and night lest such men as these break into the household like thieves, and like foxes seek to destroy the vineyard; in fact, to prevent the hearts of the simple being perverted, and the innocent secretly wounded by their arrows, and to block that broad road which could be opened to the uncorrected commission of sin and for the other just and reasonable motives known to Us; We therefore, having taken counsel of some of Our Venerable Brothers among the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and also of Our own accord and with certain knowledge and mature deliberations, with the plenitude of the Apostolic power do hereby determine and have decreed that these same Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations, or Conventicles of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or whatever other name they may go by, are to be condemned and prohibited, and by Our present Constitution, valid for ever, We do condemn and prohibit them.
Wherefore We command most strictly and in virtue of holy obedience, all the faithful of whatever state, grade, condition, order, dignity or pre-eminence, whether clerical or lay, secular or regular, even those who are entitled to specific and individual mention, that none, under any pretext or for any reason, shall dare or presume to enter, propagate or support these aforesaid societies of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or however else they are called, or to receive them in their houses or dwellings or to hide them, be enrolled among them, joined to them, be present with them, give power or permission for them to meet elsewhere, to help them in any way, to give them in any way advice, encouragement or support either openly or in secret, directly or indirectly, on their own or through others; nor are they to urge others or tell them, incite or persuade them to be enrolled in such societies or to be counted among their number, or to be present or to assist them in any way; but they must stay completely clear of such Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles, under pain of excommunication for all the above mentioned people, which is incurred by the very deed without any declaration being required, and from which no one can obtain the benefit of absolution, other than at the hour of death, except through Ourselves or the Roman Pontiff of the time.
For further reference, you should also read Humanum Generis (Leo XIII, published 1884)
This position was confirmed as recently as 1983.
Freemasonry is the force primarily responsible for the loss of temporal power by the Church. For example, the French Revolution was largely engineered by the Grand Orient of France. Likewise the Mexican Revolution (with the Cristeros Martyrdoms) was utterly engineered by the Freemasons. And the Portuguese. And the Italians. And so on.
I know that you are not the first to make this kind of connection, but it is utterly ludicrous at any level.
Note: I do not deny that there are Catholics who are freemasons. I do not deny that there are some priests and even, God Forbid, some bishops who are members (in fact, one priest in France was recently dismissed (July, 2013) due to membership in the lodge. But it would hardly be realistic to say that the Vatican has any official "alliance" with the Freemasons. With what logic could the desire of Freemasonry to destroy the Church be reconciled with a so-called alliance?
When I use the word "corporate", I mean that these three cities (DC, City of London, Vatican City) incorporated themselves...they are unique in the world in this respect.
The Vatican is a sovereign State. It was established and relations created by the Lateran Treaty. There is no analogue to DC (which was established as a district under the direct control of the Legislative Branch in Article 1 of the Constitution). (Not sure about the legal status of the City of London, so I'll leave that alone)
And, as I have other responsibilities today, I'll have to defer any remaining answers until much later in the day.
If you are seeking a bit more clarity you can go here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5624&t=KJV
If you browse around that site for the specific word you can also see the passage in Latin and Greek.
We can be sure the context here is not profit as in material wealth, but in godliness.
I agree. My fellow bible-studiers look at me funny when I mention how odd it is that our whole system that we live under is named after these...the days of the week, the months, statues in our government, etc.
Oh, please. Freemasonry has been condemned (with an automatic excommunication) since the 18th Century. For example, Clement XII wrote the following in 1738:
I didn't mean they're allied now or in the future. I meant that I think that the Catholics and the muslims will ally. I was simply saying that the Freemasons are a religious group that will be part of antiChrist's religious dynasty, not necessarily allied with Catholicism/Islam. I think it's very possible that the secret orders will attack the Vatican itself.
It would be helpful if the Vatican actually had any political influence. They don't. (they are an "observer" -- represented as an international NGO, no more)
I think that's a ruse. I think that they have been a major player in the league of Nations and the UN.
Note: I do not deny that there are Catholics who are freemasons. I do not deny that there are some priests and even, God Forbid, some bishops who are members (in fact, one priest in France was recently dismissed (July, 2013) due to membership in the lodge.
I do think JohnXXIII was a member of a secret order.
Oh, OK. I've read some stuff in the past that attempted to make some sort of connection between the Vatican and Freemasonry...and always thought it was utterly ludicrous.
Having said that, I don't agree with an "alliance" (in the way I think you're trying to put it) with Islam. But...the Vatican has had this "kinder, gentler" face since WWII where they've been trying to work with "people of good will" to accomplish good works for humankind. Benedict XVI tried to put the brakes on this a bit. But I really don't think that this will have any more impact than when John Paul II attempted to put the brakes on the degeneration that has happened in Catholic universities. Along those lines, I could see how the Vatican could end up getting snookered by any number of groups. Honestly, I could see the Red Crescent or some other Islamic group as being one of the ones doing the snookering.
We've seen this in the past here in this country with scandals involving CCHD and CRS (I'm sure you've read about some of them here on FR). Despite multiple warnings from multiple bishops (to include multiple Bishops of Rome), there are a huge amount of people within the Church who have distorted the Christian responsibility for Corporal Works of Mercy into some advocacy for a social order where caring for people supersedes the Spiritual Works of Mercy and, in fact, supersedes the importance of putting orthodox doctrine in practice.
If you're talking something along the lines of what I've outlined above, then, yeah, I could unfortunately see something like that happening.
I think that's a ruse. I think that they have been a major player in the league of Nations and the UN.
John Paul II was utterly adamant in his opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Utterly and unambiguously (he was completely opposed to it in terms that were almost as strong as the terms he has used in regard to his opposition to abortion). If the Vatican had such influence, then why in the world did the Security Council vote to approve the action? And, for that matter, if the Vatican had such influence, then why does the UN support abortion to the degree it does?
Don't get me wrong: I do understand that the Vatican has supported the idea of these international organizations and obviously there would be lobbying going on behind closed doors, but, again, that is a whole lot different than exercising influence (which would mean being able to significantly impact, if not control, the course of events).
I would have to see some hard evidence of that (and no, please don't waste either of our times sending me to a site that talks about global conspiracy involving the Vatican to include sedevacanist sites...if you're going to do so, you'll need to send me to something a bit more concrete)
I do think JohnXXIII was a member of a secret order.
Really? Do you have some kind of evidence for this? (see the guidelines for hotlinking that I provided above)
As a postscript, I did a quick Google search on it and see that about 80% of the websites that appear to source such a claim are "Catholic" websites that belong to one sedevacanist group or another (not meaning to insult your intelligence, but "sedevacanist" means literally "the chair is empty" -- implies that there haven't been any valid popes since the death of Pope Pius XII)
Looking at this strictly from a Catholic theological viewpoint, if there are no valid Popes since that time, there are also no valid Cardinals (since all living Cardinals would have been named by "invalid" popes) and, in fact, no "licit" bishops -- since there would have been no Pope to name them. (You, I hope, see where this is going). So therefore it would be fundamentally impossible, at this juncture, approaching 70 years after the death of Pius XII, to even have an election of a valid Pope.
If, in fact, that is the case, then Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18 would have been a lie: And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it -- if it would be impossible to elect a new Pope, then, clearly, the gates of hell would have actually prevailed.
(Note: I am not asking that you, as a non-Catholic believe that...but that is what Catholics believe).
And if this was a false statement, then how can we possibly tell what other statements are false? In other words, the whole thing comes crashing down upon itself.
The above is why I have a hard time taking sedevacanists very seriously.
I mean a literal attack. "Burn her with fire".
John Paul II was utterly adamant in his opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Utterly and unambiguously (he was completely opposed to it in terms that were almost as strong as the terms he has used in regard to his opposition to abortion). If the Vatican had such influence, then why in the world did the Security Council vote to approve the action? And, for that matter, if the Vatican had such influence, then why does the UN support abortion to the degree it does?
Well, we were attacked on 9-11 with more dead than in Pearl Harbor. I think every intelligence agency around the world knew Saddam was involved, but were unwilling to outwardly say so to hurt Bush, who is not UN approved like Clinton and Obama are. So they went along with it. Lots of internal strategies at play. As far as abortion, I'm not seeing a lot of opposition from the Vatican to abortion. Look right now, why hasn't Francis come to America to express solidarity with the nuns? It looks to me like Holder is going to have his way with them without a peep from Francis. I know it's contraception, but nearly the same issue.
Really? Do you have some kind of evidence for this? (see the guidelines for hotlinking that I provided above)
He reminds me of Francis. I think the Jesuits have always actually been a secret order, infiltrating the Catholic Church, doing dirty deeds supposedly for the Catholic Church but really for themselves and assassinating popes when things don't go their way, like the CIA did with JFK.
If, in fact, that is the case, then Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18 would have been a lie: And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it -- if it would be impossible to elect a new Pope, then, clearly, the gates of hell would have actually prevailed.
Well, Peter never went to Rome. Paul was sent to the gentiles, not Peter. Paul never makes any mention of Peter being in Rome. Paul also said he wouldn't tread on another man's mission (paraphrasing), so if Peter beat Paul by to Rome by ten years, why did the few "Jews" there never hear of Christianity, or at least had never been given the details? The original twelve were sent to the tribes of Israel, and Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter went to Babylon and Jerusalem. The man Peter rebuked for trying to buy an apostleship in Samaria, Simon Magus, went to Rome and was called Simon Pater there, "Pater" connoting "father", like a pope. Samaritans in Palestine were Babylonians, brought in by the Assyrians during their deportations, and that's where you get the Babylonian-style of Christianity in Rome (Queen of Heaven, graven images, etc), taken there by Simon Magus.
The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church, but Christ's Church was all of the apostles, not just Peter, and then everyone who followed.
I certainly hope that you will have a blessed evening.
Have a good night.
I don't take much at all personal (unless it was obviously intended as being directed to me, personally)
“If the Vatican had such influence, then why in the world did the Security Council vote to approve the action? And, for that matter, if the Vatican had such influence, then why does the UN support abortion to the degree it does?”
They fear the repercussions if they disobey the secret Vatican directives of actually supporting abortion and war. The threat of the Order of Albino Assassin Monks and the supercomputer beneath the Vatican with all the Protestant names and locations hold them paralyzed with fear.
It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Freegards
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.