But where did i saw or infer that? The footnotes can yet be seen on the Vatican;s own site, and are and were trusted by multitudes.
And let's not forget the sex abuse cover-up, which had all the appearance of a coordinated effort.
But this is the church RCs promote here, and they must own all of it.
Unfortunately, the Church and Her teachings are not necessarily reflected in the actions, statements and publications of the USCCB.
Unfortunately, that is what does indeed reflect what she really believes, as Biblically what one does and effects is what constitutes what one truly believes. The old "faith without works" principal RCs love to quote, while most of those Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death are liberal.
"As to the view of Christian tradition, it suffices to appeal here to the words of Father Zorell who maintains that the Bible story concerning the Flood has never been explained or understood in any but a truly historical sense by any Catholic writer (cf. Hagen, Lexicon Biblicum). It would be useless labour and would exceed the scope of the present article to enumerate the long list of Fathers and Scholastic theologians who have touched upon the question. The few stray discordant voices belonging to the last fifteen or twenty years are simply drowned in this unanimous chorus of Christian tradition." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
Interesting. But the laity look to how Rome interprets herself. Then you also have TRCs who hold to geocentrism.
Reading the Douay Rheims Bible eliminates the problem of strange interpretations, helps and commentaries.
Its much closer to the KJV, but with some problems, and one Roman Catholic apologist criticizes it as well. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021)
Truth cannot be redefined. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are interconnected and as such, one cannot stand without the other. If someone (even a bishop) promotes a different version of this fundamental reality, they are lying.
I do understand the problem, but it is the SSPX sect and the sedevacantist schism who are considered inn need of repentance in this church. None of which infers sanction by me of errant doctrines i contend against .
Highly unfortunate. However, footnotes don't fall into the category of infallible teaching.
But this is the church RCs promote here, and they must own all of it.
The Church (along with the rest of the human race) is comprised of sinners. Why would anyone be surprised when sinners sin? It's a mistake to conflate the teachings of the Church with the inevitably sinful behavior of Her members.
But the laity look to how Rome interprets herself.
The Church has never DEFINITIVELY contradicted any of Her infallible teachings. That many Catholics ignore them (including some in the hierarchy and in Rome) cannot be denied.
Then you also have TRCs who hold to geocentrism.
Geocentrism, global warming, the Easter Bunny - these are matters of prudential judgement and opinions on such matters are left to the individual. Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teachings encompass the integrated truths which the Church teaches are essential to salvation.
None of which infers sanction by me of errant doctrines i contend against
Understood. We might as well agree to disagree.