Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
My eyes don't believe what I'm reading. Do you not understand English grammar? The "an" is used as it comes before a word beginning with a vowel.
So you're saying there is more than one interpretation????
I was responding to your challenge to the other poster of documenting their statement. No, I didn't add the next part as it was not needed to answer your question. Notice I also didn't post the rest of the catechism either. So what?
Seems catholics don't like what's said about their church to be posted in the light of day. I'll repost the conversation for the record.
>Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals
VERGA: Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
How many verse of the Bible have been officially defined by the Magisterium?
You tell me. I've already had to show you where only the rcc can interpret scripture.
Not gonna do all your work for you.
ping
I simply took the words of John 1:18 directly from the Greek.
I can ask about some protestant congregations or others where the donations are not exactly used in a proper manner fitting for a believer in Christ. Those living in glass house should not cast anything that might cause it to scratch or break. If I didn’t know better, I would think you where trying to elevate yourself up to the Statue of our Lord, i.e. free from all sin. But being the “good” Christian that you are, I know you would never do that, right? But if that is the case, then why ask the question the way you did or the others for that matter? What does it say about when your behavior in your question resembles so much the behavior of so many of today’s clergy?
By the way much of that wealth was donated(time, hard work, money) by those who believed, unless of course your suggesting the Church forced them to do so or pillaged it some how? Now if the current crop of priest cannot appreciate (and many of them don’t) that fact much like you and others on this thread, what does that say about your view of those who believed so much that they dedicated a portion sometimes there life to creating such things?
Problem is that they can't prove that what they call "tradition" is exactly what the apostles called "tradition". So it leaves Catholics taking the words of fallible men. No different then Muslims, Mormons, Seventh day Adventists etc.
Not gonna do all your work for you.
That is the response I get from prots that think they know what they are talking about.
From the Catholic answers web site Peggy Frye: Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see "The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation" in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):
The reference to being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
In telling the apostles, "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.
Seven out of the entire Bible.
When you depend on "sola scriptura" and individual scriptural interpretation, you eventually end up with conflicting, contradictory teachings for every single teaching there is regarding "faith and morals", as you have no genuine teaching authority to guide you.
That "wedding ring" example is just a small, convenient example of that, demonstrating clearly why those who claim the Scriptures are their teaching authority have a serious problem for all teachings. CynicalBear says he does not wear a wedding ring because they are inspired by pagan customs, and he bases his beliefs about that on certain Bible texts, which he believes tell him in his own personal interpretation that it is wrong and sinful to use anything inspired by pagan customs, while those famous Protestants I pointed to, base their incompatible, opposite beliefs that it is okay (and not at all sinful) to wear wedding rings, based on their own interpretation of those same Scriptures.
(Wearing wedding rings cannot be both right and not right at the same time. One of those two opposite protestant personal scriptural interpretations involving that issue - CynicalBear's, or those protestant preachers - is 100% wrong.)
That same principle applies to every single moral teaching and issue, such as abortion, homosexual relations or marriage, day of worship, etc. Some protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, say that it is okay to have abortions, and it is okay to have homosexual relations or marriage, while other protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures say that it is not okay to have abortions, and it is not okay to have homosexual relations or marriage.
Likewise, some protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, say that you cannot lose your salvation, while other protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, say that you can lose your salvation
There are many other issues where using private interpretation of the scriptures causes various protestants to come up with completely different and conflicting conclusions as to what the Bible really teaches about those issues. (That's why there are so many protestant denominations with conflicting and mutually exclusive teachings and doctrines.)
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
I'll listen to what the Holy Spirit said through John.
Only narrow minded bigots believe something that foolish.
Let me ask you a simple question. Please give me an honest and complete answer, without dodging or beating around the bush.
Based on your own personal knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, do you believe that it is wrong and sinful to wear wedding rings?
Not gonna do all your work for you.
That is the response I get from prots that think they know what they are talking about.
This comes from someone who doesn't understand basic English grammar. Now that's rich.
Seems that based on this conversation I seem to know more than you do!
You made a statement challenging what another poster said and I gave you what your own catechism says. You were not even aware of this or else you would have understood the poster was correct in their statement. I'll repost the original conversation again as you keep trying to change the topic.
>Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals
VERGA: Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
Amazing how the rcc seems to dismiss the capabilities of the Holy Spirit.
Sinless Jesus? Did Jesus need a baptism of repentence from John the Baptist? Did Jesus need to repent?
"I baptize you with water for repentance..." Matthew 3:11a [John the Baptist]
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. Matthew 3:13-15
And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance..." Acts 19:4a
Question: "At the Presentation, why did Mary make a sin offering (Lk 2:24, Lv 12:8) if she was without sin?"
Answer:
For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law.
According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.
The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn't imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn't written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.
Please show where I ever said that. Hint. You can't because I never did. I told you that a wedding ring is NOT included in the worship of God. It is therefore immaterial. Please don't twist my words to mean something I never said.
>> he believes tell him in his own personal interpretation that it is wrong and sinful to use anything inspired by pagan customs<<
Once again, FALSE. What part of in the worship of God do you not understand?
Is the only way that Catholics have to defend their faith the twisting of what people say?
>>(Wearing wedding rings cannot be both right and not right at the same time. One of those two opposite protestant personal scriptural interpretations involving that issue - CynicalBear's, or those protestant preachers - is 100% wrong.)<<
Given that I have never once said that wearing wedding rings is wrong you entire premise is base on a falsehood.
Twist whatever you want to create whatever religion you want to follow but don't twist my words to mean something you want without showing documentation to prove what you say.
Now, show the post where I ever said wearing a wedding ring is wrong. If you can't we will understand that you post was based on an untruth.
I'm convinced that they are unfamiliar with who that is.
Thank you for demonstrating that prots are neither capable of reading in contest or having a rational discussion. Feel free to have the last word.
What your post is completely missing is that those personal interpretations may or may not conform 100% perfectly with the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church does not base it's teachings on some individual priest's personal interpretation of Bible texts, nor does the Catholic Church base it's teachings on some Catholic's private personal interpretation of the Bible texts they are reading. Those personal interpretations may or may not be correct in any given homily or in any given personal Bible reading.
The Church's teachings are based on the teaching authority of the Church which was given by Almighty God, and they are based on the Holy Scriptures and the Church's Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
All priests should always be providing biblical interpretions which are totally compatible with the teachings of the Church, just like all the disciples of Jesus should have been teaching and living properly too, but they had this guy there named Judas...
Catholics can always check their priest's teachings against the real, official teachings of the Church, to see if he is speaking correctly about those teachings. Protestants cannot check their pastor's teachings against the official "protestant teachings", because there are none, only private interpretations of the Bible, which are all over the map (as that example clearly shows), and which are often completely contradictory, and mutually exclusive between different protestant denominations as well as between different protestant individuals.
No, and don't twist my words in order to assuage your own twisted theology. Wedding rings are not something used in the worship of God.
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.