Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Which is the Catholic MO.
And Catholicism calls it “sacred tradition” in order to give it a facade of legitimacy.
Show us where in scripture the power was not passed down.
It's up to you to prove a negative that's not in scripture. And there you go again, going outside scripture.
P.S. Don't bother asking Catholics to prove "sola scriptura". We know it's a farce and always has been and will never accept Luther's lie.
While your not as obvious as other "false-flag" I "used to be" Catholic posers on FR...
The ignorance of the Catholic Faith comments you make
come right out of a Jack Chick tract.
Because ANY lapsed Catholic would know that any recent dogma introduced by the Church
was based on centuries of cobtemplating and understanding Christian theology.
The comment you falsely replied to here was spot on with the historical evidence for just how the Assumption of Mary came to be - finally, and dogmatically - 1950.
Even non-religious Wiki can show you the evidence of Assumption consideration,
going back to the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries.
Think a little here before you type.
And now next level;
think how Mother and Child in utero share DNA cellular make up
as we scientifically now know this is reality.
The exchanged DNA cellular make up of Christ
and between, and IN The Blessed Virgin Mary
would not have died- and been interred
here on earth- if Christ-
ALL OF CHRIST-
EVERY biological cell of his human existence
was not to remain on earth.
And dont tell me the Blessed Virgin needed a chariot like Elijah
when he was assumed in Heaven either.
See post 942.
Catholics never believed in “sola scriptura”.
Here’s the truth:
Catholics don’t believe in “sola scriptura” and protestants don’t practice “sola scriptura”. They practice “electus scripturae”.
You own posts have proven it.
Post#880 Here, where you emphasized certain points, it does appear that you “snipped” the salient point. In the interest of completeness, I submit the Ratzinger statement in its entirety (the emphasized by me salient point included).
“Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word.” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59. END POST
In other words, Ratzinger is saying it comes down to what your definition of “tradition” is. He is saying that he accepts the Bodily Assumption of Mary based on his belief that the meaning of “tradition” includes “the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word.” BBM
What convoluted rationalization.
To their detriment.
No, they haven’t because I never cited a source outside Scripture like Catholics regularly do.
I am sorry, that is incorrect. Wherever else the full statement might exist, you only posted the first half of it in your post. My reply was to your post. Your post, as it stood, misrepresented Ratzinger’s meaning. I’m sorry that you can’t see that.
I’m still waiting your list of necessary traditions.
Seems mighty clear cut tome!
You have dismissed John 20:23 with your own suppositions that are outside scripture.
And what part of "Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura" do you not comprehend? Stop throwing up that strawman.
“Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts.
Izzat so?
Well then; why don't you allow us to have our bad apples?
Ah yes; the cereal guy!!
It's like a 2 year old taking a crayon to the Mona Lisa
thinking that he is improving on the work of da Vinci.
Your saying this from your premise that scripture is the sole source of Christianity.
Remember... the Bible came 300+ years after Christ.
Oral Tradition accompanied what texts were available.
There were no scriptures widely available as you know today.
That wouldnt come for another 1000 years.
The Church was the animating force for the Scriptures in Christendom.
No. Catholics have added nothing to the Canon of "God's Word."
Yes agree, "Opinion pieces" do not add to Scripture,
Unless you are a discontented German Priest who thought adding the word "Alone" was O.K.
But you are onto something with the Mona Lisa.
Ironic as it is, I think this is a good analogy to probe.
Mr. Dan will probably not agree, but for me personally-
seeing the Mona Lisa in the Louvre was one of the most
underwhelming things for me in my life.
(Though I would still recommend seeing it.)
You couldn't get close enough to see the detail of the painting.
(One person in the know, had even brought binoculars.)
You couldnt touch it- you couldn't smell it-
by just standing there looking at it over the heads of 50 other people cramming in to get a glimpse.
It couldn't effect me in the way I had been told this Masterpiece would...
You wouldn't even know its painted on a piece of wood- and not canvas as you might have thought-
by ONLY looking at it.
In fact if one was unaware of its reputation-
they might even walk away, unmoved or filled with joy having seen what many see as masterpiece.
Now lets say the Bible is like the masterpiece Mona Lisa as you proposed.
Obviously, adding, or putting a crayon to it, would NOT make it anymore "adequate" as you say.
No, EVERY person would say that coloring with crayon on it-
would diminish it- or even destroy it possibly.
You would agree- NO ONE would ever think, or say that, crayon would improve,
or make the painting any better.
For this reason, your analogy breaks down as an empty charge
against the Church of trying to improve scripture it to make it "adequate".
The opposite is true, that nothing can detract from-
or diminish the theological value of scripture
and how God has revealed himself through it.
(Yes some of us can have doubts about Esther or Philemon- or who wrote Hebrews...
whatever- that doesn't change or diminish God.)
Nothing can change or diminish God.
While that may be obvious, I guarantee you there are people who read this
and absolutely think they can change God for their personal needs-
without even knowing it. Good Luck there.
But back to the art.
Now what if after the Louvre and the Mona,
you went down to the Uffizi Gallery to look at paintings there.
But this time you had an Art history Professor,
with a PHD in Renaissance era Art, as a private tour guide.
Let me tell you, it aint cheap,
but well worth it- and necessary-
if you want to learn the fullness
and deeper beauty of a painting.
You can learn amazing things about the painting from a guide like this
things you could never know existed about the subject by just lookkng at it.
That is the purpose of the Church.
To be that guide to take you to a deeper Faith level.
To take you beyond the surface level of scripture
animating whats in front of you,
rather than just standing in front of a pages in a book.
The scriptures Alone may be enough for some,
But by themselves, on your own,
they cant give you the fullness
of sensual knowledge of what lies beyond those ancient words.
To be satisfied with just that is ok for those who dont want anymore.
But there is more, waiting to be embraced
Faith as you have pointed out is absolute in receiving Grace.
Today I saw this quote, and some puzzle pcs came together.
Faith is the virtue upon which Christianity rests
and is the capacity to see beyond the senses to a deeper or higher reality.
I feel that skipping over the need to engage our human senses-
as Christ wants us to live to the fullest-
those things the Church presents to us, including Scripture,
accomplish that deeper connection with the Faith many desire.
Aside from the beauty and emotions for that Faith Journey;
By passing over that human bond given us,
and render them as detrimental, useless or unecessary-
only impedes the believer who wants to come to a fuller understanding
in reaching for the "higher reality" of the Faith in a way nothing else can.
Yes, We know its not about our senses but our Faith, yet we all can't help but not judge the world without our senses.
How can we develop a deeper personal understanding and ability to "see beyond our senses"-
if we don't acknowledge the humanity in our Faith
that we all have to begin with as well in the first place?
If you can have that deepening faith from the get go- consider yourself blessed.
Most can't.
The Church is both walls and bridges for that the Faith.
Protecting and accessing at the same time.
You need both to get the fullest expression of the Christian Faith.
Though it may be of little interest to some...
For 1500 years it was necessary.
And it shows in the example of those seven fine Catholic churches in ASIA that the angel had John to write to.
You say, “ What Ratzinger has written supports the position non-Roman Catholics have taken in that Rome has created the various dogmas they believe which are not found in nor grounded in Scripture.
Attempting to cite John 16:4 for support of this "subsequent" remembering allows for a hole big enough to drive the solar system through and allow Rome to continue to develop pretty much any dogma desired.
What part of “already handed down in the original Word” has a hole big enough to drive the solar system through?
I'll have to give you an "E" for effort.
You continue to work your MO like a snapping turtle clutches a fish!
BTW; I am STILL waiting your list of NECESSARY traditions to get a person 'saved'.
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.