Posted on 11/13/2023 9:37:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Which, as abundantly shown on FR many times, is simply parroting a prevaricating, ignorant refuted assertion. Study The Canon and the Apocrypha before trying a denial.
See how all of the prots have come out from under the rocks to protest one man’s conversion to Catholicism.
It’s no different than Satan’s anger that another soul that has been yanked from his evil grasp.
They don’t even care what Schneider has converted from. They just care that he converted to the One, True Church.
44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Luke 24:44 NASB 95
*****
Those who understand what Jesus is saying will understand He just cited the Jewish OT which did not contain the Apocrypha. We can always learn something when we read the Bible.
For those interested more here:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm
FR is not what I consider a source of De Fide doctrine.
Not aware of anyone claiming it was.
Oh yes,just look at all money ($0) that it requests and obtains, plus all (0) sign up/subscribe requests and (0) cookies. And all the hits (Average Daily Traffic Page Views 22.9).
No wonder I link to it!
Actually, if I knew of better documentation for what I link to it for (and which I can edit, add to) then I would(and often do for such) provide links to it.
Meaning that your pitiful recourse to another spitwad is exposed for what it is.
And the irony of you, a Catholic, complaining about that is not lost on anyone but Catholics.
Catholics themselves think they are competent to another's salvation based on the fact that they are NOT Catholic.
The hypocrisy of your comment is staggering.
You mean "in all the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:27) even though some claim there was no established authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings yet. Which Catholicism says we need their magisterium for.
And as if even some RC scholarly sources do not affirm the Prot. canon as being that of the Jews.
And as if Luther set the canon for Prots. And as if that was even one of the charges in his bull of excommunication. And as if his personal opinion on the canon was without substantial RC scholarly support.
And as if the Deutercanocal books were not translated by Luther and printed in Prot bibles for hundreds of years.
Then there is the appeal to the LXX, as if we even had a 1st c. copy of any, and as if they were as large as the 4th c. editions, and as if they even were uniform, and perfectly corresponded to the canon of Rome.
So there is no better source than you.
I get it. It's called Pride.
I was referring to your statement that my contention had been refuted here on FR many times. Or words to that effect.
Anyway, when were the Keys to the Kingdom handed over to those doing the refuting? I don’t recall Peter or his successors doing so.
And your statement must also apply to what you and your comrades post. however, FR is and can be a source of Truth to the degree that it is or can be substantiated by reputable sources, which for you, can extend beyond the limited amount of teachings considered to be infallibly true, having been solemnly defined by the Church's magisterium or have been taught by her ordinary universal teaching authority as binding on the consciences of all the faithful. If you want to restrict veracity to them (as judged by you) then you will die of poverty in extended debate.
For such are limited, and far from comprehensive, and thus other sources are needful, from encyclicals to encyclopedias to your own notes in your own official Bible as well as to editions of your canon law and Catechisms, which are not infallible documents, and can be changed (and have), with the latter only presenting teaching of your Church "without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have" as Ratzinger said in the Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
And yet there is no infallible list of which magisterial level (3, or 4?) each teaching of your Church belongs to, and thus which level of submission is required. And which, and their meanings see debate, as is well-evidenced here with most vocal FR RCs here in their dissents, and reproofs of some encyclicals, encyclopedias and own notes in your own official Bible(and the NABRE translation itself) as well as editions of your canon law and Catechisms.
What is your own position on the veracity of all the above? And on changes in the CCC over the years? And on the veracity and authority of Vatican Two? And on submission to your present pope?
As for my page on the canon, these are substantiated from Catholic as well as other sources.
Actually, if I knew of better documentation for what I link to...So there is no better source than you. I get it. It's called Pride.
Which is just another desperate ad hominem spitwad (your last one(s) having failed), since not knowing of a better documentation for what I link to for simply does not equate to pride, and my site does not even provide my name of FR handle, but is an honest reply, while in fact the whole site needs work to bring it up to mobile device viewing standards, and fix typos.
Thus as before, your recourse to ad hominem only impugns you, and as the RM mod advised,
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Well, the fact is that they have. As is the premise of the novel and unscriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) of office, under which Rome asserts she is and will be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And also presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Anyway, when were the Keys to the Kingdom handed over to those doing the refuting? I don’t recall Peter or his successors doing so.
Nor to you, or to a church whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
Which never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
For in contrast to Peter (“petros”), that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
And it is by the essential faith which Peter expressed that church overcomes: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn, 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25)
And linguistical debates about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic, never end:
David Garland (“Reading Matthew”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) contending that there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay. And this “changed wordplay” greatly advances the (already likely) scenario that Peter is not “the rock” of that verse.Following on what Garland pointed out, Everett Ferguson, in his “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), also affirms that in the Syriac language, which is a later form of Aramaic, does indeed make the “kepha/tnra” distinction in existing Syriac translations of the Gospel of Matthew:... More, by the grace of God.
And one would think there’d be an outcry from Roman Catholics on how their pope is being disparaged on a daily basis by one of their own. Yet, what do we hear: crickets.
From WHAT?
Yeah!
IMWTK!
There are millions of Catholics that are going to be in heaven.
As are Protestants.
The OTHER guys in the game?
We’ll see.
Amen!
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.