Posted on 08/17/2018 8:40:24 AM PDT by wardaddy
So?
So? You mean you cannot perceive that this is contrary to the premise that the canon was settled in 5th c., and "that the African councils, like any other council, were binding on the Church," and that Trent's definition was to to "respond firmly to 'Protestant lies and obfuscations regarding the Deuterocanon, when they were shared by Catholic scholars?
Where do you get this stuff? Catholic Answers? And what "Protestant lies and obfuscations regarding the Deuterocanon" did Trent speak of? Where was Luther's judgment on the Deuteros even mentioned in Exsurge Domine? Among others before and those in Trent, no less than Cardinal Cajetan - who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian - had express reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books.
Yes, Trent knew it needed to settle the canon - because her own scholars provided support for Luther's own doubts and non-binding judgment on what was Scripture proper. Yet who translated and included most of the Deuteros in his translation.
Rather, I hardly think I was a long-winded nor that what i requested lack perspicuity or that you lack comprehension. Rather anything you might call an answer is what lacks clarity. Either answer the questions and answer fully and clearly or make it more obvious to us that you are avoiding them:
[annalex]: the Holy Scripture is itself the product of the Catholic Church.
Meaning, I assume, that that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination [of] writings and men [as] being of God;
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that it is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
Or how else does the logic work that "we gave you the Scriptures, and therefore alone are the sure unreprovable standard on what it means/are a law unto ourselves?"
And just does your church think 1 Timothy 3:15 says in the Greek? That the church is the infallible essential judge to know what is of God and the meaning of it?
You mean you believe typical Catholic strawman that sola fide meant a faith which would not produce works was salvific, and that the justified in Protestantism was merely a whitewashed sinner, versus one who would not characteristically follow Christ being damned? Answer clearly.
Why, the Catholic priests taught them according to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Yes, they taught with the voice of Christ (John 10:27-28).
And again, just what is your basis for assurance that they the separate class of sacerdotal Catholic priests taught with the voice of Christ?
I should be back tonite.
Since all four of us were raised in the Catholic Church, we believed it too. Since I let the Holy Spirit lead me into the correct interpretation scripture, and not some sinful priest, I am now, much better off.
I know we may have different opinions about things that are less important, such as pre trib, mid trib, post trib. About the plan of salvation, however, we march lockstep, in TOTAL unison, with no wavering, and with no variation at all. Not even a little bit. Since we are now ex Catholics, we have assurance of salvation. The best I have ever been able to get out of Catholics, is wait till you die to see if you are going to Heaven. WRONG ANSWER. If people want to wait till they die, to see if they are going to Heaven, that’s on them. I think that is false doctrine. 👍😁😇
I am embarrassed to admit, I used to believe that false doctrine. Obviously, I have moved past that, into the simplicity of Christ. 👍
I am glad I was a Sunday only Catholic, and not a hard core, hard headed one, like I have seen. Because of that, I believe I was more open to the truth, than other hard core church members. 👍
Yes.
There is consent. There is no unanimous consent, especially on marginal points.
Whoa....you're moving the goal posts. We've been told it's the "unanimous" consent numerous times.
Now, do false religionists actually understand the concept? I don’t know, but it ain’t looking good. 😁😇
And the funniest thing about this mess is that I used their own talking point back at them, only for them to try to use it unironically back at me.
I wonder if the poster in question even read what I had to say.
I think that’s true.
But dan was one of the hard core ones.
He knows his stuff.
Q
The last thing the RC hierarchy wants, is for people to start thinking for themselves. If they do that, then the people will do what I, and many others have done. We leave it, and take our money elsewhere. Watch the money trail. 😇
What a ridiculous assertion! Since Roman Catholics presumed to claim exclusive right to the term "church" and "catholic", which originally meant "of the whole" or "universal", it was necessary to differentiate the ROMAN version of Christianity from others. If it is a "slur", then explain why your religion uses it themselves?
You’ve got that right!
If a tree falls in a forest
and there is no Catholic around to observe it;
would a Prot be able to hear it?
Hey!
Even the Mormons are trying to slither away from the word MORMON.
Filler; just to get past 500
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.