.
.
.
Posted on 07/07/2008 10:39:05 PM PDT by Gamecock
I hope folks aren’t holding their breaths
waiting
for . . . some of the more intense Vaticons hereon to be equally honest.
It is possible to know too much of what is or isn’t so..
Vaticons!?... LoL..
Such distinction can be made, when for instance direct words of Christ are compared with someone else's speech, but I was not making it.
The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
Some of it is written down. Certainly not all of it: Christ taught the Apostles for three years and one can read the four gospels in three hours, and the Epistles in another hour. Besides, the letters of Paul, especially, do not have the form of a recorded revelation: they address specific problems, refer to teaching done by him orally, make trivial references to his personal belongings, -- they are not written as a systematic re-telling of a revelation. And that is my point: that the Holy Scripture is but a part of the body of thought and fact that Christ communicated to the Apostles.
Does anyone correct the behavior of the Pope today, and be right?
Of course. For example, the previous pope was criticized for his not apologizing to the sex abuse victims, and I think, rightly so. Further, people criticize the Pope on dioctrinal grounds as well and that des not make them un-Catholic. For example, much of the criticism of the Vatican II is valid or at least permissible for a Catholic to make.
Shhh.
You can make the same remark to someone who supports Sola Scriptura.
Exactly: the Federalist papers, the letters, etc., which explain the original intent of the constitutional clauses. We refer to the Fathers of the Chruch in the same way: they explain the intended meaning of the scripture.
Nothing in the later pronouncements, papal and consiliar, may contradict the earlier doctrine. One cannot get more conservative than that.
Infallibility!?!?! We've been told countless time that the only time the pope in infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra and now we see that Catholic believe that there are exceptions to the ex cathedra rule.
The more you read about the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, the more convoluted it becomes. (Besides, we can all see how wrong 890 really is in regards to morals.)
As Forest Keeper knows, all my arguments with him are from scripture. Unless the teachings of the Church are misrepresented or history is misrepresented, in which case I would naturally refer to the authority of the Church or to the historical facts. When I explain the error of Protestantism to a Protestant I would do it from scripture only, since that is the only way to have a productive discussion with a Protestant. It is not hard to do: your entire theology is drawn from a few passages from St. Paul taken out of context and contradicts the entire scripture read in context.
The Catohlic Church teaches that the Scirpture is God breathed, holy and inerrant. Why does it excite you so? This does not make the Sola Scriptura any less of a silly superstition that it is.
Why would the opinions of these theologians have any greater weight than the opinions of theologians who came even later?
Because they were nearer to the source of the teachings of Christ, both written down and not.
No it does not. Characteristically, you did not cite any. What Christ accomplished ont he Cross was the redemption of man. The individual salvation is still to be worked out with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) by every one.
No, merely to listen to Him, successfully.
***When I explain the error of Protestantism to a Protestant I would do it from scripture only, since that is the only way to have a productive discussion with a Protestant.***
Imagine that: the word of God being the final arbiter between men. Sadly, it is a concept that the church in Rome has yet to learn, even if her members pretend Sola Scriptura for the sake of discussions with Protestants.
Father Matthias Premm did not say that, and in fact the opposite is true. However, reading comprehension is a good thing, especially if one were to read the Bible all by himself. Not being personal... not personal...
To the contrary.. thats what Sola Scriptura teaches..
Its true that Sola Scriptura causes some to worship the Bible as a Talisman.. as some worship the church or other christians as talismans or totems.. with amulets..
It takes the Holy Spirit to even grasp deep biblical truths..
Without the Holy Spirit the orthodox or "reformed" go into the ditch..
And see the flesh as an extension of the spirit/Spirit..
Because in the process of acknowleding this truth you also acknowledged that oral transmission is not as accurate. It is very straightforward to see that oral transmission not being of like accuracy would not be held in as high esteem. Thus, in your honesty you acknowledged that one of the legs of your three legged stool "tradition" is not equal to that of Scripture. IOW, you stool is "falling over".
WM: Why would the opinions of these theologians have any greater weight than the opinions of theologians who came even later?
An: Because they were nearer to the source of the teachings of Christ, both written down and not.
It may not have occurred to you, but proximity does not guarantee insight or understanding. A good example would be the creation of a hierarchy, or the mistaken belief in transubstantiation.
Another way to look at the issue of proximity would be in the work place. I might interview two different people for a position. The first candidate having been with us for 20 years and the second for just 5 years. The first candidate may have stayed stuck in his 1st year throughout his 20 years, never growing or maturing, The 2nd candidate may have had 5 years of different experience and because of it grown and matured. Whom do you hire for the position?
If these early theologians only have proximity going for them then why should they be taken anymore seriously than those who came later?
Consider for example, the head article.
But when somebody says they believe in Jesus and He is their Savior, but somehow works are mingled in with the picture, then I can't really say to you how much faith that person is putting in Jesus and how much faith that person is putting in their own efforts to satisfy God.
What does this juvenile psychoanalysis have to do with scripture? Answer: nothing. Somebody sucked on his finger and decided that by doing works Christ commanded we have less faith. Huh? This kind of counterscriptural nonsense is the entirety of Protestantism. It is laughable.
OK. I can go along with that. This is why I listen to the Magisterium.
The teachings of the fathers of the Church are adequately recorded and available to us. We have no problem accessing the Holy Tradition today. The unreliability of the oral transmission has been overcome. Imagine that.
proximity does not guarantee insight or understanding
Well, no, it does not. For example, Judas was among the Apostles, and the Eleven themselves often showed lack of understanding. The Church did a lot of work to harmonize and sort out the memories of Jesus before it could arrive at the complete and accurate picture of the Christian Faith. However, by the time the New Testament got sorted out, the Deposit of Faith was free from aberration. At least, if you believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture like I do, you have to believe that.
.
.
.
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.