Posted on 07/07/2008 10:39:05 PM PDT by Gamecock
Do you have a question about the scripture?
Please be aware a reference to a particular verse in Scripture followed by a very short, very dogmatic, "explanation" of the meaning is meaningful only to those already sold. It is meaningless in a scholarly sense, especially to the "unsold".
One reference it would be interesting to "patiently explain" is contained in your post #2858:
"The Church gave you the New Testament and explained the Old. You are free to examine the Catechism and compare it with the Scripture. Where is the deception?"
First, the "Church" you refer to may or may not be the "Church" recognized by millions of Christians.
Deception? Maybe. Maybe not.
Second, as an exercise I made an attempt to compare the Bodily Assumption of Mary as explained in the Catechism and in Scripture.
Catechism Of The Catholic Church 966: "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509
. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace
A "patient" explanation and comparison of the Catechism and Scripture would require following each footnote to it's source, explaining it, following the footnote(s) in subsequent references, explaining them until the end.
Have at it.
And the question is?
Difficulty in comprehending plain English?
Allow me to simplify it:
Compare Catechism #966 to Scripture.
The Scripture doesn’t deal with most lives of saints and does not directly refer to the Assumption of Our Lady, even though Apoc. 12 alludes to it.
"The Church gave you the New Testament and explained the Old. You are free to examine the Catechism and compare it with the Scripture. Where is the deception?" Post #2,858
I examined the Catechism, compared it to Scripture, and came up empty. There is the deception! The Catechism alligns with Scripture sometimes. The Catechism is 100% Extra-Scriptural sometimes.
Conclusion: The Catechism is meant to supplement, not conform to, Scripture. To claim otherwise is deception.
No one claimed otherwise. The Catechism is a faithful reflection of the entire Sacred Deposit of faith that the Church received, and it is available to all, rather than secret. It includes things not directly found in the scripture, because the scripture is a subset of the Deposit of Faith. I am sorry if it did not become clear earlier, despite my best effort.
What “truth and proof” do you still lack?
Look at it this way. It makes it that much easier for us to remedy their errors.
AMEN! In a nutshell.
"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." -- Isaiah 59:21
I don’t recall hiring you as my new mummy.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh yes . . .
The bureaucratic magicsterical doctrine of PROXIMITY = TRUTH.
Welll then!
Given John the beloved leaned on Christ’s breast so much, clearly his words are truthier than Paul’s
Therefore, God goofed in not having John write more Scripture???
Sometimes these Vaticon convolutions can be hard to follow.
Baloney.
In the lives of millions of Vatican reps . . .
FUNCTIONALLY,
they trust the bureaucratic magicsterical so much they wouldn’t even think of learning to listen to Holy Spirit.
Perhaps it should be called
THE RELIGION OF LAZY CONVENIENCE.
listen to the magicsterical?
Must be in b-flat or F-minor.
Of course; that's why the Catholic Church teaches just that: we are as a general proposition all sinners. However, the scripture also contains descriptions of some men who are "just and perfect [...who walk] with God" (Gen 6:9), who are fit to enter heaven (4 Kings 2:11), who are "full of grace" (Luke 1:28). There are also as many references to righteous people in the Psalms as are to the wicked. We read those two, and conclude that the text you referenced allows for some exceptions.
None of your examples has any reasonable connection to sinlessness. And John trashes any such concept:
1 John 1:8-10 : 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
No, I'm afraid the Bible does not allow for any exceptions outside of Christ Himself. But if you want to go with it, would you care to name all of those you believe were sinless like Mary?
This is no longer a matter of plain reading. Once you decide to conclude something from absence of a scripture, the field is open to all kinds of speculation. After all, there is no reference to her sin either.
There is a mountain of evidence that ALL have sinned, and zero evidence that Mary was any exception to that. I base my conclusion on positive scripture, assuming Mary was human.
The thesis is, that plain reading of the scripture in context leads one to the Catholic Church ...
The problem with that is that what you would call "context" includes writings totally outside of the actual context. Any writing can mean absolutely anything within the "context" of some outside claimed authority. Beyond the very basics, Catholic theology (that theology which makes Catholic theology Catholic) is not generally found within the four corners of scripture.
Let me also add that indeed, much in Catholicism is not directly derived from the scripture, and some peripheral matters, such as, for example, celibacy of Latin priests, can be said to contradict some very natural interpretations of Titus 1:6.
That is why I am saying what I say above from a scriptural standpoint. And to be honest, the celibacy thing doesn't make me scream bloody murder, scripturally. I do think it is an unwise policy because common sense would say that a married, family man would generally be in a better position to fulfill clerical duties. In addition, I think such a policy invites some to enter the priesthood who have no business serving. However, God obviously ordained that Paul be single, so there is a precedent for success.
We also continue to witness miracles, -- thousands of saints of the Catholic Church who work them attest to that today.
Would you elaborate on what this means (i.e. thousands of Catholics who work miracles)?
Really? I don't know what the official answer is in academic logical thought, but I would have guessed that the opposite of "all are X" is "all are not X". I could be wrong, but am curious as to the answer. Any refs out there who can help? :)
The plain reading of Romans 3 does not allow for the interpretation that all without a single exception have sinned, because then you will have to ignore the rest of the book of Psalms that St. Paul is quoting, which speaks of righteous people.
No, that doesn't work at all. A person being called "righteous" in the OT does not at all mean he was sinless. Here is one example:
1 Kings 3:6 : Solomon answered, "You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David , because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.
We all know whether David was a sinner. The "righteous" label in the OT was used to describe how the person was seen by other men, in that community. Job is another example.
Further, if Romans 3 is to be taken as an absolute rather than a generalized statement, then you -- for example -- do not seek God (Rom 3:11) and the Holy Innocents that Herod slaughtered were themselves murderers whose feet were "quick to shed blood" (Rom 3:15).
Rom. 3:11 and 15 ARE absolutes, referring to ALL lost persons. Paul recognizes that we all are alike under sin (verse 9). This matches verse 23 since we are all born as lost and in need of a savior. This is perfectly consistent. I certainly did not seek God first. Once God has freed us, however, then we DO seek God as believers.
Other scripture tells us to obey the apostolic tradition as well (2 Tess. 2:14). We do. You don't.
No where does that passage say or imply that extra-scriptural tradition is being referred to. The "traditions" which were taught by word means the OT. The epistles refers to the NT.
All are righteous in God’s eyes when we have Jesus in our lives. HE is our righteousness. It’s not our behaviour but the indwelling Christ that makes us righteous.
I’ll consolidate my response to these two posts next.
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.