No promises but will see what I can do
Posted on 07/08/2010 8:54:20 AM PDT by 0beron
Edited on 07/08/2010 9:57:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
"Vatican Officials" say a lot of things. This man who is said to be an expert in demonology also claims to be an expert on the phenomenon of intelligent extraterrestrial life. We say they are supernatural in origin and the appearance of strange and foreboding lights in the sky are unfavorable signs.
Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a theologian member of the Vatican Curia (governing body), and an insider close to the Pope, has gone on Italiannational television five times, including recent months, to proclaim that extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon. Balducci provided an analysis of extraterrestrials that he feels is consistent with the Catholic Church's understanding of theology. Monsignor Balducci emphasizes that extraterrestrial encounters "are NOT demonic, they are NOT due topsychological impairment, they are NOT a case of entity attachment, but these encounters deserve to be studied carefully." Since Monsignor Balducci is a demonology expert and consultant to the Vatican , and since the Catholic Church has historically demonized many new phenomena that were poorly understood, [Like the historical propensity for the press to be leftist deceivers who herald new phenomena like Communism as saviours of mankind.] his stating that the Church does not censure these encounters is all the more remarkable.
Balducci revealed to a visiting American professional that the Vatican is closely following this phenomenon quietly. My informant originally surmised that the Vatican is receiving much information about extraterrestrials and their contacts with humans from its Nunciatures (embassies) in various countries.
Anti-intellectualism . . .
FAR TOO TRUE . . . parading about in a very thin negligee of pretend erudition.
Jesus constantly referred to only Scripture to validity himself and His ministry and mission saying numerous times, *It is written...*
He appealed to ONLY Scripture Himself.
Here’s a link to the number of times He said that term- *It is written...*.
There are also places where He talks about Scripture being fulfilled.
Jesus also condemned the traditions set up by the religious leaders of His day, you know, the priests and all.
Here’s a keyword search on the word *tradition*...
It goes back to Jesus. We’re only following His example. Catholics would do well to follow Him in that as well.
It would correct a lot of the errors they’ve let creep into their doctrine by erroneously placing tradition on the same level as the Word of God.
In the words of Jesus Himself,
Matthew 15:3
“Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?”
Mark 7:8
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
Mark 7:9
And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Here’s a clue.... this is not a positive thing He’s saying. He’s condemning it.
So, the Catholic church comes along, claims to be Christ’s representation on earth, and then behaves in ways directly contrary to what He did and what He taught.
Following Scripture is following Christ. Following tradition is following man.
Follow Jesus, not man.
Scripture alone is not strictly a Calvinist idea.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED!
Well said
MM””Jesus constantly referred to only Scripture to validity himself and His ministry and mission saying numerous times, *It is written...*””
He was talking about the OT since the NT was not written yet.Jesus commanded the Apostle to preach,not write. The NT came to us by the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit and if you understood your Christian history you would realize that most people were illiterate and it took many years to make copies of scriptures on scrolls by monks,thus,the bible was not given out to each individual in a community. The Bible was read and interpreted through the Church.
Solo Scripture-self interpretation is a modern thought that grew out of the invention of the printing press and as literacy rates grew.
“”Here’s a keyword search on the word *tradition*...””
Here is Scripture that refutes how you understand what tradition means
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.
Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.
Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.
Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.
1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.
1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).
1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.
2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?
2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).
1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.
James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (”He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...”)
Oh for Heaven’s Sake!
More nonsense.
Please let us know when Rome writes back. /sarc
Quix, KV has been having intense physical issues due to his CP the last few days and this includes breathing issues.
Soon as he saw your ping and started reading he started laughing and smiling and it got his mind off of the thing he was previously over thinking which leads to the CP physical issues.
So his breathing slow to a normal pace and his body is relaxing.
If nothing else the nonsense was medically helpful. Thanks.
I would also like to request (I can’t believe I am requesting this) some multi colored font and a few of your silly pics.
It would be most theraputic and comforting for KV to simmer down by being side tracked in humorous thought.
That would be helping a fellow Christian RCCatholic man.
Well we have taken up watching more of the Syfy tv channel.
Because nothing else is on and we have never seen the movies they run.
and continue to be slaughtered globally...
Holy Spirit’s oversight.
It’s sad that The Vatican seems to think HE’S not up to the task and DESPERATELY NEEDS so much heavy handed assisting.
Thus grieving the Holy Spirit and is the unpardonable SIN. Mar 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"— Throughout these discussions it is patently clear the Roman "church" denies the Holy Spirit.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Mar 3:28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
Let's see Mark was the amanuensis for Peter.
No, it doesn't. What was written down was enough for us to know.
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).
The trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible by word and yet the Catholic church holds to that as doctrine and teaches it as fact.
The word *pope* isn't in Scripture and the Catholic church holds that as doctrine and teaches that.
Why is it OK for those things to be treated that way, but the concept of Scripture alone not?
Besides, that doesn't give anyone license to make things up, demand that they be held to the level of truth that written Scripture is, demand that people accept the fantasies, and condemn them to hell for not believing it.
Joseph Smith saw visions and wrote his own additions to Scripture too. Might as well accept all that as well. After all, there's a lot Jesus taught that we don't know. If it's not specifically mentioned in Scripture, we can't say it didn't happen, right?
You list of reasons is not Scriptural support for tradition and against Scripture alone. It's excuses.
Your proving the point that solo scripture is not the sole source of truth.That is..unless you deny the Trinity?
Here is good example of how things historically worked that I am borrowing..
Sacred Scripture and Tradition both have a single source, that is from the Divine mouth of the Holy Spirit. Through the voice of the Spirit, the authors of the Sacred Scripture, preserved in truth the word of God. But before this occurred, the Spirit passed on the entirety of faith, through succession of the Apostles. Therefore the Church cannot know all that is true from Sacred Scripture alone, but must be reconciled with Tradition, which is held to be equal to Sacred Scripture.
I gather you didn’t read more than the headline?
No promises but will see what I can do
Certainly ‘tis a sobering thing at best.
A lot of them have reportedly had CIA help, consult, some even money.
I tend to try rather frequently to give a straight, sober, thoughtful response when seriously asked to do so . . . even by a number of pretty nasty, mean-spirited RC’s.
This topic would be a good one for y’all to return the favor on.
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.