Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Also look at the etymology of the word doctrine.
It means true teaching.
And that would be the RCC official position wouldn’t it. Still anti scripture none the less.
I do know the official position.
No one is kidding - this is a serious theological discussion.
Okay.
By the way “miscontrued” and “twisted” seem not to be observations but interpretations.
My interpretation is that some like to take potshots without accountability.
You question our teachings on the Eucharist, Mary, the intercession of the saints, and Scripture and then, using the old canon, “guilty until proven innocent”, draw a conclusion on a different matter.
And you use the word “we” but you don’t say for whom you are speaking. And this is interesting because at least a few whose only knowledge of me is Free Republic have commented on other aspects of my piety and that of some other Catholicsand recognize what you seem not to see.
Some people call it investigation and reason when they look down a well and see only their own faces peering back at them.
My self.
There’s a Kindle ap for memorizing 52 Bible verses.
(Also, an interesting book of value for teens . . .
QUESTIONS BUILDING . . .)
both at the Amazon Kindle store.
No need to memorize -
Have a hard copy of the Douay Rhiems at hand.
No need to memorize -
Have a hard copy of the Douay Rhiems at hand.
I guess that is because we think if it was either /or.. God would have told us in His infallible inspired word
I have been trying hard to explain from scripture and they don’t get it.
Pharisees they are - because they are invested socially so they deliberately will not listen to reason.
Yeah. It’s the differing notions of ecclesiology and the way the thing about the Spirit leading “you” into all truth is read.
I don’t know why “organic” should necessarily be a good thing, but I would say we have an “organic” understanding of an interplay between Scripture and sacred (as opposed to” of men”) tradition.
What’s gettingtome this go ‘round is that,from my POV “your side”seems to be close toa kind of gnostic dualism. But then, to you we seem superstitious and too ready to invest particular things with spiritual roles or charcteristics.
All these years of conversation have taught me a lot.
I don’t think it’s good to “explain away” differences of opinion and I know I have my pharisaic days ...
But, yeah, baby, I’m frussrated!
Truer words have NOT been spoken. It entered in the 60's alright, around 64 A.D. And has been filling the sanctuaries ever since.
Go Dog Go —
I chose to leave my pharisees and be alone.
It is not an easy path.
We have not covered Maccabees and purgatory -
Let us go..
Yeah, I love that. My best friend, who became a Christian about 4 years ago will sometimes call me with something she read that she thought I needed. I always do. :)
Why 64? Do you read the Church Fathers? Not a gotcha question - I really want to know your reasoning
Read Augustine - brilliant mind - he rejected the gnostic dualism.
It took him forever.
I am sure you have read him - sorry.
But 64 A.D. is particularly CORRUPTING as Paul wrote to the Colossians about freedom from the law, all outward form of religion, rituals, human philosophies, and false mysticisms; and complete and real union with Christ. Paul contends with them that we died with Christ, and that ordinances, rituals, dead forms of religion, observance of sabbaths and holy days, and mystical rites are of no use to dead persons.
Seems that 64 A.D. was a particularly smoke filled satan in the church time.
Satan has been corrupting the truth and people in the "church" have been buying his lies for 2000 years now.
Difference of opinion and going with the pack leader (conform)those are the Pharisees.
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.