Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

The Ambrose snippet would come close, at least in my view of what sola scriptura means. The other two, no.

The key test, logically, would be whether sola scriptura is self-consistent. If the doctrine can be proved using sola scriptura it is consistent. If it cannot, it fails upon itself (a performance failure similar to Scientism) and is proven false.

This is the discussion my post at the link, also argued upstream a few posts on the same thread, attempted to engage.

THE EXISTENCE OF SACRED TRADITION PROPOSITION TO BE CONSIDERED: Tradition exists as a source of Revelation distinct from Scripture and goes beyond the data of Scripture Proof: 1. From Sacred Scripture (limitations of this proof); 2. From the testimony of the early fathers: a. written testimony; b. practical testimony; c. objections based on some remarks of the fathers. * PROPOSITION: Tradition exists as a source of Revelation distinct from Scripture, and goes beyond the data of Scripture This is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent as quoted above and from the Vatican Council I. [Constitution De fide catholica, ch. 2; DB 1787]. The first part of the proposition states the existence of Tradition in general and consequently includes inherent Tradition; the second part refers specifically to constitutive Tradition. [1] Proof: 1. From Sacred Scripture. a. The books of the New Testament furnish an adequate proof for the existence of Tradition in general by showing that written books were not to be the sole source of revelation. ■ Christ personally established a permanent living magisterium to be heeded by all and gave not the slightest intimation that books were to be written or that they would one day constitute an exclusive source of information: - “Teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:19-20); - “Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.” (Mc 16:15-16); - “And he said to them [Apostles]: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead, the third day: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things.” (Luke 24:46-48); - “But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. “ (Acts 1:8); - “And the Lord said to him [Ananaias]: Go thy way: for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.” (Acts 9:15). ■ St. Paul refers the faithful to doctrines taught by word of mouth: - “I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances [Vulg.: præcepta] as I have delivered [Vulg.: tradidi] them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2). - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15); - “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17); - “The things which you have both learned and received and heard and seen in me, these do ye: and the God of peace shall be with you.” (Phil. 4:9); - “For the rest therefore, brethren, pray and beseech you in the Lord Jesus that, as you have received from us, how you ought to walk and to please God, so also you would walk, that you may abound the more. For you know what precepts I have given to you by the Lord Jesus.” (1 Thess. 4:1-2); This same Paul advises the bishop Timothy to safeguard the “deposit,” “that noble trust,” and to “hold to the form of sound words” which he had heard from his teacher. And when he felt his last days drawing near, he commanded Timothy to hand on this oral teaching to trustworthy men who were fit to teach others: - “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, [Vulg.: depositum custodi] avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.” (1 Tim. 6:20); - “Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust [Vulg.: bonum depositum custodi] by the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us.” (2 Tim. 1:13-14). - “And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here is proof first of all for the fact that in apostolic times oral Tradition was a source of faith, and indeed the chief source. These texts show, secondly, that this arrangement continued into the immediately succeeding generation. A final conclusion is certainly not unwarranted, namely, that the same rule was to retain its force permanently. Indeed, an arrangement honoured and sanctioned by the Apostles was by its very nature permanent, or at least could be altered only by apostolic authority. There is, however, not the slightest indication that the apostles ordered or ever foresaw any such change. b. The existence of Tradition as a source distinct from Scripture may be considered a proven fact. The next question is whether this tradition is inherent only or constitutive as well. Admittedly the existence of constitutive Tradition (subsequent to the completion of the Scriptures) cannot be proven positively and compellingly from Scripture. But it would be unfair of our adversaries to demand such a proof of this point. On the other hand, Catholics have every right, in view of the preceding considerations, to ask Protestants to prove from Scripture itself the non-existence of constitutive Tradition. It is consequently worth the trouble to show that neither the words nor the general tenor of Scripture lend support to the Protestant position. (i) Nowhere in the books of the New Testament is it said or intimated that the sum total of faith is contained or would be one day contained in Scripture. (ii) The books of the New Testament were composed by hagiographers who did not consult one another on the matter, but who wrote as occasion demanded, for special reasons and to answer special needs. A general statement to the effect that the later books were written as supplements to the earlier would be, consequently, quite untrue. [2] All agree that no single book contains the whole of Christian doctrine, and so if in the ensemble they did cover it all, this would be quite accidental as far as the hagiographers were concerned. But was such a rounding out of the record perhaps intended by the Holy Spirit, the principal author of all the books? An affirmative answer would have some foundation if the Sacred Books made up one organic whole. But in view of the fact that they reveal no such systematic unity, the supposition is really quite groundless. It follows, then, that Protestants, who insist that nothing but Scripture must be believed with divine faith, thereby admit that their basic principle, the all-sufficiency of Scripture, at least lacks divine backing. And it is of no avail to seek refuge in philosophical arguments and claim that it would be unworthy of God to write a Scripture which would not contain the whole of Revelation. What would be so unseemly about God’s providing for the needs of the Church partly by Scripture and partly by a Tradition safeguarded with the help of the Holy Ghost? 2. From the testimony of the early Fathers. a. With reference to the first part of the proposition, i.e., the existence of Tradition, it is a solidly established fact that no one in the first centuries of the Church’s existence taught that the teaching arrangement set up by the apostles was altered shortly after their death. On the contrary, the earliest Fathers, though not treating specifically the question of a single or double source of revelation, held oral Tradition in the highest esteem and recommended it no less than they did Scripture. ■ St. Clement of Rome: “The Apostles preached to us the Gospel received from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was God’s Ambassador. . . . And so, after receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth, equipped with the fullness of the Holy Ghost, to preach the good news that the Kingdom of God was close at hand. From land to land, accordingly, and from city to city they preached, and from among their earliest converts appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers . . . and afterwards laid down a rule once and for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry.” (Ep. 1 ad Corinthios 42, 1-44. 2. The Rationalist Harnack said: “The whole Catholic notion of Tradition is rooted ultimately in that sentence formulated long ago by Clement of Rome” (Dogmengeschichte 1; 3rd ed.; p. 154). ■ Eusebius of Caesarea has this to say about St. Ignatius Martyr: “Although he was being led through Asia under the unrelenting vigilance of guards, he nonetheless managed to urge the churches of each city he entered that they beware, above all else, of the vicious views of heretics, and he exhorted them to cling tenaciously to the traditions of the Apostles which, corroborated as they were by his testimony, should in his opinion be committed to writing that future ages might have more certain knowledge of them.” (Historia Ecclesiatica 3. 36) ■ St. Ignatius of Antioch insinuates elsewhere that it is characteristic, not of a true Christian, but rather of a heretic to insist on written testimony for his faith and to quibble about the meaning of Scripture. (Epistula ad Philadeiphenses 8). ■ Papias of Hierapolis (c. 150 AD.) wrote in the Introduction to his book on the Interpretation of the Words of the Lord: “I shall not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, all the information I have ever carefully gathered from the presbyters. I carefully committed it to memory and vouch for its truth. In fact, unlike most people, I did not care for men who gave the longest accounts, but for men whose teachings were true; nor yet for men who reported the commandments of others, but for such as related those given by the Lord to be believed and stemming directly from the Truth. But when someone turned up who had been closely associated with the presbyters, it was the words of the presbyters that I would ascertain . . . I simply took for granted that book knowledge would not help me so much as a living or still surviving voice.” (Fragment 2, ACW trans.) ■ Hegesippus (c. 160 A.D.), when the Gnostic heresy was raging, with a view to learning the tradition of the churches, approached many bishops and finally the Bishop of Rome: “In each of the episcopal lines of succession and throughout each of the cities the same doctrine is held as that taught by the Law, the Prophets, the Christ.” (In Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiatica 4:22. 3) St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, in their polemic against the Gnostics, quite frankly recognize Tradition as a distinct source of revelation, and indeed the chief source. ■ St. Irenaeus: “When they are refuted by the Scriptures, they take to maligning the Scriptures themselves. . . . But when we refer them to that tradition which originates with the apostles and which is preserved in the churches through the succession of the presbyters, they attack the tradition, claiming that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters but even than the apostles. [However] anyone who wants to see the truth can look to the tradition of the Apostles which is clearly manifested throughout the whole world; and we can list those who were set up as bishops in the different churches as well as their successors right down to our own time, men who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [Gnostics] are raving about. For if the apostles had known secret doctrines which they were in the habit of teaching to the “perfect” clandestinely and apart from the rest, 11 they would most certainly have communicated these things to those to whom they were entrusting the churches themselves.” And he adds that it suffices to seek out the tradition held by the Church of Rome, “…for with this Church, because of its more efficient leadership, all churches must agree. . . . Since therefore we have such weighty proofs [of apostolic tradition], there is no need to seek among others the truth which it is so easy to obtain from the Church: since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, entrusted to her in abundance everything pertaining to the truth. . . And if a dispute should arise over some point or other, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches, in which the apostles were actively interested, and find out from them what is certain and clear with regard to the point at issue? What if, in fact, the apostles had left us no Writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the line indicated by the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches? (Adversus haereses 3. 2-4) ■ Tertullian says that heretics “should not be admitted to any discussion of the Scriptures,” (De praescriptione 15) but that they should be admonished on the basis of Tradition: “The Lord Jesus sent the apostles to preach. . . . Now what they actually preached can, as I must here likewise prescribe, be proved only by those very same churches which the apostles themselves founded by preaching to them both viva voce, as they say, and later by letters. Such being the case, it is consequently certain that any doctrine which agrees with [what is held by] these apostolic churches, moulds and original sources of the faith, must be considered the truth, undoubtedly containing that which these churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; but any other doctrine must be presumed false, since it smacks of opposition to the truth of the churches, of the apostles, of Christ, of God.” (Ibid., 21) He considers it impossible for the tradition of the churches to have strayed from the truth, both because of the assistance of the Holy Spirit and because they never could have agreed together so to err: “Come now! Would they all have fallen into error? Would the steward of God, the Vicar of Christ [the Holy Spirit] have neglected His duty by allowing the churches to understand and believe otherwise than what He Himself taught the apostles? Is it likely that so many and such outstanding churches would all have strayed into the one [false] faith? No chance happening ever has the same outcome in the case of many different individuals. A doctrinal error in so many different churches would of necessity have taken different forms. But when unity exists amid diversity, this can be the result, not of error, but only of Tradition.” (Ibid., 28) The Greek fathers are of like mind. ■ Origen: “Since there are many who think they share the mind of Christ and yet some of them think differently from their predecessors, let the preaching of the Church be held fast, that preaching which has been handed down from the apostles through the ranks of succession and perdures in the churches to the present day. That alone is to be believed as the truth which varies in no wise from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (De principiis, preface 2) ■ St. Gregory of Nyssa: “It suffices as proof of our thesis that we have a tradition coming to us from the fathers, like a legacy handed down from the apostles through the saints who followed them in succession.” (Oratio 3 contra Eunomium) b. With reference to the second part of the proposition, i.e., that Tradition goes beyond the data of Scripture, theoretical testimony regarding oral Tradition’s surpassing Scripture objectively, i.e., from the point of view of the truth contained therein, does not exist, as far as I know, before the time of Tertullian. The earliest fathers frankly acknowledge Tradition as a source distinct from Scripture and esteem it as a source more practically valuable than the latter. They thus offer not the slightest support for the Protestant principle of the self-sufficiency of Scripture (See, for example, Bavinck, op. cit., I, 405); but they do not seem to have touched on the question at issue from the theoretical angle. The following fathers do not treat it specifically, either, but they do brush against it in other contexts: ■ Tertullian, writing on a matter of discipline (that a Christian should not wear a military decoration), has this to say: “Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should be accepted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be accepted if we can allege as precedent no cases of other practices which we justify without any written document, but solely on the grounds of tradition and because of the approval of subsequent custom.” Then, after mentioning several Christian customs, he concludes: “If you demand scriptural justification for these and other such practices, you will find none. Tradition will be held out to you as their author, custom as their consolidator, and faith as their observer.” (De corona militari 3-4) Admittedly, Tertullian does not speak directly of traditions—either of theoretical traditions or of those concerned with dogmatic practices. But since among examples of non-written customs he alleges the following: “We make offerings for the deceased and in honour of the eternal birthdays (of the martyrs) on their anniversary days,” and since the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice for the dead and in honour of martyrs certainly involves a genuinely dogmatic Tradition, and an oral Tradition to boot, it is fair to conclude that he too recognized dogmatic traditions which were not contained in Scripture.” ■ Origen: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition that baptism is to be administered to infants, too.” (In epistulam ad Romanos 1:5, 9) ■ St. Basil: “Of the beliefs and practices [disciplinary regulations] preserved in the Church, some we possess from teaching handed down in written form; others we have received as delivered to us in a mystery from the tradition of the Apostles, and both of these have the same force as far as religion is concerned.” (De Spiritu Sancto 27, 66; see also 29, 71: “Most of the mysteries are accepted by us without any written evidence.”) It makes no difference that St. Basil immediately gives examples of disciplinary traditions (Furthermore, he alleges as an example, “also the very anointing with oil” [the use of chrism in Confirmation]), for in view of the fact that he expressly distinguishes “beliefs” and “practices,” the principal affirmation must be understood as applying to both. ■ St. Epiphanius: “There is need of tradition also; for not everything can be found in Scripture. That is why the most holy apostles left some things in writing and others in tradition. Paul affirms this very fact as follows: “as I handed it on to you.” Likewise in another passage: This is my teaching and thus have I handed it on to the churches.” Similarly: “If you continue to cling firmly to it, as 1 preached it to you—unless your faith has all been for nothing.”(Haereses 61, 6; see also 75, 8) ■ St. John Chrysostom, in his explanation of St. Paul’s words “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you have learned from us by word or letter,” says: “It is therefore clear that [the apostles] did not teach everything in epistolary form, but that they taught many things besides in unwritten form, and these things, too, are worthy of acceptance. Wherefore we should consider the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. If there is a tradition, look no further.” (Homilia 4 in 2 Thess 2; see Homilia 3 in 2 Tim.) ■ St. Augustine appealed to apostolic Tradition in favour of the validity of baptism administered by heretics and of the efficacy of infant baptism. (See De baptismo II, 7, 12; IV 24 and 31; V 23. 31; De Genesi ad litteram X 23. 39) The heart of the question being considered exclusively here is not whether everything which individual fathers considered as apostolic Tradition actually belongs to apostolic or even divineapostolic Tradition, but whether the testimony of these fathers really proves that they admitted the existence of some dogmatic traditions not contained in Scripture. Far outweighing any theoretical testimony in both antiquity and in unmistakable universality is the practical testimony of all the fathers and of the whole Church, even in the earliest years. To mention only one example out of the many which could be alleged, the four Gospels and many other books of the New Testament were accepted as inspired without any backing from Scripture and hence on the basis of Tradition alone. c. By way of objection, our adversaries cite several passages in which the Fathers, by affirmative or exclusive statements, urge the completeness and self-sufficiency of Sacred Scripture. Since it would take forever to treat each such passage individually, [3] it will be enough to give here the principles for the solution of this difficulty. (a) The Fathers quite frequently mean not absolute but relative sufficiency, in the sense that Scripture suffices for a knowledge of those things which must be expressly believed by each and every one of the faithful, or that it sufficed to settle a particular case in which they were involved. (b) When they rule out all other arguments except those based on Scripture, they have in mind only philosophical reasoning, apocryphal books, false prophecies, and spurious traditions; or if they rule out even the very Tradition of the Church, they do so only for reasons of methodology, led on by the exigencies of controversy to select a basis of argument common to themselves and their antagonists. (c) At all events, the Fathers mean that Scripture is an adequate source only if one presumes the preaching and interpretation of the Church. But it is one thing to proclaim the complete self-sufficiency of Scripture all by itself, and quite another to affirm the adequacy of Scripture as received from the hands of the Church and clarified, not to say enriched, by the light of ecclesiastical Tradition. The Fathers found many things in the Scriptures with the latter qualifications for which they would not have found sufficient backing in Scripture purely and simply. Recall the many instances in which they were satisfied with mere hints in the text and their readiness to admit the typical sense. There are really very few things which cannot be squeezed from Scripture by this method. But (d) it should occasion no surprise if the Fathers, who were blissfully unaware of the Protestant error, but did have the deepest reverence for Scripture, now and then made statements which must not be taken with strict literalness. The following remark of St. Augustine may be applied in this case: “When engaged in discussion within the confines of the Catholic Church, he had no thought of his meaning being misconstrued.... When it was not yet you outsiders who were party to the debate, he could speak more freely.” [4] ■ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] We can summarize the idea of Tradition compared with Sacred Scripture in this division: 1. Constitutive Tradition: its object is NOT contained in Scripture; all Protestants deny its existence. 2. Inherent Tradition: its object is explicitly contained in Scripture; some Protestants accept it; 3. Declarative Tradition: its object is only implicitly contained in Scripture; most Protestants accept it. [2] Bainvel was right when he said that the books of the New Testament were written rather “that the things which had been taught orally might be recalled to mind, that the absence of a living teacher might be compensated, and that errors and false teachers might be refuted when they arose.” (De magisterio vivo et traditione, Paris, 1905; p. 23). [3] Several such passages are discussed by De San, De traditione et scriptura, p. 66; see also Franzelin, De traditione, thesis 19; Daniélou, loc. cit.; Salaverri, Sacrae theologiae summa, I, 755; Lercher, Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, I, 319. [4] Contra Julianum i.6, 22. Clearly the statements of the fathers on this point are not always to be pressed. Take the example of St. Vincent of Lerins, who says that “the canon of Scripture is perfect and is completely self-sufficient, indeed more than sufficient” (Commonitorium 2 and 29). And yet in the same work he records the fact that the validity of baptism administered by heretics has been upheld by Tradition alone. Bavinck himself writes that while the fathers extolled the completeness of Scripture, they nonetheless recognized Tradition as well and did in fact admit therein an element incompatible with the Protestant view of the all-sufficiency of Scripture.— (op. cit. I, 409). posted from catholicapologetics.com

Rom 2:29 — But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.

This faggot ... and many others ... are protestant. Trying to pretend otherwise, ignoring the facts, pointing fingers at other guys just make protestantism look worse than it already does.

Seriously ... what (in your opinion) should protestants do (if anything) about faggot ministers like this one?

Do you think it’s OK for him to be a faggot, because he’s also a protestant? Do you think he’s one of the “elect” and therefore can sin with impunity?

Okie doke, Hoss. We’ll just let the discussion rest or end if you wish.

thanks for your replies.

I’ve posted mine as well.

But for the record, agree on all three.

FWIW, why don’t you post it here again instead of cross linking to another thread?

FIRST PLEASE LEARN TO FORMAT

Protestant view of the all-sufficiency of Scripture.

That is not the definition of sola scriptura..just another catholic lie

Lol, any update to the story yet? Give these reprobates an inch and they will try to pervert for miles on end.

Again, you fail to read my mind, and you don't answer the question I asked.

If you don't want to answer, just say so and quit wasting your time and mine.

And very telling also.

Not really ... I didn't expect to get a straight answer.

does the OT teach Galatians 3:28?

So, for the Catholic, baptism is the get out of jail free card. Once one is *born again* through baptism, then he can live as he pleases, lying, killing, stealing, raping, murdering, whatever, because he's been baptized and it's baptism which saves and gives people the Holy Spirit.

;)

SORRY!!! UGH.

I NEED TO LEARN TO FORMAT.

The Church can never undefine a teaching she has infallibly defined. Therefore, the Church only defines doctrine when it is absolutely necessary.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you, mas. Consider:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

…that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot be adored except within her fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved. (Pope St. Gregory the Great, “Moralia,” XIV:5)

Neither the true Faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856; cf. also OUR GLORIOUS POPES, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Cambridge, MA: 1955, p.168)

But now,

RCC: 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:…Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

[This absolves those who are convinced she is not, but have been baptized in Christian faith.]

..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

…those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

RCC: 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

Lol, any update to the story yet? Give these reprobates an inch and they will try to pervert for miles on end.

Which ones? The Episcopalians who allowed a gay bishop or the Catholics who think he has any place preaching in their church?

Formatting is your friend.

Nobody is going to waste their time trying to decipher something like your post that anyone is too lazy or too careless to format, no matter WHO posts it.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

.

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Nice cut-n-paste. Don’t send it to a publisher like that tho.

I asked for Galatians 3:28 , not 3:8.

but actually i like your 3:8. The OT Jews thought Genesis was teaching all nations will be blessed by physical decendents of Abraham

Paul in Galatians makes clear that Genesis is talking about those that believe in Jesus Christ are the heirs to the promises to Abraham and all the nations of the world shall be blessed by the Church, as it brings the Gospel.

NEW DOCTRINE.

This faggot ... and many others ... are protestant. Trying to pretend otherwise, ignoring the facts, pointing fingers at other guys just make protestantism look worse than it already does.

Seriously ... what (in your opinion) should protestants do (if anything) about faggot ministers like this one?

Do you think it’s OK for him to be a faggot, because he’s also a protestant? Do you think he’s one of the “elect” and therefore can sin with impunity?

In the churches I've attended and been a member of, he'd be out the door so fast his head would spin, as should happen, even in the Catholic church.

I wouldn't continue in fellowship with a church which tolerated that kind of sin. It's condoning it to continue to participate in the church and support it with a person's time and money.

I don't for a minute believe that someone living that kind of lifestyle was ever saved to begin with.

What does the Catholic church do about faggot priests? Don't they still let them perform the sacrifice of the mass and serve communion and continue to molest little boys? Doesn't the church still recognize the validity of the sacraments the priest administers all the while living in unrepentant sin?

People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

why don’t you post it here again instead of cross linking to another thread?

Ok, below is the post with some notes below it. This is in the context of whether 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves sola scriptura, that started with MarkBsnr.

To: boatbums; MarkBsnr; All

I think you are agreeing with my point: that that verse does not prove Scripture alone is sufficient for [doctrine, perfection.. ]. If someone claims it proves this, they are in obvious error.

Certainly if this conclusion (proven false) is not the definition one is using for sola scriptura, then the point is moot. But this is not what I've seen from posters on here.

NO ONE said that the Bible is "all that there is" nor that it "contains all truth" or that "nothing is needed but the Bible".

Though it's only somewhat based on my point, I still would not make even that statement on here and be certain no one agrees with some or part of it. Let's see.

How about it, Sola Scriptura proponets? Would you agree or disagree with all or part of these statements:

The Bible is all that there is; The Bible contains all truth; Nothing is needed but the Bible.

Clearer still:

Would you agree or disagree that:

1) Scripture alone, by itself, with nothing else, is entirely sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
and,
2) This is what sola scriptura means.
and,
3)This is proven true by 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Who here agrees/disagrees with 1? 2? 3?

_________________________________________________

3,420 posted on Tue Nov 22 14:31:55 2011 by D-fendr

For context, this post is a reply to Boatbums, 3327 and my more complete argument contra this verse as proof text for sola scriptura is here.