Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
Amen and Amen!!!
Preach it sister......
Divinely handed down legislation, eh??? Sure...God in the scriptures says DON’T DO IT buy you guys have some secret legislation from God that says, eh, don’t worry about what I wrote in the scriptures...Just ignore it..
>>You aren’t any different than a Mormon.
Actually, historically those who held to SS overall did not reject any all tradition, history, commentary, and rules of exegesis, etc. in making informed exegesis and providing parameters, but recognized that only Scripture is assuredly infallible and supreme. And while RCs hold that their magisterium is assuredly infallible and supreme, they lack an infallible interpreter of it, and engage in much personal interpretation, even though they also have some basic parameters (which is also subject to interpretation), as they
1. make their own personal interpretation of information in seeking warrant to submit to Rome, and which itself is a fallible human decision.
2. they often must make their own personal interpretation of what parts of larger proclamations fulfills the criteria for infallible pronouncements, judging btwn opinions, and it is undecided on how many there are.
3. they often make their own personal interpretation of what such fully means, judging between varying interpretations by non-infallible interpreters of the supreme magisterium.
4 they even more so often make their own personal interpretation of what scripture means, even if it means differing with their compatriots, as long as it supports Rome, and must judge whether it does or not.
5. likewise, having personally judged what class teachings fall into, and what exactly is an official teaching, they must personally judge how much they can differ with non-fallible teachings of the Ordinary magisterium,, which is held to constitute the majority of what RCS believe and practice.
6. they must also engage in personal interpretation in the many things which Rome has not taught on.
7 finally, RCs can engage in personal interpretation which most apparently extends beyond what may be allowed, without any real or consistent censure from Rome, and even defense from interpretive bishops against such*, as our liberal RC politicians regularly have shown.
Thus despite its much vaunted assuredly infallible magisterium, relative little is thus infallibly defined, and Catholics have need of much use of fallible human reasoning (which they condemn Protestants for) in deciding what class things are in and what they mean, etc., and can and do disagree extensively with each other, even among those of the magisterium.
I should be back tomorrow God willing.
*"...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, yet he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.
-- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711746/posts?page=289#289
Yes, but “their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44) is an end i wish on nobody, and not all RCs are lost.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
As dated as St. Ignatius?
>>The only reason your reject St. Ignatius is if his teachings are authentic it means you belong to a false religion.
The Protestant scholarship attempting to debunk his works rely on several logical fallacies such as the argument from silence and the argument from ignorance. Scholars, I might add, have used the same arguments in an effort to debunk and debase the canonical scriptures.
My point about Warfield is he lived in the 19th century and a lot has been discovered since his day that alters the way even orthodox Biblical scholars view the canon.
The Muratorian fragment, which dates from around A.D. 170 lists the books considered scriptural, which omits Revelation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment
http://www.ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
The fact is there wasn’t a universally accepted New Testament canon for some 300 years, and the Church was decentralized and conciliar like the Orthodox Church is today.
Rome held a certain primacy, but the Pope was NOT a monarch.
Thank you for those beautiful Scriptures, dear sister in Christ!
I bet you ARE grateful, you couldn't handle any more Biblically-literate Protestants! ;o)
One thing I also have noticed is that out of the, what, 300,000 Free Republic members, maybe less than 50 of Catholics or non-Catholics participate on the Religion Forum threads. I think those of us who do, are exceptional simply because we don't sit on our duffs, being dutiful little, obedient churchgoers, never finding it necessary or important enough to bother to speak up. So, rather than try to judge the non-Catholics here as "not everyday Protestants", why not realize that you guys are "not everyday Catholics" and see that as a GOOD thing?
So stale! I guess you prefer COPIOS? RCOPIOS? MOPIOS? COMPIOS? COMIOS?
Unleavened fruit of the vine? Ever heard of it? ;o)
Since there is no official RCC Bible commentary, each individual Catholic is free, or rather has no choice, but to interpret Scripture themselves.
Sure there are some passages where the RCC has taken a position on the interpretation, but for the most part, the individual Catholic is left to his own devices, making his own personal Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
That makes it what? 1.2 BILLION personal interpretations of Scripture?
Since the pope has not made an official pronouncement about the entire Bible verse by verse, each Catholic then becomes their own pope in the matter of interpreting Scripture the RCC is silent on.
“but that they insist that all must partake of this sacrament in order to be saved”
John 6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
I think protestants like the passage you gave because it seems to support their rejection of the Catholic Church.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, boatbums. From all you said in your post, you’re almost there:)
Jesus did not ever make a disclaimer to the words He spoke in John 6 and on the night before He died, He showed the Apostles how this “hard saying” would come to be.
You are just batting a thousand today with your humor.........
That’s part of the reason Catholics have to use writing of the RCC rather than scripture. They have to rely on only Catholic produced documents and information. Most are rather unfamiliar with scripture.
What a wonderful testimony you have! I'll bet holidays are fun at your house. ;o)
But I agree with you and what you said proves the truth of Scripture that the sheep hear the shepherd, they follow him and no other shepherd do they follow. We hear the voice of Jesus, he calls us out and we follow him and he GIVES to us eternal life. Those very verses from John 10:27-30 were what God used to speak to my heart and draw me to his saving truth. The "world" will not understand because it cannot understand. It is foolishness to them, even. But we KNOW him, don't we? It IS a miracle - straight from the miracle worker! Thank you, Mitch, what a wonderful thing to think on when I go to bed tonight. We know that we know.
****Do you get hungry or thirsty? Or whoops, we don’t take this one literally......do we?****
As predictable as almost all your posts.
As a matter of fact, the answer is no, I no longer hunger for the true Church, for I have found it.
And, I no longer thirst for knowledge for I have the deep well of the Deposit of Faith within the Catholic Church from which to draw.
Actually, He took bread and gave thanks, took the bread, broke and gave it to His Apostles, saying, And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
****What about living forever? Catholics claim that they eat the actual flesh and blood of Jesus but here He says that anyone who does will never die. Are we switching between literal and spiritual in mid-sentence? Or do Catholics plan on literally living forever in the physical bodies that physically eat the physical body and blood of Jesus?****
I believe in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body.
We don't speak of it - ever since Judas Iscariot bought the first Welch's Distributorship.. :)
But the difference is that Protestant will not readily accept the fallibility of their understanding of the Bible. That is quite evident on these boards where Protestant posters routinely dodge questions about their interpretation of the Bible.
The answer always is other scripture verses that dodge the question and where the poster pretends that he or she is God by posting verses without context in a very SUBJECTIVE fashion.
But a Catholic can with great confidence embrace the teaching of the Church on matters of UNIVERSAL importance.
Even the number of ecumenical councils post-1054 is open to debate because councils like Trent and Vatican I were really only councils of the Western Church without participation of the Christian East.
Nontheless the Council of Trent’s anathemas against Protestantism stand as infallible because the Orthodox subsequently held their own synods that stated the same thing as Trent about Protestant beliefs.
Details such as the canonicity of 3 Maccabees could be dealt with at a future reunion council with the Orthodox.
St. Vincent of Lerins succinctly describes how a Catholic should search for the truth in his Commonitorium on the Catholic Faith, which was written around 430 AD.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Those matters that fall outside of this consensus are open to debate and discussion because the above is the criteria for deciding what is infallible and what isn’t.
Even the Pope is himself subject to this dicta. The acts of the undisputed ecumenical councils with the Orthodox show the Pope speaking definitively with the rest of the Church.
So Papal infallibility is inseparable from ecclesiastical infallibility. The Universal Church is a standing council even when it isn’t formally convoked. The Orthodox believe the latter.
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.