Posted on 01/27/2012 9:11:21 PM PST by Salvation
Read one of Chesty Puller’s biographies. “Marine” or “Chesty.”
During both WWII and Korea, Marine (read Navy) chaplains from the various protestant denominations came to him complaining that Marines were leaving them to become Catholics. Chesty, an Episcopalian himself, investigated and found out why that was happening.
The fault laid in the protestant chaplains themselves, the way they were recruited by their denominations and assigned to the various military units, and their own actions in combat situations with respect to the men....as opposed to the way the Roman Chatholics did those things.
Just pointing out the history for other perusers of the thread.
Everyone who is baptized is a Catholic until they embrace some heresy or schism. In the case of adults who are baptized outside of the Catholic Church that happens almost immediately of course. (Remember this is obviously from the Catholic POV)
It's why converts are handled one of two ways, the non-baptized are merely baptized whereas baptized Christians seeking to enter the Catholic Church "have" to go to Confession to reconcile themselves with the Church to which in some way they have been connected since they were baptized.
You wrote:
“Worded as follows the substance of your question can be answered:How do you know that Scripture, e.g. the Gospel of Matthew, contains the words of God?”
That is NOT the substance of my question. I did not ask “How do you know...”. I specifically said “Using scripture alone”.
Then you wrote:
“We know God’s words when we hear them. We don’t need any creature to tell us. If and when we did need that, then we were not yet Christian.”
That is the eventual - and completely subjective - fallback for Protestants who can’t answer objective questions. It also doesn’t work. I have no objective reason to believe Protestants hear the Word of God when it is spoken.
He is not asking anything ... he is telling you that the gospel of Matthew does not have apostolic authority outside the authority (code word for 'tradition') of the RCC.
Could be my new tagline ... may I? ... lol
“the symphony of Truth”
A beautiful explanation of Catholicism. Thanks for this thread, Salvation. My heart’s desire is that my husband will hear the music.
You wrote:
“Church of the Nazarene.”
Okay, a recent sect - and one that officially believes in sola scriptura:
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.
By the way, look at program 302 here: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=11&SeriesID=-6892289
“I dont care what was asked for, I AM however confused by the term Sola Scriptura. What do you mean by this?”
Look to your own articles of faith. It is enough even if weaker in form than other sects.
“Maybe you are not asking the right questions or are asking in such a manner as to feel like gotcha questions.”
Nope. The questions are right, and their “feel” is subjective and therefore irrelevant.
He was a wise man indeed. As St. Francis expressed it: Preach the Gospel at all times and, when necessary, use words.
You wrote:
“He is not asking anything ... he is telling you that the gospel of Matthew does not have apostolic authority outside the authority (code word for ‘tradition’) of the RCC.”
“Mind reading” is against the rules. It is a form of “making it personal”. You’re also misrepresenting what I’m doing.
Isn't that basically what the Mormons and JWs and what have you say to validate their various beliefs? You (and I) don't have the gift of knowing the BoM is Scripture for instance.
I'll be painfully blunt: I earnestly believe that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh and that no one comes to the Father except through Him but I when confronted with the Shepherd of Hermes and 2 Peter (for example) couldn't tell which is inspired and which isn't. Does this mean I'm damned because I accept the authority of the Roman Church to tell me what is and isn't canonical?
And yet there's nothing more I hope for than to see God face to face. Just let me see Jesus and throw my unworthy self at His feet and I will be happy for all eternity.
Sola scriptura has nothing to do with WHAT books are in there ... it has everything to do with WHAT we do with the books that are.
Everything essential to doctrine and practice is in there, there is nothing essential that has been left out. If its not in there, its not essential.
You asked:
And if Scripture alone were used in reply to the issue of "inspired" then the reply would also be a logical fallacy, i.e. circular reasoning.
And so, in the hopes this quandary was unintentional on your part, I rephrased your question for a more direct reply from a non-Catholic Christian like me:
This thread is starting to take on the flavor of Geraldo Rivera and Al capone’s vault(check it on youtube if that’s before your time).
“As a Protestant he could have simply said he was forgiven by God and every Protestant would have to accept that or be a hypocrite.”
Not quite so loosey-goosey in most Protestant denominations, but some do have a similar interpretation. Protestant denominations are anything but monolithic, but you knew that already.
“The annulment has nothing to do with anything. Newt could have civilly married without the annulment and he could have run for president without the annulment.”
No question he didn’t “need” to do this - but it also would have hindered his presidential ambitions. You only have to point to his response early in the primary when asked - he directly referenced the Catholic Church saying basically (and I’m paraphrasing) “they said it was OK, and so I’m not talking about it further”
It was a political ploy to give him cover. It seemed to have worked for him.
You wrote:
“Why would I appeal to the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ to prove WHAT books are in the Bible?”
You don’t have to do anything, unless you’re trying to answer the question I asked.
“Its a 100% strawman question.”
No, it is not.
“Sola scriptura has nothing to do with WHAT books are in there ... it has everything to do with WHAT we do with the books that are.”
Your reasoning is flawed. If sola scriptura is to be used, then how can it when you can’t even know what books belong in the Bible in the first place.
“Everything essential to doctrine and practice is in there, there is nothing essential that has been left out. If its not in there, its not essential.”
Canon must be essential to a sola scripturist. How can you use sola scriptura without a definition of what belongs in the Bible from the Bible itself? Sola scriptura is self-refuting.
Either sola scriptura works or it doesn’t. You’re proving it doesn’t.
You wrote:
“No question he didnt need to do this - but it also would have hindered his presidential ambitions.”
Nope. No annulment changes the fact that the public views him as thrice married and twice divorced with several affairs thrown in for good measure.
“You only have to point to his response early in the primary when asked - he directly referenced the Catholic Church saying basically (and Im paraphrasing) they said it was OK, and so Im not talking about it further”
And that works for an overwhelmingly Protestant nation? You’re way off.
“It was a political ploy to give him cover. It seemed to have worked for him.”
No. It was no ploy. And people generally are not horrified by affairs or divorces these days.
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.