Posted on 06/01/2013 9:46:17 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Sending me to Catholic sites is not going to "help" me or anyone else since whatever is said there will still have to be read and understood. Rather than continuing to tell me I got it wrong, why don't you tell me what exactly is wrong with what I said?
The author cited in this thread said:
The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of "meriting," "earning," "being good enough," simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul's time, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3)
I think that really is the gist of our differences.
You may want to be careful to clarify what character of authority you understand Rome as having and the kind of submission required, which others define more strongly (like Boniface VIII), but the issue remains that your claim is that "No one has given you authority to interpret scripture," and thus the basis for your claim is an issue.
And thus my question "is your position that that unless one has the sanction of those who are the instruments and stewards of Scripture and Divine revelation, having historical descent, then they have no authority?
You allow for a derived degree of authority among the EOs, but this is by Rome's sanction, thus i see no difference.
Anyone who has received genuine baptism has received spiritual gifts and therefore some measure of authority and graces to resist the evil one. Anyone who is a parent or who has been entrusted by a parent with the care of a child has a measure of authority, including authority to give religious instruction to the best of one’s ability and consistent with natural law. Indeed, any of us if mature and of sound mind has a certain authority over himself and thus is a moral agent accountable for his actions. But authority to teach the Christian faith, including the interpretation of Scripture, is entrusted to the apostles and their successors, and those ordained or otherwise sent by them. That authority is not shared by, for example, protestants or Jews. This does not mean protests and Jews can’t or shouldn’t read Scripture profitably; it does mean they are liable to make many errors in doing so and therefore are of limited reliability.
The authority of the EOs does not derive from Rome’s sanction but by virtue of their membership in true local churches descending from apostolic foundation, which have maintained continuity of sacraments and ordained hierarchy. They do not require authentication from Rome to be “real”, but their refusal to recognize the petrine ministry impedes their complete communion with those who do.
Indeed they do, as you have made clear. According to your ecclesiology, rejection of those who are the instruments and stewards of Scripture and Divine revelation, and have historical descent means one has no authority to interpret Scripture and is to be rejected.
Thus you also have nuked the church.
Seeing as the church began in dissent from those who were the stewards of Holy Writ and the official teachers of it, and those who sat in the seat of Moses (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)
And who followed a itinerant Preacher, who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Under the Roman model souls would be told to reject this itinerant Preacher as a renegade, as in response to their demand, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?," He invoked the baptism of a holy man in the desert eating insects, who also did not have the sanction of the magisterium.
But like Rome, they presumed a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written., (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)
But as Rome has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And wherein is your full assurance.
RCs argue that the church came before the Bible, meaning the entire Bible, but which does not establish an assuredly infallible church as supreme over any Scripture, which preceded it, any more than it did for Israel, which came before any Scripture was written (first by Moses).
And which writings, like true men of God, were progressively established as being of God due to their Divine qualities and attestation in conformity to what was prior established as from God.
And which the positional powers that be were to recognize and confirm, but as Scripture testifies, often they did not, but which did not change who or what they were, while judging the error of those who sat in power. Thus the church began in dissent and often by such faith is preserved.
The issue is that both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are inferior to it, neither being wholly inspired of God in all such say, and as written, Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And thus it was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the church was established as being of God, and further complementary and confirmatory writings were established as being of God.
I have lot of packing etc. to do as we must move (someplace!), so i cannot get to the rest of your post till later.
I realized that you were attempting to construct a case, but what you have just presented is a confused jumble.
Your premise that the Church began as a dissent movement is of course fatally flawed.
The “Roman model” urges us to embrace this Itinerant Preacher as you style the Lord. His authority is his own, which he receives and shares with the Father.
Saying that the Church is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation is not to declare her supreme over it. So let’s discard that straw man right away.
You need to read more church history. Real history, including the fathers. Not quack history.
Best wishes with your move. I too expect to be very busy the next couple of days.
Thanks for nothing, by that I mean for bringing utter garbage post after post after post. The Romish party line is a well-polished one of those things impossible to polish. History, real history, refutes the story.
Have a nice day.
Thanks for your contribution.
Unfortunately, it is a fact that Roman Catholicism for at least one hundred years has subscribed to, and promoted, higher Biblical criticism and the notion that scientists can declare whole chapters of Scripture to be "didactic mythology."
Protestants can't logically justify their belief in the Bible, it is true. But Catholics have spent decades "defending Tradition" by attacking the veracity and trustworthiness of the Written Word of G-d. I also believe in an authoritative interpretive oral tradition and in contemporary religious authorities, but these attacks on the Bible are inexcusable and infamous.
Rome has “infallibly” interpreted about 10 verses of the bible in total.
Mostly involving Petrine political supremacy and Marian “ever virgin” status.
After that it allows the laity to read and interpret for themselves any verse as long as it does not contradict the catechism.
Sorry but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I thought I would come back and address this part of your reply. I'm glad that you acknowledge the Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist (AKA, the Lord's Supper Remembrance) did, in fact, develop over time as this proves my point that what Catholicism teaches now is not what had "always and everywhere" been believed. Many of the writings of some early church fathers cited that presume to "prove" the one and the same doctrine, omit some very important points. For example, they were not written in English, so what we may read today was what someone translated over time and many times a narrative that gets "read back into" writings are meanings that were not intended when they were first written. Also, much of the writings on the "real presence" from those first centuries actually addressed the Gnostic heresies that said Jesus did not HAVE a real body on this earth. Therefore, they should be read in that context and not what folks today THINK they meant. Finally, whatever these early believers thought they relied upon the sacred Scriptures they received from the Apostles to understand the "rule of faith" of Christianity as well as the direct teachings of the Apostles and their disciples that made up the completed New Testament of Scripture.
This article examines the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma:
It is not confused at all; it is reality. The church obviously did indeed begin in dissent from the Jewish magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, since they rejected both Christ and His apostles.
And rather than the Roman model urging you to embrace this Itinerant Preacher as the Jewish magisterium saw Him, the Roman model requires us to submit to the magisterium, and since they rejected Him and His claim to authority then the church has no validity. Christ had authority as one with the Father, but under the Roman model such a claimant must have the sanction of those who inherited the magisterial chair, and as they rejected Christ, so also the church was rendered invalid according to them.
The Jews, like Rome, presumed no one could have valid spiritual authority if they rejected him, and thus,
"And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. " (Mark 11:27-30)
In response to this critical question of authority, the Lord invoked another man whom they rejected, as above all authority is established upon Scriptural substantiation, even if rejected by such as sat in Moses's seat.
Saying that the Church is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation is not to declare her supreme over it. So let’s discard that straw man right away.
It is no straw man by any means. You cannot claim to be the one one who can infallibly define what Scripture consists of (canon) and what it means, so that the only interpretation that has authority for the RC is one that Rome teaches, and not be effectively claiming authority over it.
Likewise it claims supreme authority over history and tradition, as they can authoritatively mean only what she affirms, thus a s Manning boldly declared,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228
You need to read more church history. Real history, including the fathers. Not quack history.
Actually, Rome judges the fathers more than they judge her, while the more i read the more evidence there is against them or Rome being worthy to be determinative of doctrine.
Best wishes with your move. I too expect to be very busy the next couple of days.
Thanks. 20 years in one place means much more than a few days! But its too late to do much now.
You didn’t grow up w/ the hateful Ian Paisley spewing venom out of his Orange Lodge to insitgate hate among people for which he got paid well one might add. I equal him to the salifist jihadi assassins who take their orders from the mullahs and get their silver from the Sauds. The latter bomb and behead but using the tongue as a sword is just as lethal.
FRiend, I didn’t mean to offend. All I know of Dr. Paisley’s life comes from snippets gleaned from a handful of sermons I have listened to on sermonaudio.com. The only thing I knew of Dr. Paisley before I ever heard him preach was that he was the Presbyterian who famously shouted down John Paul II years ago. In the sermons I have heard he boldly proclaimed Bible doctrine; he boldly declared the gospel; he boldly declared the truth about the Jesus Christ found in the Bible (as opposed to a Jesus created by men). I don’t know if he actually spewed venom or if the bold truths of his messages stepped on your toes. I don’t know if what you believe of him is the truth or if it’s propaganda from those who despise his message.
I suggest you forget the messenger and pay attention to his message in the sermon I linked. If you can’t get past Dr. Paisley, listen to the other sermon I linked with an open heart. Go to bereanbeacon.org and take advantage of the many resources former Irish priest Richard Bennett offers for free. He has a thorough knowledge of Roman Catholicism and a real love for Roman Catholic people, wanting them to know the truth. Many of Richard’s video include other former Catholics.
God bless!
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57)
The distinction you are missing is that the Real Presence was given to us and taught us by Jesus Christ Himself. The Catholic Church, through the Apostles, a direct line from Christ, has maintained constant Communion with Jesus Christ’s instruction.
The Church took Christ’s words literally as he meant them. Please don’t confuse Jesus’ instruction to us and the Church’s constant belief in His instruction, with the complex and fully developed explanation of that belief. The Apostles and the early Christians and His Church have always followed this instruction and maintained that belief.
This was no metaphor, because some of the first believers were astounded, as so many are today. Did Jesus, in His Mercy say, “no come back friends, this is a mere saying of words?” NO. He let them go and reiterated...
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you” (John 6:53).
“My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
Sorry but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Ask Verga, he affirmed my answer was correct.
It appears that about 10 verses have been infallibly interpreted by the RCC.Verga states: "Very good, you are very close, much closer than the 200+ that I usually get from your side of the Tiber."
I repeat you didn’t grow up on his turf and have no idea what you’re talking about. You weren’t around when the words he sprouted from his Church pulpit instigated mayhem and chaos ending in maiming, destruction, and death. The fanatical mullahs sprout the koran to instigate mayhem, chaos, death and destruction. Where’s the difference? King Billy was Paisley’s god - not Jesus Christ! In his heyday he had the leaders in every Orange Lodge leaders in N Ireland in an uproar which they then passed to the masses and all took onto the streets w/ a extra-special treat on the 12th July which was whenn all Catholics hid in their homes.
Yes, Paisley heckled Pope John Paul II (RIP), in a government building where he was invited to speak to parliment. Paisley called him the antichrist (one sees these obscenities on some “christian” - “islamic” websites). And the mullahs called Bush the antichrist and the US “Big satan?. Barbarism is how these people make their living.
Was Paisley a good example for Christians or was Pope John Paul II a good example for Christians in the “shout down” you mentioned?
Here’s the tape where one is displaying a lack of civility while the other depicts a quiet dignity...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8187000/8187541.stm
You didn’t offend because you obviously have a lack of knowledge as to the individual which I can understand. Paisley is a very old man now (maybe he died though I hadn’t heard that...know he retired from Stormont a few years ago) and has mellowed a lot for different reasons. One of them being perhaps coming to the realization that his self-interpretation of the Holy Bible was incorrect. Anyway he has his fine house and got to spend a wonderful time at Stormont in the Democratic Unionist Party making even more money. The rowdy’s always seem to get rewarded.
On a positive note both Ian Paisley and the Mullahs are strong pro-lifers and anti-sodomy...
Thank you for the Richard Bennett referral (I used to know a Richard Bennett over there). I’m currently reading a book by Scott Hahn (a convert to Catholicism) called Rome Sweet Home which I highly reccommend.
God bless.
::crickets::
Is this the thread with my favorite post, that protestants do (get) everything wrong?
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.