Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
It does not.
I don’t have to call on the dead who are supposed to have special powers to bend God’s ear when I ask someone alive to pray for me.
The whole premise of PTDS that they have some special power that other mere mortals don’t.
Paul in his epistles asked for prayer for himself from others. That’s not a problem. The problem is going to those whose bodies have died because somehow someone thinks they have better access to God because they are REALLY righteous.
Asking someone to pray for you is not praying to them FOR things. The semantics that Catholics use to justify praying to those considered dead in Christ, are just word games.
Yes, Scripture AND Tradition.
You’ve not bothered citing them. You’ve cited everything else but Lumen Gentium. Why is this? Is it because Lumen Gentium shows that you are wrong?
Again, you are free to believe what you want, but you are not free to teach whatever you like about the Catholic church.
So—your claim is that the Church is more powerful, and authoritative than God?
“The whole premise of PTDS that they have some special power that other mere mortals don’t.”
Again, this is false. Communion of Saints teaches that prayers are equally valid whether they come from the saints in heaven or folks here on Earth.
All the Communion of saints teaches is that the saints in Heaven can pray for us just as the folks here on earth do.
Wrong. Believers are the vehicle through whom God has chosen to share the gospel through.
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
My claim is that the Church wrote the Bible. So arguing that the Bible has greater authority than the church makes no sense whatsoever.
God instituted the Church. He did not tell the apostles to “go and write the bible”. He told them to make disciples of all the nations. Yes, the Bible is an important part of this - but it is not the whole.
Praying for that poor little boy.
So--your claim is now that the Bible has no spiritual authority. It's just a bunch of words written by man.
“Wrong. Believers are the vehicle through whom God has chosen to share the gospel through.”
Again - as Christ states, “Upon this Rock I will build my Church.”
The Church is the vehicle that Christ has founded to share and spread the Gospel.
The book has not always existed. The Church is older than the Bible. If one is not saved through the Church - than the Bible cannot save anyone. The bible derives it’s authority from the Church not the other way around.
Then why do Catholics quote Scripture to give the Church and Peter their authority? You can't have it both ways. That which is of lessor authority cannot impart greater authority to someone or something else.
If the Catholic church is what gives Scripture its authority, then it cannot legitimately use Scripture to validate its teachings.
The RCC should then, at that point, at least have the integrity to admit that their claims to authority as simply based on their say so.
“So—your claim is now that the Bible has no spiritual authority.”
The Bible has spirtual authority insofar as it is an accurate witness of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ.
This is why chopping books because it teaches things you don’t like (as Luther did), is so corrosive.
Again, there is no either/or. Scripture AND Tradition.
Which means nothing, as Rome claims to supremely infallibly and authoritatively determine what is from God, including what is Scripture and what He means, as according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
In other words, She has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.Thus Rome is effectively and functionally the supreme and autocratic authority on truth. Do you disagree?
Thus Ligouri states, God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt
An adherent of sola scriptura (SS) must establish his truth claims on Scriptural substantiation, which is what the Lord and His apostle did, and cannot claim assured infallibility as if he were a little pope. Only in Rome does can a individual claim to be infallible - the supreme example of elevation of an individual moral.
Jesus Christ began to build His Church before one word of the New Testament was written down, and that Church obviously did NOT have a New Testament to use as an authority at that time.... and the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church in her teachings ever since, just like Jesus Christ solemnly promised.
So are you saying being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of the promises of God means this instrument must posses assured infallibility and authority. And that those who dissent from it are not to be followed?
That Catholic Church which Jesus Christ built is NOT based on the traditions of men -- that is utterly false, no matter how many times you choose to repeat it. The Catholic Church which Jesus Christ built is based on the Holy Teachings of God, given to men.
Again, the fact is that as Rome claims to indisputably determine and define the Holy Teachings of God, and what mere traditions are, and cannot be corrected by others based on Scripture, as the Lord and His apostles did to the Pharisees, (Lk. 7:2-16) who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity above that which was written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) Thus Rome is the supreme and autocratic authority, no matter how many times you choose to deny it.
The Scriptures are very important, but they only contain a small smidgen of what God has done, and what God continues to do.
The marginalization of Scripture is consistent with the exaltation of Rome in sola ecclesia, yet in contrast, the Lord 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.)
For in contrast to mere tradition, Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims, as being the assured Word of God.(2Tim. 3:16)
Some of Scripture first existed in oral form, but part of its establishment was upon conformity to what was written, whereas Rome's amorphous tradition is oral, and remains oral, out of which she channels doctrines which are not found in Scripture, such as PTDS , as this thread has revealed.
John 21:25 explicitly states that Jesus did many other things that were NOT written down, and that all the books in the world would likely not be able to hold all of them.
Indeed, and we know this by Scripture, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) and SS does not claim all that can be know is written, but Scripture is the established assured word of God, by which all truth claims are tested, and provides, formally or materially, all that is needed for faith and its fruits.
You also said in an earlier post (#788) that Patrick Madrid tries to sound like an evangelical by quoting so much scripture. With all due respect, BALONEY! Rather, Patrick Madrid sounds like a Catholic.
Not baloney; he sounds like a Catholic trying to be like an evangelical. It was Rome which hindered literacy in Scripture among the laity for hundreds of years, until after the Reformation (and invention of the printing press which Rome could not control).
Having gone to many thousands of different Protestant services for many years, I can tell you without a doubt that Catholics typically hear many more readings from the Scriptures in their Masses than Protestants do in their typical services.
Your claim is suspect.
Until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. “At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, only going to Mass will not give one a functional knowledge of Scripture. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle (based on stats from last source)
And you are talking to a former RC who served as a lector and CCD teacher, and knows how RCs get bits of the Bible in Mass, with its truncated readings.
The Daily Mass on EWTN
So how many RCs go to daily mass? Want some stats on what manner of fruit Rome overall produces, versus Evangelicals (even in the latter day apostasy of the church)
(Remember that dishonesty comes from Satan.)
Indeed. Your "proof" that using the Bible like Madrid is a Catholic pratice rests upon them going to daily masses, and which is a minute percentage of RCs, and ignores the fact that they come in almost last in Bible reading, versus evangelicals. Ask random RCs to even name their favorite Bible verse and you usually get a blank stare And very very RCs will attempt to use the Bible to prove doctrine, which is just as well when it comes to traditions Madrid attempts to support.
I have to sign off now, but I hope you get a chance tomorrow to start watching those Daily Masses
Why would i want to return to Babylon? I was manifestly born again while still an RC, and stayed as a weekly attendee for 6 years (in the Catholic NE, while being fed spiritually via evangelical preaching on radio) , and know the profound difference btwn institutionalized faith and that seen in the church of the living God.
So--it's only an accurate witness. It's not actually the Word of God.
Yes, but Rome defines what is right and wrong, and what a contradiction is, thus she cannot be wrong and contradict herself.
So, let me get this right....
The CCC and the ex cathedra proclamations of the past popes to not really mean what they said?
IOW, when the pope was infallibly speaking on there being no salvation outside the Catholic church, then it wasn’t really infallible? Or what?
Tell me how two contradictory things can be true at the same time.
That's it in a nutshell.
But the Bible doesn't.
Prayers up.
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.