Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
..LOL and Rome doesn't? There is good evidence that the "church fathers "did not even agree with each other ..that is why what they say has to be tested against the scriptures..
It’s simply another one of those “projections” by Catholics.
That is what I thought too, until I learned all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.
You condescension is noted. I use ixquick. It’s much better with no tracking. And yes I do search. It’s were I find many things that counter what Catholics tell us. Like Catholics and Muslims serve the same god, like the concept of the assumption of Mary was never spoken about until at least the fourth century, like Catholics use spurious and fraudulent documents. I find lots of stuff that shows Catholicism to be nothing more than paganism dressed up claiming to be Christianity.
Why don't you show us the assumption of Mary first.
“Of course they do.”
No, they don’t.
“Paul said if they didn’t teach it that it was to be considered accursed.”
Have you yet proved they did not teach it?
“If Catholics teach it they must show that the apostles taught it.”
No. You, however, must prove that there is a verse that shows Matthew wrote an inspired book because you believe in sola scriptura.
“I just did.”
Nope. You completely failed.
“Prove that what is in that Encyclopedia is refuted by the Catholic Church. Show where they renounce statements or beliefs claimed there in.”
The statement need not be refuted because constant usage shows it to not be correct. Whoever wrote the article either made a typographical error or made the same logical error many Protestants do. I, and others here at FR, have pointed out before that the oCE is good, but not perfect.
“Then Catholics are no different then Muslims or Mormons in that they go by writing other than scripture.”
That logically follows nothing that was said so I have no idea where you’re even getting that.
“We can simply put them all in the same class.”
We can logically put Protestants in that class since they, like Mormons and Muslims also have a sola scriptura belief no matter how much all three deviate from it in practice on a daily basis.
Doubly irrelevant Protestant works doesn’t mean circular reasoning on my part.
For anyone else objectively interested in truth, see this thread started by NYer and provided by Salvation on this thread. Then compare the quotes by Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine there and on this thread.
Then the reasonable reader can see that the Fathers believed in the Catholic teaching that it's fath+works that justify, not works from the Law of Moses (which are the "works" the Fathers on this thread were refering to) but works that are in cooperation with the grace of God.
LOL. Good one T, good one.
“It was said the entire bible was the gospel..”
And?
“That made me wonder if Jesus reached the entire OT ..I wanted to know if you knew what the gospel Jesus preached was ?”
So you’re making the logical mistake of thinking that if the whole Bible is the gospel, then Jesus would have to preach it all? I don’t see why anyone would make that logical error. Also, I know the Gospel Jesus preached. Are you saying you do not know the gospel Jesus preached?
” I use ixquick.... And yes I do search. It’s were I find many things ...”
So which verse shows an Apostle saying Matthew wrote an inspired book?
Which verse condemns abortion by name?
“Why don’t you show us the assumption of Mary first.”
First, you’ll have to show me where it says in scripture that all things that are true are in scripture. If you can’t find that verse, then I don’t have to use sola scriptura. You still have to because you actually support the heresy of sola scriptura.
I don't have to prove the apostles did not teach the assumption of Mary. I don't believe she was. There is nothing in scripture that says I need to believe that to be part of the ekklesia of Christ. The Catholic Church says Catholics must believe that. It is therefore the responsibility of the Catholic Church to show the apostles taught that the assumption of Mary is necessary.
>>No. You, however, must prove that there is a verse that shows Matthew wrote an inspired book because you believe in sola scriptura.<
Why do I need to prove that? Nothing in Matthew is contradicted in any of the other books. If you can show where Matthew contradicts any of the other writers let me know and we can discuss it. Would you do the same for let's say the book of Tobit?
>>Whoever wrote the article either made a typographical error or made the same logical error many Protestants do. I, and others here at FR, have pointed out before that the oCE is good, but not perfect.<<
So show where the Catholic Church refutes what is in it.
>>like Mormons and Muslims also have a sola scriptura belief<<
Mormans and Muslims have a sola scriptura belief? Seriously?
Then why do Catholic deny it's faith plus works?
Like I said. Show any errors in Matthew and we will talk about it. But you need to do the same with Tobit. >>Which verse condemns abortion by name?<<
Please show where anyone made the claim that any verse condemns abortion by name please.
The supposed Augustinian prayer to Mary is, in fact, from a medieval Bishop:
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/OBeataVM.html
From the link:
"Written by Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (ca 951-ca 1029), it appears in his Sermo IX, De Annuntiatione Dominica. The prayer is sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, Book 10, Sermon 18, de Sanctis, since Bishop Fulbert's sermon appeared in the collected works of St. Augustine at one time. However, it is now known that the sermon is not Augustine's, but Bishop Fulbert's."
I've long known about this, which is why I occasionally ask Catholics to bring quotes from Augustine showing adoration for Mary (it's a fun "gotcha"). The quote, for whatever reason, constantly appears everywhere, but never points back to an original source, which was my original tip off.
It is necessary to question all quotations that would seem to contradict the Church Fathers on some points, as often times they are either fraudlent, or they are distorted, or the full context reveals something different.
I’m convinced that Catholics have no idea what Sola Scriptura means.
And here we are finally starting to peel away the layers of the theological onion, so to speak, and getting at the root of the problem. Surely it's true the Fathers didn't agree with each other (although they certainly agreed with themselves, or else they are crazy and not to be trusted at all). But this then begs the same question as is begged with Scripture interpretation: WHO gets to decide when the Fathers taught the true fsith and when they taught in error?
This is the ultimate question that must be answered and addressed when studying their work as when studying the written Word of God. It's a question of authority really, and in brief, Protestants don't have such authority to decide which Father taught "Scriptural Truth" when. This is simply and obviously because the only "authority" any one person has to make such a determination either comes from a grounding in the teachings of a Church with authority that is historically valid (traced back to Christ) or a community of people who decide for themselves when a Father teaches something "Scriptually true".
This narrows such candidates to the Catholic and Orthodox churches already. It certainly can't include the Proteststants who didn't come on the scene until 1600 years later! What kind of authority is that? Where did it come from? Only the circular answer "it comes from Scripture" can be given at this point.
In other words the Protestant claim is, "The authority to decide which Father taught Scriptural truth and when comes from Scripture. We know this because even the Fathers say so. We know the Fathers said so because 'we' can see them doing so 'here', 'here' and 'here' and 'we' can know this because 'we' can decide this from Scripture alone"
Here we can see the fatally circular flaw of the Protestant reasoning, because each sets himself up as supreme arbiter of "which Father teaches Scriptural truth and when" because each Protestant again arbitrates by THEMSELVES, for no valid reason, historical or otherwise, "from Scripture alone when each Father teaches truth"
They think they take themselves out of the arbitration process when claiming "Scripture alone decides for us", but they haven't. It's the same error as claiming 2 Tim 3:16-17 "proves" sola scriptura. It only does so because the Protestant INSISTS it does. The same for the Fathers: they are all Proto-Protestants because the Protestant INSISTS they are, and for no other reason. Certainly for no authoritative reason OUTSIDE themselves, which a personal interpretstion of Scripture is NOT.
Thou shall not murder.
It just never ends it seems. Beliefs based on fraudulent documentation! Still Catholics put their full faith and trust for their eternal future in a "church" that continues to use and rely on those fraudulent documents. It makes no sense.
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.