Reading ON Catholicism, and ACTUALLY READING our Scripture, commentary, documents, lives of the Saints, Sacred Tradition, etc. are two different things.
Uhhh, no they're not.
Sorry, the texts in your Bible are the same as in mine except for the apocrypha.
And besides the Bible, have you read ANY of the OTHER documents mentioned above? Have you at least read the Apocrypha? If so, it isn't reflected in your postings
Can you point to a specific Scripture that says Mary was immaculately conceived? You cannot. How do I know this....I've read catholic apologists who admit it!
Excuse me, I'm the Catholic here, I know that's not in Scripture. It's a dogma of our Catholic Faith, stemming from Sacred Tradition. Per our Church:
Sacred Tradition is a term used in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (Holy Tradition) churches that designates that special tradition of apostolic teaching handed down through the bishopric of their churches--generation after generation. Such sacred traditions are equal in authority to Scripture and comprise the totality of the deposit of faith. Sacred Tradition is considered to be inspired--just as the Bible is inspired.
In the Eastern Orthodox view, Sacred Tradition is called Holy Tradition and is that tradition handed down via the apostles from one generation to another. It does not grow and expand over time.
The Roman Catholic view of Sacred Tradition is that the deposit of faith is ever deepening and expanding with new doctrines being revealed--doctrines that have been preserved in The Roman Catholic Church throughout its history.
By contrast the Protestant position is that the Scriptures alone are the final rule of authority in the Christian church. This is known as Sola Scriptura. Carmelite Spirituality
Absolutely no support for this false (sic) teaching is in the Word, yet when this is pointed out catholics run from it like it's the plague. Which I guess to them it is.
Not this Catholic, Brother. I don't care what others feel false. I know what I believe. What makes me sick is the lack of class, tact, and good ol' Christian charity with which Roman Catholics and our Church are treated. But it's truly painful when the most precious of our beliefs are derided- I'd rather it were aimed at me personally.
When discussing the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and the Greek is used to show Jesus had siblings, what do catholics do? Duck their heads in the sand and fall back on "you don't know what the word "until" means or "the Greek word can mean cousins/brothers" when the clear context of the verse tells you Jesus had siblings.
Not to me. St. Jerome translated, as we said before. I don't deal in semantics. I used to admire, I confess even envy folks I thought knew Greek. I only speak English- I no longer have that feeling. I've come to the realization that quibbling over words is not productive. Remember the Roman soldier who trusted that Jesus had healed his servant, miles away? Well, I believe that God, the Trinity, has guided the Church in matters of faith and morals- and that includes Scripture, dogma, etc.. I believe, as the soldier did.
By the way, does Luke,2:48 imply that Jesus was Joseph's son and not the Son of God?
>>or we have the magisterium, or sacred tradition, etc. They cannot and will not support their positions with the Word. It is telling they don't.<<
For a Catholic, the three go together. That's simply how it is. There is no obligation on our part to explain to anyone.
Good thing Paul didn't have that kind of an arrogant attitude in explaining Christianity. I believe the NT tells us we are to be ready in season and out of season to give a defense of the Gospel.
The Gospel has Jesus speaking metaphorically to Peter. The "keys" were not to a gate; they represent the gradual revelation of the Deposit of Faith through the Church Jesus founded. I am ready to defend not only the Gospel, but the teaching of the Church founded in the Gospel teachings.
What about the rest of Scripture? I mostly see Paul quoted. I often wonder why. The Bible is still a pretty thick book, even with the Apocrypha removed.
Guess catholicism doesn't share that desire.
You'd guess wrong. One preaches the Gospel by word and example. Trouble is, a lot of non-Catholics love to get their ears tickled with anti-Catholic falsehood. We've had problems throughout the centuries, as I mentioned in a previous post. There is a lot of prejudice against Catholics, from the Puritans on down. Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Clericalism
And we still are waiting for an explanation of just what "sacred tradition" catholics claim was handed down by the apostles that isn't found in the Word.
"We" being.....?
Please see the bold type above.
For a Catholic, the three go together. That's simply how it is. There is no obligation on our part to explain to anyone.
>Good thing Paul didn't have that kind of an arrogant attitude in explaining Christianity. I believe the NT tells us we are to be ready in season and out of season to give a defense of the Gospel.<
The Gospel has Jesus speaking metaphorically to Peter. The "keys" were not to a gate; they represent the gradual revelation of the Deposit of Faith through the Church Jesus founded. I am ready to defend not only the Gospel, but the teaching of the Church founded in the Gospel teachings. What about the rest of Scripture? I mostly see Paul quoted. I often wonder why. The Bible is still a pretty thick book, even with the Apocrypha removed.
Well, that's a pretty quick change of attitude....going from we don't have to explain anything to being ready to defend the Gospel.
Glad to see you've come around on that one.