Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
No doubt about that, aside from wooden teeth. 😆
+1
John 1:9 says nothing about confessing your sins directly to God like you prots do.
John 20:23 is more explicit about confession.
That’s why y’all don’t actually practice sola scriptura; you practice electus scripturae.
There’s no getting around it.
Wooden teeth!!
🦷😬🪥
True, highly presumptuous, but since Rome has also remembered ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) than she cannot be wrong when she declares she is right.
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....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, 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.
It doesn’t say that.
It simply says that if we confess, God WILL forgive us ALL our sins.
So I either confess my sins and take God at His word that I am forgiven, or I go to a Catholic priest who may decide to retain my sins and I’m screwed.
Decisions, decisions…….
However, confession to God Himself is taught by Jesus Himself in the Lord’s prayer.
It starts out praying to the Father. Our Father, who art in heaven……..forgive us our sins…….
Well you can believe what Jesus said in the upper room where he gave his apostles the ability to forgive AND RETAIN sins.
Or you can just disbelieve and make up whatever you want.
Wow really? So you’re actually making the statement that it was just for the apostles only that the power to forgive and retain sins was just for them alone?
Oh and look in the book of Acts for apostolic succession. Judas’s office was not held vacant.
—> Well you can believe what Jesus said in the upper room where he gave his apostles the ability to forgive AND RETAIN sins.
Totally false. Read it in Greek.
But you’ve been told what to believe and think.
Nope, if you’re Sola Scriptura then y’all state that you don’t need priests.
Just print up a couple billion copies of the bible and say “here read this”.
But if you believe that teaching by a human is needed then you’ve just flushed Sola Scriptura down the toilet.
—> But if you believe that teaching by a human is needed then you’ve just flushed Sola Scriptura down the toilet.
Ah, I imagine if I didn’t understand what Sola Scriptura means I’d likely say silly things like that too.
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.Isn’t it funny how simple editing can completely change the meaning of a statement? Your editing (bolding and snipping) gives Ratzinger's words a whole different meaning than he intended.
Wrong: Actually that whole statement is on the assumption of an assumption page I linked to, and I have often posted it on FR, and you can only imagine that there is any change in the meaning of the statement, for it still means just what I quoted here as attesting to.
Which is that 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266) and which is why your article must labor to contrive support for this assumption of an assumption.
And instead of changing the meaning, what the rest of the statement shows is that of desperate but resourceful Ratzinger appealing to the premise that Rome can "remember" something that is critically lacking evidence for in the hundreds of years after this alleged event took place, and besides what it must rely on , thus the claim that Rome remembers something (that relevant history forgot. As if the Holy Spirit would not soon record it and let centuries go by for an event so important that Rome forbids disputing this Munificentissimus Deus doctrine on pain of mortal sin/resulting in the loss of salvation. (Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…)
And which claim effectively means that Rome could "remember" some other fable that was critically lacking evidence for in the hundreds of years after this alleged event took place!
It is not as if Rome could not make use of fables, though in these cases they were exposed.
Of course, the position that what Rome claims to "remember" is actually apostolic teaching is based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), which is nowhere actually promised ("lead into all Truth" does not do it) nor exampled (Caiaphas included) but is itself actually based about oral tradition.
Thus Rome has presumed to infallibly declare 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, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Also, as regards your missing person's graves argument, there are far more than Mary out of a multitude: 53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically
37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. Acts 2:37-41 NASB
Now, notice what was not required of the people.
No confessional of sins to Peter or any of the Apostles in a private booth.
No prayer or appeal to Mary for salvation.
No penance.
No communion for salvation.
No Hail Mary's or other works.
Agreed.
Clearly Catholics have their own definition of what sola Scriptural means and they use it to set up a strawman they can then feel good about knocking down.
Even supposing Jesus may have actually dispensed that ability to the APOSTLES
Supposedly? So now your questioning scripture?
..that it didn’t die out with the apostles?
Why would you assume that? That's not in Scripture.
Your every post is an example of "electus scripturae". You're proving my case.
Thanks
Sola scriptura is a farce!
Show us where explicit instructions were given on the passing down of this alleged power.
Do you all really still select your priests by drawing lots?
BTW, it’s more than a bit presumptuous to call God a liar about promising He will forgive us if we confess and giving man more authority over sin than Himself.
I didn’t “make up” 1 John 1:9 and I didn’t make up a promise for God in His place.
The Holy Spirit is the one who gave us that promise in Scripture.
You can disbelieve it if you want and call God a liar if you dare, but I will pass on that.
Clearly Protestants made up "sola scriptura", starting with a heretical monk, but they don't practice "sola scriptura" when it doesn't suit them. And then they go outside Scripture to attack what they don't like in Scripture.
Why do you assume others than the apostles have an alleged ability that God never told them to pass on?
Generally if something is important theologically, God doesn’t leave it to chance. He gives explicit instructions in His WORD.
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.