D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Where did this come from. I have not seen any reference to it in prior posts.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
- Status
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
L
latinmasslover
Guest
If you learn about how the Nazi’s operated, the meaning of the comment would be obvious. Maybe this will ring a bell: I just did what I was ordered to do.
The Catholic Church has declared the Bible free from error, to be the infallible written word of God. If you’re going to continue saying that it’s not all correct, then what are you basing “the gates of hell shall not prevail” on? A fallible book put together by a group of men approx. 1700 years ago? The Bible is infallible, or it’s not. If it’s not, neither is the Church, since the Church declares that it is. If you prefer to have beliefs that fluctuate with the age, that’s your choice, just don’t call it Catholic. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”
BTW, it’s putting the Pope on a pedestal to say that his words override the infallible word of God, which is what is being implied by your argument.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
I brought it up to make a point.
C
catharina
Guest
Deacon Ed, just a quick jump-in to say thank you for starting this thread. I do think I get your point. It is alarming to see/hear some Catholics attack the Church and yes, that does seem to lead some into personal attacks on others, a real failure of charity in the eyes of the innocent. I’m almost certain that you consider your posts to be a part of your ministry; if so, I agree. Your posts are exactly that. Keep up the good work and thank you.
God bless you and yours.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Thank you Catharina, and please keep me in your prayers. I need them more than you will ever know.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
M
Marauder
Guest
There is a difference between accepting that someone may know more about you on a particular topic and accepting what they say on every aspect of your life.
It has not done so. It has called it inerrant. You may want to read the following article. Then you can start arguing with Karl Keating.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
C
catharina
Guest
Many prayers for you and your intentions.
I hope that all here (who have come to know you a bit) will offer prayers for you too.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Dear latimmasslover,. It seems you are forgetting that the Bible is infallibly interpreted for us by the Magisterium, which is comprised of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. The Bible is not open to interpretation to each individual. This is the protestant view and is part of what lead to the protestant reformation. We look to Holy Mother Church for the interpretation of the Bible. Not our own inner self with what we think or feel it should mean. If you believe this, what is the argument?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Duh
And Karl Keating became God when? Still, this was not the best thing for you to have brought up, considering your position. From your article:
The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. **The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts **(properly understood, of course) **is true and therefore without **error.
Inerrant would not be the word to use about, say, a pope. A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he “contains” no error, but every pope does. *A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, *but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.
When Vatican I (1869–70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
I have to say I’m very greatful you provided this source, maybe since what I’ve been saying has come from the mouth of a respected apologist, you might try listening.
I do apologize for using the incorrect word, though. My bad.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
and that is only what appears on this forum
the attacks from outside are even worse
L
latinmasslover
Guest
I totally believe this. We’re disagreeing on whether or not a bishop or pope can change the words of Jesus Christ. He says yes, I say no. I have never seen an approved Catholic Bible that has changed His words from “many” to “all.” Maybe one exists,
though I truly doubt it.
M
Marauder
Guest
Then why did you bring it up in the first place. The extend a conversation on the difference between the word all and many and accepting what the church has to say on it to nazism is a perfect example on the entire idea of Godwin’s Law.
I guess you missed something in the article and were reading it through your own interpretation of the words.
Look at the following section you yourself quoted.
It says “everything the Bible asserts (properly understood of course)” In affect it means everything the Bible “teaches” is without error, it doesn’t say that EVERY WORD in the Latin Bible is without error. It is up to the magisterium to interpret the Bible. If they determine that the Latin translation of the Bible has a word that was (name removed by moderator)roperly translated, that is up to them. Either you accept the teaching ability of the magisterium or you don’t. In this case I am accepting their teaching authority.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Whether many or all are used, it does not alter the validity of the mass. Many or all, does not effect the consecration. The consecration itself is comprised of the words of the priest when he says, This is my body and this is the cup of my Blood. All else is descriptive. If you disagree with this, then we will just have to agree to disagree. These are the words, in whatever language the priest speaks that bring Jesus down upon the altar.I totally believe this. I have never seen an approved Catholic Bible that has changed His words from “many” to “all.” Maybe one exists,
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
C
catharina
Guest
B
bobzills
Guest
They are different topics, but the precedent has been set. For two thousand years, Catholic Popes, Catholic archbishops, Catholic cardinals, bishops, Catholic priests, Catholic religous, theologians, and Catholic Bible translators have said that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. Now all of a sudden, after Vatican II, they say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all? If they have changed their minds on that, then how do we know that later on, they may not change their minds on something else?
B
bobzills
Guest
But if for two thousand years, the Magisterium of the Church, which is comprised of the Pope and the bishops in union with him, say that the Blood of Christ was shed for you and for many, and then all of a sudden they change the teaching and say that the Blood of Christ is shed for you and for all, then many questions are raised.
M
MrS
Guest
Additionally, very LITTLE of the Scritures have been
"infallibly interpreted for us by the Magisterium, which is comprised of the Pope and the bishops in union with him."
So those verses that are, should especially be considered “untouchable”
.
M
Marauder
Guest
The problem is you are all caught up on a single word. The teaching is that God came to Earth in the form of his Son and shed his blood in remission for sin for all that would accept it. The teaching and the meaning behind it is what is important. That is what is meant by the inerrant teachings of the Bible, not that ALL the words are exactly what was said by Jesus. We in the Catholic faith are blessed to have the Holy See to interpret things like that for us.
B
bobzills
Guest
But one word can often change the essential meaning of the teaching. For example, I heard something about the issue that the Vatican has recently declared that those who have been baptised in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier are really not baptised at all?? Now if you are not really baptised by water and the Holy Spirit, what is the situation on your eternal salvation? Similarly, they told us that embracing heresy was a mortal sin, and that a Catholic has a grave responsibility to avoid heresy. The punishment for unrepentant mortal sin is eternal fire in hell. Now is it not true that the doctrine of the apokastasis has been condemned and anathematised as heresy? But what has been happening along with the changing of the teaching that the Blood of Christ has been shed for many, as it was taught for two thousand years before Vatican II, to what it is now that the Blood of Christ is shed for all? As we can see, and as thousands and thousands of people have seen, we have gone to a de facto situation of open communion, where abortion rights advocates and divorced and remarried Catholics, are encouraged to receive Holy Communion. It is not just that they are getting up and receiving Holy Communion, but they are encouraged to do so, as is seen from reports that a priest went over to the seat of a famous politician and offered him the Sacrament, even as he himself did not get up from his seat.
To sum up, the change in one word is really a big deal because it leads to confusion with reference to the teaching on the doctrine of the apokastasis.
M
Marauder
Guest
The church has said in effect that the one word in this case doesn’t change the entire meaning as long as it is just a change between all and many. The church can define that one is better then the other, especially when neither word supposedly appears in the original (pre-Latin) language of the Gospels.
The church hasn’t proclaimed anything about the state of people’s salvation that were baptised in this matter. Only God knows the ultimate answer to their salvation. They have just said that they were not validly baptised. For a sacrament to be valid it must have both proper form and matter. In this case the proper matter is water and the proper form is to say “I baptise you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Changing individual words to other acceptable words would be considered valid, maybe illicit but valid (i.e. changing Spirit to Ghost). The problem is changing the word to what the Church has declared to be (name removed by moderator)roper form or (name removed by moderator)roper words.
The problem is they haven’t changed the underlying teaching, they have just changed the wording. Christ shed his blood for everyone/all, but not everyone accepts it. Christ is the only one that knew who would accept it and not accept it. The difference between all and many in this case is small.
I am not going any more off topic then I already am. You are expanding one topic into a much larger arena then it should be.
- Status