R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The same way I know the Bible is the inspired Word of God - because the infallible Catholic Church says that it is true.
How do you know that it is false?
- Status
How do you know that it is false?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I’m very interested in hearing an answer to this myself. . .
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Agreed, if what you mean is that only Christ can merit for us our salvation in strict justice (meritum de condigno). For the graces we receive in order to be saved are themselves unmerited by us and are the effects of Christ’s death on the cross. But we can merit for ourselves our eternal salvation as a reward by being obedient to God out of love for him through our cooperation with the unmerited gift of grace we have received by virtue of the redemptive merits of Christ’s death.
The principle of merit is the state of grace, which in itself is an unmerited free gift on our part. Not even our obedience to God can merit for us the graces we receive up to the moment of a penitent death. Preservation from mortal sin by grace is unmerited on our part, although we can receive the graces we need to help preserve us from sin through prayer. In strict justice, we can only merit for ourselves an eternal reward by persevering in grace until we depart from this life. Hence, what Mary has merited for us by her fiat (the hope of an eternal reward) is by congruous merit (meritum de congruo), which is based on the rights of her friendship with God in union with him in mutual love and still rests on the principle of the state of grace and the divine initiative. But in this case, it is through God’s mercy - not justice - that the grace of salvation (our eternal reward) has been offered to us by Mary’s free consent to be the mother of our Lord as an act of charity in God’s grace.
Think of Mary’s *fiat * as a from of prayer to God, similar in principle to a prayer of ours for the graces we ask for that will help us get to heaven provided we persevere to the end. It is God’s mercy, not His justice, that places us in a state of grace, for we cannot justly merit for ourselves what Christ alone has merited for us. But in His mercy, God will bestow his grace on the just who sincerely long for it in all humility and ask for it through prayer. He will not deny His grace to anyone who desires it perfectly knowing that without Him we can do nothing. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be open to you. Our heavenly Father listened to Mary’s prayer and he received it as a pleasing offering. God looked with favour on the lowliness of his handmaid. Thus unto us a child was born, unto us a son was given. Mary’s prayer would have been imperfect if she had not remained a virgin, for it’s completion required a total renunciation on her part of the natural rights of motherhood, an oblation to God: the offering of her only beloved Son and firstborn back to God for the salvation of the world.
By grace and charity, Mary made perfect satisfaction for the sins of the world in union with her Son, who freely offered his life to the Father as an act of oblation. The consolation Mary would have found in her other offspring by Joseph would have spoiled the sublimity and merit of her prayer and marred her association with Jesus in the redemption of mankind. She had to deny herself the temporal blessing of consolation any mother would find in her surviving children after the loss of one of them or else her oblation would have been unfulfilled on our behalf. Mary’s prayer would have proved imperfect and thereby unacceptable to the Father. The angel Gabriel answered the question of the vow of chastity she had made to God while serving in the temple as a young girl. Our Lady’s charity towards God had to measure up in proportion to the uncharity of Eve in order for her to be a worthy helper of the new Adam. He alone was meant to be the sole focus of her life in their intimate association in the redemption.
“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of Justice…through you every faithful soul achieves salvation.”
Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 431)
PAX :heaven:
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
rev I,m not going to get in to you with this but did you not leave this board because of the heat and left crying like a little child. a few days ago.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
In all this let’s not forget St. Joseph who was a righteous man, humble etc who was told by Archangel Gabriel that the child his wife carried was the Son of God. Even if one fails to believe that Mary remained a virgin (reasons already subsequently given), must consider that Joseph being a respectful man, would NOT had any relations with Mary in any case, knowing very well what Archangel Gabriel told was true. Joseph would have been very careful not to think of bespoiling the Mother of his Lord…EVER.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
If Mary had sex will that not be a sin.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Just because the “infallible” Catholic church says so doesn’t make it true.{Not talking about the Bible but the dogmas because I asked how do you know the dogmas are true}
I don’t believe the Catholic church is infallible, I believe it is fallible. I believe it makes mistakes.
So how can I believe the dogmas to be true when I believe the Catholic church to be fallible?
Now I ask you, show me in the Bible where it says that Mary was ever-virgin?{not in dogmas or tradition}
Who came up with this ever-virgin and when?{Other than dogmas and traditions}
Show me where in the Bible it says Mary never had other children?{Not in dogmas or traditions}
{Please don’t answer these questions with questions}
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But your questions are flawed, aren’t they? Here’s why:
Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”
The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before New Testament Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.
These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.
When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.
Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
To whom it may concern:
I was laid up in bed due to my illness and shaking so bad that I could not type. Went to the Dr. and he increased my meds. and it needed time to work into my system. See my illness is a day by day thing. One day I’m fine and the next I can’t move or I shake uncontrolably. So unlike what one poster wants to say or believe what the reason is he is just wanting to make me out to be something I’m not. Now I ask that poster {and you know who it is} to stop. I have not said anything negitive about the poster since we stoped talking and I really wish he would stop and be more like what a real christian should be.
I was laid up in bed due to my illness and shaking so bad that I could not type. Went to the Dr. and he increased my meds. and it needed time to work into my system. See my illness is a day by day thing. One day I’m fine and the next I can’t move or I shake uncontrolably. So unlike what one poster wants to say or believe what the reason is he is just wanting to make me out to be something I’m not. Now I ask that poster {and you know who it is} to stop. I have not said anything negitive about the poster since we stoped talking and I really wish he would stop and be more like what a real christian should be.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, this is the source of your problem.
But this is no different than the problem you face when witnessing to a non-believer who does not believe that the Bible is inspired.
You can’t prove that the Bible is inspired; you simply believe it but you cannot prove it. As a Catholic, I can.
Thus, once I have proven the existence of an infallible Church, the inspiration of the Bible and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary are easy.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
How is the church infallible? Like you said you can prove it so please show me.
I have no problem with non-believers who don’t believe that the Bible is inspired.
I have no source of problem. Just because I don’t believe in your teachings don’t mean I have a problem.
This thread has been going on for some time now and you haven’t proven your last statement. If you have this and other discussions on this thread would be over by now.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Because the Bible is what I go by. Now doctrine or dogmas.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Hope you’re feeling better, Rev. . .I have a bit of a cold myself which is nothing major but I can sympathize with anybody feeling ill.
So what you did was you told me why you think the Catholic Church isn’t infallible =but that isn’t what I asked you. I asked you–and others. . .a very simple question and you have not answered that question and I asked it before your other questions above, so actually it is you who is answering questions with questions.
Please answer:
In Scripture we have John 6.
One group of Christians, claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit, interprets the passages to say that Jesus is telling us we must eat his real flesh and blood.
Another group of Christians, claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit, interprets the passages to say that Jesus is only speaking symbolically.
Both interpretations cannot be simultaneously correct. One is correct and one is not.
Now Jericho won’t tell me, but you have been a Catholic and you’re a non-Catholic Christian now, so you ‘know’ both sides and you have obviously determined which teaching you hold to be true. You wouldn’t accept a false teaching.
Which of the two groups above is teaching correctly, and how are you assured that the Holy Spirit is leading that group, when both groups claim the Spirit?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Okay. I’ll do that below. Let me mop up these other questions first.
Really? You try to witness to someone who says, “Prove it!” You pull out your King James and they say, “I don’t believe that book is inspired.” Now what do you do?
This is how you reacted to TEPO earlier. Weird.
If your Protestant arguments were so compelling, no one would still be Catholic after 500 years of Rebellion.
Now, regarding the infallibility of the Church, there are several ways we could go. I’ll start with this:
The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
An Accurate Text
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.
The Bible as Historical Truth
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
If the Church is teaching in the name of Jesus Christ, then it must teach infallibly. “He who hears you, hears me.”
One other point I’ll throw in as a bonus so that you can win your argument with the non-believer you’re trying to witness to…
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
Hope that helps. :tiphat:
D
Dokimas
Guest
Let me try to understand this post … Are you telling me I caused Mommamia to stubble and as a result, if would be better for me if I had a millstone tied around my neck and thrown in the sea?
Are you saying Mommamia isn’t able to look for herself and read what you say (and others) and read what I say (and others) and come up with her own understanding? Are you saying she’s not smart enough?
I believe the questions I’ve asked, when the CC teaching is made known and I have read in the Bible different things than the CC teaching, where is it in the Bible? I’ve asked to discuss what and why.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Thank you
I don’t believe Jesus meant his real body and blood. I believe he is speaking symbolically.
I like you believe the teaching I have now to be true. Why? I find that some of the teachings that the Catholic faith seem unreal and don’t make sence like what we are talking about now “Did Mother Mary have other children?” Your teaching says no she didn’t. I can’t accept that. To me it stands to reason that she would have other children.
As far as the Holy Spirit leading that group, it just come down to plain ol’ faith in your teachings.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The Mormons say they have it on good authority the Book of Mormon is inspired. Muslim believe the same thing about the Kuran. The JW’s think it about their writings. You believe the Bible because of your church. How is your belief different from these others?
J
jericho777
Guest
tatum I choose not to judge the Holy Spirit. I’m not blaming or accusing you. You want to paint me into a corner. I see the fruits of the Spirit manifest in our church and in the lives of people I know (just like the bible says He will). I don’t know you but hope the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself in your life also. I have nothing against Catholics as people. I have disagreement with some church teachings. IMHO. I’m just stating my position to let you know what I believe not looking for a fight.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Kev, just ignore Bill. He’s not worth worrying once ounce what he thinks. Most can see this, I’m sure.
- Status