G
guanophore
Guest
No, the Catholic Church does not teach this.So you agree with me as stated earlier ,“the Catholic Church is author/father of all genuine spiritual experience on Earth” (per Her teaching)
No, the Catholic Church does not teach this.So you agree with me as stated earlier ,“the Catholic Church is author/father of all genuine spiritual experience on Earth” (per Her teaching)
Well, sure! That way, every generation can come along and add their own non-scriptural “revelations”, like Sola Scriptura.
It has been said that much of the old shows a way for the new testament,a foresahdow .Did not Israel have unity ,early on with no King, except Jehovah ? Somehow this invisible God had a quite visible nation .Just ask the Egyptians and Philistines etc.Then what happened ? They got a little insecure , took there eyes off Jehovah , put their eyes on the world ,and said , "gives us a king like the other nations ". God "allowed it , even blessed this second rate idea .Could not ,and did He not rule over His early church ,invisibly(no central authority) ,yet the world took note of these Christians ,the Way ? The Church was quite visible and united .Then came the full excercise of Catholic Petrine doctrine, resembling much of the worldly Rome ,that was collapsing. Unity remained , though not by invisible forces,but quite vocal and visible ,and with increasing spiritual and temporal power, and some say by a second rate idea or way ,that yes , was still blessed of God ,For a time(as with Israel )… Sorry ,you asked if there was another way .How did God intend for the unity He desired to be preserved?
The fracturing occurred over the issue of authority,and it has been continuing ever since. If, indeed, there was no authority installed, what other method was to preserve the unity?
The Ascension of IsaiahWhat is the earliest source within the patristic writings that refer to the IC, if you know, by any chance (not just her being personally sinless)?
Part IIWhat is the earliest source within the patristic writings that refer to the IC, if you know, by any chance (not just her being personally sinless)?
I was saved outside the catholic church(Thank You Jesus!)Outside the Catholic Church, david, they would not be saved. ** It is because of this Magisterium **that these “saved” Christians have the Scriptures to read.
Thus, they know that the Gospel of Mark, when they read it and feel the quickening of the Spirit, is inspired because that was discerned for them by the CC. They read the gospel of Thomas, however, and know it is not inspired because it was discerned for them by the CC.
Also, you stated this: how do you explain how millions around the world believe the same things,( even with 50,000 denominations ?)
Can you please state what these “millions around the world believe” that are the same thing, esp. in these 50,000 denominations. What are these beliefs that are the same in all 50,000 denoms that you are claiming?
If you used the Bible to inspire you to say the sinner’s prayer (or whatever your pastor required for you to be saved), then it was through the Catholic Church, 1beleevr.I was saved outside the catholic church(Thank You Jesus!)![]()
PR, thanks for the quotes. Maybe I’m missing it, though, I don’t see any that reference her immaculate conception. The closest I see is Augustine’s comment regarding her sinless state (but there were fathers who did not concur). Could you clarify?Part II
So you agree with me as stated earlier ,“the Catholic Church is author/father of all genuine spiritual experience on Earth” (per Her teaching)
No. I’ve never read anyone profess that.
Yes, her sinless state. That’s the Immaculate Conception.PR, thanks for the quotes. Maybe I’m missing it, though, I don’t see any that reference her immaculate conception. The closest I see is Augustine’s comment regarding her sinless state (but there were fathers who did not concur). Could you clarify?
The two are not precisely the same, however. As you know, St. Thomas disputed the Immaculate Conception, while still holding that at some point, she ceased to commit actual sin.Yes, her sinless state. That’s the Immaculate Conception.
Why is it relevant if they did concur, but irrelevant if they didn’t? (Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom spring to mind… the fact that they believed she sinned would automatically mean they didn’t believe she was conceived without sin.)That there were fathers who did not concur is irrelevant. (Who didn’t, BTW?)
It was. That doesn’t mean it was apostolic in origin.It’s been established that this belief was professed way before 1854.
For her to be conceived without sin, wouldn’t her mother, and her mother, etc.,etc.,etc, have to have been born without sin? I mean she was born of the seed of a man!The two are not precisely the same, however. As you know, St. Thomas disputed the Immaculate Conception, while still holding that at some point, she ceased to commit actual sin.
Why is it relevant if they did concur, but irrelevant if they didn’t? (Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom spring to mind… the fact that they believed she sinned would automatically mean they didn’t believe she was conceived without sin.)
It was. That doesn’t mean it was apostolic in origin.
Why would it* have to* be this way?For her to be conceived without sin, wouldn’t her mother, and her mother, etc.,etc.,etc, have to have been born without sin? I mean she was born of the seed of a man!
guanophore;7415859:
Are you saying it is imperative for you to preserve what has already been revealed to all the Christians that came before you,even if God shows you His different understanding of the text ?Are you saying that it is imperative for you to preserve your understanding of the text, especially when it departs from what has already been revealed to all the Christians that came before you?
.
Yes ,your emphasis is on church ,like Christianity is a church,primarily.I guess I don’t see a “straying” because there is no contradiction for me when I read the Scriptures. I don’t need for them to mean something different than what God has already revealed to the Church.
I do not see this as an impossibility, as you do.When you say my “words stray”, are you saying that people who read the Scripture according to the Teachings of the Apostles preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church they are “straying” or “rebelling” against God?
He can reveal himself thru a rock or a jackass,thru and in all things he can be found.But you say if it is church ,it is Catholic.It is all emphasis ,on “church” or individual relationship,and to be "correct " you msut say it is both but to the discerning spirit …You sound as if you don’t believe God can reveal Himself through His Church.
Yes, but they also read it with a bias. I don’t believe they know or are aware of the bias. I was not either until I went to seminary,a nd studied how all the denominations stared, and the theologies of the Reformers. Then I understood.
Indeed. Not precisely the same. Hence the need for a solemn, formal declaration in 1854.The two are not precisely the same, however.
Just curious.Why is it relevant if they did concur, but irrelevant if they didn’t? (Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom spring to mind… the fact that they believed she sinned would automatically mean they didn’t believe she was conceived without sin.)
:tiphat:It was.
It was in the NT–that’s pretty much apostolic, eh? :ehh:That doesn’t mean it was apostolic in origin.
Now here is the good news of the gospel ,the King is coming ,and He came ,and He enters our sinful,dirty hearts , AND He does the cleaning also. (without choking us with our own dirty dust) Amazing ,isn’t it ? Please ,no more false piety.Why would it* have to* be this way?
It was fitting that she be born without sin, but not required. God could have become incarnate in a peapod.
But, it was fitting that He come to be held in a vessel worthy of His Divinity.
Just like if the King of Siam were to come to my home it would be fitting that I clean my house. But I don’t “have to.”
It was said in #688 and #691.It seems to match what you say ,the Church gave us scripture ,therefore anyone saved by scripture ,it is due to Catholic foundation /fathering etc…hence no “saved” outside of Catholic ChurchNo. I’ve never read anyone profess that.
Oh. You mean extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Outside the Church there is no salvation.It was said in #688 and #691.It seems to match what you say ,the Church gave us scripture ,therefore anyone saved by scripture ,it is due to Catholic foundation /fathering etc…hence no “saved” outside of Catholic Church