W
Wannano
Guest
Blessed are the peacemakers…Even if they are Prots. 
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Just as odd for one to post that Ps merely remember that Christ died for the sins of the whole world at communion.
That to me is like saying it is a mere thing to do remembering John 3:16, which is similar to the above. ( not the verse itself, but rembering it during communion as “mere”, is partly how i took the post by lily)
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, but “teachers” was partly meant as oral preaching, and partly as a “magisterial” undertaking, which I believe ties into “tradition”.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Except that as presented it seems to suggest that the Catholic Church (hence, every person that claims the title “Catholic”) have been and are engaged in such mentality and activity.
It’s like in the US–the only historical account you will find about Catholics is that ‘the papist cannot be trusted.’ Due to this tenet of anti-Catholicism the people and the government actualized (created and exercised) mandates and laws to penalize Catholics…
It would be interesting to find the actual records of those atrocities against Protestant settlers showing that the “atrocities” were committed against innocent Protestant settlers in the wake of Protestant peace and harmony and good tidings to all, including Catholics.
Yet, I suspect (not keen on historical events) that the root of these “atrocities” come from the mindset of those who were (and are) already predisposed to think of Catholics as
This continues to be the norm in the world as those who seek to view themselves as defenders of the “justice” and the “goodness” must falsify the basis of the cause they claim to be championing and malign the object of their crusade/s.
Maran atha!
Angel
It’s like in the US–the only historical account you will find about Catholics is that ‘the papist cannot be trusted.’ Due to this tenet of anti-Catholicism the people and the government actualized (created and exercised) mandates and laws to penalize Catholics…
It would be interesting to find the actual records of those atrocities against Protestant settlers showing that the “atrocities” were committed against innocent Protestant settlers in the wake of Protestant peace and harmony and good tidings to all, including Catholics.
Yet, I suspect (not keen on historical events) that the root of these “atrocities” come from the mindset of those who were (and are) already predisposed to think of Catholics as
When we visit history we find that non-Caucasians were seen by Caucasians as sub-humans; that mental maneuvering of reality allowed them to perceive as inferior and undeserving human dignity those who they sought to abuse, oppress, and terrorize.
This continues to be the norm in the world as those who seek to view themselves as defenders of the “justice” and the “goodness” must falsify the basis of the cause they claim to be championing and malign the object of their crusade/s.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…all you have to do is open the link that comes with the response:
Yet, the Written Word does not make such demands; rather, it demonstrates that the Oral Teaching goes alongside of the Written. Furthermore, only the sola Scriptura stance makes such demands as it ignores that for at least one to two decades the New Covenant existed only in the Oral form since Sacred Writing did not take place–interestingly enough, it also ignores that while Jesus quoted Scriptures, He never once alluded to any form of sola Scriptura.
However, if your statement is not suggesting sola Scriptura, as I thought it did, I apologize.
Maran atha!
Angel
It seems to me that you are suggesting that doctrine must be found in the Written Word.
Yet, the Written Word does not make such demands; rather, it demonstrates that the Oral Teaching goes alongside of the Written. Furthermore, only the sola Scriptura stance makes such demands as it ignores that for at least one to two decades the New Covenant existed only in the Oral form since Sacred Writing did not take place–interestingly enough, it also ignores that while Jesus quoted Scriptures, He never once alluded to any form of sola Scriptura.
However, if your statement is not suggesting sola Scriptura, as I thought it did, I apologize.
Maran atha!
Angel
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
…which would bring us to God as the origin and creator of schism–sending the Holy Spirit to splinter the One Body.
This would then negate St. Paul’s statement that God is not a God of confusion (chaos) but order.
Maran atha!
Angel
This would then negate St. Paul’s statement that God is not a God of confusion (chaos) but order.
Maran atha!
Angel
M
mcq72
Guest
Pacify j, pacify…so said early writing
M
mcq72
Guest
Interestingly enough, how does He allude to tradition, as sacred, a third leg of truth ?
J
jcrichton
Guest
There never existed a canon.
The Old Covenant Writings were taken as the Word of God. Specific families were tasked with the purpose of keeping and copying the Sacred Scrolls.
St. Paul alludes to this when he instructs Timothy to remain loyal to the Scriptures (Old Covenant) and to the source of his instructions (those who specifically had the task of instructing Israel and passing down the Faith).
The New Covenant Writings were treated in much the same way–St. Paul does not instruct Christians to make multitudes of copies of his letters; he instructs them to pass them along to the other churches. It was important to safeguard both the Oral Teaching and the Written Teaching so mass production and mass representation did not exist.
It was only after the development of the printing press that the Bible was mass produced; yet, I digress. The New Covenant’s Writings, along with the Old Covenant’s Writings were compiled throughout time as Sacred Scrolls/Sacred Writings. The Church used the Septuagint as the source (version) of the Old Covenant’s Writings and she compiled the New Covenant’s Writings after the actual liturgical usage.
What I find interesting is that your question suggests that the Church must remain static (no changes) throughout time till the Parousia. This, of course, is a matter of impossibility!
Maran atha!
Angel
The Old Covenant Writings were taken as the Word of God. Specific families were tasked with the purpose of keeping and copying the Sacred Scrolls.
St. Paul alludes to this when he instructs Timothy to remain loyal to the Scriptures (Old Covenant) and to the source of his instructions (those who specifically had the task of instructing Israel and passing down the Faith).
The New Covenant Writings were treated in much the same way–St. Paul does not instruct Christians to make multitudes of copies of his letters; he instructs them to pass them along to the other churches. It was important to safeguard both the Oral Teaching and the Written Teaching so mass production and mass representation did not exist.
It was only after the development of the printing press that the Bible was mass produced; yet, I digress. The New Covenant’s Writings, along with the Old Covenant’s Writings were compiled throughout time as Sacred Scrolls/Sacred Writings. The Church used the Septuagint as the source (version) of the Old Covenant’s Writings and she compiled the New Covenant’s Writings after the actual liturgical usage.
What I find interesting is that your question suggests that the Church must remain static (no changes) throughout time till the Parousia. This, of course, is a matter of impossibility!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
The earliest understanding?
What is that?
Maran atha!
Angel
What is that?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
So God, as Jesus, Founded a Church (single) and Called all His Followers to remain in Union and in Love; then, God, as the Holy Spirit, came upon the world and “inspired” a schism to remain patent into perpetuity?
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
So your issue is not with doctors and medicine only with mental health, correct?
I must agree with you that “mental health” (and/or the treatment of it) lends itself to abuse as both the people that claim to suffer from it as well as the “professionals” who are said to treat it can falsify the illness, the extent of the illness, and the treatment/cure.
However, I’ve experience enough episodes with people who suffer from mental illness to know that it is an actual disorder that can manifest itself in both a physical and a non-physical way.
My first direct experience with this illness was when I was a child of about five years of age–mom was visiting relatives and friends and we came upon a house where a very seemingly loving and caring woman tripped into anger when mom could not fulfill her desire to get the label of a cigar (in the form of a ring/crown) so that she could put it on her doll’s finger… mom had to speedily exit the house (with me in tow) as this peaceful woman began to curse mom and pursuit her violently.
Can demon possessions take place and manifest themselves in mental illness? That is a matter for another threat.
Does mental illness exist? Experience demonstrates that it does.
Maran atha!
Angel
I must agree with you that “mental health” (and/or the treatment of it) lends itself to abuse as both the people that claim to suffer from it as well as the “professionals” who are said to treat it can falsify the illness, the extent of the illness, and the treatment/cure.
However, I’ve experience enough episodes with people who suffer from mental illness to know that it is an actual disorder that can manifest itself in both a physical and a non-physical way.
My first direct experience with this illness was when I was a child of about five years of age–mom was visiting relatives and friends and we came upon a house where a very seemingly loving and caring woman tripped into anger when mom could not fulfill her desire to get the label of a cigar (in the form of a ring/crown) so that she could put it on her doll’s finger… mom had to speedily exit the house (with me in tow) as this peaceful woman began to curse mom and pursuit her violently.
Can demon possessions take place and manifest themselves in mental illness? That is a matter for another threat.
Does mental illness exist? Experience demonstrates that it does.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
No.
Scriptures themselves demonstrate that they hold a finite amount of Apostolic Teaching!
They also demonstrate that there is more to Apostolic Teaching than what is Written.
Hence, the Oral Teaching that you refuse to accept together with the Written compiles the wholeness that you seem to be seeking.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
But the problem is that “one” usually aligns him/herself with his/her preconception or that of their group’s founder/s; hence, “one” would teach all nations “one’s” interpretation of Scriptures rather than Scriptures.
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
R
rcwitness
Guest
Srcipture is Tradition which is written down. Oral Tradition and Church Teaching (Magisterium) enabled us to affirm and know which writings are Sacred scripture.jcrichton:
Interestingly enough, how does He allude to tradition, as sacred, a third leg of truth ?
I honestly don’t know of Catholic Doctrines which do not have at least some Scriptural support for. The one that I’ve found having the least amount of scriptural support for, is the Intercession of the Saints. The Scriptures Catholics have offered offered as support seem unconvincing. I rather accept it by reason of theology and extra Biblical Traditions. However, I don’t see a necessity for individuals to pray to any Saint for their intercession, but rather a call to intercede for others. So the Scriptural practice of interceding for others supports the doctrine in an indirect way.
J
jcrichton
Guest
What you are missing is the deposit of Truth; it is not Scriptures that are the deposit of Truth but the Church. Scriptures are the Word of God; yet, throughout time many have manipulated them to control their followers as they present their interpretation of Scriptures as the actual meaning that God meant to convey. We see this happening right from Scriptures themselves as the Apostles battle heresies and false prophets and teachers living right amongst them and attempting to lure Christ’s Followers into a gospel that is not Christ’s Gospel:
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
No.
That definition would only mean that anyone claiming to be in fellowship with Christ and desiring to divorce his wife/her husband must only do 1 or 2 things:
- commit adultery or
- get the other spouse to commit adultery
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
My understanding is that it adultery in itself is not a sufficient cause.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
Actually, Jesus is speaking to the illicit marriages that existed–incest, social marriages, and perhaps even forced marriages (parents/oppressors hauling off girls to be married for profit/gains).
Consider how Jesus’ disciples did not just resort to, ‘so all one has to do is commit adultery or cause the spouse to commit adultery.’ Rather, their response was, ‘in that case, what will men gain by getting married if they are to be tied to a ball and chain for the rest of their lives?’ (paraphrased, of course)
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status