How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[PRmerger]

In matters that are de fide Catholics really are not. Can I privately judge, “the pope was wrong declaring Mary immaculate. Not buying it?” No, there’s an anathema attached that will send me into an eternal frying pan if I don’t accept this papal declaration. So private judgment is outskee on that! I think private judgment is not a strong piece of Catholicism.

Only 7 passages in Scripture have been infallibly interpreted by the Church, gurney.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you under the impression that Catholics are not allowed to use “private judgment” and “private interpretation”, Andrew?

If so, you were not well catechized in your “good RCIA program”.

Addendum:

So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that** the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. **Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office. source.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I didn’t mention Scripture. So you’re saying that if I don’t like NFP and privately think it’s absurd I can start using birth control with my wife? If the Church declares something intrinsically evil I’m pretty sure my private judgment doesn’t mean Jack Q. Squat LOL I’m not even talking Scripture. The Immaculate Conception of the BVM and Assumption are both “infallible” and yet are not Scriptural either…If there’s a pro-life and pro-choice candidate, I’m not allowed to privately determine which to vote for. Private judgment isn’t a factor.

Only 7 passages in Scripture have been infallibly interpreted by the Church, gurney.

 

[Nicea325]

David, please answer my questions and cite your sources.

Otherwise, you will be reported for contempt for Catholicism in making claims (like some popes refused to declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma) that are unsustainable.

Again, you cannot make claims about Catholicism here unless you’re going to back them up.

Just a friendly warning.

If he hasn’t provided the sources or cites,then he is just blowing hot air. It is called baised and distorted views about Catholicism. I can bet all my marbles he has no evidence for his claims.

 

[guanophore]

One of the reasons you are asked to cite your sources is so that we can go and read them for ourselves.

(iii) For that matter, even councils like Trent, Vatican I & Vatican II cite Scriptural prooftexts in support of their dogmas.

No. The Catholic Church does not need to “prooftext” because our Church is not bible based. The scripture reflects the faith of the Church, so the Scriptures are cited to make this clear.

 Isn’t this an appeal to the reader? To a reader who is not a member of the Magisterium—since these documents are generated by the Magisterium and addressed to the church at large? Doesn’t such an appeal assume that the reader is able to connect the content of the proof text with the content of the dogma?

The use of the scriptures to demonstrate the faith of the Church (not “prooftexting”) does expet the reader to connnect the teaching of the Church preserved infallibly in the Church with the inerrant and inspired Scriptures that were produced by the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

The same applies to papal pronouncements like “Munificentissimus Deus.” And doesn’t that comparison invite the possibility of falsification?

Can you explain this? What “comparison” ? How does citing scripture invite the possiblity of “falsification”? Is he saying that the teaching may be false, because Scripture is used to support it? I am afraid I am lost on this one.

Unless these proof texts do, in fact, implicate the dogmas to which they’re assigned, their citation is duplicitous. (Very important point)

Since there is no “proof texting”, this seems irrelevant.

I can’t think of any circumstance where a dogma would be “implicated” by a scripture passage.

It is as if the Scripture were “accusing” or “indicting” the dogma. That does not make any sense! They both come from the same Source. They are perfectly congruent with one another.

(iv) One of the standing ironies in Catholic apologetics is the spectacle of ordinary priests and laymen in lay organizations churning out books by and for laymen, sternly admonishing the laity that laymen are incompetent to speak with authority on matters of faith and morals.

This simply a false statement.

The books do no such thing.

and the laity are perfectly competent to speak with authority on matters of faith and morals. All who are in unity with the Teaching of the Church are protected by the gift of infalliblity.

Here we have priests and laymen who—by definition—fall outside the ranks of the Magisterium, making a case on behalf of the Magisterium.

Is there some problem with the fact that the flock follows the shepherds appointed by Christ?

Isn’t this a self-refuting exercise? Shouldn’t the hierarchy be left to speak for itself?

Is the teaching authority appointed by Christ supposed to speak out His Word into some void? Who is to receive and promulgate the Word if not the laity? Why would the faithful not follow the direction appointed?

The irony is never more acute than when a renegade Protestant tries to justify his defection.

With all due respect, a Protestant does not have a defection to justify. Most Protestants have never known the Apostolic faith in undiluted form. They have received a trucated version of the gospel since the Reformation. Renegade from what? His own truncated gospel? I dont’ think so!

**

Shouldn’t he refer all inquiries to his bishop? **

In my experience, most renegades don’t have a bishop, or think they should submit to one.

Just_Me_Andrew:

Shouldn’t he let Mother Church do all the talking and speak on his behalf, rather than vice versa?

Once a person has departed from the Apostolic faith, he has traded Truth for error. He has lost the protection of the gift of infallibilty.

While he now claims to be a Catholic, he still acts like a Protestant!

This writer is very hard to follow. Is he talking about a renegade Protestant, or a rebellious subject of the Roman Pontiff?

I submit that those who rebel against the authority appointed by Christ are indeed Proteatnts. There are many people who still call themselves Catholics, and don’t even realize they have separated themselves from the church.

 

[guanophore]

A Catholic apologist never makes a more compelling case for the Protestant rule of faith than when he takes it upon himself to pen a popular apologetic against our rule of faith!

Really? How is that? I think this author assumes that those of us that embrace the Apsotolic faith do so in some state of independence or separation from our bishops and the Magesterium. Such is not the case.

The lay apologist is having to exercise the right of private judgment in the very act of denying it.

It is hard to know what he is saying, since he never really defined “private judgement”. But the Apostles taught that it was separated from the sensus fidelum. Catholic apologists, however, are in unity with the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. We don’t just cook up our own idea of the faith by extracting it from the pages of the HOly Writings. It may be that the author is unable to fathom how this can be.

How does his position differ in practice from the practice of the Protestant apologist?

We believe the Church is greater than the Body of Believers on earth, and that when we fail to submit to her, we have left her protection.

Why can’t the Pope fight his own battles?

It appears that the author is invested in separating the faithful from the authority appointed over them by Christ. I wonder why this would be? The answer to this is that we are ONE FLOCK, and the Pope is our shepherd appointed by God. His battles are our battles, and ours His.

Why did the bishops at Vatican II require the services of the periti? (a skilled theologian used as a consultant)

I think this is a very good question that ought to be seriously investigated by anyone who does not know the answer.

(v) If the Bible can’t be interpreted without benefit of a living teaching office, why bother with a “dead” book at all?

Well, clearly it can. There are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.

What function does the Bible perform if you have a hotline to God via the living voice of Mother Church?

Another good question that should be investigated thoroughly by any who does not know.

(vi) Rome herself recognizes the validity of the Orthodox communion. No less a spokesman than Cardinal Ratzinger grants that while "the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity" (Principles of Catholic Theology [Ignatius, 1987], 196). That being so, a papal Magisterium is superfluous to the preservation of faith and morals.

This is a false conclusion. It is also a conclusion that has no foundation upon the premise. The Eastern Church embodies Magesterium as well as the West. Ask any Orthodox. They don’t fall for the heresy of Sola Scriptura either.

(vii) Karl Rahner freely concedes the right of private judgment in submitting to the Church in the first place:

No. Recognition that everyone has free will does not equate to the “right” to exercise judgment in defiance of the Apostolic Teaching. Of course, anyone has the free will and may choose to reject the Apostolic Teaching in favor of their own private opinion (judgement). God made us in HIs image and likeness, which means, we are free to choose. Everyone has the freedom to disobey His authority, and to reject HIm.

 

[Pitcharan]

Addendum:

So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that** the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. **Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office. source.

Dear PRM, there is no denial that every geunine seeker of truth is rewarded by the HS who reveals and explains. I have personally received intepretation and explanation of so many complex things in the Bible. However, I have also experienced dangerous delusions of the Evil one. We can never be sure whether our quest is genuine or alloyed with self-interest or a mere sinful curiosity. The HS responds only to genuine quest from humble souls. Therefore, it is extremely important to verify and reconfirm our inspirations. In this regard I am reproducing below an excellent teaching which is an excerpt from THE SINNER’S GUIDE by Louis of Granada:
“Notwithstanding the power and efficacy of this wisdom with which God fills the souls of the just, no man, however great the light he has received, should refuse to submit his judgment to his lawful superiors, especially the authorized teachers and doctors of the Church. Who ever received greater light than St. Paul, who was raised to the third heaven; or than Moses, who spoke face to face with God? Yet St. Paul went to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles upon the Gospel which he had received from Christ Himself; and Moses did not disdain to accept the advice of his father-in-law, Jethro, who was a Gentile. For the interior aids of grace do not exclude the exterior succors of the Church. Divine Providence has willed to make them both an aid to our salvation. As the natural heat of our body is stimulated by that of the sun, and the healing powers of nature are aided by exterior remedies, so the light of grace is strengthened by the teaching and direction of the Church. Whoever refuses, therefore, to humble himself and submit to her authority will render himself unworthy of any favor from God.”

 

[joe370]

Hey Andrew…
.

Joe370 hehe, I know the teaching of the Church…the Bishop of Rome is “infallible” when speaking excathedra to the whole church in a matter of faith and morals…

Agreed…Every church leader claims that his or her teachings are infallible (error free) - as well; are you OK with that?

What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?

A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:

1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.

Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?

A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.

The pope spoke from the chair only twice thus far: IC and the AOM - and he and the rest of the body of bishops convoked and as a united front, defined what was already believed. just as was the case when dealing with the Trinity.

why did you bring up Physics? did you assume I was a fundy? LOL

LOL…No, it just popped in my head because I hated physics in college. LOL…

I know the pope is not considered infallible when not proclaiming a doctrine of faith and morals…e.g. the pope is not infallible on the issue of the stockmarket…Unless you know something I don’t LOL kidding

LOL…Andrew, if the CC cannot teach error free doctrine then the Holy spirit is not doing what the bible tells us that He is suppose to be doing within Jesus’ established church, if in fact the CC is the church founded by Jesus; If it’s not then you are right, but I am afraid that you will have to prove it; I could not; my sister could not, but maybe you can. It’s actually real simple; just give me the name of the man or men that founded the CC and when, and if it’s not Jesus in the first century, then I will be forced to join you and my sister by leaving the CC.

If the CC is not the church of Matthew 16, John 16 and John 14 then I certainly would understand your position and why you question the following, but, the CC is the church founded by Jesus:

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on “Papal Infallibility?”

1. “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’ [LG 12; cf. DV 10.]”
2. “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms.”
3. “‘The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council. [LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ [DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.’ [LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [Cf. LG 25.]”
4. “The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. [Cf. LG 25; CDF, declaration, Mysterium Ecclesiae 3.]”
5. “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.”

 

[Pitcharan]

… Do you not contradict your pope saying salvation is possible for me (as a protestant ,outside Rome) ?..Please, you must know your own history .

My dear brother in Christ, you have sadly misunderstood the factual position of the CC. Salvation is very much possible for all mankind not only protestants. That is the firm position of the CC. If it were otherwise as you allege, why would they solemnise marriages between catholics and followers of any other religion. Are you saying that the CC believes that non-catholics are hell bound on the one hand and on the other hand accords sanctity to marital unions between catholics and those outside CC fold?

The immaculate conception dogma was a long process in it passing -say 1500 years ,with much debate and bickering even death between Holy Orders.It is my understanding that a proclamation was asked of several popes with no success until Pius, finally claimed “inspiration” on the matter…Leo XII-condemned all religious freedom,tolerance,bible societies and translations-1825,Pius the VII and IX condemned liberty of conscience,and worship and speech source :"Halley’s Bible Handbook… C.S. Lewis, “Those ignorant of past history are slaves to the present”-The benevolent tolerant popes of today are just that -today,.but not necessarily of yesterday…“There is no name under heaven where men might be saved” (Jesus -not Holy Roman Church). "Call out in the name of the Lord and you will be saved ", not, “call out in the name of the Holy Roman Church and you will be saved. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”, not “Believe on His Holy Roman Church and you will be saved” The church is the pillar of this truth.Christ is the hinge point ,of which door you pass into eternal life ,and become His bride ,the church .Do not put the cart before or even equal with the horse

This again is an unnecessary and unwarranted debate. The church led its flock since inception and to doubt her teachings is nothing but folly. To imagine that the human nature of the head of the church can be barrier to truth amounts to rejecting our Lord’s promise and assurance "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18b)

 

[joe370]

Andrew, you said, “I don’t believe however that you got the gist of my questions to the Catholics on this forum.”

You also said, “I realize that when I decided I wouldn’t go anymore to Mass, that I placed myself outside of Rome and under the penalty of Hell in Catholic theology (if I don’t return).”

Please show me in the CCC where that is stated? I was told by most of my protestant friends that the CC is the whore of Babylon and that if I joined this “apostate church” I would most definitely going to jeopardize my eternal soul. As a former protestant I could not believe how many people hated the CC. It was that very notion that got me thinking: why is that, and the very reason why I ventured to prove that they were right, however, just the opposite happened. I don’t believe that the CC teaches what you are saying; as a matter of fact I know they don’t. By the way, I totally respect your decision to choose another church. I totally believe that Jesus is the savior of His Mystical Body (all churches included, as per the CCC - 817) - no matter how fractured His Mystical body is, for both parties are responsible for the division that exists today in Jesus’ mystical body, as per the CCC.

You said:

For example every one of us knows the famous Matthew 16:18-20…Did you study Matthew 16 in context with lexical aids and using hermenutical principles etc and conclude “Rome is right Peter is the first Papa of Rome…”? Did you read some theological papers of the Eastern Orthodox or Lutherans? Or did you just accept that interpretation given by Rome? On what basis did you decide Rome’s interpretation was correct apart from using “private interpretation”? Can you see the circular argumentation you are engaged in?

Nope…If Jesus is the founder of the CC then the CC was/is empowered to interpret sacred scripture* (you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses…to the ends of the earth). *-

Regarding Matthew 16, I used logic and grammatical common sense. However, my interpretation was not my final authority for resolving the matter, for I was not endowed with said authority on Pentecost in Jerusalem circa AD 33; only Jesus’ church was - right? Even if you do not believe the CC is that church, surely you must agree with that logic; do you? In the end, I took it to the church founded by Jesus Christ who again, said to His teaching church (Matthew 28:20) - *"…you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." *

If Jesus is the founder of the CC and the HS is guiding His church into all truth then, as you can see, there is no circular reasoning. Andrew, as I mentioned before: if Jesus founded the CC and this is a historical fact,* (if not then prove me wrong) *- and the CC canonized the bible then Jesus’ established church was empowered by Jesus Christ to interpret sacred scripture and there is absolutely no circular argument - right? If Jesus did not found the CC then again my friend you are right. To be circular the CC must be assuming what it is attempting to prove, and this is not the case. However, every church not founded by Jesus is guilty of this fact and every church not founded by Jesus, claiming that the bible is to be the Christians final authority is in fact assuming what they are attempting to prove, for nowhere in the bible is this fact stated - right, or am I wrong?

The CC teaches error free doctrine regarding Jesus’ teachings by virtue of the fact that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church; if not the CC then again, which church? Again, surely you agree with scripture regarding the fact that the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ one church into all truth as opposed to many churches into some truth as ell as opposing truth - right??? Andrew, just find that church in the world today and you are good to go!!!

 

[joe370]

Andrew, Rome (the CC) - is no different than any other church in the world today if it wasn’t established by Jesus the Christ, in the first century, on Pentecost, specifically, in Jerusalem and of course, like you said, is guilty of circular argumentation just as all protestant churches are, unless of course one of these non-Catholic churches was founded by Jesus in the 1st century?

The word papa is nothing more than an affectionate title given to the bishop of Rome. My sister who is a non-Catholic has such a problem with this word claiming, it’s not in the bible, and I just don’t get it. The word Trinity, original sin, incarnation, rapture, etc - are not found in the bible either, not that I am suggesting that you concur with her.

Jesus said: you are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church…the whole petra/petros argument is not even worth going in to; no scholar gives this proposition any credence at all, and for good reason. The NT even addresses Simon by his new name (Rock - Cephas) - about 5 times so it’s really quite futile to think otherwise. You ever wonder why Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha?

Andrew, regarding the rock being either Peter’s confession or a reference to Jesus, who of course is the divine rock - if I said to you:

This is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast. Do you believe, grammatically speaking, that the second boat is the same as the first boat? If yes, then how is that any different than:

You are rock and on this rock I will build my church?

Andrew, what was your response to the following:

If the head quarters of the CC cannot teach infallibly vis-a-vis faith and morals then which church in the world today was given that authority by means of the involvement of the holy spirit in perpetuity??? I want to belong to that church!!! The church to which Jesus said, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth,” is certainly exempt from the whole private interpretation admonition; wouldn’t you agree??? If not, then you are right and no one has any authority to privately interpret sacred scripture; where does that leave us? It leaves us with the bible, without any stewardship which of course is NOT biblical and a silly proposition, after all Jesus said to just one church:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

In the end, if we can’t agree that’s cool, but could you please address some of my queries when you get the chance. These were questions that really stumped me as a former non-Catholic.

I have read everything that you have written but I can’t find any justification for leaving the CC. But it doesn’t really matter what I think or anyone else; if you see the justification then that is all that matters.

Peace brother…

 

[Pitcharan]

What scripture is there that shows ,“outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation”(Pius IX 1870-?)

That depends on what you read from it David. To me it is simply a restatement of what our Lord said emphatically: Salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22c). Catholics are really Jews, in the true sense of the word. (Rev 3:8-10). And understand this too: No Salvation Outside the Church MEANS:

• The church is giving a clarion call to everyone to come and be saved
• Beware of those who preach a salvation other than that preached by the church
• Many false prophets (antichrists) will try to deceive and mislead people as already foretold by our Lord

Does NOT mean:

• Those who are not members of the church are damned (in fact church has never specified who are the damned. It only talks of how to be saved)

 

[david_ruiz]

What scripture is there that shows ,“outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation”(Pius IX 1870-?)-your quote ? Do you not contradict your pope saying salvation is possible for me (as a protestant ,outside Rome) ?..Please, you must know your own history .The immaculate conception dogma was a long process in it passing -say 1500 years ,with much debate and bickering even death between Holy Orders.It is my understanding that a proclamation was asked of several popes with no success until Pius, finally claimed “inspiration” on the matter…Leo XII-condemned all religious freedom,tolerance,bible societies and translations-1825,Pius the VII and IX condemned liberty of conscience,and worship and speech source :"Halley’s Bible Handbook… C.S. Lewis, “Those ignorant of past history are slaves to the present”-The benevolent tolerant popes of today are just that -today,.but not necessarily of yesterday…“There is no name under heaven where men might be saved” (Jesus -not Holy Roman Church). "Call out in the name of the Lord and you will be saved ", not, “call out in the name of the Holy Roman Church and you will be saved. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”, not “Believe on His Holy Roman Church and you will be saved” The church is the pillar of this truth.Christ is the hinge point ,of which door you pass into eternal life ,and become His bride ,the church .Do not put the cart before or even equal with the horse

Furthermore where does it say, “The Holy Roman Church is the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes to the Father except through it.” ? Any denomination that says Jesus is the way ,the truth and the life is correct and acting as a pillar of truth. As soon as that denomination draws attention and claims interchangeability with church and Jesus, in this context, is carnal (as in "I am of Peter " or “Lo, I am of Paul”)

 

[shaky]

Firstly, do you have a Bible verse that says this?

Secondly, just because someone claims he is a believer does not make him saved. For do not even the demons believe?

Hi PRmerger

GOOD POINTS: I was going to say do you have a bible verse that says that you do admonish a unbelievers: But i found one: {Colossians 1-28} So i have learnt Something
I don’t claim to Know every thing and i have not read everything in the bible.
I was being presumptuous on my previous Answer. Thanks for pointing this out.

How do you go about admonishing unbelieves. because the way i talk to unbelievers. I Just tell them about Jesus christ so they get to know a bit about him.

I dont go diveing in pointing out there Sins unless of course they say they are without Sin

Well i sort of agree and disagree. Demons believe in the sense were they believe in the existence of Christ. But they don’t believe in him and they dont obey any of his teachings.

 

[GKC]

Nope. It digs deep to the core. :yup:

Well said.

GKC

 

[david_ruiz]

That depends on what you read from it David. To me it is simply a restatement of what our Lord said emphatically: Salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22c). Catholics are really Jews, in the true sense of the word. (Rev 3:8-10). And understand this too: No Salvation Outside the Church MEANS:

• The church is giving a clarion call to everyone to come and be saved
• Beware of those who preach a salvation other than that preached by the church
• Many false prophets (antichrists) will try to deceive and mislead people as already foretold by our Lord

Does NOT mean:

• Those who are not members of the church are damned (in fact church has never specified who are the damned. It only talks of how to be saved)

I do love your quote , “Salvation is of the Jews”. But which sect ? Sadducees, Pharisees Zionist, Hasidism etc.etc. ? What did Jesus mean ? Were there many Jewish factions ,yet an invisible ,visible main spiritual stream between them ,a basic premise uniting them ? Children of the promise ? So which church today ? Orthodox, Roman ,protestant etc.etc. ? Are there not many factions ,with a basic premise between them uniting them ? Bride of Christ ? Why do you talk of "church in a general scriptural sense then switch to your preferred sect ,denomination , within that “church”.It was not always so .The first 3 centuries of "church"was a spiritually knit group of churches allowing some variation,not all ,but some.It is an enigma ,but as soon as Rome started ascerting itself after 3-4 th century ,indeed trying to unify and codify, you had the beginnings of separation and institutionalized division.As soon as Germans said they were Germans and French French and Italians Italians, you make division. Mind you ,I am not talking about accepting false doctrine ( Jesus was not flesh etc.). But anyone not in tow with Rome on minor issues was heretical , such as when to celebrate Easter ,or was Mary ever-virgin or indeed is Peter the Vicar of Christ or the Holy Spirit…"Let them be “anathema” is used how many times in papal decrees ? Is not this saying who is damned ? Anyways , the bible does say how to be damned AND saved. As a matter of fact ,you must do nothing to be damned(stay in your sin)…Catholics are Jews .Do you know how much the church has spewed out garbage on these dogs(Jews). Once again ,thankfully ,the church(including Rome) has CHANGED it’s teaching ,or at least attitude , toward the Jew.

 

[shaky]

shaky;6963394:

.

Again, judging is *commanded *

by us in Scripture, shaky.

That is a mis-translation. Clearly Jesus does not mean that if you commit adultery you can divorce–else every single husband who wants to divorce his wife would say, “Hey! I’m going to commit adultery and that way Jesus will allow me to divorce my wife!” :whacky:

The Greek word used is for the exception to the no-divorce command is “porneia”, which
means “illicit marriage/relationship”, such as incest. Not adultery.

No, they don’t agree that adultery is a valid reason for divorce. They are in conformity with the CC’s teaching.

Hi PRmerger.

I sort of agree that that you have to Judge: Could you show me the scriptures were we are commanded to Judge. Because Jesus said do not Judge. I can show you loads of scriptures. saying who are we to Judge etc. Also Jesus said i have not come to Judge the world.

What do you mean a mistranslation I am not going on about. somebody can Just leave his wife and commit adultery as a valid reason. what i mean: When your partner
commits Adultery and goes off with another person and abandons you. You a free to divorce that person and re-marry.

Can you expand on this Greek word porneia

In the dictionary; Fornication means illicit sex which includes Adultery:shrug:

The Orthodox church do agree that Adultery is a valid Reason for divorce i have checked.
Also they are not in conformity with the CCs teachings on this.
In fact they will allow you to be Re-married up to 3 times but they will not allow a fourth marriage.

 

[guanophore]

Furthermore where does it say, “The Holy Roman Church is the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes to the Father except through it.” ?

There are three errors reflected in this statement. The first is that everything pertaining to the faith must be found in Scripture. Yet, Scripture says the opposite.

The second is the attempt to separate the Head (Christ) from His One Body, the Church. There is no separation between Christ and His Church. Those who are joined to Him as Head are, by definition, members of His Body. You can’t have one without the other.

The third is that the Holy Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Any denomination that says Jesus is the way ,the truth and the life is correct and acting as a pillar of truth.

Yes, to that extent, they have not departed from the Apostolic Faith. However, a denomination is a separation from this Apostolic faith. All denominations have departed to a greater or lesser extent from the Faith that was espoused by the Apostles.

As soon as that denomination draws attention and claims interchangeability with church and Jesus, in this context, is carnal (as in "I am of Peter " or “Lo, I am of Paul”)

You are right, with regard to denominations, all of which were founded by men.

The reason the Catholic Church can claim interchangeability with Jesus is that it is the only 'Church founded by Him. It contains the divine elements of Himself as the Head, and the HS as the Soul. It is these divine aspects that prevent the Church from error, and carnality.

 

[guanophore]

I do love your quote , “Salvation is of the Jews”. But which sect ? Sadducees, Pharisees Zionist, Hasidism etc.etc. ? What did Jesus mean ? Were there many Jewish factions ,yet an invisible ,visible main spiritual stream between them ,a basic premise uniting them ? Children of the promise ?

All good questions, but clearly, Jesus is referencing specific Jews that hold the salvific message.

So which church today ? Orthodox, Roman ,protestant etc.etc. ? Are there not many factions ,with a basic premise between them uniting them ? Bride of Christ ?

You apparently don’t understand the nature of a “denomination”. Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. There are not many. I HIs church, there are no factions. All are perfectly united, just as He prayed they would be.

Why do you talk of "church in a general scriptural sense then switch to your preferred sect ,denomination , within that "church".

For us, there is no “switch”. The One Church founded by Christ is just as Catholic now as it was in the first three centuries.

It was not always so .The first 3 centuries of "church"was a spiritually knit group of churches allowing some variation,not all ,but some.

No, David. The Church founded by Christ has always been One. Yes, they are spiritually knit, but the communities are all ONE CHURCH that was the same everywhere in the world. The variations were cultural, with regard to language and dress, just as they are today. The doctrine, however is one.

It is an enigma ,but as soon as Rome started ascerting itself after 3-4 th century ,indeed trying to unify and codify, you had the beginnings of separation and institutionalized division.

This is simply a false statement which you will learn for yourself when you study the history of your faith. The first 7 Ecumencial councils were held in the East. Rome had primacy as an early See because of the teaching of Peter and Paul in that city. It was necessary to codify to fight the heresies that were rampant in the first three centuries.

As soon as Germans said they were Germans and French French and Italians Italians,  you make division.

No, David. In the universal Church founded by Christ, all peoples of every nation, tribe, and tongue are united in ONE FAITH.

Mind you ,I am not talking about accepting false doctrine ( Jesus was not flesh etc.).

Actually, you are, though you may not realize it. The early councils defined the Apostolic Doctrine precisely because of false doctrine.

But anyone not in tow with Rome on minor issues was heretical ,

Well, yes an no. They were not minor issues, but it is true that every Church that embraced the Apostolic faith needed to be in unity with the Church in Rome. This is the litmus test of authenticity.

such as when to celebrate Easter ,or was Mary ever-virgin or indeed is Peter the Vicar of Christ or the Holy Spiri

Sorry, David, you are wrong on all counts here. Eastern Catholic Rites calculate the celebration of Easter differently from the West, but all embrace the same Faith. All Chirstians everywhere accepted that Mary was ever virging, including the Reformers. The idea that she was not is an invention of Modern American Fundamentalism that emerged in the last 180 years.

Peter being left in charge of the flock does not replace the HS. The HS works through the Successor of Peter to feed and care for the flock. THis is how Jesus set things up.

t…"Let them be “anathema” is used how many times in papal decrees ? Is not this saying who is damned ?

As many times as necessary to make the faithful aware of departures from the faith that result in death.

The Councils and decrees use the same language the Apostles did for those who depart from the Apostolic Doctrine, making a shipwreck of their faith.

No, the Church does not define who is damned. It is the prayer of the Church that everyone will be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Anyways , the bible does say how to be damned AND saved. As a matter of fact ,you must do nothing to be damned(stay in your sin)…

True, and if you embrace the faith of Jesus, then depart from it, you will also be damned, since there remains no sacrifice for sins.

Catholics are Jews .Do you know how much the church has spewed out garbage on these dogs(Jews).

The Church cannot teach garbage, and certainly not spew it out.

There are persons claiming to be Catholic that have spewed out garbage of all kinds. Their spew does not equate to Church Teaching, which is that salvation is of the Jews.

Once again ,thankfully ,the church(including Rome) has CHANGED it’s teaching ,or at least attitude , toward the Jew.

No, the Teaching of the Catholic Church cannot change, because it is part of the once for all Deposit of Faith given to the saints.

Do you think you can define Truth by looking at those who depart from it?

 

[Cinette]

Furthermore where does it say, “The Holy Roman Church is the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes to the Father except through it.” ? Any denomination that says Jesus is the way ,the truth and the life is correct and acting as a pillar of truth. As soon as that denomination draws attention and claims interchangeability with church and Jesus, in this context, is carnal (as in "I am of Peter " or “Lo, I am of Paul”)

*Your ignorance and bitterness against the CC is so obvious that is it embarrassing. You do not score any points and, quite frankly, do not stimulate debate as you are not an honest debater. Making such silly and nonsensical statements will not endear anybody. We do get some like you from time to time but lately the atmosphere has been relatively friendly.

Why don’t you take a deep breath and begin again.:yup:

God bless everyone
Cinette*