If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?

[mgrfin]

Since sola scriptura (at least as defined by the reformers) doesn’t do away with the authority of the church I don’t see a conflict.

The all to common belief here at CAF held by catholic posters is that sola scriptura is synonymous with “me and my bible alone under a tree” which is not what was held to by any of the reformers.

At it’s roots, SS simply states that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith that we have access to. All the other things such as the councils, pope(s), magesterium, tradition and the rest may be useful, to one degree or the other, but they are not infallible.

The Bible is infallible?

Don’t you mean those who interprete it are infallible?

Oh, No, that can’t be. Cause that would mean that the Church is infallible. That can’t be if you deny the Church.

What do you mean when you say the bible is infallible?

Do you mean in faith and morals, or totally infallible, without error, even historical or scientific infallible?

Is that what you mean?

And that the bible is infallible in everything, you mean that is true even thought we just have copies of the texts, or translations, or translations of translations? And we are not sure that we have what was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Even those redactions are infallible. Do you mean they are infallible?

Really, what do you mean? Where in the Bible does it say it is infallible?

And when Joe Smith reads the Bible, if it is infallible, does he interprete it infallibilty? Where do you draw the line?
peace

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Bible is infallible?

Don’t you mean those who interprete it are infallible?

Oh, No, that can’t be. Cause that would mean that the Church is infallible. That can’t be if you deny the Church.

What do you mean when you say the bible is infallible?

Do you mean in faith and morals, or totally infallible, without error, even historical or scientific infallible?

Is that what you mean?

And that the bible is infallible in everything, you mean that is true even thought we just have copies of the texts, or translations, or translations of translations? And we are not sure that we have what was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Even those redactions are infallible. Do you mean they are infallible?

Really, what do you mean? Where in the Bible does it say it is infallible?

And when Joe Smith reads the Bible, if it is infallible, does he interprete it infallibilty? Where do you draw the line?
peace

I mean I believe the scriptures are without error, or any sort. Is that clear enough for you?

Is this what you believe?

 

[Pwrlftr]

What good are the Scriptures then, if there is no infallible guide to interpret them?

Makes Phil 2:2 a little difficult to follow…

Were the scriptures any good to the Jews? They didn’t have any infallible interpreter.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then I guess the bible lies when it states that it is The Church (not the bible) that is the foundation and support of all truth?

See how totally contradictory that is?

That’s like writing “I cannot write”.

A pillar holds “something” up. It’s not the “something” itself.

The church holds the truth up but it’s not truth itself.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Actually, I agree with you to an extent. Most Protestants do not beleive in Sola Scriptura as much as Prima Scriptura. We (and they) use the term incorrectly.

He did, however, mean it to be “me and my bible alone under a tree” as he said himself that he had the authority to define what was meant by the scriptures.

If Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, why is the Church called the pillar and bulwark of Truth? Why did Paul not say Scripture was? He said that Scripture was excellent for teaching, but even then he did not say that it was the only thing to be used.

Well, I don’t know what the other guy meant but you are correct in that many protestants don’t understand the reformation at all.

A pillar or bulwark supports or holds something up but it’s not the thing it holds up.

 

[2ndGen]

The Bible is infallible?

Don’t you mean those who interprete it are infallible?

Oh, No, that can’t be. Cause that would mean that the Church is infallible. That can’t be if you deny the Church.

What do you mean when you say the bible is infallible?

Do you mean in faith and morals, or totally infallible, without error, even historical or scientific infallible?

Is that what you mean?

And that the bible is infallible in everything, you mean that is true even thought we just have copies of the texts, or translations, or translations of translations? And we are not sure that we have what was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Even those redactions are infallible. Do you mean they are infallible?

Really, what do you mean? Where in the Bible does it say it is infallible?

And when Joe Smith reads the Bible, if it is infallible, does he interprete it infallibilty? Where do you draw the line?
peace

A. How can a book be perfect?

and

B. Which translation of that book?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Also, none of the New Testament had been written down at the time, so Paul was referring to the Old Testament.

No, nowhere in the near vicinity of the verse in question does Paul introduce an attempt at defining the extent of scripture.

All scripture is God breathed, it’s the nature of scripture whether the OT or the NT. Unless of course you want to claim that the NT isn’t God breathed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There are Protestants (non-Catholic Christians) and there are protestants (anti-Catholic Pseudo-Christians). You are a non-Catholic Christian. Nothing negative there, just a distinction. Fred “pastor” Smith was an anti-Catholic Pseudo-Christian.

I don’t lump you in the same boat as he nor do I with our fellow Christians of differing denominations.

However, on behalf of the Catholics here, thank you for the love you’ve shown.

:hug3:

ditto for me! :grouphug:

I have known Protestants all my life, my dad was Lutheran. Most Lutherans that I know are very respectful of Catholics. My grandfather, a Lutheran pastor hated Catholics, until he met my mom. He decided she was different, and made an exception saying she was unlike most Catholics. I have also been in “non-denominational” Bible studies where I was told all Catholics would go to Hell, except me, because I was not really Catholic since I was studying the Bible. They knew the CC better than I!

So, I have seen both Protestants vs protestants, and do not lump them all in the same anti-Catholic pot.

Having said that, it has been an eye-opener for me to see such virulent anti-Catholicism as I have seen here on CAF. It is important to know what we’re up against, so in a sense these types do bring value to the discussion.

God Bless.

 

[2ndGen]

Were the scriptures any good to the Jews? They didn’t have any infallible interpreter.

Yes they did.

The Pharisees.

Even Jesus told His followers to obey what The Pharisees taught theologically when they taught Scripture.

The Jews “heard” The Scriptures, but didn’t “listen” to The Scriptures.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Having said that, it has been an eye-opener for me to see such virulent anti-Catholicism as I have seen here on CAF. It is important to know what we’re up against, so in a sense these types do bring value to the discussion.

God Bless.

What do you think of the less than charitable attitudes of catholics toward any not catholic?

 

[2ndGen]

No, nowhere in the near vicinity of the verse in question does Paul introduce an attempt at defining the extent of scripture.

All scripture is God breathed, it’s the nature of scripture whether the OT or the NT. Unless of course you want to claim that the NT isn’t God breathed.

Even what Satan said?

And again, “which” translation?

Or is it any book that calls itself a “bible”?

Is the NIV God-breathed too even though it’s produced by the publishers of The Satanic Bible?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yes they did.

The Pharisees.

Even Jesus told His followers to obey what The Pharisees taught theologically when they taught Scripture.

The Jews “heard” The Scriptures, but didn’t “listen” to The Scriptures.

No, they didn’t. First off the pharisees taught the corban rule which they coudn’t have if they were infallible. Secondly, having authority doesn’t mean one is infallible. Your bishop has authority over his diocese but he isn’t infallible.

You know something else I just thought of, the pharisees rejected the deuterocanonical books so if you believe they were infallible you should kick a few books out of your canon.

 

[mgrfin]

I mean I believe the scriptures are without error, or any sort. Is that clear enough for you?

Is this what you believe?

No, I don’t believe that.

Only the originals of Scriptures are infallible and without error.

We don’t have originals. So I don’t have to believe in the infallibility of the bible.

I believe the scriptures can have error regarding matters outside of faith and morals. The bible is not a scientific journal.

I am free to accept any legitimate theory of creation so long i believe that at a certain point of time, God entered into the event and created Adam and Eve.

I dont believe that He formed man out of clay, and Eve from a rib belonging to Adam. It could have happened this way, but there is no scientific evidence of it. These were simple stories for simple people.

I do believe that the Catholic Church was entrusted the Scriptures and only she infallibly interpretes them.

peace

 

[qui_est_ce]

No, nowhere in the near vicinity of the verse in question does Paul introduce an attempt at defining the extent of scripture.

Not following you. Are you saying Paul was referring to future writings of NT?

All scripture is God breathed, it’s the nature of scripture whether the OT or the NT. Unless of course you want to claim that the NT isn’t God breathed.

I’m Catholic, I take the NT literally.

 

[2ndGen]

ditto for me! :grouphug:

I have known Protestants all my life, my dad was Lutheran. Most Lutherans that I know are very respectful of Catholics. My grandfather, a Lutheran pastor hated Catholics, until he met my mom. He decided she was different, and made an exception saying she was unlike most Catholics. I have also been in “non-denominational” Bible studies where I was told all Catholics would go to Hell, except me, because I was not really Catholic since I was studying the Bible. They knew the CC better than I!

So, I have seen both Protestants vs protestants, and do not lump them all in the same anti-Catholic pot.

Having said that, it has been an eye-opener for me to see such virulent anti-Catholicism as I have seen here on CAF. It is important to know what we’re up against, so in a sense these types do bring value to the discussion.

God Bless.

Ephesians 6:14!
“Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;”

:knight1:

 

[Pwrlftr]

Even what Satan said?

Yeah, even what satan said was accurately recorded in scripture.

Do you believe the scriptures are completely inerrant?

And again, “which” translation?

Good point. The original copy would be inerrant but as you know copyist errors have crept in.

Is the NIV God-breathed too even though it’s produced by the publishers of The Satanic Bible?

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I believe the scriptures can have error regarding matters outside of faith and morals.

First off, the scriptures can use allegory but that wouldn’t be an error.

Depending on what you mean by “the scriptures can have error regarding matters outside of faith and morals.” you may be putting yourself in direct opposition to several popes and the constant teaching of your church.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What do you think of the less than charitable attitudes of catholics toward any not catholic?

I’m Catholic, we are suposed to see Jesus in everyone. But, I admit I do it when I get repeatedly attacked by people who do not respond to posts, but continue to spout venom and hate, which is beyond uncharitable, I might respond less than charitable.

 

[Jimmy_B]

FredSmith got banned?

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!

:crying:

Who am I going to play with now?

:crying: :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:

Oh well…

Let us hold a memorial for Fred “pastor” Smith;



youtube.com/watch?v=hMenB9Ywh2Q

Don’t worry he (Fred Smith) will probably be back using an alias, that is if he isn’t already back. Keep your eyes open. I have seen this done more than once before.

 

[2ndGen]

No, they didn’t. First off the pharisees taught the corban rule which they coudn’t have if they were infallible. Secondly, having authority doesn’t mean one is infallible. Your bishop has authority over his diocese but he isn’t infallible.

You know something else I just thought of, the pharisees rejected the deuterocanonical books so if you believe they were infallible you should kick a few books out of your canon.

You’re talking “before Christ implimented His Church”. After Christ, they were fallible, because they rejected Him and thus lost the seat of Moses and Jesus took it from them and gave it to His Apostles.

And they were given the protection (as His Church) of 1) the gates of Hell never prevailing against it and 2) the help of The Holy Paraclete.

If you think that their fallible and Protestants took out the Deuterocanonical Books, what does that tell you about the Protestants then?

And for the record…here’s what Jesus said about The Pharisees “before” He brought about His Church after His death:

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."