Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[Ginger2]

Now Ginger, SURELY you did not mean to create a false impression by neglecting to give the complete CONTEXT, did you?

Really! why should I type out more than is necessary?

You asked for the proof the RC teaches Luther invented Sola Scripture. I gave it.

The complete text only shows the RC also teaches Luther invented other doctrines that he did not support, like sola fide. It has already been proven Luther did not believe in SF, nor teach it. Yet, there it is in your “complete CONTEXT” showing everyone that the RC is either mistaken or lying about ML. :tsktsk:

I assume it is just an honest mistake, which is why I’m straightening out the misunderstanding so as to help Catholics avoid further embarrassment.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Also, where is the proof that this was ‘made up’ to discredit Luther?

The proof is in that Martin Luther did not teach SS. Since Martin Luther did not teach it, but the RC claims he did, it stands to reason this false doctrine sprang out of the RCs attempts to discredit ML.

Afterall, the first mentions of this false doctrine are false claims as to its origin!!!

This is the quote the RC uses to accuse Luther of creating SS:

Luther: “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. **Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or **(since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) **by manifest reasoning, **I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.
On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Notice Luther did not say the Scriptures were the only source to find truth. He also said he would listen to solid reasoning.

Ginger

 

[EdOsiecki]

.

I know a SS who thinks divorce is acceptable. I know another who says it’s not. Seem to me it isn’t so clear to them. Seems to me if Jesus believed in SS to his faithful He’d have made it juuuuust a tad bit more understandable don’t you think. And if He were to td do this, He’d be using more words than what he had used used there telling us there was much more to say on this. But guess what, He left that up to His Apostles and their successors.

Hi Des, I hate to get into Ginger’s way since her dialog is trashing you all to bits, Catholic dogma divorce NO! Annulment YES! Same thing my friend. ED O.

 

[Des]

Why would I try to do that when it is not true???

**I know a Catholic who thinks divorce is acceptable. I know another who says it’s not. Seems to me it isn’t so clear to them. **

The RC says divorce is not permitted, but then allows for some and denies it for others - often when the request is made for the exact same reason.
Seems to me it isn’t so clear to them.

Ginger

False. The Church professes that any valid marriage cannot be dissolved. That teaching can’t get any clearer. Protestants can’t even agree on a statement as simple as that one.

Hi Des, I hate to get into Ginger’s way since her dialog is trashing you all to bits, Catholic dogma divorce NO! Annulment YES! Same thing my friend. ED O.

Sorry friend but you are way off and any protestant who agrees with her SS theory will of course think she’s doing well. Anyone neutral can see through her rhetoric like glass. She believes in the Real Presence Ed so I hope you do as well or she will say you’re either intentionally being rebellious to the written Word of God, or just ignorant of the Scriptures.

 

[Des]

Oh, where do I begin…

Compare the Biblical view of Jesus to RC view of Mary:

Jesus: Virgin born (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Immaculately conceived (imposed on 2 unrelated verses)

Jesus: Lived a sinsless life (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Lived a sinless life (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Rose from the dead bodily (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Rose from the dead bodily (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Bodily ascended into heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Bodily Assumed into heaven: (no eyewitness; **not **Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Seated at right hand of God (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Seated at right hand of Jesus (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Advocate and Intercessor for the saints (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Advocate and intercessor for the saints (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Redeemer (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Co-Redemtrix (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Mediator (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Mediatrix (**not **Scripturally documented)

Not only are these comparisons to Mary not supported by any evidence, but they contradict Scriptures that say "Only Jesus is sinless, our redeemer, our Savior, our mediator, our intercessor,

Every Marian Dogma can be derived from Scripture though of course many taken from verses of the implicit form. It is not our fault you only take the explicit to be the important ones yet amazingly enough, you’ve yet to provide one explicit verse stating the sufficiency of Scripture alone in context.

And Scripture never says that others were not sinless so keep dreaming.

 

[EdOsiecki]

]

False. The Church professes that any valid marriage cannot be dissolved. That teaching can’t get any clearer. Protestants can’t even agree on a statement as simple as that one.

Hi Des thanks for your reply. I’m sorry my friend, I hate burst your proud bubble. Here’s what I present: My brother and I were both reared as Catholics and married in the Catholic church. Both of us had children and were later divorced. Since I didn’t want to become a 2nd class Catholic by not being able to receive Communion should I re-marry, I left the Catholic church, re-married and became a 1st class Protestant. My brother re-married in a civil ceremony, stayed in the Catholic church (now 2nd class) was not allowed to receive communion. Years later, the priest suggested that he get an annulment of his first marriage and it was granted! He then regained 1st class Catholic membership again and received communion. Here’s my point: How could my brother’s first marriage be invalid ( meaning it never happened) when their is a child? Protestants get divorsed, Catholics get annulments. Regardless what they profess, it’s the SAME THING. Too many Catholics left the church for the same reason I did, so the Magisterium got smart and changed their minds, so divorce/annulments SAME THING my friend. Check out the annulment statistics. ED O.

 

[kepha1]

Every Marian Dogma can be derived from Scripture though of course many taken from verses of the implicit form. It is not our fault you only take the explicit to be the important ones yet amazingly enough, you’ve yet to provide one explicit verse stating the sufficiency of Scripture alone in context.

In addition, the very concept that “all doctrines must be explicitly found in Scripture in order to be trustworthy” is considered an infallible doctrine by many Protestants…but there is not one single verse in the bible that states this. It is one of the most self-destructing irrational unbiblical doctrines that many Protestants rigidly adhere to.

When they say “…that’s not in the Bible”, what they really mean is, “the consistent, historical, authoritive interpretation according to the faith community that wrote the Bible in the first place is canceled out by my personal opinion, or the personal opinions of others”. :banghead:

 

[kepha1]

How could my brother’s first marriage be invalid ( meaning it never happened) when their is a child?

Having children is not proof of a sacramental marraige, and neither is a marraige certificate. It is a covenant, not just a contract.

Protestants get divorsed, Catholics get annulments. Regardless what they profess, it’s the SAME THING.

No, it isn’t.

Too many Catholics left the church for the same reason I did, so the Magisterium got smart and changed their minds, so divorce/annulments SAME THING my friend. Check out the annulment statistics. ED O.

The only thing that “annulment statistics” prove is that there are more invalid marriages. Your problem is that you can’t tell the difference between mouthing words in a church and a valid or invalid marriage.

I have been married and annuled. Annulment is a discerning process that should help make the person aware of their character defects that rendered the “marriage” unworkable. Sometimes its a painful process. The reason why many Catholics leave the Church over this issue is not for theological reasons, but they lack the maturity necessary to face the reality of what went wrong. So annulments are ignored. That might have something to do with why “it never happened”, because oftentimes, one or both of the couple is just not equipped to fulfil their vows. Basically, they are too immature to fulfil marriage vows, and too immature to go through the growth process of an annulment. So they blame the Church and become Protestants. And if they really are married and run off to a minister to re-marry, the minister is irresponsible for marrying people into an adulterous relationship. Protestants do not have any solid mechanism to prove the marriage is invalid. The minister has to keep his congregation happy, at grave spiritual risk to the couple.

Annulments are a merciful action of the Church, so people can get healed and get on with their lives in a real marraige. The Church does not have the authority to nullify a valid marraige. But she has the authority to declare whether or not all the necessary ingedients are there that makes a true covenant. You have taken this authority on to yourself, even if your previous marraige was not yet proven to be invalid. That’s why you are a first class Protestant.

A divorce is a civil matter, necessary in order to apply for an anullment. No government has authority in spiritual matters of matrimony. Courts issue divorces, they do not declare a marraige valid or invald. And being divorced is not a sin, remarrying when you are already married is.

If I have made you uncomfortable I apologize, and also for making unjustified opinions into your private life that I know nothing about, I was generalizing and not intending to point fingers.

Please come home.

 

[Ginger2]

And Scripture never says that others were not sinless so keep dreaming.

Gal 3:22 — But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Galatians 3: makes clear God’s plan was to ensure everyone was concluded under sin - even those who had not committed personal sinned - like an infant.

So that they could be saved thru the cross. Why do you deny Mary this gift?

If Mary was born without the curse of original she didn’t need the cross of Christ.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus was the only one who could sacrifice himself to pay for our sins, because Jesus is the only one who is perfect - born without sin and never sinned his entire life.

So, Mary could not be perfect - born without sin and never sinned his entire life - because that would mean Jesus was not the only one who could redeem mankind.

These false doctrine about Mary are spawn from human rationalization, for they contradict the Holy Word of God.

 

[Ginger2]

Every Marian Dogma can be derived from Scripture …

I hate to keep repeating myself, but:

“The Assumption of Mary”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite…

The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious."

“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake. The earliest mention is from the 4th or 5th centuries based on false documents.

 

[shoewindow3000]

I’m sorry my friend, I hate burst your proud bubble. Here’s what I present: My brother and I were both…married in the Catholic church. Both of us had children and were later divorced…

If I were Protestant, I could interpret that to mean you and your brother married each other!

 

[Ginger2]

I have been married and annuled. Annulment is a discerning process that should help make the person aware of their character defects that rendered the “marriage” unworkable.

Matt 19:8-9 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,** except for marital unfaithfulness**, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Here Jesus states immoral behavior is grounds for divorce.

A priest in this forum once told a woman whose husband continued to cheat, her situation didn’t warrant an annulment.
kepha1;5667418:

Annulments are a merciful action of the Church, so people can get healed and get on with their lives in a real marraige.

A annulment/divorce before her husband gives her the gift of an incurable disease is a merciful action … so people can get healed and get on with their lives in a real marriage.

Another couple was granted an annulment after 15? years of marriage because (altho they were both of legal age when they married) they married too young and therefore it was not a valid marriage. There was no mention of infidelity or abuse, he just didn’t love her.

why bother counseling I don’t see anywhere in the Bible “LOVE” is a requirement for marriage.

 

[benedictus2]

I love the Catholic people because they are made in Gods image, but I pray they will understand that legalism will never get them to heaven…

Wrong. Catholic interpretation is not legalism. Just shows how little you know about how Catholics understand scripture. Perhaps you should learn first about that which you attack.

that’s my personal and correct intepretation of both the Scripture and the practical reality of Catholicism.

And your personal interpretation is completely wrong. But then what can we expect from someone who has the utter arrogance and pride to think that he/she alone can fully grasp scripture and Catholic teaching all by herself. Me thinks the devils prodding is at play here.

Believe me, I know first hand the struggles Catholics endure and all that is expected from them;

Maybe you have struggles (more a case of ignorance I think), but there is a whole lot of us who have no struggles at all. Only plain simply illumination.

it is difficult and unneccessary, for when the Son sets you free from the bondage you are now in; then you will be really free.

Considering that you seem to be so learned and wise, How exactly did the Son set you free? And yes, Biblical support would be nice.

Can God use a person who is truly free? You bet He can!!!

You are 100% correct here. But first to the definition of freedom. What do you mean here by free?

Oh and by the way, God also uses those who are not completely free. Remember Abraham? Moses? etc.

 

[benedictus2]

Ginger,

Are you saying that Sola Scriptura is not inherrant to the Bible? Many of the early church fathers used Scripture almost exclusively to combat herisies. No one says “Scripture Alone” verbatim, but it is implied in very implicit sense, almost explicitly.

Where else is God’s special revelation given to us other than Scripture?

Aahhh but who came up with the canon of Scripture but …(drum rolll ) the Catholic Church!

Matt. 4:3-4 3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.”

Jesus certainly knew where everything was in regards to the Christian faith and practice.

But Jesus was only quoting from the OT. During His time the NT was not even written yet.

 

[benedictus2]

He can’t help himself; the love of God only abides in those that have accepted Christ His way.

True. And those who TRULY accept Christ will accept the Church He HIMSELF built upon Peter. Where the Body is there the Head will be.

So you must be patient and have pity on them.

Yes we must. Poor souls separated from the Body of Christ all because of the Protestant revolt.

Anyone who claims the Bible came from the Roman Catholic Church already proves they do not understand the work of the Holy Spirit, which is God.

All those who deny that the Catholic Church came up with the Bible do not understand that this is the WAY the Holy Spirit CHOSE to WORK.

In the same way that Christ could have just written everything Himself but He did not do that. What He did instead is to build a Church.

Also to say that 2000 years of teaching is also error on Catholic history; for the Catholic Church itself has evolved over time; look at the great schisms and also since the Vatican II where moderistic views have dramatically changed the face of the Catholic Church forever.

But doctrine develops just as the acorn becomes an oak tree.

Anyone to deny this is just plain; I don’t know what.

I agree. You don’t know what

Someone once said somewhere…Ignorance is bliss and security; it is the Truth that messes everything up…leave me as I was.

So you want us to leave you in your blissfull state?

 

[Ginger2]

…the very concept that “all doctrines must be explicitly found in Scripture in order to be trustworthy” …but there is not one single verse in the bible that states this…

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18-9 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.”

And Early Church Fathers agreed:

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” Ambrose bishop of Milan, (Duties of the Clergy I,23:102).

’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ Hippolytus of Rome (Against Noetus 9)

’If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or to take away from the written word.’ Tertullian of Carthage (Against Hermogenes 22)

 

[estesbob]

If I were Protestant, I could interpret that to mean you and your brother married each other!

Which , depending on which version of Protestanism he joined, is a possiblity!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Notice how quickly the subjects keep getting changed here by Ginger and her friends? And still Ginger et. al have not answered the question of how they can KNOW that the Spirit speaks to them. . .especially when Ginger believes in the Real Presence and other Protestants do not.

So Ed, do YOU believe the Eucharist is really Christ’s Body and Blood? Was John 6 literal or figurative speech from Jesus about needing to eat His flesh?

Notice also that Ginger’s charges against Catholics are never supported. She quotes only a piece from the dictionary that she thinks supports her, and ignores that rest that does not.

She still has not shown that a false SS doctrine by Catholics (which doctrine she has never come out explicitly to STATE) was 'invented to discredit Luther. She ignores what specifically was listed in the dictionary.

Charges, charges, charges, a whole host of jumping to and fro, snippets dragged in from bishops. . .

Hmm. If one were to make an inference from the proven fact that Ginger selectively ‘edited’ a passage from the catholic dictionary (see posts above), one would be mighty suspicious of any of her ‘quotes’ on anything else.

It pains me to say this but so far as I am concerned, I cannot trust Ginger’s statements to be complete and factual. I think that she has proven this; that she does not feel it necessary to be accurate and complete but that she will only ‘snip’ what she thinks proves her point, and ignore the rest. She herself said that she had ‘no need’ to show the ‘complete’ quote. That is not only bad scholarship but extremely bad manners. If we continue to engage her in dialogue it should be made abundantly clear that we do so knowing that she has proven her bias and that any argument she makes is her opinion only, and that any ‘documentation’ she gives will not necessarily be the complete documentation.

 

[inkaneer]

Why would I try to do that when it is not true???

**I know a Catholic who thinks divorce is acceptable. I know another who says it’s not. Seems to me it isn’t so clear to them. **

The RC says divorce is not permitted, but then allows for some and denies it for others - often when the request is made for the exact same reason.
Seems to me it isn’t so clear to them.

Ginger

Divorce is a civil term. Marriage in civil law follows the law of partnerships. For instance, marriage, like a partnership, is automatically dissolved with the death of one of the partners. Accordingly partnerships can be legally dissolved without one of the partners having to die. The same is applied to civil marriages which can be dissolved also. This disolution of a civil marriage is called a divorce. Divorce is permitted by the Church as it recognizes that a marriage involves civil law as well as covenant law. BUT, while divorce is permitted by the church remarriage is not because although divorced according to the civil legal system the two are still married covenantly. A divorce does not address the covenant law. An annulment examines the marriage to determine if the requisites of covenant law were met for a valid marriage to have existed at the time of marriage. In other words an annulment means there was no valid marriage to begin with even though the civil authorities would say there is. In the case of an annulment the parties must also get a divorce to satisfy the civil law. It is possible therefore that two people can be legally divorced but yet still covenantly married. For someone to then civilly remarry would be adultery.

 

[Ginger2]

Notice how quickly the subjects keep getting changed here by Ginger and her friends?

Responding to question and assertions directed to me is changing the subject???

And still Ginger et. al have not answered the question of how they can KNOW that the Spirit speaks to them. . .especially when Ginger believes in the Real Presence and other Protestants do not.

So Ed, do YOU believe the Eucharist is really Christ’s Body and Blood? Was John 6 literal or figurative speech from Jesus about needing to eat His flesh?

Notice also that Ginger’s charges against Catholics are never supported. She quotes only a piece from the dictionary that she thinks supports her, and ignores that rest that does not.

My excerpt was in context of the full text. You asked me to prove the Catholic Church teaches ML created the doctrine of SS. I showed you the quote from the New Advent stating exactly that. You quoted the full text and it still says ML created this new doctrine.

Now Ginger, SURELY you did not mean to create a false impression by neglecting to give the complete CONTEXT, did you?

"Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther’s attitude at this, **as far as a formulated cohesion can bededuced, **was as follows:

Bible is the only source of faith, it contains the plenary inspiration of God, its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character"

This is clear to anyone with the average comprehensive skills of a fifth grader - Catholics teach Luther is responsible for imposing this doctrine in Protestanism.

And that is not even a Protestant belief!

The Bible says Jesus is the source of our faith:
Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith;…

Luk 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

… (which doctrine she has never come out explicitly to STATE) was 'invented to discredit Luther. …

Sola Fide is the clearest example: as mentioned earlier, Luther stated it is impossible to separate faith from works.

However, since the pope holds authority with you let me quote Pope Benedict:
“…That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. …”

Was Luther opposed to love and charity?

It pains me to say this but so far as I am concerned, I cannot trust Ginger’s statements… She herself said that she had ‘no need’ to show the ‘complete’ quote. …

No need as the entire quote did not change the fact RC claims Luther promoted doctrines which he did not promote.

Ginger