D
Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?
- Status
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
First things first, you do agree that other groups existed that were not considered heretical. You break out the 1500 figure like the other groups did not exist…but they do.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If this was asked of me I’d say, “Ask me what I believe on the issues, I’ll tell you, and you put me in a category. I’m not smart enough to put myself in any group but Christian, one who wants to follow Jesus in response to His love for me shown to me by His death and resurrection.”
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And it’s called a Church.
Here’s another Protestant defintion.
Ekklesia (pronounced ek-klay-see’-ah) is The Greek word used in the Bible for church, which actually means “assembly” or literally “called out ones.” It is made up of the two Greek words, EK—“out of,” and KALEO—“shall be called.”
Visit the link and see the twisting to remove it from being a build that the modern language has adopted for those buildings we worship in. By the way, what do you call that building you meet in to worship?
Here’s another definition from a legal dictionary with no vested interest in our ‘debate’.
ECCLESIA. In classical Greek this word signifies any assembly, and in this sense it is used in Acts xix. 39. But ordinarily, in the New Testament, the word denotes a Christian assembly, and is rendered into English by the word church. It occurs thrice only in, the Gospels, viz. in Matt. xvi. 18, and xviii. 17; but very frequently in the other parts of the New Testament, beginning with Acts ii. 47. In Acts xix. 37, the word churches, in the common English version, seems to be improperly used to denote heathen temples. Figuratively, the word church is employed to signify the building set apart for the Christian assemblies; but the word eclesia is not used in the New Testament in that sense.
Again, what do you call the building you assemble in to worship?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Huss
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramihrdus_of_Cambrai
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Bruys
That 1500 figure would have looked a lot different if it were not for this…agree?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Huss
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramihrdus_of_Cambrai
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Bruys
That 1500 figure would have looked a lot different if it were not for this…agree?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Yes, it’s important. You tell me my interpretation is wrong according to your interpretation. Yet, you, for some reason, cannot see that you just told me your interpretation is infallible.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
**Albigensianism
A neo-Manichaean sect, associated with the Catharist (Puritan) movement, that flourished in southern France in the 12th and 13th centuries. They believed in a good spirit who created the spiritual, and in an evil spirit who created the material world, including the human body, which is therefore under his control. The good spirit created the soul but the evil one imprisoned it in the body, which is evil from its source. To deliver souls from this evil and punishment, the good spirit, God, sent Jesus Christ who is only a creature. Since the body is evil He could assume only a celestial one. They commended suicide especially by starvation, their endura, and in general, the extinction of human life, and advocated abstention from marriage, preferring concubinage as less evil. As they were a menace to governments and society generally, and resisted all attempts at their conversion, a crusade was organized by barons from France, Germany, and Belgium against Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, who favored them. After defeating them with great carnage the barons, contrary to the designs of Pope Innocent III, continued a war of conquest. The sect disappeared in the 14th century. **
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia does not recognize that Catharists came in different groups including some that were Orthodox
Like many medieval movements, there were various schools of thought and practice amongst the Cathari; some were dualistic (believing in a God of Good and a God of Evil), others Gnostic, some closer to Orthodoxy while abstaining from an acceptance of Roman Catholicism.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
**Hussites
A religious sect which arose in Southern Bohemia in the early 15th century; the followers of Hus; also known as Wycliffites, as they professed the teaching of Wyclif and as Utraquists, as their distinctive dogma was Utraquism, i.e., the necessity of receiving Communion under both species. The followers of Hus, venerating him as a holy martyr of the old religion rather than as a founder of a new one, objected to the appellation “Hussites,” which implied separation from the Universal Church, for they believed their creed to be truly Catholic; but during the Hussite Wars the name became commonly applied both to the original followers of Hus and to the subsequent smaller sects into which they divided. The dogma of Utraquism, introduced by Jacobellis von Mies, was never preached by Hus, who first thought it “wise not to introduce such an innovation without the approbation of the Church.” Later, however, he maintained that the chalice should be given to the laity if Christ and the Apostle Paul were to be obeyed. The Council of Constance, realizing the danger of the heresy, ordered its extirpation by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of Bohemia, but the Bohemian and Moravian nobles considered the “unjust” martyrdom of Hus, and the assertion that a heresy existed in Bohemia, insults to their country, and therefore banded together in an offensive and defensive league. Dissensions soon arose among the Hussites; the Taborites, so called because they met at “Mount Tabor,” completely set aside the authority of the Church and admitted no other rule than the Bible; the Calixtines only demanded Communion under both species for the laity, and free preaching of the Gospel; they were called Calixtines because of the chalice which they displayed on their flag, weapons, clothes, etc. Under the leadership of Ziska of Troznow, however, the two factions successfully resisted both the imperial armies and the papal crusaders sent to subdue them. Civil war and the destructive forces of the Hussites ravaged Bohemia for over fifteen years, but finally peace was obtained by the Compactata of Basle, 1433, which permitted Communion under both forms to those who had reached the age of discretion and were in the state of grace, under these conditions: that the Hussites confess that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ was contained whole and entire both under the form of bread and under that of wine, and that they retract the statement that communion under both forms is necessary for salvation. Though the Compactata pleased the moderate Utraquists, the Calixtines, it found little favor with the Taborites (also, since the death of Ziska in 1424, called “Orphans”), but the Taborites were nearly exterminated at the Battle of Lippau, 1424, and the Compactata was finally accepted at the Diet of Iglau, 1436. Various troubles with Rokyzana, a leader of the Calixtines, eventually led to the nullification of the Compactata by Pius II, and his refusal to recognize the Utraquist rite, and other religious and civil wars followed, until in 1485 both parties were granted equal rights and liberty by King Wladislaw. By degrees the Utraquists conformed to the Roman rites so as to be hardly distinguishable from them, except through the chalice for the laity. **
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
**Donatists
A heretical and schismatical sect (311-411) who claimed that the validity of the sacraments depended on the moral character of the minister, and that sinners could not be members of the Church, and could not be tolerated by a true Church unless their sins were secret. The sect came into existence in Africa during the disorders following the persecution under Diocletian (303-305). The leader was Donatus, Bishop of Carthage, in opposition to Majorinus, whom he accused of being invalidly consecrated because his predecessor had been consecrated by a traditor. The claims of the sect were opposed by Pope Miltiades, 313; the Council of Arles, 314; the Emperor Constantine the Great, 316; and by Saint Augustine, 391-411, when a conference was held at Carthage in which the Donatists were confounded. Their churches were seized, and they were exiled. They disappeared from history after the Saracenic invasion of Africa. **
D
Dokimas
Guest
Are you saying, when you typed ‘yes’ that the distinction is important? The distinction that the Truth is infallible an interpretation is either correct or incorrect but not infallible? If so, you answered your own question. I DON’T think my interpretation is infallible. My understanding may or may not be correct. The TRUTH is infallible. The difference is you think your understanding (interpretation) is infallible, correct?
Kind of interesting: you accuse me of thinking my interpretation is infallible yet in reality you do too. However, as I pointed out, I don’t say my interpretation is infallible but may be correct.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
You are doing two things: quoting the beliefs of the people who were killed from the people responsible for it. Not to mention the source is 100 years old
And not dealing with my statement that these beliefs would have been around earlier but something prevented it from occuring
cathar.info/120115b_legacy.htm
And not dealing with my statement that these beliefs would have been around earlier but something prevented it from occuring
cathar.info/120115b_legacy.htm
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
**Sources suggest that Peter was born at Bruis in southeastern France.[2] The history of his early life is unknown, but it is certain that he was a Roman Catholic priest who had been deprived of his office by the Church hierarchy for teaching unorthodox doctrine.[2] He began his preaching in Dauphiné and Provence probably between 1117 and 1120.[1] The local bishops, who oversaw the dioceses of Embrun, Die, and Gap, suppressed his teachings within their jurisdictions. In spite of the official repression, Peter’s teachings gained adherents at Narbonne, Toulouse, and in Gascony.[2]
Peter of Bruys admitted the doctrinal authority of the Gospels in their literal interpretation; the other New Testament writings he seems to have considered valueless, as he doubted their apostolic origin.[1] To the New Testament epistles he assigned only a subordinate place as not coming from Jesus Christ, but rather being the work of men.[2]
He rejected the Old Testament as well as the authority of the Church Fathers and that of the Roman Catholic Church itself.[1][2] His contempt for the Roman Catholic Church extended to the clergy and physical violence was preached and practiced against priests and monks by his followers, known as Petrobrusians.[2] Petrobrusians also opposed clerical celibacy.[1]**
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Yes, we have established that you can quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Wikipedia article. The point being these people and our beliefs, even in partial form, were supressed.
P
PJM
Guest
[QUOT]E=polgas733;6281985]Firstly, there are not 30,000 interpretations of the Bible. That is a load of bunk.
What world do you live in?
Secondly, it’s not that hard to understand for the most part.
with morethan 30,000 different Interpretations, Oh I think it is
Thridly, the parts that are difficult to understand are still difficult even when interpreted by the Catholic Church.
They are only hard to understand when you have your own interpretations
Fourth, the CC has not interpreted all of the Bible
and fifth, Sola scriptura is not the cause of all the divisions in the church as you appear to be implying.
ofcourse not, It is just one of the causes
***While I might agree that there are not “30,000” interpetiations of the bible, it seems possible that here could be? Given the number of “different non-catholic denominations” is what ever that number actually is? Further it is a reasonable conclusion that each of these denominations has theological and philosohical differences that might well stem from disagreements on what the bible says and or actually means?
The point however seems to be mute, in that the authors of the bible had but a single or at least a primary thought in mind as they pened, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirt [God Himself] the lessons to be learned and accepted and put into the practice of our ONE Faith. For certainly it is written for but one single and common faith.
It is inconceivable that the authors intended or even reflected on the possibility of personal interpetiation as they understood correctly that “faith is taught,” NOT self-taught.
The idea that one can simply pick up the bible and understand its proper meaning and intended applicaton is simply foolish. It defies both logic and God’s Will.
The CC translates the bible and its proper meaning guided by the very same Holy Spirit who inspired its authors. This too is biblically proveable.
Because the Bible is a book birthed through the CC and as historically proveable, written specifically for the CC, ONLY the CC can [as in has the God given ability] to properly understand it, and teach it. Therefore any and all [regardless of the number, be it high or low] that reach conclusions NOT in conforminty with the CC must be and factually are wrong.***
Love and prayers,
Pat
What world do you live in?
Secondly, it’s not that hard to understand for the most part.
with morethan 30,000 different Interpretations, Oh I think it is
Thridly, the parts that are difficult to understand are still difficult even when interpreted by the Catholic Church.
They are only hard to understand when you have your own interpretations
Fourth, the CC has not interpreted all of the Bible
and fifth, Sola scriptura is not the cause of all the divisions in the church as you appear to be implying.
ofcourse not, It is just one of the causes
***While I might agree that there are not “30,000” interpetiations of the bible, it seems possible that here could be? Given the number of “different non-catholic denominations” is what ever that number actually is? Further it is a reasonable conclusion that each of these denominations has theological and philosohical differences that might well stem from disagreements on what the bible says and or actually means?
The point however seems to be mute, in that the authors of the bible had but a single or at least a primary thought in mind as they pened, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirt [God Himself] the lessons to be learned and accepted and put into the practice of our ONE Faith. For certainly it is written for but one single and common faith.
It is inconceivable that the authors intended or even reflected on the possibility of personal interpetiation as they understood correctly that “faith is taught,” NOT self-taught.
The idea that one can simply pick up the bible and understand its proper meaning and intended applicaton is simply foolish. It defies both logic and God’s Will.
The CC translates the bible and its proper meaning guided by the very same Holy Spirit who inspired its authors. This too is biblically proveable.
Because the Bible is a book birthed through the CC and as historically proveable, written specifically for the CC, ONLY the CC can [as in has the God given ability] to properly understand it, and teach it. Therefore any and all [regardless of the number, be it high or low] that reach conclusions NOT in conforminty with the CC must be and factually are wrong.***
Love and prayers,
Pat
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
If your interpretation may or may not be correct, how do you arrive at our interpretation is incorrect?
Yes, the truth is infallible. The scriptures are inerrant. There are many unlearned, unstable and unwise who interpret scriptures though, even to their own destruction. Now, we need to know, did God leave us without a source to depend on for His truth? Can we depend on the inerrant word to guide us to that truth?
It’s the pillar and ground of truth, a place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. It’s called the Church.
Now, should I trust my salvation to one of the many, many different interpretations of scriptures, or should I trust the scriptures in their guiding me to the truth?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The 1500 figure is bogus.
It ignores the Oriental Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox
The Montanists
The Paulicians (Prodigal is going to love the Catholic Encyclopedia take on this group but its a shame he does not have a link to contemporary research on their writings)
The Waldensians
The Hussites
And on and on.
But when you win, you get to write the history, or the Catholic Encyclopedia as the case may be
It ignores the Oriental Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox
The Montanists
The Paulicians (Prodigal is going to love the Catholic Encyclopedia take on this group but its a shame he does not have a link to contemporary research on their writings)
The Waldensians
The Hussites
And on and on.
But when you win, you get to write the history, or the Catholic Encyclopedia as the case may be
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I can unequivocably state that the church of Rightlydivide has never killed anyone who disagreed with them on a religious matter or doctrine. As such, we have never been responsible for the suppression of another’s religious beliefs. The 1500 WOULD have been a lot different if not for the killing of people who held similiar views as us. Note I say similiar in some manner.
I am simply stating why the 1500 figure was created by deadly force.
I am simply stating why the 1500 figure was created by deadly force.
L
larkin31
Guest
Sounds like an argument for individual revelation and sola scriptura.
- Status