S
SIA
Guest
Can you catch me up to speed on what you are talking about? I don’t live here ya know.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Click on the little blue arrow next to the posters name. keep doing this till you get back to the thread to which he is responding. This is how you find things when a person fails to "quote’.
Geee, your partner criticizes the use of “emotion”, and you pop up with this very “emotional invective” claiming much that you cannot and have not ever proven. Its almost as if you pridefully and arrogantly place yourself on a higher plane than anyone…
Show one proof, just ONE, that the Catholic Church’s doctrines and dogmas contradict the Holy Word of God.
It must be ironclad based of fact, verifiable fact, and contain not a wit of your opinion. Otherwise…well, you know.
S
SIA
Guest
They are not really to me. I was one from birth till I was in my 30’s. Not just by name, but by devoutful practice for many years.Well, the HS does not require reasoning or discernment, so that means the reasoning and discernment is yours.
The HS gives the discernment to Reason. If he didn’t give it, the reasoning would purely be our own (subject to personal interpretation).
That being the case, you are the final authority on whether you have heard the HS or not.
Our belief and faith in God shows this statement to be wrong. Again, the HS working through one is the authority. How else would we have been given the canonized Scriptures?
I am glad we can agree on this point. This being the case, what makes you think you can apprehend what He wants you to know through puny human wisdom??
Tell that to your magisterium.
No, I must confess, Roman Catholics are often a great mystery to me.
S
SIA
Guest
Oh gee whiz Rob. We have been through this, over this and ran this thing over many times. Your marian dogmas do not jive with Scripture. Your claims of who the pope is do not jive with Scripture and all of the finger pointing you do at Protestants are not based upon Scripture. Show me where they are? This is where we are if you want to make any progress here.
R
RobHom
Guest
NO, you made allegations, and have done so many times, and have been challenged to provide proofs. You always fail to do so. But you repetitively and redundantly insist on throwing the same spitball over and over.
And in this post you are again making allegations…baseless and without support. Again I challenge you to provide incontrovertible proof that your allegations are correct.
I have not the burden to prove anything. I have made not allegations, other than that are a cop-pot who bears false witness.
Your last post is rather great proof of that.
G
guanophore
Guest
Are you saying that your personal ability to discern the HS is so pure that you are not influenced by any personal interpretation?
Let me see if I can follow this. Your reasoning is inspired by the HS, and you know this because of your “belief” that it is so?
I am sure they might have, as many fundamentalists seem to believe, fallen out of the sky…
what makes you think you can apprehend what He wants you to know through puny human wisdom??
It was not a “telling” it was a question. What makes you think that you can apprehend what He wants you to know through your puny human wisdom. We can move on to the magesterium next.
No one is Catholic from birth. It is not hereditary.
Your posts indicate that you do not understand the Catholic faith. How do you account for that? It is ok if you don’t answer, it is off topic anyhow.
S
SIA
Guest
Here’s your proof
The Assumption of Mary - cannot be found in Scripture
The perpetual virginity of Mary - cannot be found in Scripture.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary - cannot be found in Scripture.
The Infallibility of the popes - cannot be found in Scripture and furthermore was not a doctrine of the Early Church. Prior to the Great Schism, the seat of the Bishop of Rome was not of supremacy. The doctrine of infallibility wasn’t even part of the church doctrine until the late 1800’s.
Refute that.
R
RobHom
Guest
By the way SIA… since “sola scriptura” is an invalid and man-made concept … you cannot apply the basis of it as a proof.
Invalidity or something is not a proof of anything except its own invalidity.
Invalidity or something is not a proof of anything except its own invalidity.
G
guanophore
Guest
Sorry, SIA, this is just not very useful. First of all, you have made it clear that there are many things in scripture that you cannot “find”. The fact that you do not find them there is only a testimony to your lack of ability to see.
Secondly, it is not a concern for Catholics if something is not stated explicitly in scripture, because we know that scripture was never meant to contain everything explicitly. Scripture was produced (at least the NT) from the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Therefore, everything in it is perfectly consistent with what the Church teaches, since they came from the same Source.
A
AlanF
Guest
You did not say “not found in” Scripture, you said “contradicts” Scripture. Show us Bible passages that actually contradict those doctrines. we’re ok with then not being in the Bible, we’re the ones against Sola Scriptura.
BTW Papal Infallability was Catholic belief before Vatican 1, it just wasn’t declared infallibly by the Magisterium before then, just like the Marian dogmas and the Trinity.
A
AlanF
Guest
hmm
13th page and the OP has not posted a single reply…
13th page and the OP has not posted a single reply…
G
guanophore
Guest
I think that login was created just to generate the question. Very possibly by someone who is on the thread!
R
RobHom
Guest
I truly and sincerely wish to thank my non-Catholic brethren for all of the good laughs, mirth and fun of this day!!
I clicked on the link that the OP posted and this is what was “prevalent on the page”…
I’m actually beginning to think the whole thing was a red herring… because if you look at the scriptures the individual posted; to wit:
(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
Now, why would he post that???
R
RobHom
Guest
Actually SIA… you practically do live on here. You’ve only been registered on the site for what…10 months and already have 1203 posts…
If you were referring to my being here… I’ve been a member of this site for over 3 years 4 months…and only have 189 more posts than you… so who “lives” here?
Why not start acting like the grown-up you like to profess to being, and act like the Christian you claim to be? Your life would be better for it.
Peace!
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Each one of the things you mentioned is implicitly referred to in the New Testament and is prophetically foreshadowed in the Old Testament. I can get you the chapters and verses if you want. But more important is that if you want to show Catholic teaching to be in error, you have to show that it contradicts the Bible, not that it simply “isn’t in” the Bible. Because lots of things happen that God wills which aren’t in the Bible. For instance, is the fact that the personalities of the angels aren’t explicitly described an indication that angels have no personalities? Or is the fact that Enoch’s virtues are not explicitly described in the Bible to be taken as an indication that he had no virtues?
Those ideas would be ludicrous. If something isn’t in the Bible, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If it contradicts the Bible, then it didn’t happen. Does that make sense?
And by the way, papal infallibility, though it wasn’t always defined with precision (Neither was the Trinity, at first), was in a general sense believed in from the very origins of the Church. It’s easy to back this up from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Here are important sections of their writings that refer to it:
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Rob, insulting him does no one any good.
A
adstrinity
Guest
Would somebody please provide some Tradition of Christ not in Scripture?
My interest is piqued.
My interest is piqued.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Tough guy uh…
- Status