SPLIT: From Fatima...Images & the Salvation of Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter newbie1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mannyfit75 said:
There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 2 Peter 3:16

If I add 2 Peter 3:15-16 it would read more like this.

If you say the the Epistles are easily read, you just contradicted Peter, the Apostle. The Epistles are not so easy to understand. Self interpreting the Scripture themselves can lead to destruction.
Click to expand...
Give me a couple of instances of epistles you cannot understand and let me have a crack at them. I’m not guaranteeing anything but I will give it a try. Then everyone on this site can have a laugh at how off base I am.
 
newbie1234 said:
Again, if you would like be be under oral statements fine. I will be guided by epistles. From what we are discussing it seems that you can be led by oral traditions or sacred traditions and I could be lead by epistles and the bible. So according to the bible you are perfectly fine with your oral traditions and I am fine with my bible, agreed?
Click to expand...
I read the bible in light of sacred Tradition. If you read the bible alone, it is dark and there are many ways to see it. With Sacred Tradition, you now have a light so you can see the verses clearly. There is one Light, One Spirit, One Church.

Also, take a look at 2 Tim. 3:15. “and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred Scriptures.” So you say that babies can’t understand the bible? “which are capable of giving you wisdom…” He used capable, not will. The scriptures can give you wisdom, but in light of Sacred Tradition. You have been mislead by the darkness.**
 
newbie1234 said:
Paul does not use the word tradition in2tim10-11
Furthermore Paul teaches us exactly how to live and act in most situations through his epistles. We need no other source. 2thess2:15 also says tradition learned from epistles.
We look at epistles and make tradition. I have no problem following tradition that comes from epistles. However if the tradition is NOT in the epistles, I don’t have to follow it.
Click to expand...
Then why does St. Jude quote from 2 different Jewish traditional documents that are not included in the OT canon?

If he accepted their word to the point that he recounts it as inspired prophecy in his epistle then how do you justify rejecting tradition?

IMO yours is not a scriptural position or even historically accurate.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Not the Pope alone though. It’s the bishop in union with the Pope also known as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As an ex-Catholic, you should know this. The problem with newbie is that he believe its Scripture Alone.
Click to expand...
Why is that a problem to me.
It may be a problem to you, but not to me.
 
newbie1234 said:
Paul does not use the word tradition in2tim10-11
Furthermore Paul teaches us exactly how to live and act in most situations through his epistles. We need no other source. 2thess2:15 also says tradition learned from epistles.
We look at epistles and make tradition. I have no problem following tradition that comes from epistles. However if the tradition is NOT in the epistles, I don’t have to follow it.
Click to expand...
2 Thess 2:15: “Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, WHETHER by an oral statement OR by a letter from us.”

Where on earth does this passage state that something has to be BOTH oral AND by letter before it must be accepted? It clearly says whether/or - in other words some of the traditions Paul wants to ‘hold fast’ are NOT written down!!!
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Not the Pope alone though. It’s the bishop in union with the Pope also known as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As an ex-Catholic, you should know this. The problem with newbie is that he believe its Scripture Alone.
Click to expand...
Except that the Pope does, according to Catholics, have authority by himself when speaking Ex-Cathedra, according to Vatican I.

And I would say that there are other venues of authority; I did not imply otherwise.
 
dbacks5439 said:
I read the bible in light of sacred Tradition. If you read the bible alone, it is dark and there are many ways to see it. With Sacred Tradition, you now have a light so you can see the verses clearly. There is one Light, One Spirit, One Church.

Also, take a look at 2 Tim. 3:15. “and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred Scriptures.” So you say that babies can’t understand the bible? “which are capable of giving you wisdom…” He used capable, not will. The scriptures can give you wisdom, but in light of Sacred Tradition. You have been mislead by the darkness.**

The verse says childhood not infancy
Click to expand...
 
newbie1234 said:
Halleys does not say Origen included those other books, however eusibius researched and claimed they were spurious. According to Halleys
Click to expand...
I don’t know what Halleys is. Can you please point me to the post # in which you discuss Halleys?
 
newbie1234 said:
Why is that a problem to me.
It may be a problem to you, but not to me.
Click to expand...
Except that it may very-well be, depending on what you mean by “sola scriptura”.

To quote myself:

Even if you were to accept Origen’s “Canon”, where would we infer that Origen would have such amazing powers, as to determine what is Scripture?

Where does this power come from? How can you be sure he is correct, if you only trust the authority of Scripture?

Else, should you accept by faith that Scripture is complete, then you are using your judgement (enlightened by God, maybe) as well as Scripture. But this Catholics also do, when they assert the authority of the Pope (among other things).

What makes your system superior to the Catholic system? Given that, it seems, all authority rests in your faith, what makes your system even equal to the Catholic system?

It seems as though you have made yourself Pope.
 
My translation is the NAB. What is considered childhood anyways? Also, please address my statement in full, not just one point and avoid the others. I await your response.
 
Church_Militant said:
Then why does St. Jude quote from 2 different Jewish traditional documents that are not included in the OT canon?

If he accepted their word to the point that he recounts it as inspired prophecy in his epistle then how do you justify rejecting tradition?

IMO yours is not a scriptural position or even historically accurate.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Click to expand...
Give me the verse in jude please so I can look at it.
 
noma said:
Except that the Pope does, according to Catholics, have authority by himself when speaking Ex-Cathedra, according to Vatican I.

And I would say that there are other venues of authority; I did not imply otherwise.
Click to expand...
That is true because the Pope since the foundation of the Church, Peter have the power to “bind and loose.” This was proven in the Council of Jerusalem, which ended the requirement for be circumcision for converting to Christianity. Ex-Cathedra is apostolic in origin.
 
noma said:
Except that it may very-well be, depending on what you mean by “sola scriptura”.

To quote myself:

Even if you were to accept Origen’s “Canon”, where would we infer that Origen would have such amazing powers, as to determine what is Scripture?

Where does this power come from? How can you be sure he is correct, if you only trust the authority of Scripture?
Click to expand...
Just for clarification, what is referred to as “Origen’s Canon” is actually based upon the writings of Eusebius.
 
newbie1234 said:
This is basic stuff that you should know already.
First adam , last adam(Jesus)
1cor15:45 physical circumcision- covenant with Abraham
Spiritual circumcision- new covenant
Matt17:11-12 Elijah comes twice
These are just a few.
Like I said not every prophecy has duality but some do.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean like Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant who contained the Bread come down from heaven just like the Ark of the Covenant in the OT contained the manna that came down from heaven?

Yes, I see your point. 👍
 
dbacks5439 said:
My translation is the NAB. What is considered childhood anyways? Also, please address my statement in full, not just one point and avoid the others. I await your response.
Click to expand...
If your question is “Can babies or infants understand the bible”
the answer is No
If you have another question please ask
 
Newbie, read Jude 1:19. I think that verse is talking about protestants. Why else would there be so much division among protestants, and yet the Catholic Church has only witnessed 2 schisms?
 
newbie1234 said:
Give me a couple of instances of epistles you cannot understand and let me have a crack at them. I’m not guaranteeing anything but I will give it a try. Then everyone on this site can have a laugh at how off base I am.
Click to expand...
Which Epistle of Paul do you want me to give you? If you want a real challenge, I’ll give you the Epistles from the Douay-Rheims Bible.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The problem is not you but your belief in Sola Scriptura, which is not taught by the Apostles, or the Bible itself.
Click to expand...
Newbie does not believe in Sola Scriptura either. He said that if he is confused about a passage, he goes to his minister. If he believed in Sola Scriptura, he would not need to consult with a minister to understand a passage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top