P
Pier
Guest
Regarding the original post…
With this line of reasoning, why would Luther’s teachings be considered accurate?
With this line of reasoning, why would Luther’s teachings be considered accurate?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
subscribe
what does this mean
The person subscribed to the thread, so they will recieve notifications when there are any new posts on the thread. I think you can subsribe from some toolbar or something, but usually posting on a thread will subscribe you to it. Make sense?
Makes sense.
I’ve never seen anyone do it that way before.
Thread SubscriptionsWhen a new forum member finds an interesting thread, they know if they post on it, they will automatically be subscribed. They usually are not aware of the utility under “thread tools” that they can subscribe without posting. They are interested in the thread, and want to come back and read it later, so they post something like this so it will show up on their profile under subscribed threads.
E
EJTMJR
Guest
You also deny *Sola Scriptura *because you say it contradicts the Word of God. I notice you didn’t elaborate on that.
Scitpure says " the Pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church…
not Scripture.
Scitpure says " the Pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church…
not Scripture.
E
EJTMJR
Guest
It is necessary to have written Scriptures and anything oral cannot be trusted. Church history has shown that. That’s why God had the Scriptures written down so we could not go wrong but unfortunately there are those who won’t believe them
So, according to you the early Christians could not trust oral teaching? ARE YOU SURE THATS WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS?
It does not!!
How do you think Christainity was spread before a written Bible was available to the general public? How many people could read back then? How was the transportation system back then to distribute the Bibles.
There is no way Sola Scriptura could have been true then or now!.
So, according to you the early Christians could not trust oral teaching? ARE YOU SURE THATS WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS?
It does not!!
How do you think Christainity was spread before a written Bible was available to the general public? How many people could read back then? How was the transportation system back then to distribute the Bibles.
There is no way Sola Scriptura could have been true then or now!.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
The forum is called Catholic Answers!?!
Answering questions is what we do here.
It is The Catholic Church.
Protestants are the ones who started calling it Roman after 1517.
The Catholic Church decided on the books to place into the book we now call Bible.
It could not have been a Protestant Denomination
they did not exist until over a thousand years later.
If not Catholics then who? Do the math. And check your history.
If we got it wrong so did you, because if you think about it and you know your history Protestants broke from the Catholic Church and “reformed” it to their liking.
They did not leave everything behind and start fresh.
They took alot of our teachings with them.
Like the Bible, which is a perfect example of tradition by the way, it was “passed on down”.
Also the Body of Christ,the church,is spiritual and guided by the Holy Spirit,Jesus said so in John 14:16
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; so it is infallible.
That is why the Catholic Church still does not teach that contraception is ok.
The Holy Spirit guided Her.
Before 1930 no church allowed contraception to be taught. Because it went against the Law.
We got our Laws from the Bible.
After 1930 people “protested” then contraception was allowed in all churches except one.
The Catholic Church.
Then some women “protested” to become priests.
That was never allowed in any church!
Now you can see women in alot of different churches pastoring or being ordained as a priest.
Not in the Catholic Church.
Some homosexuals are"protesting" for their rights to be married and in some denominations they are able to. Except one.
The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church follows the Bible more then you think. After all it is our Salvation History. Written by and for Catholics.
In every language and in every time words mean something different. The Bible’s translations are trying to “speak” the same language as the people of that time.
The word “cool” use to just mean cold now it means "I like it’. Words meanings change.
Catholics are permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible.
It just can’t contradict (go against) the church and Her teachings.And remember what we are taught in Scripture…
****2 Peter 1:20 ****
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?
Who says we don’t or can’t get copies of such documents?
Eternal Word Television Network Library
ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
Click here for what the Catholic Church teaches
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm
Here is the list of popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/
The Fathers of the Church
newadvent.org/fathers/
Well it is a good thing you are here.
Now you can get the answers that you need.
Answering questions is what we do here.
It is The Catholic Church.
Protestants are the ones who started calling it Roman after 1517.
The Catholic Church decided on the books to place into the book we now call Bible.
It could not have been a Protestant Denomination
they did not exist until over a thousand years later.
If not Catholics then who? Do the math. And check your history.
If we got it wrong so did you, because if you think about it and you know your history Protestants broke from the Catholic Church and “reformed” it to their liking.
They did not leave everything behind and start fresh.
They took alot of our teachings with them.
Like the Bible, which is a perfect example of tradition by the way, it was “passed on down”.
Also the Body of Christ,the church,is spiritual and guided by the Holy Spirit,Jesus said so in John 14:16
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; so it is infallible.
That is why the Catholic Church still does not teach that contraception is ok.
The Holy Spirit guided Her.
Before 1930 no church allowed contraception to be taught. Because it went against the Law.
We got our Laws from the Bible.
After 1930 people “protested” then contraception was allowed in all churches except one.
The Catholic Church.
Then some women “protested” to become priests.
That was never allowed in any church!
Now you can see women in alot of different churches pastoring or being ordained as a priest.
Not in the Catholic Church.
Some homosexuals are"protesting" for their rights to be married and in some denominations they are able to. Except one.
The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church follows the Bible more then you think. After all it is our Salvation History. Written by and for Catholics.
In every language and in every time words mean something different. The Bible’s translations are trying to “speak” the same language as the people of that time.
The word “cool” use to just mean cold now it means "I like it’. Words meanings change.
Catholics are permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible.
It just can’t contradict (go against) the church and Her teachings.And remember what we are taught in Scripture…
****2 Peter 1:20 ****
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?
Who says we don’t or can’t get copies of such documents?
Eternal Word Television Network Library
ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
Click here for what the Catholic Church teaches
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm
Here is the list of popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/
The Fathers of the Church
newadvent.org/fathers/
Well it is a good thing you are here.
Now you can get the answers that you need.
P
Pier
Guest
Please excuse me, I accidentally unsubscribed to this thread. The above post was excellent, btw…The forum is called Catholic Answers!?!
Answering questions is what we do here.
It is The Catholic Church.
Protestants are the ones who started calling it Roman after 1517.
The Catholic Church decided on the books to place into the book we now call Bible.
It could not have been a Protestant Denomination
they did not exist until over a thousand years later.
If not Catholics then who? Do the math. And check your history.
If we got it wrong so did you, because if you think about it and you know your history Protestants broke from the Catholic Church and “reformed” it to their liking.
They did not leave everything behind and start fresh.
They took alot of our teachings with them.
Like the Bible, which is a perfect example of tradition by the way, it was “passed on down”.
Also the Body of Christ,the church,is spiritual and guided by the Holy Spirit,Jesus said so in John 14:16
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; so it is infallible.
That is why the Catholic Church still does not teach that contraception is ok.
The Holy Spirit guided Her.
Before 1930 no church allowed contraception to be taught. Because it went against the Law.
We got our Laws from the Bible.
After 1930 people “protested” then contraception was allowed in all churches except one.
The Catholic Church.
Then some women “protested” to become priests.
That was never allowed in any church!
Now you can see women in alot of different churches pastoring or being ordained as a priest.
Not in the Catholic Church.
Some homosexuals are"protesting" for their rights to be married and in some denominations they are able to. Except one.
The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church follows the Bible more then you think. After all it is our Salvation History. Written by and for Catholics.
In every language and in every time words mean something different. The Bible’s translations are trying to “speak” the same language as the people of that time.
The word “cool” use to just mean cold now it means "I like it’. Words meanings change.
Catholics are permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible.
It just can’t contradict (go against) the church and Her teachings.And remember what we are taught in Scripture…
****2 Peter 1:20 ****
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?
Who says we don’t or can’t get copies of such documents?
Eternal Word Television Network Library
ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
Click here for what the Catholic Church teaches
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm
Here is the list of popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/
The Fathers of the Church
newadvent.org/fathers/
Well it is a good thing you are here.
Now you can get the answers that you need.
Amen!
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
No, I don’t believe the canon is an infallible list of infallible books. I believe the canon is a fallible list of infallible books.So, the Bible is not an infallible list of infallible books, huh? For all you know you’ve been reading from a book that was not meant to be in scripture.
Why should this be a problem?
The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and we see in the NT that Jesus and the apostles expected them to understand what scripture was and said and the Jews had no infallible body to guide them. How did the Jews know that Isaiah was scripture?
Also, it took your church 1500 years (approximately) to infallibly define the canon. If an infallible decree is required, 1500 years is a long time to go without such a decree.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I’m not going to take the time to detail the canonization process.How, then, did the “church” recognize it as canonical?
P
Pier
Guest
The forum is called Catholic Answers!?!
Answering questions is what we do here.
It is The Catholic Church.
Protestants are the ones who started calling it Roman after 1517.
The Catholic Church decided on the books to place into the book we now call Bible.
It could not have been a Protestant Denomination
they did not exist until over a thousand years later.
If not Catholics then who? Do the math. And check your history.
If we got it wrong so did you, because if you think about it and you know your history Protestants broke from the Catholic Church and “reformed” it to their liking.
They did not leave everything behind and start fresh.
They took alot of our teachings with them.
Like the Bible, which is a perfect example of tradition by the way, it was “passed on down”.
Also the Body of Christ,the church,is spiritual and guided by the Holy Spirit,Jesus said so in John 14:16
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; so it is infallible.
That is why the Catholic Church still does not teach that contraception is ok.
The Holy Spirit guided Her.
Before 1930 no church allowed contraception to be taught. Because it went against the Law.
We got our Laws from the Bible.
After 1930 people “protested” then contraception was allowed in all churches except one.
The Catholic Church.
Then some women “protested” to become priests.
That was never allowed in any church!
Now you can see women in alot of different churches pastoring or being ordained as a priest.
Not in the Catholic Church.
Some homosexuals are"protesting" for their rights to be married and in some denominations they are able to. Except one.
The Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church follows the Bible more then you think. After all it is our Salvation History. Written by and for Catholics.
In every language and in every time words mean something different. The Bible’s translations are trying to “speak” the same language as the people of that time.
The word “cool” use to just mean cold now it means "I like it’. Words meanings change.
Catholics are permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible.
It just can’t contradict (go against) the church and Her teachings.And remember what we are taught in Scripture…
****2 Peter 1:20 ****
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?
Who says we don’t or can’t get copies of such documents?
Eternal Word Television Network Library
ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
Click here for what the Catholic Church teaches
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm
Here is the list of popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/
The Fathers of the Church
newadvent.org/fathers/
Well it is a good thing you are here.
Now you can get the answers that you need.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Instead of me saying I’m not going to answer your question, can you re-phrase it so that it’s more specific?How, then, did the “church” recognize it as canonical?
V
VociMike
Guest
I’m about to answer a question. Make a note of that, since you’re keeping track.I keep noticing “things” in your post. I need to read them more carefully.
If it takes infallibility to recognize the canon, why did it take your church 1500 years to infallibly declare the canon?
The answer is that you don’t seem to understand infallibility and its place in the magisterium. The Church does not make infallible definitions via councils or popes until and unless the teachings of the faith are challenged. The canon of scripture (in particular, the inspiration of the deuteroncanonicals) was not challenged for 1500 years, until the Protestant revolt. Thus no infallible definition until Trent. Thus the declaration at Trent is in fact yet more evidence that the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals was never in serious question until the Protestant revolt decided otherwise.
V
VociMike
Guest
Your inability (the inability, rather, of your tradition) to perceive that this is a problem says it all.No, I don’t believe the canon is an infallible list of infallible books. I believe the canon is a fallible list of infallible books.
Why should this be a problem?
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Mike,Your inability (the inability, rather, of your tradition) to perceive that this is a problem says it all.
How did the Jews recognize that Isaiah was scripture since they had no infallible body to guide them?
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
So, you agree that an infallible guide is uneccesary?I’m about to answer a question. Make a note of that, since you’re keeping track.
The answer is that you don’t seem to understand infallibility and its place in the magisterium. The Church does not make infallible definitions via councils or popes until and unless the teachings of the faith are challenged. The canon of scripture (in particular, the inspiration of the deuteroncanonicals) was not challenged for 1500 years, until the Protestant revolt. Thus no infallible definition until Trent. Thus the declaration at Trent is in fact yet more evidence that the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals was never in serious question until the Protestant revolt decided otherwise.
BTW, I don’t know what you consider “serious question” given the rejection of the deutero’s from Jerom to Trent. What exactly constitutes “serious question”?
C
Crumpy
Guest
[had to delete much of the original post because of size restrictions]justasking4
**You don’t really expect to get answers to your questions do you?
Ask Roman Catholics these questions and see how many answers you get. I’m betting you get ignored…**
Friend, you have violated one of the intellectual rules of this website, and that is to try to focus on an issue, but you appear to be an intellectual stalker. There are many threads on many of these subjects already, but you are determined to ignore all of those.
In charity, though, I will give you a couple general pointers.
- Scripture amply says that ‘our’ ways are not God’s ways. Your skepticism is of the general form, Why did God do X?
- The Church teaches that God gave us revelation up to a point, and not more. Sure. There are a lot of questions we all have.
- As far as your ranting about infallibility, the New Testament shows that even Peter was on the short end of the discussion about the need for circumcision to be a Christian. I’ve heard that the great Thomas Acquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which has been a big deal in the CC for a couple centuries, at least. There’s lots of these examples.
- The NT says that ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.’ Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a book a few years ago called Introduction to Christianity. He simplifies that scripture by saying faith is something that “hits” you. Hope that’s not too technical for you. Elsewhere in scripture, Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draw him. Faith is a gift. Underneath everything, you’re saying, Why don’t I have faith? Well, as Jesus said, repent and believe (not the other way around).
- John Paul II in the book Crossing the Threshold of Truth, said something like this. Some people fail to come to faith, because they can’t accept how God has revealed Himself. do you see yourself in that?
- In the second and third of his 6-part series on Divine Revelation, Fr. John Corapi (theologian) gave an interesting explanation from scripture about division within Christianity. He quotes Luke
“sifting” which causes division even in the Church is a result of the influence of Satan. These verses say that everyone who follows Peter will have faith. Peter means himself and the Church.
- The Acts and the letters to the Corinthians show division in the Church, even in apostolic times. This is attributed to the anti-christ, as in the preceding points. It goes to show the result of a lack of unity to the real Church, the Catholic Church.
- Suggest you read Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. see my post on this under sacred scripture. There were many divisions for centuries in the Church. That book shows how the Church was purified and organized itself in adversity.
V
VociMike
Guest
Are we Jews or Christians? I notice that the Jews have not recognized the New Testament as being scripture, and yet it most certainly is.Mike,
How did the Jews recognize that Isaiah was scripture since they had no infallible body to guide them?
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
How did the Jews recognize Isaiah as scripture?Are we Jews or Christians? I notice that the Jews have not recognized the New Testament as being scripture, and yet it most certainly is.
V
VociMike
Guest
Read up on the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.So, you agree that an infallible guide is uneccesary?
There was, of course, no rejection of the deuteros. Any time the Church pronounced the canon in an authoritative manner, the deuteros were included.BTW, I don’t know what you consider “serious question” given the rejection of the deutero’s from Jerom to Trent. What exactly constitutes “serious question”?
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
The same church that sent out the vulgate included Jerome’s comments to the negative concerning their canonocity causing many to doubt that they were inspired.There was, of course, no rejection of the deuteros. Any time the Church pronounced the canon in an authoritative manner, the deuteros were included.
All the way up to the reformation with Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes we find knowledgeable, faithful Catholics rejecting the canonocity of the deutero’s. So it’s not at all true their was no rejection.
The earlier councils that listed the canon did not make it binding upon the universal church.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Bump for Mike.How did the Jews recognize Isaiah as scripture?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.