N
- Status
“Pointy-headed” 
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Hey Newbie2,Besides, as a Catholic, I get my Revelation from sources other than Scripture.
I think the more accurate way to state that would be “I get my Revelation from sources other than Scripture alone.”
answer, unless your definition of “answer” means to agree with your interpretation. That, of course, would only be “baiting” the forum with the motive of pointless argument, rather than genuine charitable theological discussion.
An excellent point.It’s just weird to have someone say that their allegations (let’s be honest here. That’s really what those are.) have not been answered when I sat down right off the top and spent a lot of time doing just that, addressing each point specifically.
Again, I have to wonder if the man has read any of the links that we have given.
T
Tomster
Guest
But as the Church, the pillar and bullwark of truth, has nevertheless, since the earliest times, been convinced of this special privilege belonging to the “Blessed among women”, the foundation of this conviction must be looked for either in the infallibility of the Church where matters of faith and morals are concerned, or else in the fact that it has pleased God to reveal his Mother’s privilege to us. We know NOW that God has in fact revealed this truth, but in the past that was not established, and nevertheless the Church accepted it.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Yes, I think so. To me its clear proof that the Holy Spirit is revealing to The Catholic Church the great many things that Jesus told us He could not convey yet until He rose again to the Father.
The Church needed to digest all that it had witnessed and develop its understanding of events and tie it all to prophesy and compare notes with all the early church fathers.
James
T
Tomster
Guest
Tef,
If I may add to this? The antagonists in contempoary Protestantism cannot be united by a common principle in their rejection of Our Lady. This is apparent from the inner contradiction of conservative Protestantism as opposed to liberal Protestantism. Conservative Protestants have certain common principles in their antithesis. They reject Our Lady in her titles and privileges because they say that worship is due only to the Sovreign Lord. In this respect they have an exaggerated Christocentric profession of faith, which allows for no subsidiary mediators. They claim to base their position on the Scriptures and the tradition of the early Church.
The liberals commonly reject Our Lady because they reject Christ, the God-man. He is for them the model man par excellence, but no more. Consequently, they must reject Mary, the Mother of God, and her other subsidiary titles and privileges, which are in subordination to the divine maternity in the order of grace.
This is another example of the fallacy of Protestantism. This lack of unity of belief with absolutely no authoritative structure to “bind and loose.”
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Sorry OS, but you can’t deflect this persistence to private interpretation and self pedigree away from yourself by baiting anyone into an argument against a different institution.
Once again you elect to ignore that the scriptures themselves command an obedience to tradition. You only argue from a scriptural basis when it permits your own private interpretation.
You also ducked my question. What personal pedigree do you offer that can stand up against the Catholic Church’s Teaching, Traditions and Authority? Don’t you think that you hold yourself to a double standard by thinking you can teach the teachers (who came 2000 year before you) without you having any evidence of personal authority nor pedigree?
James
E
elvisman
Guest
**It’s because most of your questions are, well, silly, if you’ll pardon the expression. They are without charity or merit and are completely unfounded. The burden of proof lies with YOU. **
The question about adding the Deuterocanonicals (apocrypha, as you call it) in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Just a popularity contest, the same way they elect a pope.
PROVE IT. It was ALWAYS considered part of the Bible. Remember the Septuagint?
The one about God providing an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel after Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D.?
DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Here’s a great link for you:
**The Council That Wasn’t
**
This gem - where you stated that Sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use Sola Scriptura. Here’s the answer:
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT BIBLICAL OR TRADITIONAL.
THAT’S why it’s not correct.
I read your EASILY-refutable posts, which are filled with some pretty lame accusations about the Catholic Church and wonder 2 things:
Where did you get this stuff? – AND - How old are you?
“Scholar”, here’s a bit of advice:
DO YOUR HOMEWORK** prior to posting. Really do some research and you’ll find answers to most of your questions before you attack on this forum.**
There are several unanswered questions on other threads in which you made some pretty ignorant statements, then ran or ignored the answers - much like you’ve done here . . .
T
Teflon93
Guest
I’ve put forth a similar argument this way:
- Christians seek to love as Christ loved.
- Christ loved Mary.
- Therefore, Christians should love Mary too.
This might be clearly put this way:
- The Catholic Church loves Mary.
- The first Protestants hated the Catholic Church.
- Therefore, the first Protestants hated Mary.
I think the discomfort with Catholic devotion to Mary to easily becomes discomfort with Mary and a desire to diminish her role in Scripture and in the Church. The friend of my enemy is my enemy and all that.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
:tsktsk: If you don’t like or agree with the answers that is one thing, but it is a flat out falsehood to say that the Catholics on this board have ignored all of the questions.
S
Schabel
Guest
What? That’s shocking.
Surely you don’t believe what you just wrote.
The foundation of Jesus’ teaching was - Jesus Himself, the Almighty Creator.
He was ALSO the foundation of the OT Scriptures, but He transcends these scriptures as well. Surely you wouldn’t quote the OT scriptures to argue with Jesus, right? After all, you’d be pitting YOUR interpretaion of them against their very author’s.
T
Tomster
Guest
I have ANSWERED that. Please, do I have to do your homework for you too?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I agree with you about 100%. And so it goes, Protestants further alienate and willfully distance themselves from God’s saving grace through the original rebellion. This has been the general pattern of rebellion ever since man first fell. Human morality continues to decline to the point where it can not even recognize its own degraded condition enough to call out to God for His Mercy and help. We know from scripture that God will eventually prune away the branches and vines that do not bear fruit. Those so cut off and seperated or fallen away soon whither and die out.
So many Protestants whether they admit it or not have taken “scorn” and “contempt” for Catholicism as its highest dogma. Thus the Catholic church and its true teachings gives them a tangible thing to “scorn” in place of a spiritual enemy they can not see. This is a true maker for severe spiritual disorder when good is made into something bad and groups actively try to identity and seperate themselves around contempt rather than around common truth.
James
M
mercygate
Guest
Not at all. The Saducees rejected everything except the Pentateuch. By the time of the Septuagint, although widely accepted, the canon was not formally closed. The NEED for a formal declaration of the canon had not arisen.
Christians only closed the canon in response to the gnostic and heretical material floating around posing as apostolic. The Septuagint was the canon received by the Church and she canonized that along with the NT books. FWIW, Philo Judaeus in the first century attributed divine inspiration to the Septuagint.
T
Tomster
Guest
Protestant interpretation of Scriptures. I wonder if pwrlftr and Old Scholar would claim personal infallibility in this matter? Of course they would not. That would go against the basic tenets, Protestant oral tradition if you will, of Protestantism. But, on the other hand, they expect Catholics to agree with their interpretations, fallible as they are.What? That’s shocking.
Surely you don’t believe what you just wrote.
The foundation of Jesus’ teaching was - Jesus Himself, the Almighty Creator.
He was ALSO the foundation of the OT Scriptures, but He transcends these scriptures as well. Surely you wouldn’t quote the OT scriptures to argue with Jesus, right? After all, you’d be pitting YOUR interpretaion of them against their very author’s.
I seriously doubt that we will get any explanation of this slight of hand they put forward.
Those who bypass the Church will hear all kinds of doctrine, and all kinds of “gospels,” and even some truths, but they will never hear the whole truth.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
In additions, not all Jewish canon are the same. The Ethopian Jews have include the Septuagint as part of the Scripture along with the Hebrew Scripture. The Jews themselves never finalized their own canon of Scripture. Some could speculate about the Council of Jamnia…
T
Teflon93
Guest
I agree, but I’m also hopeful. Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa have significantly eroded anti-Catholic bigotry in large swaths of the Protestant communities. As a result, we’re seeing less anti-Catholic bigotry as represented in the “questions” of the OP among this generation of Protestants. One of the unremarked trends in Protestantism today is the collapse of denominational barriers within it. It is unremarked because it is often mislabeled as nondenominational Christianity, rather than as nondenominational Protestantism.
If this trend continues, all of the anti-Catholic Protestants will have “Old” prefixes in their noms-du-Web soon enough.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I agree Tomster. The whole “concept” of Protestantism just hurts my head with it’s painful and twisted illogic - its even insane to me. How can Protestants on one hand say that The Catholic Church can not claim infallability while concurrently saying that anyone is free to make a private and infallible interpretation of scripture?! This becomes painfully absurd when taken in the presence of all the prior heresies to-date. Protestants are not even good at remembering history and are thus doomed to repeat it and suffer the same general falling away and fate of their rebellious predecessors. Look at all the heresies that arouse from private interpretation that the Catholic Church has decisively put down over the centuries:
The Circumcisers (1st Century); Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries); Montanism (Late 2nd Century); Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century); Arianism (4th Century); Pelagianism (5th Century); Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century); Nestorianism (5th Century); Monophysitism (5th Century); Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries); Catharism (11th Century); Protestantism (16th Century); Jansenism (17th Century).
No doubt more is to come.
The problem we have here is that Protestantism is at face value irrational. By leveraging fractional truths in stole from Catholicism it still tries to offer yet another try at a “better way”. But it does not have God’s blessing since it tries to strip away the requirement to be obedient to God’s authority on earth through the apostolic succession.
Thus Protestantism turns a blind eye in deference to it rebellion-in-fact against The Catholic Church teaching and leadership even from the perspective of its own fundamentalist view of scripture. Thus, Protestantism makes the huge error to think that it can serve God by hijacking the notion of “universal” by appealing to the huge mass of humanity’s core appetite for anarchy. That same appetite arises from the lawlessness inspired by Satan to steal God’s fruits in Humanity’s first warning in the garden. Thus Protestantism makes the same mistake that Adam and Eve made in the garden and proves itself unworthy and unreceptive to God’s salvific plan through Jesus and obedience to His Authority on Earth.
Protestants don’t know it yet - but their error was put down long ago and they are now fracturing into legions of sects. At the rate it it going Protestantism if left unrepentant will proceed along the same path to spawn as many sects as there are people with private interpretations. The fruits of anarchy and private interpretation are SELF and private self righteousness.
Now that we have answered all these ridiculous questions I’d like to ask Protestants to think of this and answer it. Given the poor track record and failures of the heretics that predated Protestantism do you want to gamble your soul on the speculation of men like Luther, Cavin, and Zwingli? Have any of them proved to you their infallability? No of course not. Then why not go with the Church (Catholic) that God keeps letting prevail over heretics from day one?
No doubt the next step here in the general Protestant rebellion will be to panic and start calling themselves “Catholics” and declare it “hijacked”.
James
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
There has been no “slight of hand” in my posts and I have news for you, you are too are fallible.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
True but…
The Magisterium of the Jesus Christ’s Church when speaking on moral and faith is infallible. What we preached here is just echoing back the teachings of the Catholic Church.
That is the difference between you, Old Scholar, and us Catholics. We Catholics always have the Magisterium to look too when issues of faith and morals are put into question. You on the other hand rely on your own interpretation
S
SyCarl
Guest
Welcome back Manny. I hope you have been able to settle down from the anger you were experiencing earlier.
My question is, don’t Catholics have to rely on private interpretaion a lot? Even if the Magisterium is infallible, the individual bishops and priests are not. If you listen to a priest or bishop do you not need to determine that what they are saying is in accordance with the Magisterium. That would involve you interpretting what the Magisterium has said and then interpretting what the priest has told you to determine whether it conforms to the Church’s teaching. For example, if you have a question of whether something is a mortal sin. The Church has set out criteria for what is a mortal sin. But you must interpret that to determine whether your act qualifies or not. You can ask a priest, who may be more knowledgeable, but it would still be his interpretation. I use this as an example because I see so much discussion here about whether such and such is a mortal sin or a sin at all.
- Status