J
justasking4
Guest
To deny a central doctrine such as the doctrine of Christ puts one outside the Christian church.
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
For crying out loud, justasking4, I just told you step by step why I believe Mary to be the woman in Revelation 12:1-5. Read my response again until you get it right. I don’t need explain myself twice for you.
Read # forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3243884&postcount=859
J
justasking4
Guest
i think you are missing what i’m asking. Its not about specifically Revelations 12 but what gives you the authority to say that it is Mary if your church has not offically said? Who gives you the authority to interpret when catholics are not given the right to interpret the scriptures on their own?
J
jmcrae
Guest
No one has ever said that people can’t interpret the Scriptures to make use of them devotionally.
What people are saying is that nobody except the Magisterium can take a passage of Scripture and say, “This, and nothing else, is what this passage means,” or forbid others from getting something else out of it.
What Protestants are not allowed to do is say that any Catholic, especially the Magisterium, is “wrong” in their interpretation of Scripture. Protestants are free to do or believe whatever they like, apart from that.
You don’t.
Obviously, it is Mary, since the child is Jesus.
G
guanophore
Guest
You won’t get reprimanded unless you violate the forum rules. However, if the reason you are here is to interfere with Catholics, then you may get censured or banned.I don’t remember seeing your answers. Sorry i missed it since there is so much going on in these forums. Since i have already been blackballed etc it really won’t do well to say why i’m here. Just accept that i am here…
J
jmcrae
Guest
It puts them outside of the Catholic Church. They are free to call themselves Christians if they like to, though, since they still have certain beliefs in common with the Catholic Church. (Not many, mind you.)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
From the Catechism:
I interpret Scripture base on these senses. I, myself is not authoritize to interpret every passage of Bible and proclaim it to be infallible. I have no authority. The Church has that final authority.
However, when I do read the Bible I have to interpret it in the minds of the Church and piece it together according to what the Church has already believed. The answer I gave earlier is a complete explanation of the passage.
So as l long as I interpret the passage in accordance with the Magisterium. It is correct.
**The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86**
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I believe you misunderstand the idea of personal interpretation. We cannot disagree with the Church’s doctrines, since that’s essentially putting our interpretation of the Bible above what the Bible actually tells us. But the Church has no official ruling on this passage, so speculation is not illicit.
S
savedsinner
Guest
Thank you for your history (revisionism) lesson, it was very enlightening and entertaining.
Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD with the edict of Milan, and gave it a favored status, (Christianity had previously been decriminalized in April 311 by Galerius,) but it was not until 380, that Flavius Theodosius (r. 379-395) made Christianity the official religion of Rome.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I believe you are right. He is missing the point.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Actually, the Catholic Church pre-date Constantine time. Old Scholar by the way has no credibility when teaching history. His information is very lacking.
So we see there was already a Catholic Church at the time of Emperor Constantine. The Pope who reign at the time was Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335).
St. Ignatius of Antioch is the disciple of St. John the Apostle. He is one of the four Apostolic Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles themselves.
If you even want to go back. Clement of Rome the 3rd Successor of Peter wrote the Letters to the Corinthians in the year 90 AD. At the time the some of the Apostles were also living.
The first Pope is Peter, whom Jesus Christ build his Church upon (see Matthew 16:18).
P
pete_29
Guest
Here we go again.
G
geraldffff
Guest
I Have read several of your posts in response to justasking4 and they suggest to me you are grumpy intolerant and condescending it might be that you need a nap. You observations seem to be correct but you bedside might be improved.
P
Pax
Guest
John 6:4 says:
“Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.”
This the connection in the Discourse on the Bread of Life to the Passover.
The word Eucharist is merely the technical term adopted by the Church and expressed by Ignatius of Antioch around 117 AD. The term applies to the memorial sacrifice from the Last Supper and the real presence of Jesus under the appearances of bread and wine. The entirety of the Discourse on the Bread of Life refers to the body and blood of Jesus that is the food unto eternal life.
R
runandsew
Guest
For those with questions on the Catholic teaching on the Eucarist you might want to listen to Scott Hahn’s Answering common objections
These are in MP3 format - click on link to listen online or right click and select “save link as” to download audio program.
Eucharist part 1
Eucharist part 2
Eucharist part 3
These are in MP3 format - click on link to listen online or right click and select “save link as” to download audio program.
Eucharist part 1
Eucharist part 2
Eucharist part 3
P
Pax
Guest
Genesis 17:1-14 says:
WHEN ABRAM was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
In Joshua 5 we are told that the people that had fled Egypt had died and that their descendents were going to enter the Promised Land. God ordered Joshua to circumcise all of the males and he did so. God then says to Joshua, “This day I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.”[Joshua 5:9]
The people that God took out of Egypt are the people of Israel and they are referred to as the “Chosen People.” Moreover, Yahweh repeatedly refers to them as “My People.” These people were saved. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:1-4 that. "I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Circumcision was necessary to be part of God’s people. God’s people then and now are saved by the supernatural rock that is Jesus. Just as circumcision was the sign and entry in the OT family of God, baptism is now the sign and entry in the New Covenant family of God.
Belief was not necessary for the infants that were of OT circumcision that fled Egypt. Belief was not necessary for the OT infants circumcised by Joshua just before entering the Promised Land. All those infants that passed through the Red Sea leaving Egypt were all under the cloud and were baptized into Moses.
Likewise, all NT infants are baptized into Christ. Belief as an infant is not necessary. Baptism provides the remission of original sin and imparts the Holy Spirit. This is a huge jump start for faith when the child reaches the age of reason. I was baptized as an infant. I cannot remember not believing in God. I do not remember just when it was that I first believed that Jesus died for my sins. It is so far back in my childhood that I simply cannot remember. It is almost as if I have always believed.
I hope this helps.
G
geraldffff
Guest
Scott Hahn the former protestant minister now Catholic apologist. His personal story of conversion is awesome. His books are very insightful, easy to read and compelling after you start reading them.
U
Uncle_Norbert
Guest
I’ve seen him in person, he is absolutely spellbinding
G
guanophore
Guest
People who do not believe in accordance with what the Church teaches are NOT CATHOLIC! They may think they are, and they may call themselves Catholic, but what defines a Catholic is unity in doctrine. IF they are not unified with the doctrine taught by Jesus and the Apostles, then they are not catholic. Individual opinions are irrelvant. All that matters is what Jesus taught.
G
geraldffff
Guest
It is sad that one poster, Old Scholar, makes the rank and the file of the Catholic Church out to be mindless robots that cannot read or reason. This person seems not to understand what outstanding teachers we have and how free we are to interpret scripture on a personal level. I have an older brother that is a Jehovah’s witness and it is so sad to see such an intelligent man give up his free will out of fear. It is sad that my sons father in law a conservative small Lutheran sect verbally attacked my son and his daughter when he was told his grandson was to be baptized catholic. He is also a very intelligent man but came to the baptism and sobbed out loud during the baptism. Catholic Church detractors cannot comprehend how much they are missing when they pass on the great gifts and challenges the Catholic Church offers.
- Status