C
Calvinator
Guest
Maybe someone should post what one side takes out of context or else this thread will self destruct in about…2 or 3 more posts.
- Status
F
FatBoy
Guest
I’m not a Catholic! Hummmm???
F
FatBoy
Guest
Thanks. Now where was I complaining about Protestants picking fights with me? BTW I am not Catholic.
F
FatBoy
Guest
I would argue (of course without the appropriate data
) that “most” Protestant clergy have never even been to the seminary. Or at least completed it. I know many!
J
Johndigger
Guest
Really? I don’t know anyone that has studied the “early years” of St. Thomas Aquinas without knowing this?
It’s the reason he never finished his greatest work, Summa theologica.
It makes perfect sense to me that his writings “were but straw” compared to the Glories of Heaven. I love St. Thomas but if his works are comparable to heaven, then I think, if I get there, I’ll be disappointed.
Anyway, I digress…
JD
P
Palladio
Guest
Sorry, but I find little to nothing in your reply very credible at all, and some of your claims suggest a certain inexperience.
There is no such thing as ‘a working knowledge of Greek:’ you know it, or you don’t. “Savoir le grec, c’est l’apprendre sans cesse.” Saint-Beuve. True also of Latin, of dead or classical languages generally. But a working knowledge is a euphemism for ignorance and slap dash approaches.
You dismiss the magisterium, which exists for doctrine and its propagation, whatever the state of the clergy, and therefore my point: notwithstanding the learning of any given priest, he follow authority to be who he is and to do what he must.
I made no such assumption as you baldly state about translation except, inevitably, Traductore, Traduttore, which is why Bible Christians can never, of their own, arrive very far at understanding the Bible. I harbor no notion of Protestants falsifying translation, in other words.
It does not matter to me the real number–I keep reading 20 to 30 thousand from Protestant sources–since 500-1000 is, worse than a throw of the dice, a lottery which cannot possibly reflect the will of God, which does not change.
If Protestanism is true, either God is a merry prankster, with a lottery for the unbaptized, or he really did entrust Peter with building one true church, not sects in fantastic numbers. He must also be very patient, waiting until the sixteenth century to get Henry VIII, for one, inspired by his devotion to a woman, I mean, to women, to get things really going.
I cannot possibly agree that the differences–that you mention only to dismiss–do not matter: why would there be sects in the first place? If the differences are trivial, that only points to the overweening pride of the members, who should re-unite with Rome. If they are major, the sectarians have to defend them, since each and every one of the sects stems directly or indirectly from the Church of Rome.
Scripture trumps X (fill in X at will) is absurd and, to repeat, does not work: apart from the not-yet-canonized Hebrew Scripture, did Peter really have that? It is also an extra-Biblical claim, meaning Luther et al. invented it. And you would not have a Bible at all but for the RCC.
God bless.
There is no such thing as ‘a working knowledge of Greek:’ you know it, or you don’t. “Savoir le grec, c’est l’apprendre sans cesse.” Saint-Beuve. True also of Latin, of dead or classical languages generally. But a working knowledge is a euphemism for ignorance and slap dash approaches.
You dismiss the magisterium, which exists for doctrine and its propagation, whatever the state of the clergy, and therefore my point: notwithstanding the learning of any given priest, he follow authority to be who he is and to do what he must.
I made no such assumption as you baldly state about translation except, inevitably, Traductore, Traduttore, which is why Bible Christians can never, of their own, arrive very far at understanding the Bible. I harbor no notion of Protestants falsifying translation, in other words.
It does not matter to me the real number–I keep reading 20 to 30 thousand from Protestant sources–since 500-1000 is, worse than a throw of the dice, a lottery which cannot possibly reflect the will of God, which does not change.
If Protestanism is true, either God is a merry prankster, with a lottery for the unbaptized, or he really did entrust Peter with building one true church, not sects in fantastic numbers. He must also be very patient, waiting until the sixteenth century to get Henry VIII, for one, inspired by his devotion to a woman, I mean, to women, to get things really going.
I cannot possibly agree that the differences–that you mention only to dismiss–do not matter: why would there be sects in the first place? If the differences are trivial, that only points to the overweening pride of the members, who should re-unite with Rome. If they are major, the sectarians have to defend them, since each and every one of the sects stems directly or indirectly from the Church of Rome.
Scripture trumps X (fill in X at will) is absurd and, to repeat, does not work: apart from the not-yet-canonized Hebrew Scripture, did Peter really have that? It is also an extra-Biblical claim, meaning Luther et al. invented it. And you would not have a Bible at all but for the RCC.
God bless.
P
Palladio
Guest
But sola scriptura is, besides extra-Biblical, nothing but a tradition, not born until the sixteenth century, and it does not work now, as it did not then, and will not ever.
Credos, stricto sensu, on such a bad method as sola scriptura cannot possibly be true, and only cast doubt on the scorched-earth enterprise of the reformers, which is a name I can barely form considering the harm they did.
*
Sola scriptura* does not appear at Nicea, or in the Apostles creed, does it?
God bless.
P
Palladio
Guest
To add on, renunciation of great works is typical of Catholic thinkers and writers: anybody read Chaucer? It is a topos.
But the Protestant polemics mill must be pretty well oiled to throw up that one about Aquinas: most imaginative!
C
Calvinator
Guest
We could argue back and forth for years as to whether or not sola scriptura is biblical or not.
As for Nicaea, he bishops at Nicea didn’t hold many of the beliefs you now hold did they? No belief in the assumption, for example.
P
Palladio
Guest
The phrase is, to begin with, Latin: nothing of the sort exists in the Greek NT, which does not and could not support such a patent absurdity as sola scriptura.
Christ enjoins us to many difficult things, but never to a method of reading that does not work.
We celebrated the Assumption on Wednesday. We know it does not appear in the NT, thanks.
But your question is silly, and argues my point for me: because we believe in one true holy and apostolic church, we trust to a magisterium to weigh theology as it develops, and we have no worship of the Bible. (What does Peter Gomes call it? Bibolotry?)
For example, the RCC rejected Henry VIII (no theologian, but still the founder of the C of E) Luther and the lot of them because they were wrong.
God bless.
E
estesbob
Guest
Thank you for providing us with a “teaching moment”
What St Thomas Aquinas said is “Everything I have written seems like straw by comparison with what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” He said this, BTW, just a few months before he died so you comment on this “later years” is misleading at best.
But your charade gets worst You have given us a perfect example of how one can twist the clear meaning of a person words by taking them out of context and selectively truncating them. . If we were to accept your truncated quote it would seem St Aquinas was rejecting all of his wrintings. When we look at the entire quote and take it in the context of his refering to his vision we see that is not what he said at all. He was relating that his vision was so spiritual land so profund that they paled in comaprison to the glory revealed to him. .
As I mentioned before this is exactly how Protestants approcah Scripture-a verse here, a verse there, mix in a little **personal **interpertation and new previously unknown doctines are created!
S
sandusky
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
N
Nella
Guest
yeah, whatever. Talk about twisting.
E
estesbob
Guest
Thats it? You misquoted Aquinas and when called on it all you can do is say “whatever” Please explain what point you were trying to make when you misquoted Aquinas and then claimed Catholics didnt embrace Aquinas in his “later years”
N
Nella
Guest
Just exactly what I said, of all the years I was Catholic, I only ever heard of Aquinas’ writings and never his vision or what happened post-vision. The whole point is that Aquinas had a complete revelation in this vision and realized that his writings “were but straw” compared to what he now had a glimpse of. Very very important component of Aquinas that Catholics miss for the most part. So once again, you attacked me with misunderstood information.
E
estesbob
Guest
So because you were poorly cathecized all Catholics must have been? And how does his vision undermine in any way shape or form his writings? And what is the component we supposedly missed? I studied Aquinas both in the Seminary and a Jesuit college and this is the first time i have heard such an absurd claim.
If you are a former Catholic its a shame becuse your posts show you have little understanding of the Faith you claim to have belonged to.
BTW-why did you misquote him. ?
C
Calvinator
Guest
- Status