S
sousley
Guest
Not to mention Moses, Joshua, and the land itself. Almost seems like there’s a pattern…
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
Perhaps, perhaps not. As I said, it depends.
I don’t see in scripture where they were infallible. I do see Paul getting furious with Peter’s teaching by bad example.Um…how many Christians HAD gone to be with the Lord during the period of the writing of the New Testament? Stephen? James? Mary and John were still alive when the last NT book was written, so, just exactly who would they have been calling out to?
And the Apostles were personally infallible with a powerful infilling of the Holy Spirit. They raised the dead and healed the sick. What exactly would they have been calling out for?
Stephen would have been right up there, yes? He is the first martyr and went out comparable to the Lord, yet I don’t see any teaching to seek his intercession or protection, and you’d think that would be important at the time of great persecution.
S
Steveabrous
Guest
So then we come to which translation of the bible is correct?
Catholics do not accept KJV or ASV as valid translations, we only accept Catholic translations. None of those seem to say " vain repetition", they say " Babble" which means to use unintelligible words or nonsense for long periods of time speaking the language of the gods which we do not understand and they do. I checked bible hub and most of the protestant versions seem to agree with the Catholic version.
if there is a modern incarnation of this the Pentecostal version of “speaking in tongues” seems to fit the bill better then the rosary. As they speak unintelligible words for long periods of time that they claim are “God’s” language.
K
Kliska
Guest
Umm, sorry, but that isn’t the correct interpretation, as we are told specifically to look to the previous statement in a corresponding manner.
Yes, and His commandments were twofold; love the Lord, and love thy neighbor. How do we do the work of God is to have faith on Jesus; on His very Person, life, death, resurrection, according to Jesus Himself.Obeying Christ commandments will definitely lead to salvation.
How were they brought through the water? By the ark. How did they have the ark? Noah built it. Why did he build it? He had faith in God. Everything flows from faith which is the key and always has been.
Why are you baptized (looking at non-infant baptism)? Because you first faithed. Again, it was most assuredly not the water that saved Noah. You aren’t interpreting the verse in its surrounding context nor the entirety of scripture.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Neither will you see which books are to be included in Scriptures. And yet, you accept -]them/-] some of them.
S
Steveabrous
Guest
I completely agree.
Catholics do not accept KJV or ASV as valid translations, we only accept Catholic translations. None of those seem to say " vain repetition", they say " Babble on" which means to use unintelligible words or nonsense for long periods of time speaking the language of the gods which we do not understand and they do. I checked bible hub and most of the protestant versions seem to agree with the Catholic version.
if there is a modern incarnation of this the Pentecostal version of “speaking in tongues” seems to fit the bill better then the rosary. As they speak unintelligible words for long periods of time that they claim are “God’s” language.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
The text is clear.
Christ commands it, the Apostles taught it, the Church obeys it.
Your interpretation is a novelty of the 1,500’s - absent from Church teaching.
K
Kliska
Guest
Your free to think that, as I’m free to think otherwise. I’ve no intent here to try to change anyone’s mind.
W
wmscott
Guest
So in context you may be mistaken, this explanation found here at CAFPerhaps, perhaps not. As I said, it depends.
I don’t see in scripture where they were infallible. I do see Paul getting furious with Peter’s teaching by bad example.
Peter Not Infallible?
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
emphasis mine.
K
Kliska
Guest
I understand the position of the RCC, but I disagree with it. Modeling is a type of teaching, especially by those in a teaching position. I believe actions are extremely important, and it goes both ways, both in good actions and in bad. In effect, as other have said, we also preach by our deeds.
But, again, thank you for clarifying the teaching from your perspective!
W
wmscott
Guest
Not really a teaching from my perspective but the Catholic faith. I realize you do not agree with Catholicism, however when you present an error that others may see and agree with you in error they need to understand the truth.
What these folks who may be observing need to understand is that the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” as cited in 1 Tim. 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”.
From the Haydocks catholic Bible Commentary
Ver. 15. The pillar and ground of the truth. By the promises of Christ to direct his Church by the infallible spirit of truth; (see John xvi. 7; Matthew xxviii. 20; &c. (Witham)) and therefore, the Church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. (Challoner) — That the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, is to be conducted by the constant superintendence and guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth to the consummation of days, every one whose mind is not strangely prejudiced may easily discover in various places of the inspired writings.
This is further evident in John 16:13 - But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak: and the things that are to come, he shall shew you”
From the Haydocks catholic Bible Commentary
Ver. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth; will direct you and the Church, in the ways of truth.For he shall not speak of himself, or of himself only, because, says St. Augustine, he is not from himself, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son. Whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak[3]; this his hearing, says St. Augustine, is his knowledge,and his knowledge is his essence, or being, which from eternity is from the Father and the Son. The like expressions are applied to the Son, as proceeding from the Father. (John v. 30. and viii. 16. &c.) (Witham) — If he shall teach all truth, and that for ever, (chap. xi; ver. 26.) how is it possible, that the Church can err, or hath erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Ghost have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth?
Also in John 14:26 – “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you”.
From the Haydocks catholic Bible Commentary
Ver. 26. The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, as proceeding also from me: and therefore Christ saith, in the next chapter, (ver. 26) that he himself will send him from the Father. He will teach you all things, &c. He will give you a more perfect knowledge of all those truths, which I have taught you. (Witham) — Teach you all things. Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles, and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.
So this brings us to the “Historical” fact that the Catholic Church was the Church Christ instituted. Jesus did not establish a bunch of churches but “One”.
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church (singular) and
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; **just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” **(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). Emphasis mine
Believe as you will but for the lurkers and onlookers out there take the time to research the references above and do not be swayed by one persons personal interpretation.*
K
Kliska
Guest
We would definitely agree on this, at the very least!
P
PRmerger
Guest
And I am 100% certain they did not sit around and read the New Testament.
F
Filioque
Guest
I’ve not read the entire thread, possibly someone has brought this up. There is a book entitled “Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy” It was written by a Methodist, (I believe he as a minister of that denomination) who discovered the deep spiritual benefits of praying the Rosary and was able to understand that the proper Catholic understanding of Marian devotion is quite compatible with the Sacred Scriptures and authentic spirituality. It has been reprinted recently, so should not be hard to find.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
It is not the repetition that is objectionable, but the “vain” part.
If repetitive prayers were abhorrent, then why is the Bible filled with examples of repetitive prayer?
To wit:
Praise the LORD, for he is good;
for his mercy endures forever;
Praise the God of gods;
for his mercy endures forever;
Praise the Lord of lords;
for his mercy endures forever;
Who alone has done great wonders,
for his mercy endures forever;
Who skillfully made the heavens,
for his mercy endures forever;
Who spread the earth upon the waters,
for his mercy endures forever;
Who made the great lights,
for his mercy endures forever;
–Psalm 136
W
wmscott
Guest
PR, I think what the problem is that there are those who apply their own “fallible” personal interpretations and represent it as fact and without error, When in fact it is a total misrepresentation and erroneous position.
P
pocohombre
Guest
I checked also .3 have “bable”, one"meaningless repetition", another “heap up empty phrases”, another “meaningless things”, another “ramble” and several say it is really from “stammer”. Babble has a few definitions also as in “to talk foolishly or too much” or if it is transitive verb “meaningless repetition,excessive speech” etc… Regardless it is a difficult word to translate and there are several theories behind the word. One has been mentioned here that a heap of words are used cause of their many gods, or to tire God to our way/demand. Another a combination of aramaic of vain repetiiton and greek stammer. Whatever, the word is not easy and “vain repetition” is not off the mark, and is a good possibility, as is babble. They are not opposites and perhaps could be synonyms. Jesus helps for he clarifies a bit by saying faith in “many words” being "heard to be vain (a bit like the priests of Baal). As far as commentaries , a few would place the rosary in this category, but one said it is not, and a few were silent on this matter.
Glossolalia is not babbling. Two different topics, but for sure can be abused (vain/even carnal) also.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Hi PR. Not apple to oranges.The rosary would be like saying Psalm 136 53 times. Might not be bad idea, for we would surely know it by heart.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok. So what’s the problem then?
You think it’s wrong to recite the Word of God over and over?
- Status