T
tweetymom
Guest
The purpose is to always have Gods word with you.And to read along as the Rev reads scripture. Why do you have a Missal?
- Status
C
crazzeto
Guest
Of course though, the scripture alone isn’t enough to sustain. Certainly not in Christ’s opinion anyway.
Hence the reason for the mass
T
tweetymom
Guest
I know exactluy the Mass and why I go to Church, which ever one it is. Why do you have the Missal was my question?Of course though, the scripture alone isn’t enough to sustain. Certainly not in Christ’s opinion anyway.
Hence the reason for the mass
T
Tomster
Guest
Not so! I have posed these questions to you to help you understand the errors of your particular brand of Protestantism.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Tomster,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints interprets a verse one way: itself insisting that itself exclusively is the sole authoritative interpreter and infallible/unaccountable for it, thus it is incapable of being wrong in its interpretation.
The Catholic Church interprets the exact same verse in a contradictory fashon to the above: itself insisting that itself exclusively is the sole authoritative interpreter and infallible/unaccountable for it, thus it is incapable of being wrong in its interpretation.
How do we resolve this? NEITHER is accountable for what it alone teaches, both are INCAPABLE of error - thus BOTH are correct. There is no resolution since neither accepts accountability and neither submits to any arbitration other than by itself alone, moot since each insists that itself exclusively is incapable of being wrong. Other than each just re-stating that each alone is what it alone insists that it alone is, other than each insisting that whatever it alone says just be accepted as true “with docility” and that’s that - how do we resolve the conflict?
.
T
Tomster
Guest
Having a missal is one thing and reading the Scriptures along with the Rev is something else altogether.
Answer this for me if you can. When the Rev gives you his/her interpretation of Scripture how do you know if he/she is giving you the proper interpretation? Is he/she infallible? Protestant preachers will never tell you that they are. Ask a Baptist preacher what their belief of infant baptism is, for example, and then ask a Lutheran preacher the same question. I am sure that you will get two different responses on the matter.
T
Tomster
Guest
After reading your three paragraphs it is obvious you have no way of knowing the truth.
C
CMatt25
Guest
And you know all Catholic interpretation is proper and infallible because they tell you they are and it’s your belief they then are.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
You didn’t answer the question. Since both are exempt from accountability and norming, since both are incapable of error, since neither permits any arbitration of its teachings except by itself alone (and that moot since each alone insists each alone is incapable of being wrong), how do we resolve the issue?Josiah:
NEITHER is accountable for what it alone teaches, both are INCAPABLE of error - thus BOTH are correct. There is no resolution since neither accepts accountability and neither submits to any arbitration other than by itself alone, moot since each insists that itself exclusively is incapable of being wrong. Other than each just re-stating that each alone is what it alone insists that it alone is, other than each insisting that whatever it alone says just be accepted as true “with docility” and that’s that - how do we resolve the conflict?
.
After reading your three paragraphs it is obvious you have no way of knowing the truth.
.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
this should not be a problem. one can know who is speaking the Truth. one Church was found the Jesus 2000 yrs ago which has the promise of protection and to speak all Truth. it is all recorded in the Bible. the other was found 1850 yrs after the promise was made to His Church. by a selfmade prophet. the CC has many witnesses, can you say the same about the LDS
T
Tomster
Guest
Actually, CMatt, it’s because Christ said so.And you know all Catholic interpretation is proper and infallible because they tell you they are and it’s your belief they then are.
K
kempo1
Guest
every church claims to interprett scripture correctly but many are diferrent, my belief is that only the churches with apostolic succesion can interpret correctly everything else is just speculation. with so many new churches since the original church of Christ Jesus being erected, most of them were based off of someone in dissagreement with the teaching of someone else. so how can these churches make a claim that theyinterpret correctly. i know you will argue that the holy spirit guided you or your preacher but the fact is most scripture was interpretted long before these other churches were thought of or erected. so how do they justify there interpretation, i mean shoulnt we follow what was already in place set down for us? as i see it nowadays any old person that claims to be saved by just praying the so called sinners prayer(of wich there are many versions) can all of a sudden be qualified to interpret scripture and lead a flock, its rediculous. even the apostles had to follow Jesus and be instructed how to lead and teach the flock correctly. MANY POOR SOULS ARE BEING MISSLED BY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO KNOW AND INTERPRET CORRECTLY!!!
T
Tomster
Guest
We’ve been through this with A.J., ad nauseam, on another thread. He just doesn’t get it.
T
tweetymom
Guest
He did?
T
tweetymom
Guest
Oh I think he gets it like I do!
T
Tomster
Guest
Amen to that!
T
Tomster
Guest
Feel free to search the Scriptures, especially St. Matthew’s Gospel.
E
elvisman
Guest
You want me to expose you? Okay - here goes:
Well – the fact that you copied and pasted from the book, “A Theology of the New Testament” by George Eldon Ladd is very telling in that, you only researched one source.
Ladd was a Baptist minister with a very slanted non-Catholic (which usually means non-historical) view.
Your deeply flawed opinion comes in when you make the following statement:
“When Peter confessed faith in Jesus’ messiahship and was designated the rock on which the church was to be founded, it was not as a private individual but as a spokesman and representative of the 12 in his apostolic capacity.”
This is, to put it mildly – hogwash, just as Ladd’s view that there was “no one leader”.
The Early church Fathers squash Ladd’s opinions AND yours:
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 A.D. 252]).**
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 A.D. 350]).**
E
elvisman
Guest
Yes - you’re an anti-Catholic.
I just don’t care for people (and neither does God) misrepresenting the Church they claim to belong to – but espousing and agreeing with heretical views about her.**
Do a search of your posts and tell me if you can find 2 or 3 that agree with the Catholic position (vs. the Protestant) on ANYTHING.
T
tweetymom
Guest
I read it many times and I didn’t see any Church mentioned.
- Status