C
- Status
W
wanner47
Guest
Regarding the Catechism –
This is Old Scholar’s original post:
Old Scholar, where did you copy the first two excerpts from? It clearly wasn’t the Vatican website, as you cited.
I’m very curious to know which anti-Catholic website is deliberately introducing spelling errors into the Catechism but otherwise leaving the content the same. It seems a very odd thing to do.
This is Old Scholar’s original post:
This is from the Vatican website:
Old Scholar:
Vatican:
Old Scholar:
Vatican:
There are some extremely odd spelling errors in the first two excerpts which indicates that Old Scholar copied them from some source OTHER than the Vatican website, since the Vatican website’s copy of the Catechism does not contain those errors.
Old Scholar, where did you copy the first two excerpts from? It clearly wasn’t the Vatican website, as you cited.
I’m very curious to know which anti-Catholic website is deliberately introducing spelling errors into the Catechism but otherwise leaving the content the same. It seems a very odd thing to do.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
It is up to you to point out where this tradition and teaching explicitly contradicts scripture. You will not be able to refute it since scripture is in perfect harmony with the traditions you mention. **I said that tradition does not contradict scripture. I did not say that scripture mirrors word for word everything held and elaborated in tradition. **
We have already given links and witness to the scriptures that relate to this tradition in other forums here. So I am not going to repeat what has already been laborously stated.
Know this. Scripture can not contradict tradition through an act of “silence” or through lack of elaboration and detail on a matter. The Catholic Church did not assemble and publish the bible with the intent that it was ever to be a self study aid sufficient and complete for every person’s salvation. Just as sacraments must be conveyed through the authority of The Church so too must the faith be conveyed as if it was a sacrament itself through the authority of the Church. No one walks into a Catholic Church and proclaims himself Catholic. They must be indoctrinated, baptised, confirmed and work up to full communion with the Church. And once in communion with The Church a person must maintain themselves in a state of grace by frequent use of the sacraments, and through prayer and through further spiritual and educational maturity.
James
A
adrift
Guest
Did it? Here is a link to the Vatican web site note there are no spelling errors. I really thought you had typed it yourself.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
**The Bible is quite clear about divorce. No ambiguity. You may Baptize an infant if you want to but the Scriptures say that “believers” must be Baptized. What would a baby believe?
There is very little in Scripture about it so the teachings you mention must be sfrom extraneous sources.**
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
**I don’t disagree with most of what you are saying. However, in order to determine if tradition confirms Scripture, then we need to see the tradition. Can you provide a link to Catholic tradition, both large T and samll t? Many have listed Scripture but no one has linked Tradition. Perhaps that would be a great idea to prove your point.
Thank you!
**
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
I copied them from the vatican website and gave you the link. I will give it again. I wish you would indicate the poor spelling. I don’t know if I did it or not. I cut-n-pasted from the Catechism.
Here is the link I used again:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
(This is about the 4th time I have posted it.)
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
OS,
Ditto on this to you Old Scholar
(from another member of the ‘whore of Babylon’)
You are TRULY CLUELESS or willfully lying in your posts vis-a-vis Church history and what Catholics believe.
It must be a messy attempt to troll for ‘altar call converts’ here.
Robert
L
Lampo
Guest
OS…Don’t you believe as Christians we all have the right to interpret the Bible for ourselves as long as we feel guided by the Holy Spirit? Well, when I read Scripture, I feel guided by the Holy Spirit and my interpretation happens to be exactly that of the Catholic Church.
If you are saying my interpretation is wrong, then you are being hypocritical because that goes against your core belief of sola scriptura. Furthermore, since you stated you are not infallible, could you be wrong on 100% of every passage you have interpreted yourself?
Since you and I disagree on SO MUCH of Scripture, whom should we take are disagreement to be resolved?
If you are saying my interpretation is wrong, then you are being hypocritical because that goes against your core belief of sola scriptura. Furthermore, since you stated you are not infallible, could you be wrong on 100% of every passage you have interpreted yourself?
Since you and I disagree on SO MUCH of Scripture, whom should we take are disagreement to be resolved?
G
guanophore
Guest
That would be off topic in this thread, but there are many threads running on it. Just enter any of these terms in the “search” and you will find the Scriptural basis for these. The library is also a good source.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is absurd. People who don’t agree with what the Church teaches ARE NOT CATHOLIC!! They may have been baptized that way, and they may erroneously call themselves that, but if they are not in unity with the One Faith then they are not.
Scripture is also clear that Jesus wants little ones to come, and not be hindered, and that he will work miracles based on the faith of others who approach on behalf of someone who cannot come on their own. This is on the infant baptism thread.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
TO OLD SCHOLAR;
explain this one:
If this is true about infant baptism. then why would God command that Abraham would be circunsized when he was already an adult and thereafter every child born had to be circunsized. they could not choose they did not know anything about circunsition but yet commanded it to be done. that reminds me that it is exactly what you people believe: " we do no baptize infants for they must choose what they want believe later when they they are old enough."
explain this one:
If this is true about infant baptism. then why would God command that Abraham would be circunsized when he was already an adult and thereafter every child born had to be circunsized. they could not choose they did not know anything about circunsition but yet commanded it to be done. that reminds me that it is exactly what you people believe: " we do no baptize infants for they must choose what they want believe later when they they are old enough."
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
I see I’m still being ignored.
What am I to conclude from the fact that Old Scholar won’t answer my questions?
W
wanner47
Guest
You ignored this part of my post, Old Scholar. I’d really appreciate an answer. How do you know I’m NOT infallible, and why should I accept your interpretations as infallible? That’s what you’re asking me to do.
There aren’t many different Catholic beliefs. They’re all there in the Catechism.
And yes, I do believe the Church is right because it is the ONLY church given authority by Jesus Christ Himself to teach and interpret. No other church has that authority.
IN YOUR OPINION. Please tell me: what makes your interpretation superior to that of a Baptist?
This is from the website of the Southern Baptist Convention.
There you go. OSAS, supported by Scripture.
Why is **your **interpretation of the above verses superior to theirs?
If the Bible is “quite clear” on divorce, why do so many denominations have different teachings about it?
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that divorce cannot dissolve a valid marriage bond; that death is the only thing that can dissolve a valid marriage bond.
The ELCA, on the other hand, says that civil divorce is acceptable and spouses are free to remarry. Both of these churches cite the Bible when explaining their viewpoint.
Who is right? How do you know who is right?
Well, if Scripture is sufficient for everything, shouldn’t this have been clearly expounded upon? If we were meant to rely upon “Scripture alone,” why doesn’t it have a clear condemnation OR approval of infant baptism, divorce, etc.?
J
juliamajor
Guest
You are not alone see my posts! #321,334,347,401 and 525. Usually his proof is his"No".
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Hey, those are very good posts!You are not alone see my posts! #321,334,347,401 and 525. Usually his proof is his"No".
I would like to know how OS knows the correct canon without appealing to extra-biblical tradition. I don’t think it can be done. In fact, OS himself said there is something called “the criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”, which I’ve never seen in scripture. So right there he is appealing to an extra-biblical tradition.
IMHO, the canon is the most logical argument against sola scriptura. One cannot even have scripture to begin with without knowing what scripture is.
T
tradcathconvert
Guest
I just checked the Vatican link provided by OS, and, if there ever were the spelling errors he posted, they have been corrected. And they were just spelling errors, nothing else.
P
Philthy
Guest
If this were true then every Christian would agree on what it teaches - we know they dont and therefore your claim has to be rejected.
The first problem with your comment is that it is logically flawed. To say that “believers” must be baptized does not mean that someone incapable of belief is excluded from baptism. In order to draw that conclusion, Scripture would need to say “only those old enough to believe and who actually believe are to be baptized” Unfortunately for your position is says no such thing.
The second problem with your comment is the direct command of Christ is to “make disciples” by - and he says it in this order -
1)baptizing them and
2)teaching them. (cf Matt 28:19)
P
Philthy
Guest
I think the single saddest thing on this thread is that the level of animosity is apparently so high that Old Scholar cannot simply admit that he made a spelling mistake, but instead expects us to believe that the vatican website has its online catechism with spelling errors in it. Perhaps Old Scholar is unfamiliar with the “spell check” feature which instantly corrects such problems.
Be certain that our Lord is watching all of us to see if we can find some compassion for him in our hearts despite our disagreements. Which will we choose - compassion or hatred?
Be certain that our Lord is watching all of us to see if we can find some compassion for him in our hearts despite our disagreements. Which will we choose - compassion or hatred?
I
Ignatius
Guest
When Paul referd to the inspiration of Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 he said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
Now I am sure that, you are aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. Paul was therefore referring to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagint version and had been for 200 years before Christ and contains the Deuterocanonical books. So, by 2 Tikm 3: 16, Paul supports the Deuterocanon as inspired. This is no leap, this is from the pen of the Apostle himself.
Actually, almost every time that the OT is quoted in the New Testament Greek, the Greek is an exact quote of the Septuagent Greek text.
So, to reiterate the question. How do you know which writings should be in the New Testament? I’m not debating the inspired nature of the New Testament. I’m asking on what basis do you believe the New Testament to be inspired?
I greatly look forward to your reply to these question.
May the Grace and peace of Christ be with you always.
Yours in Christ.
- Status