Magdalen:
Anti Catholics sent me a bunch of garbage which I quote below:
"So we see it is a dangerous and inaccurate concept to make a sweeping statement that the Catholics were the first church, FACT is that there were not. They have no claim to Peter, none. They did not even follow his lineage. It is just plain wrong to say that there was EVER a single church, way or assembly because from the very beginning we see people - even the Apostles - in disagreement on what was the proper view of Christ and the church of Christ.*No amount of wishing it were different will change the facts of history, we can only try to cover up the facts or rewrite them and hope we fool everyone around us. From the beginning there were various factions, groups of people who believed in Christ and yet differed on the details. Constantine, after his conversion DECLARED Christianity to be THE religion of the Roman Empire (that is quite a story in itself, from killing Christians to proclaiming that Christianity was the OFFICIAL religion) of that group*or sect the RCC and Eastern Orthodox broke apart over the western portion (RCC) saying that one human was to be the head of the church (Pope) and was somehow at coronation by humans suddenly made to be infallible. So Nicole, you see, there NEVER was a single church that was RCC, sorry dear but that is a lie that some would say is from the pits of Hell itself although I would not go that far. So, no single church, no breaking off of the ONE TRUE Church, there never*was a single RCC, it just ain't so .... sorry but the truth is what it is and not what we WANT it to be. I encourage you to do your own research/homework and stop listening to those who would tell you that it all began with ONE church ... history shows otherwise, YOUR BIBLE shows otherwise."
So I should've never said anything to them in the first place and I was stupid enough to not know the Faith well enough or I was misinformed by "fake" Catholics or whatever! But see what I mean? They make it sound like the CC is a pile of horse **** (excuse my French but I'm making a very serious point here and am to the point where I had to say that). Boy, I'll make sure I know the Faith!
| De Maria says: | ||
Quote:
1st. the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. It teaches that we should believe the Church (Matt 18:17) and that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Time 3:15) and that we should obey those which God placed in authority over us. Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. 2nd. the Bible teaches us that the True Church will feed us our daily bread, the bread which is Jesus' flesh for the life of the world (John 6) if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will have life everlasting (1 Cor 10). 3rd. The Bible teaches us that the Apostles can forgive our sins, Jesus said, "whose sins you forgive they are forgiven whose sins you retain are retained." How can the Apostles forgive or retain without confession. 4. Baptism (John 3), Confirmation (Acts 2) and all the other sacraments are in the Bible. 5. Sola fide is not in the Bible except where James (2) says, "Faith without works is dead, being alone." To be steeped in History is to cease to be Protestant. If you read your history from any vantage point except the rewritten history put out by many Protestants, you will find corroboration of the fact that the Church was the first and therefore the True Church of Christ.
Quote:
Sincerely, De Maria |
Better to say the Roman Catholic church than the Catholic church. They are not the same things. The Roman Catholic church has its own set of doctrines and practices that set it apart from the rest of Christendom.
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong. The "Roman" Catholic Church is the Western branch of the Catholic Church and it follows the doctrines which Jesus Christ commanded.
DeleteSincerely,
De Maria
Not all of them. The Marian dogmas and indulgences were not doctrines taught by Jesus or His apostles. We also know papal succession was not either.
DeleteIn fact, they were. Jesus taught indulgences when He said:
DeleteMatthew 19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
And St. Luke taught about all the Marian dogmas when He said:
Luke 1:48-49
King James Version (KJV)
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
Oh and Papal succession fall under Apostolic succession. The Apostles knew that all their offices were perpetual in nature:
DeleteActs 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Matthew 19:21 is not about indulgences. An indulgence is: "A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant. A partial indulgence means that a portion of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin is remitted."http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/what.htm
DeleteMatt 19:21 has nothing to do with this kind of thing. In fact your church has never officially interpreted this verse to mean this.
Luke 1:48-49 has the same problem. It says nothing about Mary being sinless, being assumed or queen of heaven or praying to her.
Acts 1:20 is not about papal succession but about replacing an apostle. Secondly, Matthias was never the supreme head of the church either.
Matt 19:21 is the basis of the Teaching on indulgences which you have posted.
DeleteLuke 1:48-49 and Acts 1:20 are the basis of the respective Doctrines which the Church has expounded.
Your mistake is that you fail to realize that Jesus established a Church:
Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
and commanded the Church to Teach what He commanded:
Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
It is these Teachings which are the basis of the New Testament. Unless you understand these Teachings, you will not understand the New Testament.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Where does Rome officially interpret Matt 19:21 as being about indulgences? The same goes for the other passages.
DeleteThe fact is no exegesis of those passages teach papal succession nor that Mary was sinless.
I'm not aware of any official exegesis of those passages. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
DeleteHowever, the Catholic Church does not micro manage exegesis. She simply gives us guidance on how to exegete Scripture correctly.
This guidance is based on the fact that Jesus did not write any Scripture. He established a Church and commanded that Church to teach His Traditions. New Testament Scripture was written based upon these Traditions.
Sincerely,
De Maria
If you have no proof they exist then they don't exist. I can ask a number of RC's on what they think those verse mean and i will get different answers. So how do I know who is right if Rome has never officially interpreted those verses?
DeleteAnonymousOctober 13, 2013 at 7:01 PM
DeleteIf you have no proof they exist then they don't exist.
Whether they do or not makes no difference to me. I don't need them in order to understand the Scriptures.
I can ask a number of RC's on what they think those verse mean and i will get different answers. So how do I know who is right if Rome has never officially interpreted those verses?
The bottom line is that everyone of those Catholics will agree on the Doctrine. Whether they use one verse or another to support the Doctrine, makes no difference.
Your problem is that you understand your faith according to your interpretation of Scripture.
Whereas, we understand the faith according to the Teaching of the Catholic Church. By the way, that is what the Scriptures teach:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The Scriptures do not tell us to go and read the Bible and make up our faith. The Scriptures tell us to learn the faith from the Church:
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
In the end, those of us who follow Church Tradition, adhere to Scripture more closely than those of you who eschew Church Tradition and cling to your interpretation of Scripture alone.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Understanding the Scripture according to a doctrine does not lead to a correct understanding of what the passages mean. In fact in your system you don't even need the Scripture since your doctrines are supported by Scripture. Better to be honest and say your doctrines are not supported by Scripture than to claim that they are when they are not.
DeleteThat charge is exceedingly funny. Let us compare Scripture to Catholic and Protestant doctrine.
DeleteProtestants say, "hold to Scripture alone!"
Catholic Church says, "hold Scripture and Tradition!"
What does Scripture say?
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Lets try another one.
Protestants say, "once saved always saved"
Catholic say, "persevere in good works til the end!"
Scripture says:
Romans 2:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
And also:
Hebrews 6:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Protestant doctrine directly contradicts Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
What Traditions are you talking about? Does your church have an official list of these Traditions and when they began? If so, where can you show me?
DeleteYes. The Traditions of the Catholic Church are all taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
DeleteI didn't see anything in your catechism where it says that it is the Traditions of your church.
DeleteWe also know that not everything in it was taught by the apostles.
AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM
DeleteI didn't see anything in your catechism where it says that it is the Traditions of your church.
Then you should take a class on the Catechism. You can enroll in any Catholic Church.
We also know that not everything in it was taught by the apostles.
Everything the Church teaches was taught by the Apostles either explicitly or implied.
However, Sola Scriptura was not taught by the Apostles. And in fact contradicts the Word of God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Why can't you point them out? Is it because you know they are not there? I think you know this to be the case because you would have given me some examples by now.
DeleteWhat is Sola Scriptura?
AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM
DeleteWhy can't you point them out?
I'm not here to help you in your debate. If you think you've got a point, make it. But I won't assist you.
Is it because you know they are not there? I think you know this to be the case because you would have given me some examples by now.
Examples of what? You have already objected to some Doctrines. You must already know what you want to debate. Therefore present your arguments.
What is Sola Scriptura?
You don't know? That's par for the course. Protestants don't know what they are arguing against nor what they are defending.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I asked you a simple question about your Traditions and you were not able to give me a list of those Traditions of your church.
DeleteWhere did I mention Sola Scriptura in our discussions?
AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 10:50 PM
DeleteI asked you a simple question about your Traditions and you were not able to give me a list of those Traditions of your church.
And I answered it. I gave you the link to the Catechism.
Where did I mention Sola Scriptura in our discussions?
You didn't. I did. What's the problem? Do you think you are here to question me and I have no right to question you?
I don't see that in my bylaws. But I do see something about that in Scripture:
Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
If you come here claiming that the Catholic Church's Doctrines are not in accordance with Scripture, you had better make sure that the doctrines you believe are in accordance with Scripture. Because, if you oppose the Catholic Church, I reserve the right to prove that your doctrines contradict the Teaching of the Word of God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
The catechism is not about the traditions. I'm asking you for the source of these traditions such as when they began and who first mentions them. I would think you would know the answers to these questions given that you are a RC. Am I wrong?
DeleteAnonymousOctober 16, 2013 at 5:53 PM
DeleteThe catechism is not about the traditions.
You are wrong. The Catechism is about the Teachings of the Catholic Church. The Teachings of the Catholic Church are the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Traditions are teachings which have been handed down through the generations. The Catechism is about the Traditions of the Catholic Church.
I'm asking you for the source of these traditions such as when they began and who first mentions them.
The source of these Traditions is Jesus Christ.
I would think you would know the answers to these questions given that you are a RC. Am I wrong?
I have given you the correct answer.
I would think that you would be able to show me Sola Scriptura from Scripture, being that you believe in the Bible Alone. Am I wrong?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Jesus never said anything about the immaculate conception or indulgence. These things developed much later in church history. That is why I'm asking for the source and time when these ideas appeared in your church.
DeleteIf you don't know just say so.
AnonymousOctober 16, 2013 at 8:10 PM
DeleteJesus never said anything about the immaculate conception or indulgence.
Every Doctrine of the Catholic Church was taught by Jesus either explicitly or implied.
Every doctrine of yours which contradicts the Catholic Church, also contradicts the Word of God.
These things developed much later in church history.
Developed in the sense that they were explained in more detail.
That is completely different from the Protestants who have invented doctrine since their inception.
That is why I'm asking for the source and time when these ideas appeared in your church.
Asked and answered. Jesus Christ taught the Doctrines of the Catholic Church.
If you don't know just say so.
I already answered. It is you who declines to answer anything about the false doctrines which you hold.
Anyway, this little dance of yours is getting old. I've answered your questions everytime you asked them. Either begin to provide answers to my questions or I will begin to delete your comments.
Now, do you hold Sola Scriptura or not? If you do, provide the "official interpretation" and provide the Chapter and verse that supports it.
Sincerely,
De Maria
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteAnswer the questions I asked and then you can continue a discussion.
Bye.
Since you brought up Sola Scriptura you need to define it. Ball is in your court.
DeleteYou're wrong. Since you make the claim that everything must be in Scripture then you need to define Sola Scriptura from Scripture.
DeleteThat will be rather difficult since Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
But it is your Protestant doctrine which you claim to uphold, so, produce the Scripture which teaches it.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I have never claimed in our discussions that "the claim that everything must be in Scripture".
DeleteWhat is Sola Scriptura? Where do Protestants define it?
AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 9:15 PM
DeleteI have never claimed in our discussions that "the claim that everything must be in Scripture".
Good. Are you saying that you do not believe in Sola Scriptura?
What is Sola Scriptura?
The doctrine is also known as the "Bible alone".
Where do Protestants define it?
You tell me. And then provide the Scripture to support it. But if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura, then say so.
Sincerely,
De Maria
What do you mean that Sola Scriptura is "Bible alone"?
DeleteYour the one attacking this doctrine and i'm trying to figure out if you understand what Protestants mean by it. I would think you would have some kind of official definition for it.
AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM
DeleteWhat do you mean that Sola Scriptura is "Bible alone"?
Your the one attacking this doctrine and i'm trying to figure out if you understand what Protestants mean by it. I would think you would have some kind of official definition for it.
Answer the question. Do you believe in Sola Scriptura or not?
Why won't you define it first so I can say if I believe what you think it is?
ReplyDeleteBecause this isn't my first rodeo with the Protestant Sola Scriptura dance. If I say Sola Scriptura means a, you'll say, WRONG! But you will never produce a a definition because you know that your definition is not in Scripture. That is the Protestant way. Obfuscation and confusion.
DeleteDon't assume what I may say. Just define so I can know what you believe. Then we can go from there.
DeleteDon't you know what it is that you believe?
DeleteYes i do know what i believe. Since you claim that Sola Scriptura is false you must know what it is. So please define it. Otherwise I'm beginning to think you really are not accurately understanding it.
DeleteIf you don't think I understand it, then provide the definition from Scripture.
DeleteYou don't understand it because you think the definition is in Scripture. That's why you continually misrepresent it. Why don't you take some time and really study this doctrine so you won't misrepresent it?
DeleteSo, Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture? Then it is unbiblical. Why do you believe it?
DeleteSola Scriptura is about the implications of the Scripture being inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is. Since that is the case , then the Scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for matters of faith and is binding on the Christian. Anything doctrines that are not truly grounded in Scripture is not of God. Sadly, your church is guilty of many as you know.
DeleteAnonymousOctober 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
DeleteSola Scriptura is about the implications of the Scripture being inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is.
Does Scripture say that? And if so, where?
Since that is the case , then the Scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for matters of faith and is binding on the Christian.
Where is that in Scripture?
Anything doctrines that are not truly grounded in Scripture is not of God. Sadly, your church is guilty of many as you know.
First, you need to prove that Sola Scriptura is in Scripture. Let me see the chapter and verse where you got all of this. Otherwise, you have proved that Sola Scriptura is not grounded in Scripture.
No, Scripture does not say that but the church does. Nothing else is inspired-inerrant. No man or institution is. Only the Scripture.
DeleteSince the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant it follows from that they alone are the ultimate and final authority for matters of faith and is binding on the Christian because they alone are the Word of God. It is never said that the Traditions of your church are inspired-inerrant by any apostle or prophet.
You have already admitted by your refusal to define what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura what is entailed in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not need to be seen as some kind of formula in Scripture.
We know the prophets never appeal to traditions as being inspired-inerrant. Nor did Jesus or His apostles. Since traditions are not inspired-inerrant they are not equal in authority to Scripture. This shows that "Scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for matters of faith and is binding on the Christian."
AnonymousOctober 26, 2013 at 11:17 PM
DeleteNo, Scripture does not say that but the church does.
In the doctrine of Scripture alone is not Scripture-based.
Nothing else is inspired-inerrant. No man or institution is. Only the Scripture.
Scripture says that God inspired men to write the Scripture. And the infallible church wrote the Scripture without error.
Since the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant it follows from that they alone are the ultimate and final authority for matters of faith and is binding on the Christian because they alone are the Word of God. It is never said that the Traditions of your church are inspired-inerrant by any apostle or prophet.
To say this Scripture is inspired is a metaphor. God didn't breathe the Scripture out of his mouth. God inspired men to write Scripture. It is men who are inspired by God.
You have already admitted by your refusal to define what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura what is entailed in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not need to be seen as some kind of formula in Scripture.
You're mistaken, you said that the authority behind Sola Scriptura is man. You agreed that Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture. by your own definition Scripture cannot be the final authority since Sola Scriptura was invented and defined by men.
We know the prophets never appeal to traditions as being inspired-inerrant.
They always do.
Nor did Jesus or His apostles.
So did Jesus and his apostles.
Since traditions are not inspired-inerrant they are not equal in authority to Scripture.
The New Testament is based upon the doctrines and teachings of Jesus Christ. All the doctrines and teachings of Jesus Christ are inspired inerrant.
This shows that "Scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for matters of faith and is binding on the Christian."
You are mistaken again. The church wrote the Scripture based upon the teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus Christ are the word of God. Therefore the word of God is the final authority on all matters binding on a Christian.
Your church or any church is not infallible. Just look at the history of your church and we immediately see it to be the farthest thing from it.
DeleteIt is the words of Scripture that are inspired-imerrant. The men were not. Just look at Peter. He was even rebuked by Paul for denying the gospel.
What prophet ever appealed to traditions as being inspired-inerrant? Please give me an example.
AnonymousOctober 27, 2013 at 9:41 AM
DeleteYour church or any church is not infallible.
Not true. Scripture says that the church will teach the word of God even in the heavens (Ephesians 3:10). Therefore, the Catholic Church is infallible.
Just look at the history of your church and we immediately see it to be the farthest thing from it.
You rely upon the man-made stories of anti-Catholics. I rely upon the word of God.
It is the words of Scripture that are inspired-imerrant.
God inspired the church to write the Scripture without error. Without inspiration there is no infallibility. And without infallibility, there is no inerrancy. Infallibility and inerrancy go together. There is not one without the other.
The men were not.
Scripture says differently:
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Just look at Peter. He was even rebuked by Paul for denying the gospel.
You love to confuse issues. You love to pretend that you know something about Catholicism. Even if what you claim were true, which it isn't, infallibility is about teaching. It's not about action.
The Catholic Church does not teach that the popes are impeccable. Only that the popes and the church are infallible when they teach the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
What prophet ever appealed to traditions as being inspired-inerrant? Please give me an example.
Every one of them. The doctrines which they eventually wrote down in Scripture they first heard passed down to them by God in words. Those words were not written for many centuries.
The only words that came directly from God are the 10 Commandments which God wrote with his finger upon stone tablets.
DeleteThat is not true. God spoke to Moses directly. He walked with Adam and Eve. Jesus was God in the flesh and all His words and deeds were of God directly.
DeleteEph 3:10 does not make the church infallible. Your church does not interpret that verse like that.
DeleteI'm not making up stories about the RCC. Just read its history. No historian denies that the RCC did a lot of evil with the crusades, the inquisitions, corrupt leadership and the current priest scandals.
Peter did practice error and was accused by the apostle Paul of denying the gospel. Honorius was a pope that was condemned for teaching error by various popes. He taught a false doctrine and was condemned for it by later popes for centuries.
Where does Rome claim that it is inspired?
2 Peter 1:19-21 is not speaking about a man being inspired but the prophecy-Scripture being inspired.
The church does not make anything inspired.
Where does your church say that the doctrine of Mary being sinless is inspired?
AnonymousOctober 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM
DeleteThat is not true. God spoke to Moses directly.
You said it. God spoke to Moses. Moses was not sitting there with a pencil ready to write everything down. The only thing that we received directly from God was a 10 Commandments which he wrote with his own finger on tablets of stone.
He walked with Adam and Eve. Jesus was God in the flesh and all His words and deeds were of God directly.
But Jesus didn't write any Scripture. He taught the apostles, he taught the disciples, he taught the multitude. He established the church Upon the apostles. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write the new test based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ.
AnonymousOctober 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM
DeleteEph 3:10 does not make the church infallible.
God made the church infallible. Ephesians 3:10 records that the church is infallible.
Your church does not interpret that verse like that.
Yes it does.
I'm not making up stories about the RCC. Just read its history. No historian denies that the RCC did a lot of evil with the crusades,
if Catholics had undergone the Crusades you would be worshiping Allah right now.
the inquisitions,
The inquisitions were necessary to discover those enemies of Christ for trying to infiltrate the church.
corrupt leadership and the current priest scandals.
The fact is that any sinners in the Catholic Church do it in spite of Catholic teaching. But the Protestants have made sin part of their religion. Protestants have normalized adultery by allowing men and women to divorce and remarry. Protestants allow contraception and abortion. And these things are allowed by their church. Whereas the Catholic Church continues to fight all forms of sin inside and out.
IPeter did practice error and was accused by the apostle Paul of denying the gospel.
Peter did not teach error. St. Paul accused of acting contrary to the gospel. Scripture records that St. Paul committed the exact same errors.
As I said before popes are not impeccable nor are saints. But popes are infallible when they teach the word of God.
. IHonorius was a pope that was condemned for teaching error by various popes. He taught a false doctrine and was condemned for it by later popes for centuries.
You'll need to provide the documentation. You're not trustworthy in anything which you say. you are simply an anti-Catholic who wants to make hay with every little problem you see in the 2000 years of Catholic history. Provide the documentation and I will show you your errors.
Where does Rome claim that it is inspire
the Catholic Church claims inspiration every time a claims infallibility. No one can be infallible unless inspired by God.
2 Peter 1:19-21 is not speaking about a man being inspired but the prophecy-Scripture being inspired.
Really? This is what it says:
"but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
The church does not make anything inspired.
God inspires a church to teach infallibly. H
Where does your church say that the doctrine of Mary being sinless is inspired?
The doctrines of Mary are the word of God. Therefore they are inspired of God. By definition the word of God is inspired of God.
Paragraph # 97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all ...
URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/97.htm
Sincerely,
De Maria
Where does your church say that Ephesians 3:10 means that your church is infallible? Keep in mind if that is what it means that means Protestant churches are infallible to.
DeleteHere is what one of the best RC apologist, Robert Sungenis, says about infallibility:
" In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an excathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings."
AnonymousOctober 28, 2013 at 9:11 AM
DeleteWhere does your church say that Ephesians 3:10 means that your church is infallible?
We interpret Scripture according to tradition.
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
Catholic Church doesn't have to explicitly tell me what Ephesians 310 means. Based upon the traditions that the Scriptures were written upon I know what it means.
Keep in mind if that is what it means that means Protestant churches are infallible to.
On the contrary, Protestant assemblies are not churches. Jesus Christ only established one church, the Catholic Church.
Here is what one of the best RC apologist, Robert Sungenis, says about infallibility:
" In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an excathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings."
But he does agree that the Pope is infallible and that the church is infallible. So what's your point?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Can you show me the process how your church "interpret Scripture according to tradition"? What specific traditions do they use for interpreting Scripture?
DeleteNo serious RC would not say Protestants don't have churches. Just look at the RC literature when discussing Protestants and you will find many references to Protestants having churches.
The point with sungenis is that you can't be absolutely sure what your church teaches since it has never been infallibly declared.
AnonymousOctober 31, 2013 at 9:22 AM
DeleteCan you show me the process how your church "interpret Scripture according to tradition"?
I've answered this question repeatedly. Here it is again:
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
What specific traditions do they use for interpreting Scripture?
Everything to Jesus taught.
No serious RC would not say Protestants don't have churches.
You will find that in the catechism though. Or in any other Catholic document. For example here they are called, "ecclesial communities".
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities….
Just look at the RC literature when discussing Protestants and you will find many references to Protestants having churches.
Even I frequently say it. And I know better. This is easier to see.
The point with sungenis is that you can't be absolutely sure what your church teaches since it has never been infallibly declared.
We know the difference between that which is taught is absolute truth and that which is simply a discipline. Only those who don't understand the Catholic Church would claim that everything she teaches must be absolute.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Where does your "the living Tradition of the whole Church" mention that Ephesians 3:10 to mean that the RCC is infallible?
DeleteJesus never taught that the RCC would be infallible. He never mentions a church at Rome in fact.
Then you have contradictions in your church because RC writers do refer to Protestants having churches.
AnonymousNovember 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM
DeleteWhere does your "the living Tradition of the whole Church" mention that Ephesians 3:10 to mean that the RCC is infallible?
The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is infallible. Therefore, that is what Ephesians means. There is no need for an explicit statement.
Jesus never taught that the RCC would be infallible. He never mentions a church at Rome in fact.
Jesus did teach that should the church which he created would be infallible. That's what Matt 16:18 – 19 means. "The gates of hell will never prevail against the church". Therefore, Jesus church will never fall.
It is also true that Jesus did not establish the church in Rome. However, he established the church upon Peter. It is Peter who took his See to Rome. And that is where it has remained to this day.
Then you have contradictions in your church because RC writers do refer to Protestants having churches.
That's not a contradiction. The church doesn't teach that every Catholic is infallible.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Since there is no explicit statement of what Eph 3:10 means then you cannot claim it means infallibility for your church. In fact you have no idea what the living tradition is for your church is specifically.
DeleteThe church was not created in Rome.
What is the evidence that Peter was ever in Rome?
AnonymousNovember 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM
DeleteSince there is no explicit statement of what Eph 3:10 means then you cannot claim it means infallibility for your church.
why not?
In fact you have no idea what the living tradition is for your church is specifically.
You keep saying the same thing. All you have to do is open the catechism and you'll find the living tradition of the church. Or just read the New Testament.
The church was not created in Rome.
That's what I said.
What is the evidence that Peter was ever in Rome?
History is a witness that St. Peter preached in Rome until the day he died crucified upside down.
Short summary:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has admitted that sola scriptura is not based on Scripture.
But he continues to make many baseless objections against Catholic Doctrine. Every time he does so by trace the doctrine to scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria