Posted on 11/27/2006 6:58:00 PM PST by Ottofire
Well, if you are that misinformed, then no wonder you are raging against the Catholic Church. We *worship* the God of Israel. This morning I *bowed* down to the God of Israel.
replacement theology,
Please explain and substantiate your accusation here.
disdain for the prophets of Israel,
This morning in mass we listened in reverence to a reading from the prophet Jeremiah. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that the Catholic Church has "disdain for the prophets of Israel".
allegorical interpretation of Scripture,
And how is that heretical?
belief that Jerusalem was not God's eternal city
The Catholic Church teaches that not only Jerusalem, but the whole earth is the Lord's.
. . . most of which originated with the heresies of Marcion the disciple of Simon Magus
What evidence do you have that these particular beliefs came from Simon Magus?
-A8
Jesus will return and do all that the prophets prophesied He would do, all that He promised He would do, and all the Apostles affirmed He will do.
-A8
That is not true, for otherwise, we would have to say that Christ did a "poor job" by not giving those things to the Roman believers before ascending into heaven. For St. Paul says in Colossians 1:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions." Just because by his (i.e. St. Paul's) suffering and labor for the Church St. Paul was filling up what was lacking in Christ's sufferings, it does not follow that Christ did a "poor job".
-A8
Jesus will return and do all that the prophets prophesied He would do, all that He promised He would do, and all the Apostles affirmed He will do.
I'm sorry, was that a yes or a no.
Was that before or after you bowed to the God of the Koran? oh, wait a minute, you believe Allah is the God of Israel. So you got two Gods with one bow. Well done.
A false dichotomy. The Magesterium and Apostolic Traditions do not contradict Scriptures. They are all one body of teachings that come from God. The Apostles KNEW they were teaching the Word of God - and not just in written form. They KNEW they were infallibly giving Christ's teachings:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:6-9
There is NO room for error here. One either believes ALL of what the Apostles taught, or none of it. Either they are God's spokesmen, or not. Thus, there is NOT room for 10,000 different denominations, each "teaching the Word of God". Ireneaus knew this, as well. He held that Scriptures ALONE were NOT the proper way of spreading the Word of God. Look what he writes against those who read the Scriptures WITHOUT the Church...
Chapter 1 title: ABSURD IDEAS OF THE DISCIPLES OF VALENTINUS AS TO THE ORIGIN, NAME, ORDER, AND CONJUGAL PRODUCTIONS OF THEIR FANCIED AEONS, WITH THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH THEY ADAPT TO THEIR OPINIONS
"Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the AEons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations". Chapter 1, Book 1, Against Heresies.
CHAP. XVIII. Title --PASSAGES FROM MOSES, WHICH THE HERETICS PERVERT TO THE SUPPORT OF THEIR HYPOTHESIS.
"Again, they assert that the sun, the great light-giver, was formed on the fourth day, with a reference to the number of the Tetrad. So also, according to them, the courts of the tabernacle constructed by Moses, being composed of fine linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, pointed to the same image. Moreover, they maintain that the long robe of the priest failing over his feet, as being adorned with four rows of precious stones, indicates the Tetrad; and if there are any other things in the Scriptures which can possibly be dragged into the number four, they declare that these had their being with a view to the Tetrad." Chapter 18, Book 1, Against Heresies
"I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions. Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish [what they regard as] truth"
Book 2, Preface, Against Heresies
There are many such notations in Ireneaus' work. HE notes that the heretics use the very same Scriptures to "prove" their nonsense! Have things really changed from 1800 years ago regarding those who invent their own theologies? He realizes that Scripture alone utterly fails to teach the Word of God as first taught by Paul in Galatians.
How can we know the truth that Scriptures teach? How can we know what God intended? Quite easily. We go to the Apostolic Church. That is what St. Ireneaus taught.
All one needs to do is read Book 3. Rather than quoting that entire book, I will give the Chapter titles...
CHAP. II.--THE HERETICS FOLLOW NEITHER SCRIPTURE NOR TRADITION.
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
An interesting comment by Ireneaus must be noted in this Chapter 3:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE SOLE DEPOSITORY OF APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE. HERESIES ARE OF RECENT FORMATION, AND CANNOT TRACE THEIR ORIGIN UP TO THE APOSTLES.
CHAP. V. -- CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES, WITHOUT ANY FRAUD, DECEPTION, OR HYPOCRISY, PREACHED THAT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, WAS THE FOUNDER OF ALL THINGS. THEY DID NOT ACCOMMODATE THEIR DOCTRINETO THE PREPOSSESSIONS OF THEIR HEARERS.
And this brings us back to Galatians chapter 1. Either you believe that Christ left Apostles to infallibly guide the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, or you invent and make up your own gospel, a false gospel that Paul calls accursed. Ireneaus writes along the same concept and the Church continues to teach the same thing.
The question you need to answer is this: Is the Church that arose there in Rome after Constantine and the Council of Nicea the same Church that Irenaeus wrote about? While the Church of Rome in Irenaeus' day may have been close to orthodox in doctrine and practice, did the Church of Rome in Constantine's day absorb into its midst the Mystery religions of the gnostics and heretics.
Every Catholic naturally answers that implicitly in the positive - We believe that the Church following Constantine's day is the very same Catholic Church before Constantine. It is utterly ridiculous to propose ANOTHER Cahtolic Church that existed alongside the one that received religious freedom with the Edict of Milan. No other Catholic Church (which means "universal") existed. It is a figment of your imagination that points to some local community of Manicheans and calling them the UNIVERSAL Church that existed everywhere and calling THEM the Catholic Church. This confusion is unwarranted.
All Catholics need to step back and take an honest objective look at just what they are banking their eternal destiny upon, and whether many of those things don't have origins in the heretics and gnostics of the early church.?
And Protestants? Do they also need to make an honest and objective look into history, as well? Christ established a visible community, a church. He said THIS community would exist for all time. Remaining outside of this visible community - would you consider this in line with Christ's command:
"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16
The question, which I cannot answer for you, is, are YOU despising the Gospel of the Apostles, for example, as noted by Paul, that is from God? That continues to be taught by the Apostles Successors? Or are you following your own gospel?
Regards
I want to thank you for this post.
Ditto! Thanks Joe.
Why do you persist in quoting Scripture as if you believe it to be authoritative when in truth the writings of Augustine are more authoritative to the RCC? He is the foundation of RCC theology.
"Why do you persist in quoting Scripture as if you believe it to be authoritative..."
Please explain why you write what you perceive to be the belief of jo kus, when you can't read his mind.
According to FR etiquette, I was supposed to ping you when mentioning your name.
Say what? St. Augustine's theology is indeed part and parcel of the Church's faith. But it certainly is not more authoritative then the Church! The Church ITSELF condemned some of Augustine's more stringent beliefs regarding the necessity of Baptism, for example (read about his idea of "mass damnatia"). Also, the Church gives some latitude on predestination - his is only one of several opinions that are within acceptable belief. St. Augustine is NOT the Church's "mouthpiece" on all matters of the faith. He was only one bishop, albeit a very good one.
Regards
No problem. Thanks for the ping.
Regards
Why not? If the authority is the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who inspired those Scriptures and those in the churches are from time to time "corrected" by those Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who dictated those Scriptures to the apostles and prophets, then, even though they may disagree on interpretations, the Book and the God within that Book is what unites them, and in time will bring them ever closer together.
Haven't you heard of "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what to believe from the RCC. There are infinitely more diversities of them than there are church denominations.
Ireneaus knew this, as well. He held that Scriptures ALONE were NOT the proper way of spreading the Word of God. Look what he writes against those who read the Scriptures WITHOUT the Church.
Irenaeus wrote that in matters of importance, one should defer to the writings of the apostles. Now maybe he was just referring to the presbyters of the church deferring to the writings of the apostles in matters of importance. If that is what Irenaeus is saying, then it sounds to me as if one shouldn't be in leadership in the church unless he puts Scripture above his own office, much like the President or Congress or the Judiciary whose authority to make decisions derives from that certain written document which is above them not below them, despite their actions to the contrary.
Where apostolic succession falls apart is exactly on that point. Those things that were written down were important and the leaders of the churches took an oath [so to speak] to function under them. When they did not teach and operate under the authority of those documents that gave them their right to office, they forfeited their Scriptural authority. Do you think Paul wanted those in the churches to keep following those who disdained the writings of the apostles and prophets by saying that these documents must be balanced against things that other people wrote and may have said.
Even if one were to claim the doctrine of apostolic succession, Scripture would still have to be that which ruled those who sat in the seat, but the RCC claims that they are not ruled by Scripture, but by a blend of Scripture and writings as from Irenaeus, etc, and oral traditions with no sources. This idea was elucidated by Augustine. Was he ever reprimanded for that?
What good is a book that is not understood?
Haven't you heard of "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what to believe from the RCC. There are infinitely more diversities of them than there are church denominations.
Cafeteria Catholics are not an official group, but "democratically inclined" Christians who would like to equate God's Word with their personal opinions...
Irenaeus wrote that in matters of importance, one should defer to the writings of the apostles
We should. The Church tells us this over and over. BUT - and here is the problem I noted in the very first sentence to you - beware of the false dichotomy. We are to understand the writings of the apostles with the mind of the apostles. The Church has the mind of the Apostles since much more has been passed down from the Apostles to their successors (such as Irenaeus) besides WRITINGS! You are completely negating ALL oral teachings of the Apostles without any Scriptural warrant.
The Church, meaning, the community of God, practiced their religion daily without having to read the entire Bible (which wasn't as yet compiled). They received a set of teachings from an apostle or two, who left successors - who continued in the teachings of the original. Thus, this mindset of the church interpeted the Sacred Scriptures that were available (all local churches didn't have a bound copy of the New Testament!) AND the oral traditions given from the beginning. Thus, I gave you examples of false teachings from the Scriptures that Irenaeus condemns, teachings that heretics claimed were true.
The fact of the matter comes down to whom do you believe Ireneaus is the spokesman for: The Catholic Church or some other religious organization that does not exist any longer...
Where apostolic succession falls apart is exactly on that point. Those things that were written down were important and the leaders of the churches took an oath [so to speak] to function under them
Both the men who followed the Apostles AND the Sacred Scriptures themselves are servants to the community of People of God. We don't worship the Scriptures, nor do we worship the Apostle's successors. They are BOTH instruments that bring us into communion with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in their own way.
God desired to bring His final revelation to mankind through Jesus Christ - Who gave it to 12 Apostles to spread throughout the world. This command, naturally, came BEFORE the Scriptures were written, correct? Thus, the Scriptures do NOT have the power to "command" the Apostles. The Apostles wrote THEM to relate what Christ said and taught!
However, with that said, the Apostles' successors ALSO were commanded BY THE APOSTLES to preach and teach faithfully all that had been given to them, such as Timothy. Thus, again, the Apostles' successors are an instrument, along with the Scriptures, to continue in time the spreading of the Word of God. Neither is "above" the other. They are both at service to God's People, the Church. Naturally, when someone teaches something that is refuted by Apostolic Tradition or Scriptures, we do not believe it.
Even if one were to claim the doctrine of apostolic succession, Scripture would still have to be that which ruled those who sat in the seat
That idea is purely an invention of Protestants. This is NOWHERE found in the Sacred Scriptures. If you are going to follow some sort of Sola Scriptura theology, you could at least be consistent and apply it to your own theology...
Regards
While the apostles were alive there were a lot of people claiming that they said this and that orally. That is why they wrote it down. If it was written down, it had authority. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they were diminishing the written word of the prophets with things that they said they said orally and these were being used as equal to the Scriptures. The RCC's reliance on oral tradition as equal to Scripture is thus not new, but comes from the traditions of the Pharisees.
Jesus corrected the devil in the wilderness by citing "the written word" not "the oral tradition". How many times did Jesus say "It is written" when citing the words that were authoritative, and contrast them with what the people had heard said that were not true.
John writes: "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book, But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name."[John 20:30-31]
John says that there were many other things that happened, however those things that were not written [those oral traditions]won't give you eternal life, but these things that he has written will give you eternal life. The RCC diminishes the written word that will give eternal life, and elevates oral traditions of questionable origin that do not give eternal life.
Your tagline is great.
I have stored it in my memeory bank ;-)
I don't see how this claim can be made, when it was the Church Herself that actually composed the Canon of Scriptures we have today. Please don't accuse me of saying that "God didn't write the Bible, the RCC did", I'm not saying that. God the Holy Spirit did write the Bible, but as far as composing it from the various books that were in question, it's unquestionably the Catholic Church that did so, in the 4th century AD. That is historical fact.
So the very oral traditions that you call "questionable" in origin were responsible for giving the authoritative Scriptures you so (rightfully) revere. Don't you find that the least bit ironic? Probably not, as you probably deny the historical fact I stated above. That's the only way you can miss the irony of your position: To deny history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.