Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
I'm not even going to respond to you. If your entire style of argument is merely TYPING IN ALL CAPS and adding adjectives to words, then you aren't worth my time.
The written words of the Apostles??? Not the 'traditions'??? Irenaeus then believed in Sola Scripture, the Scripture alone...
So you believe the apostles resorted to Oujia boards, rather than revelation, after Jesus left them? Interesting.
“However, when one construes reality as such that one’s OWN RELIGOUS CLUB is the ONLY right one . . . then it’s very easy to be haughty toward others for a lonnnnng list of reasons.
True, and that goes for any religion/denomination.
As a corollary to the sentiments here, I would like to add the following, which, IMO, is a more persuasive argument: (it’s another reason I was drawn back to the Church)
How do we know any Bible we have today is an accurate representation of what was written in the first and second centuries? We have no “original documents” to verify such a claim, independently, apart from the Church. I do believe that the oldest existing document we have from the first century is a fragment of the book of Matthew. (or some Gospel, I can’t remember which one with 100% accuracy).
Doesn’t this fact shock people? Doesn’t the fact that we have, at best, “copies of copies” force people to realize that we need an authoritative body to verify, through continual witness to the fact, that the “bible” we have today is indeed a fair (if not 100% accurate) representation of what was written in the first century? How do we know that what we have today wasn’t corrupted between the first, and early part of the second century, and when it was finally compiled in the 4th century?
To me, this is the ultimate destruction of sola scriptura. If we claim the Church is incapable of teaching authoritatively, then we are left with nagging doubt, “How do we know the english Bible I have in my hand accurately represents what was originally taught back in the 1st and 2nd centuries?” We certainly can’t claim it “verifies itself”, as a general distortion of all Scripture could still “verify itself”; it would be “verifying” error though.
Granted we have the DSS to verify the OT, but of course, this doesn’t verify the NT independently. No, the only verification we have that Scripture is indeed at least a fair representation of what was written back then is through the living witness of the Church. And indeed, that’s really what the Magisterium is: It’s a living witness, guided and protected from error by God the Holy Spirit, to give a living witness to the Good News of Christ. Without this unbroken line of witnesses (apostolic succession), all we have are dead words on pages, with no real connection to today.
Many Biblical scholars bemoan the fact that we don’t have original documents, and indeed, it is sad we don’t from an intellectual standpoint. How wonderful it would be to be able to verify the words we have today with originals from the 1st century! However, I believe everything happens for a reason, God’s reasons, and the fact that the originals were lost (probably due to persecution by the Roman Empire during that period), is, IMO, God’s message to us today to not rely on the “Bible alone”, but rather, to rely on the men and women He has chosen to teach us about the faith, through various charisms, for our PERFECTION (cf Eph 4:1-13).
St. Augustine of Hippo (Church Father), Against the letter of Mani, 5, 6, 397 A.D.
So What??? Origen didn't believe much of any of the scripture...He convinced your magisterium that it all meant something other than what it says...Unfortunately, the great 'thinker' couldn't figure out the real meaning of what he was reading...
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Apparently Origen didn't waste time conferring with Jesus when he rejected most of the scripture...
As I understand it, Einstein made the claim that he can't believe in a god who isn't a mathematical equation...So what??? Lots of heretics and apostates out there who are atheist as well as religious...
How do Mary and the saints listen to perhaps millions of prayers at the same time? Now that they are in heaven do they now have the attribute of omniscience? Because God has this attribute we know that he can hear and respond to millions of simultaneous prayers. But do Mary and the saints have this same ability?
Google 'prayers to Mary'...You'll see how wrong you are...We've already done it...
You may find this article useful; note the section "Overlooking the Obvious" for a direct answer to your question above.
A lottery device was used to usher Mathias in, sorry but that is the way it happened. Reason why, to rule out human subjectivity and make sure the decision was divinely approved, hence "chance" to us, but controlled by God (Was their thinking). Each Apostle had there "man" and consensus was not reached. Well, they casted lots, not used their own will.
You've completely missed the point. Go read the post it is in response to.
Good article. I pray those blinded by sola will see the man-made tradition under Calvin and the rest is lacking the completeness of Catholicism.
This is another discourse on how sola is wrong.
“There are several of ways to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 can’t rescue sola scriptura from the realm of myth. First, note that none of the Reformers attempted to use this verse to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul’s use of the phrase “what is written” is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:6). Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.”
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
BTW, The Church’s birthday is next Sunday! Happy (Almost) Pentecost.
The point is that Heaven isn’t a “place”, restricted by the same temporal and physical constraints that exist here on Earth. Given this, we cannot compare the experiences of a person here on Earth, “plagued” with 1000’s of prayers at once, with the experience of a person in Heaven. To do so is, as the article says, appealing to a primitive (if not childish) view of Heaven.
This does not appeal to the question, this is a fact (people in Heaven are not restricted by temporal and physical constraints) that is apart from the original question (How can the Saints in Heaven answer 1000’s of prayers at once?).
There is no truth in logic...Logic is a 'best guess'...
And that is proven since some of you who claim to have it appear to be void of it...
While logic may contain some truth in 'concept', it in no way supercedes fact...And in the absense of fact, logic is in the eyes of the beholder...
How about the one you plant on your dashboard??? Do you pray directly to him for your safety, or for directions, or something like that???
“How about the one you plant on your dashboard??? Do you pray directly to him for your safety, or for directions, or something like that???”
Why? Do you pray to your FORD logo? Is that in your personal interpretation of Scripture.
Now, a Jaguar logo with the leaping cat I might be inclined to pat and shine daily.
It depends on the dashboard.
Toyota, never.
By revelation then?
I don’t think that it would help to give you a short answer in protestant terms other than some of the same points about how the canon was selected by the church, as well as the lack of sola scriptura withi scriptura. Most likely you have already heard and chosen to disregard these points . If you really want to understand a traditional view of revalation, you’ll want to read the Philokalia of the Eastern Church and the Catechism of the Western. If you tell me that you have already read these, I’ll be impressed.
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.