Posted on 03/30/2011 10:52:11 AM PDT by WPaCon
lupie:
No not really, that happens everyday here, i.e. Catholic doctrines as being heretical. The only problem is the reality that Catholic Doctrines stand in continuity with the historic Church, it is the modern and various versions found in Protestant doctrine that is heretical.
So this Catholic actually welcomes when someone claims a Catholic Doctrine is heretical, it allows me to write post that “destroys their position”, which my Siclian blood loves to do. So I have no problem with someone posting a Catholic Doctrine, as long as the post it accurately which is easy to do because the Catholic Church does not hide what it believes, the Catechism promulgated in 1992 is all there to see, and one can also find the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as it is out there online as well, along with various cites that document all of the Dogmatic Statements and pastoral and discipline canons of all of the 21 Councils that the Catholic Church recognizes.
Now, as somenone alluded to, any appeal to Sacred Scripture or anytime someone cites it ,they are in reality appealing to an interpretation of Scripture, no matter how they want to slice it. So as another Catholic poster noted, every Protestant when they cite and appeal to Sacred Scripture are in essence appealing to an interpretation of Scripture and interpretation is based on certain theological presuppositions and given that a core Protestant principle is sola scriptura and that all of them have stressed the principle of “priesthood of each believer” apart from the Community of the CHurch and Tradition, that results in every Protestant acting as his or her own “Pope” and is thus a magesterium of “One”. For that matter, when a Catholic does it, or holds a doctrine in contrary to “Defined Doctrines”, they are in essence acting the same way to be fair.
Neither of those is consistent with historic orthodox Apostolic Tradition as expressed via the early Church Fathers and great Councils of the early Church [Nicea 325 AD, Constantinopile 381 AD, Ephesus 431 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD].
When is it misinterpreted? When it is interpreted differently than the Magesterium of the Church, the church Peter started, per Jesus, that had the name Catholic capitalized on it when the reformations took place. People fail, sin, and popes and priests are no less sinful, but in interpretation by the Magesterium, the Church is always correct, and was given poewr to hold or loose.
If they didn’t loose contraception in the last 100 years, they show some pretty good focus. The sex abuse scandal and ....problems that led to reformation complaints demonstrate the sinfulness/failings of men, not the Church’s interpretation.
Thanks so much for posting. I’d forgotten how compelling Belloc could be.
ok, thanks
Well & good . . . except that “God’s word” says “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church.” God (Christ) didn’t say “Thou art Barney . . .” (or Paul or John or even Simon). And the apostles and their successors saw Peter and his successors as the leader(s) of the church. Why is it harder to believe that Christ left an earthly authority than to believe that Christ was God? In even simpler terms, why *believe* anything at all? Why not just figure that each of us knows best and the hell with scripture or churches or anything else that might impede our own, personal, subjective notions?
God has given believers the Holy Spirit to guide. Correct interpretation with the help of the Holy Spirit leads to greater righteousness in life which is the main indication that one is on the right track.
That doesn't mean one will not err...all are human.
However, those who have faith and are obedient to the Holy Spirit will continue to follow a correct path whether that means interpretations made on one's own or whether that means listening to others' interpretations.
This applies not only to Bible reading but to all areas of living.
Is it possible for a non-Christian to experience righteousness in their life? Who measures that righteousness, is there a way to know if one is or isn’t righteous?
A non-Christian can appear righteous on the outside by doing a righteous act now and then but cannot be truly righteous because full righteousness comes only from Christ.
Who measures that righteousness
God. That's why the Holy Spirit (who is God) within a person will indicate whether or not one is on the right track which answers your third question.
I'm not sure. If you follow the link to the website you can read the whole book, or if you can click on my other posts to get every chapter, save for the last.
Belloc is fascinating and far too much of a Catholic partisan.
Yes, he is definitely a Catholic partisan and brilliant, although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.
Nevertheless, the material is well worth reading.
Yes, it is, and at the risk of sounding like a pitchman, especially his chapter on Islam.
Thanks for putting on FR.
You're welcome. Glad you like it.
You’re welcome!
Catholic Ping!
“the Bible became the standard “ after Luther tossed out the Books that didn’t quite fit his worldview notably Maccabees.
If God is the only one that can indicate whether or not one is on the right track, then how is it that you know someone cannot be truly righteousness? Wouldn’t God be the only one that could know that?
“Well & good . . . except that “God’s word” says “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church.” “
This is true.
But we often see in the Bible that God says Jesus is the rock. For example, 1st Corinthians 10:4 says the rock that followed the people through the wilderness wanderings was Christ: “for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” Jesus is also called the chief cornerstone; He is also called a rock of stumbling and a stone of offense.
So, I think that the verse you cited is certainly true; but I don’t think it means that Peter is the rock. I think it means the confession that Peter just made - he confesses that Jesus is the Christ - is what Jesus is going to build his church on.
I think this makes the most sense. He could not really build a church on Peter, who died relatively shortly thereafter. Obviously the church has continued since Peter’s death. Also, it is consistent with all of Scripture.
“What is it that is so often misinterpreted?”
There are a few sort of continual struggles that the church has had to deal with over the centuries.
Baptism being of believers only or of children of believers is often misinterpreted. Both the Baptists and the Presbyterians can’t be right. One of us must be wrong.
End times is another. There are dispensationalists, amillenials, and postmillenials. We all believe Revelation and etc.; but we disagree as to the details.
Spiritual gifts is another: Bible believing Christians differ as to whether we are still supposed to be speaking in tongues, doing miraculous healings, and so forth.
Off the top of my head I’d say these are three of the main obviously misinterpreted things. I say they are misinterpreted because both sides obviously can’t be correct.
Luther was an anti-semitic womanizing alcoholic.
Anti-semitism in Germany started with HIM, not Schicklgruber.
Because it's one of the truths in the Bible which is emphasized again and again.
Here's a couple of samples:
From the Old Testament: "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags and shrivel up like a leap and like the wind our sins sweep us away" Is 64:6
From the New Testament "just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin and in this way death came to all men, because all men sinned" Rom 5:12
The sin of man vs. the righteousness of God is one of the major themes of the entire Bible. You can't miss it if you are sincere in your Bible study (which the Holy Spirit within you will prompt you to be).
Some "Bible only" believers say once a person is saved, born again, salvation can never be lost.
Some "Bible only" believers say once a person is saved, born again, salvation can be lost.
Misinterpretation? I call it confusion.
“It Ain’t Necessarily So”
It ain’t necessarily so
It ain’t necessarily so
The t’ings dat yo’ li’ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain’t necessarily so.
Li’l David was small, but oh my !
Li’l David was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Goliath
Who lay down an’ dieth !
Li’l David was small, but oh my !
Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo’ he made his home in
Dat fish’s abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.
Li’l Moses was found in a stream.
Li’l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol’ Pharaoh’s daughter,
She fished him, she said, from dat stream.
Wadoo ...
Well, it ain’t necessarily so
Well, it ain’t necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble’s a villun,
But it ain’t necessarily so !
To get into Hebben
Don’ snap for a sebben !
Live clean ! Don’ have no fault !
Oh, I takes dat gospel
Whenever it’s pos’ble,
But wid a grain of salt.
Methus’lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus’lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin’
When no gal will give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years ?
I’m preachin’ dis sermon to show,
It ain’t nece-ain’t nece
Ain’t nece-ain’t nece
Ain’t necessarily ... so !
-George and Ira Gershwin, DuBose Heyward.
(Act I “Porgy and Bess”)
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.