Posted on 04/07/2008 3:06:20 PM PDT by annalex
True, this is why the Church never advanced this as dogma.
Well, this is the difference from the Catholic perspective and Protestant perspective. From the Catholic perspective they put it out for a vote as to what dogma to believe. Whatever one gets the highest vote wins. From a (true Reformed) Protestant perspective we are not allowed to speculate-at least officially. I can sit here and come up with all sorts of ideas, but in the end all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say, “It’s a mystery.” Where the Bible speak, I can speak. Where the Bible is silent, I can’t say. It may be rather anti-climaxtic but in the end we can’t formulate doctrine on things that may not be true-even if it won the most votes.
First, the RCC didn't name any of the Books of the Bible, espically the Old Testament.
Kings is what is in the Masoratic text.
Next time you have a difficulty because you and your conversation partner don’t seem to be referring to the same book of Kings, or the same psalm, or the same verse number in some gospel chapters, don’t clown around and ask for a clairification, just like Pet did.
Second, my comment on 1Sam.18 was not even addressed to 'Pet' it was addressed to someone else.
He stepped in started mentioning nonsense about 'rock throwing' and I had to ask him what he was talking about.
So, he even had the wrong chapter, even if he was thinking the Book was called 1st Kings and not 1st Samuel.
So, once again, you have shown an absymal lack of knowledge both regarding the Bible, and the facts of what actually happened.
The Douay-Rheims has 1st and 2nd Kings with 1st and 2nd Samuel next to them in parenthesis.
And the Roman Catholic NAB just has 1st and 2nd Samuel.
Whydot you, for once, get busy with you own faith and quit telling Catholics your delusions about how theirs works?
I've become well acquainted with the workings of the Catholic Church. From a Protestant perspective, Catholicism is a works-based religion that undermines the basic and fundamental principles of salvation through faith and salvation through grace. Augustine was aghast when he discovered this truth as am I. IMHO, there is little logic in the Catholic religious belief structure except what Catholics have been told by the Vatican-sometime contradicting themselves. The logical circles we have been talking about here with Mary is just one example. It is my obligation as a Protestant to share these error with our Catholic friends. I don't wish to sound unkind or harsh, but it's difficult to tell people things they do not wish to hear. In other words, it is part of my faith to tell Catholics about how their faith works.
Regrettably there are Protestants who have fallen prey to faulty doctrine and feel uncomfortable with correcting others in the faith. So the few of us who bring up these issues seem like anomalies, hate mongers, unloving, and just about everything else that is bad. They are the ones who should be reprimanded; not me. People feel they can believe anything they want about God and that's that. God is loving and He won't mind. Well it doesn't work like that.
I do not object your motivation. But you said “Catholic perspective they put it out for a vote as to what dogma to believe”; would you either clarify that with an example of what you mean or retract this.
Regarding specualtion vs. dogma: the entire Calvinism is one big counterscriptural speculation without historical roots.
Further, no one in the Catholic is free to choose "which dogma to believe".
These are things Harley should know because of all people he has put, he says, quite an investment of time in studying Catohlicism. So when he displays such ignorance of the magisterial process, it is frustrating, and I begin to wonder if his time would not be better spent arguing about monergism with his fellow Protestants.
Such as Kings?
Samuel?
Genesis means 'Beginnings'.
The Old Testament Books were already named in Hebrew, no one gave them new names, they just put those names into Latin/Greek and that is how they came into English.
Now, in my copy of the Douay-Rheims bible, when you turn to 1st Samuel,it has the 'First book of Samuel' otherwise called the first book of the Kings.
And states that, 'this and the following books are called by the Hebrews the books of Samuel because they contain the history of Samuel, and two kings, Saul and David, whom he annointed' They are more commonly named by the Fathers the first and second Book of Kings'.
So, the correct title of thost books is 1st and 2nd Samuel, that is according to their Hebrew name.
Which even the Roman Catholic NAB attests to by giving them solely that title.
Now stop digging your hole deeper, you are only looking more and more foolish.
Fortunately Old Reg saved me the trouble.
The dogma is proclaimed if in the eye of the Magisterium it has been the inchoate belief of the Church Catholic since the beggining of the Church....These are things Harley should know
What I do know is that "these things" were never the belief since the beginning of the Church. They've evolved. One can simply read that in New Advent which often admit matter of fact like of the evolution of theology. Anselm introducted a whole bunch of new ideas about 1000 years after the beginnings of the Church so it is impossible to say they believed in these ideas. You may say that the early church fathers had this in the back of their minds but that is really reading far too much into their thought process.
It would be one thing if the Catholic Church would admit to the evolution of doctrine. The Orthodox are very up front about it and make no pretense that they don't mind tinkering with their doctrine from time to time. But the Catholics would like for us to believe that EVERYTHING started on day one of Pentacost-the doctrine of Mary, the Eucharist, purgatory, etc.
I'm not displaying ignorance about the magisterial process. What I am affirming is that it IS a voting process by which people have put forth doctrines, people come together and accept or reject them. Sometimes those doctrines are clear cut and it doesn't take much convincing. Out of those doctrines come the creeds of the Church/church. Sometimes those doctrines are not so clear and, yes, a vote is taken in an indirect sort of way.
There is no greater evidence of the Church voting process than Mariology. How many times have people within the Church petitioned the Church to have Mary declared Co-Redemptix? Do you think some day they will succeed in getting Mary declared Co-Redemptix? Do you think the early fathers believed that Mary was equal with Christ-yes or no?
What exists is refinement of dogmas. Voting does not determine outcomes: for proof, google “contra mundus”.
Of course refinement continues, but the movement is not toward new doctrines but to better understanding of old ones.
No educated Catholic believes that “co-Redemptrix” implies equality.
That has nothing to do with "Co-Redemptrix."
There is no better example of this in the Catholic Church than over the issue of paying for indulgences which has been denied, modified and re-interpreted.
As you can see here, the great danger of YOPIOS Christianity is crusading parochialism and its attendant invincible ignorance.
Paying or not paying for indulgences is not a doctrinal matter either way.
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.