Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
Ezekiel 3:1 And he said to me, "Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel."
Surely Catholics obey before they go teach don't they?
If one says in the original that he would be called a n-tz-r, the context would indicate a branch as in a family tree. To interpret n-tz-r as meaning a place requires an understanding outside of the text itself - a tradition.
Problem is, the text of the New Testament itself makes the connection in Romans, and I think in Revelation.
bkmk
Or, they said they were, when in realty, they did not walk the walk. Anyone can say things when they know good and well, they are lying. Just like those priests who abuse children. They were never really saved in the first place. The church officials should have done something about them in the beginning instead of covering it up. There was a man in this state who taught kids in a hurch and abused some of them. He was fired right then and there. That is the right way of dealing wih criminals and that is what they are.
See #247 for starters. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
But you may be partially correct, for though such ways of thinking were once prevalent within the wider, catholic thus universal Church, in the Western Church (entirely dominated by the Church of Rome) prior to the Reformation that tradition had been superseded by sola ecclesia (whatever we say) by those of the Church of Rome.
Like a monkey with an arm in jar having a narrow opening, and it's paw around a nut it is convinced it just has to have -- the RCC is still captured by it's own desires to be the place having the bishop of bishops and supremacy over and above Scripture when the scriptures are inconvenient to the desire.
” [Scripture is the] measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intent”
That’s not contrary to Catholic (Church) teaching. In fact that’s what is taught by the Church (that no teaching can violate Scripture, which is essentially what that phrase quoted above says)
On top of all that, the phrase quoted above is not the same thing as saying, “Scripture is the only source of truth and morals”, which despite protestations to the contrary (no pun intended) “sola scriptura” reduces to just that in practice: “show me that in the Bible, or else it’s not true”.
That IS sola scriptura in PRACTICE, even though (I am well aware of the following fact I can assure you), that’s not the formal definition of sola scriptura.
Have the short-bus manufacturers identified this potentially hugh & series market?
I see opportunities. It could a great boon to their business.
I'm *special* my mommytoldme so
Absolutely...The bible condemns calling your religious leaders father...It condemns many things your religion ignores...
The bible doesn't tell us that there would be no prophet named Joseph Smith nor does it tell us there wouldn't be a prophet named Mohammed who would turn out to be God's main prophet to mankind, just as God didn't tell us Mary would go to heaven and sit next to God as the queen of heaven...
You could just as easily have been born into a muzlim or Mormon family and used the argument you use now that since God didn't say that it couldn't be that it could be...
As long as the bible is not the sole authority for all three of those religions, one is no more legitimate than the other...You have all added to (and taken away) the words of God and made those words equally authoritative with God's words to the point of making the words of God of 'none effect'...
Although God 'does not say' that Mary was assumed to heaven and became the queen, He says many other things that make that scenario impossible for a Christian to believe...
And as the church father Tertullian stresses:
Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:
But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).
As has been clearly established (by documentary evidence supported by reasoned analysis which puts a stop to the shallow Romish 'spin' of such things) in perhaps thousands of ways --- there is no "universal consent of the fathers" when it comes to the claims of the Church of Rome for it's own singular grandeur and "authority".
Which means one simply must return to the texts -- then go from there.
Doing so can allow one examining history to better see where the true novelties were introduced.
What can be more difficult to separate out are the slight changes made between the development & establishment of one way of thinking/writing about an issue (or many) and the yet further assumptions based on those --- resulting in theology itself being based upon commentaries and derivative opinions -- even turns of phrase (not found in the scriptures) themselves being seized upon as if the scripture.
After a while one needs to look back to what was more originally most widely preached, understood and accepted -- then honestly compare that to the here and now.
What happens when we do this?
"Papacy" goes right out the window --- including any "authority" that may be claimed which empowers any "pope" and allied "magesterium" to say even to ANYONE
It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul
How do they know?
“Another anti-Catholic thread?’
What else is new?
For non believers they sure get worked up about what Catholics believe. :-)
FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!
That is TOOO funny.....
Is that like Chocolate Quix?
So by your logic pray tell me who has it right? Rev. Moon? David Koresh, Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Joel Osteen? Billy Graham? Rev. Schuller? Jim Jones? Rev. Wright? They all “read” and “teach” from Scripture, don’t they? Assume they all read from the “same” Bible.
Yet they all “teach” from a Bible whose books were put together using decades of historical, scholarly, and theological research guided by the oral tradition, custom, ritual, and Divine inspiration as to what books should be properly included and excluded by the early Church Fathers. That divinely inspired interpretation (Petrine authority) suddenly stopped by your logic. At what point(s) and why? Oh, because “you” like the rest above suddenly disagreed by what the Church teaches even though the Church used the same methods it used before for selecting the Word of God.
So why did this authority end at these later points? What makes “you” (meaning all of you, and all 35, 000 sects of Protestantism) think that somehow the early Church Fathers got it all right during the first several decades before the Bible was put together? Why don’t you extrapolate interpretative error back in time and argue,Oh, the Church failed to include this book or that one?
Your arguments are both inherently contradictory and utterly implausible. This is why serious theologians who have studied scriptural interpretation from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict XVI after whom university theological chairs and colleges have been named treat your reasoning as childish, uninformed, and a form of street interpretation like what TD Jakes and Rev. Moons and others do. It’s simply laughable.
This is laughable not only to a large constellation of Catholic theologians but also to such eminent Protestant and Anglican theologians of the likes of Henry Newman of the Oxford University Movement, Richard Neuhaus, America’s foremost Lutheran scholar, author, and professor, and Francis Beckwith who as President of the Evangelical Theological Society, all converted to Catholicism.
These are only a small handful of the hundreds of brilliant minds who did so and they all subscribe to ONE truth and ONE teaching authority through the end of time. This ends all debate.
Fools still keep searching for the “truth” by each one offering “their” own interpretation like any of the Billy Graham-David Koresh-Joel Osteen- Rev Moon group mentioned above. They cater to “Oprah-type” audiences for whom serious intellectual inquiry is beyond their pay grade.
Here is a list of notable minds who converted to Catholicism. Apparently, by your lights they were all ‘wrong” or “misguided” or failed to appreciate the “literal” text that you keep throwing around from time to time taken from here and there from books put together by the Church and lived by its saints and martyrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
Ping to great cereal box. I can go alone with popesicles, popecorn, and other pope treats.
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.