Posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:14 AM PST by lockeliberty
Yup
"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:8, 9, 13).
These acronym games were cute when they were original. Come up with your own material; I got trademark rights on acronyms related to scriptural interpretation.
Without even getting into ancient or medieval times, there is certainly evidence of anti-semitic attitudes in a number of popes over the past 200 years. Probably more in the 19th century than the 20th. Of course, Catholics will deny this.
So you are saying Paul's taught a different gospel from what he wrote about?
If Paul's teaching were consistent oral teachings and written teachings would be identical.
Acts 17:11 shows oral teachings being validated by written scripture. Why doesn't your church do that?
So what if a given Pope kisses the Koran or hates Jews? The Holy Spirit makes a Pope infallible (incapable of teaching error) but not impeccable (incapable of sin). The Holy Spirit inspires the Church to teach infallible Truth but only in matters of faith and morals -- the Pope could kiss an issue of Shaved Asians, the Chilton Guide to the 1974 Chevy Vega, or a copy of The Star Fleet Technical Manual and it wouldn't affect his ability to teach the Christian faith.
Don't confuse infallibility with impeccability. Were some Popes utter bastards? Yes. Have any of them been utterly wrong on matters of science, economics, or politics. Yep. Did any of them teach error? No. As a man, His Holiness is just as capable of human error (and of sin) as any of us. As Vicar of Christ, he is the living embodiment of Christ's promise to preserve His Church from error. I trust Christ to keep His Church safe.
I will stop seeking the Holy Spirit and be a mindless puppet of rome
Why not? At least Rome is never going to edit Scripture, throw out entire books of the Bible, or or make up something out of whole cloth just to suit its own personal emotional needs. Better a puppet of Rome than a puppet of the world, the flesh, and the Devil -- in other words, literalist materialism, narcissitic hedonism, and egomanaical pride.
And where do we find the Holy Spirit giving this power to the popes?
"It is beyond question that he [the Pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics."-Pope Adrian VI 1523
I think the whole Marian doctrine is found in the book 1Confusions 3:12-22(Douay Rheims)
Do you have any scriptural basis for that statement?
I thought not
Nor is there anything within the Apostolic tradition that asserts this false premise.
Never leave these threads thinking, "Now I've heard it all"
Polycarp, Clement and Ignatiaus lived and worked with the Apostles. The oral tradition handed down to them by the Apostles was the rule of Faith handed down by them to the next generation of leaders. The early church fathers did not add to oral tradition but in fact searched scripture to prove the objective foundation of oral tradition.
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the church fathers.
I have never understood, and I never will, why protestants think Catholics ought to accept that the Early Catholic Church Fathers were Protestants when they were clearly Catholic.
Good grief. Just read them for yourselves..it is all there Mass, Eucharist, Baptism, Holy Orders, Pope, Bishops, Priests, Confession, Prayers for the Dead,Purgatory, Fasting ect ect ect...
If this wasn't so insane, it would be funny.
But, in the end, it IS insane. We are asked to accept an arguement that falsifies reality. That ain't Christian<>
Good question. Sounds like someone is unwittingly on the road to Catholicism. The Bible teaches us that the Church which Christ founded is "the pillar and foundation of truth" and Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church." "If he will not listen to the Church, then treat him as a pagan or tax collector." How can disputes be settled if each man is a church unto himself?
"Solo Scriptura" is simply Sola Scriptura taken to its logical conclusion.
The Unitarians could profit from such an approach also.
The only thing necessary is historical eisegesis combined with presentism and distain for rationality<>
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.