- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You mean, there was an easy way to print Bibles before 1440?That's the usual Catholic excuse, but it's not true.
Ok, Mr. Sea Lawyer. Whatever. If that's true, then Luther was wrong, and the whole Protestant Reformation was wrong. We believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine. That means that whatever does not contradict Scripture is within bounds. Only what is contrary to Scripture would be wrong.I never said that. It's that they aren't the equal of Scripture, which is what opposition to Sola Scriptura is all about.
So that answers your other question, too...Sola Scriptura means simply that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine.
That isn't the issue. There were Bibles before and after the printing press, and the Church prohibited people from having them, lest they get some ideas from the reading which the Church did not approve of.
So, you think that any dogma imposed upon the people of God under pain of mortal sin if not believed by them is perfectly okay so long as the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it.Ok, Mr. Sea Lawyer. Whatever. If that's true, then Luther was wrong, and the whole Protestant Reformation was wrong. We believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine. That means that whatever does not contradict Scripture is within bounds.
No, they didn't. "People" had Bibles, mostly RICH people. People that could afford Bibles. According to this reference, a book cost 20 times the price of rent for a home. Most Bibles were chained in churches, specifically because they didn't want them taken.That isn't the issue. There were Bibles before and after the printing press, and the Church prohibited people from having them, lest they get some ideas from the reading which the Church did not approve of.
There's no such thing. If it's a mortal sin, it's Biblical. So please provide examples of such.So, you think that any dogma imposed upon the people of God under pain of mortal sin if not believed by them is perfectly okay so long as the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it.
No, it wouldn't. The Assumption of Mary has Biblical reference. First, Elijah was assumed to heaven. Second, Moses was (as shown at the Transfiguration). So the concept is Biblical. Tradition and witnesses do not show a burial place, so we piece things together. There's more, but I won't waste your eyes, as you won't read them.That is a very peculiar notion, if you ask me, but it would okay the Book of Mormon and an endless stream of weird religious theories. Most of them are not specifically ruled out by the Bible but are add-ons to it, just like the Assumption of Mary is.
No, they didn't. "People" had Bibles, mostly RICH people. People that could afford Bibles. According to this reference, a book cost 20 times the price of rent for a home. Most Bibles were chained in churches, specifically because they didn't want them taken.
Hodges. List of Prices of Items in Medieval England
Since the entire concept of moral sin -- a sin that if one commits and dies prior to receiving absolution from a priest one goes straight to hell -- is unbiblical anyway, it makes no difference what they choose to put in that category: missing mass on Sunday, masturbation...calling Florida Georgia Line country music...So, you think that any dogma imposed upon the people of God under pain of mortal sin if not believed by them is perfectly okay so long as the Bible doesn't specifically condemn it.
Funny that you never reveal the source so you don't show the bias. The other part you forget is that most people couldn't read, so didn't need books. They needed educated people to read to them, which is what the Church provided. The dogmatic interpretation wasn't left to priests, really, but to the Magisterium, the bishops who were, as Christ told the apostles, protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.Yes, that's part of the "line" I was referring to before. Heard it many times. Only it's not historically accurate.
Here's a snippet from an online search that explains further:
"Additionally, however, there was a practical decision made by the church: Finally, the institution of the church understood that people can misread Scripture. As such, dogmatic interpretation was reserved to priests. By focusing on those who could read and were trained to explain the Scriptures, the church imposed a sort of "quality control" on that reading. This was anathema to the Protestant reformers who subscribed to the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers"
Perhaps.They'll try to agree on what sounds nice and still be wrong. Maybe agree that they sound and look right. But it'd still be a lie.
Celebrating 500 years of intolerance ...
Between Mountianmike and RootofJessie, this only proves that the "gap" between Protestants and Catholics is as wide if not even wider than before.
I see no reconciliation whatsoever between Baptists like myself, or Presbyterians, or anybody of the "Reformed" faith with Catholicism.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Celebrating 500 years of intolerance ...
I see. 500 years of intolerance is very much in line with Ellen White's bookYep
God Bless
Till all are one.
I see. 500 years of intolerance is very much in line with Ellen White's book
The Great Controversy
You do not need to accept what Catholics teach. Very few protestants do. Even fewer evangelicals.Maybe, I just cannot accept what Catholicism teaches in light of scripture, that's all.
I had a feeling I'd regret replying.
God Bless
Till all are one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?