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.
Nope you've got it all wrong. I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition. Put another way, while the RCC poo-poos sola scriptura, a lot of Catholocism is founded solely on scripture alone.There is scripture for all of these, yet you act as if there isn't and as if one NEEDS scripture to believe something.
Catholics teach the proper acceptance and reverence for the holy scriptures. This is covered very well in a document called Dei Verbum.Nope you've got it all wrong. I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition. Put another way, while the RCC poo-poos sola scriptura, a lot of Catholocism is founded solely on scripture alone.
Protestantism already accepted contraception long ago, with some accepting abortion and performing gay marriage more recently. The RCC, almost uniquely, opposes all of that while striving to accept all humans as we’re all sinners and there is no Catholic teaching anywhere promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+ and transgenderism. Again, it matters not what many Catholics including even the pope are on board with-Catholic doctrine is the key, and that hasn’t changed. That’s what the gift of infallibility is all about. Some popes have personally believed in heretical views at times, but no teachings were changed.Most Protestants (who weren't Catholics before) who studied history remained Protestant. It would be one thing if the Papacy and the Vatican had a perfect interpretation of scripture and had stuck to it, but that's not the case. Instead the RCC ended up with their updated changing version of Christianity that in some cases eschewed scripture in favor of catechisms. Just as the Jews ended up favoring the Talmud they created. So the problem of Sola Scriptura for Catholicism is that it doesn't allow for the extrabiblical dictates the RCC came up with over the centuries. The RCC like most others decided to do it their way. Otherwise the RCC would be the same now as the early church up to the 4th century, but it clearly isn't. The RCC morphed into something different. The RCC seems to be currently morphing into accepting and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+ and transgenderism. Lots of Catholics and apparently the Pope is onboard with that. There's just too much wrong with the RCC and Catholicism past and present to make the claim of being the one and only true infallible church. Really the Eastern Orthodox Church is closer to that than the Roman Catholic Church.
Where do you get that? The church necessarily often employs Scripture in apologetics and teachings in order to support positions because 1) Scripture is the only source many of her detractors will accept, and 2) Tradition, by definition, is unwritten. But the church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written and long before it was canonized. Tradition, as often as not, informs and supports Scriptural positions, the two, Scripture and Tradition, being mutually complementary.Nope you've got it all wrong. I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition. Put another way, while the RCC poo-poos sola scriptura, a lot of Catholocism is founded solely on scripture alone.
"She" wasn't.And the RCC unashamedly claims that the authority to correctly interpret God’s Word, again, both written and unwritten, is the role she was given to play.
Of course He can. He can guarantee that individuals will certainly know the truth when they hear it, whether through the guidance of the church or without it. He can do whatever He wants. I’m only saying that, without the historical teachings of the church and the guidance He’s given “her” you’ll have a difficult time. That’s how He’s set it up. And that’s why “Spirit-led”, Bible only Christians disagree all the time on important points, as we see right here on these very forums."She" wasn't.
It is the Holy Spirit who interprets, and applies, God's word to us. He inspired it to be written, he knows the mind, and will, of God and he can do that.
If you're talking about commentaries and theological resources; yes, I agree.Of course He can. He can guarantee that individuals will certainly know the truth when they hear it, whether through the guidance of the church or without it. He can do whatever He wants. I’m only saying that, without the historical teachings of the church and the guidance He’s given “her” you’ll have a difficult time.
Yes, I did the same, at least until I did begin to study those teachings and the history behind them. Prior to that I was quite anti-Catholic. And the amount of commentaries and theological resources from the last 2000 years of Christian thought in the church are astoundingly huge. Many Protestants have contributed valuable material along those lines as well.If you're talking about commentaries and theological resources; yes, I agree.
If you're talking about the Catholic church; no. I'm not a catholic, nor do I study your teachings.
I'm not anti Catholic; I just don't go to a Catholic church or read/study your teachings.Yes, I did the same, at least until I did begin to study those teachings and the history behind them. Prior to that I was quite anti-Catholic. And the amount of commentaries and theological resources from the last 2000 years of Christian thought in the church are astoundingly huge. Many Protestants have contributed valuable material along those lines as well.
I'd submit that anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC.Most Protestants (who weren't Catholics before) who studied history remained Protestant.
This is like say, this stick isn't 6", it is half a foot.I'm saying much of Catholocism is founded on what the apostles wrote as opposed to being founded by church tradition
Oh you're very welcome to say that, but it's not going to happen - not with me, anyway.And I'm only saying that I think we'd all benefit if we did, along with the ECFs.
Yes, and we're all welcome to say that as well. Most do in fact, assuming they already know.Oh you're very welcome to say that, but it's not going to happen - not with me, anyway.
Already know what?Yes, and we're all welcome to say that as well. Most do in fact, assuming they already know.
It's pretty easy to put that to the test by looking up experts in church history and patristics.I'd submit that anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, But I hear a lot of 'you protestants always going by the book tisk tisk". But then I observe catholicism going by the book as much as possible. Going by the book only seems to be a problem when it comes to extrabiblical tradition.Where do you get that? The church necessarily often employs Scripture in apologetics and teachings in order to support positions because 1) Scripture is the only source many of her detractors will accept, and 2) Tradition, by definition, is unwritten. But the church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written and long before it was canonized. Tradition, as often as not, informs and supports Scriptural positions, the two, Scripture and Tradition, being mutually complementary.
And Catholics don't have disagreements among themselves? Isn't this thread about how to interpret CCC 846-47, and doesn't it contain differing views from Catholics?Of course He can. He can guarantee that individuals will certainly know the truth when they hear it, whether through the guidance of the church or without it. He can do whatever He wants. I’m only saying that, without the historical teachings of the church and the guidance He’s given “her” you’ll have a difficult time. That’s how He’s set it up. And that’s why “Spirit-led”, Bible only Christians disagree all the time on important points, as we see right here on these very forums.
Again, the opinions of individual Catholics have no bearing on Catholic teachings; they either agree or disagree with Catholicism. As far as CCC 846-847 goes, 846 contains a truth-there's no salvation outside the church. There would be no Christianity if not for the church, let alone no new testament or unified body of beliefs, or cloud of witnesses down through the centuries. 847 also contains a truth, that culpability is always directly tied to knowledge. The more we know, the more we're held accountable for that knowledge.And Catholics don't have disagreements among themselves? Isn't this thread about how to interpret CCC 846-47, and doesn't it contain differing views from Catholics?
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?