RCC Catechism is full compilation of the full Word of God

[RileyG]

Could be, I suppose? Hopefully TrinitarianScience will clear it up for us

I’m not sure what they’re trying to say. Hopefully they will elaborate.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interesting comment. Thanks for your response.

You are welcome.

 

[TrinitarianScience]

Hello TrinitarianScience, I have a number of questions for you about what you wrote in the OP, and I'd like to begin with the quote above. So, please explain what you mean.

Also, what was used "to construct the building blocks of nature across the universe" prior to the existence of "Tradition, Bible and Magisterial Teaching"?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

Thank you for the good question, David and RileyG. The most important thing is that all of the Word before the creation, the Word used for creating the universe and the Word delivered to us as the Revelation, all are the same and came from the same source - God. It is the same Word of God that John the Apostle talked about when He said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (Jn1:1) And that "He created the world through His Son" (Jn1:2-4).

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the same Word that tells us about the life of God. That same Word was essentially God Himself, Jesus Christ. The Holy Trinity in creating said, "Let there be..." (Gen1:3). Then God the Father said to the Son and the Holy Spirit, "Come, let us make man in our image and likeness" (Gen1:26-31). Today, we can see the evidence of the Word in the Atom and DNA, the two basic units of the universe constructed with the same Word of God.

However, the important thing to note is that the "Word" is the same Word of God He used to create; found embedded in nature after creation; in the Tradition He taught, and in the Bible through His Apostles and Disciples and the Magisterium through His His Popes and Bishops. The Holy Word helps us to know Him, love Him, and serve Him after He has redeemed us. He will glorify us before His Father in Heaven to enjoy eternal bliss.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you for the good question, David and RileyG. The most important thing is that all of the Word before the creation, the Word used for creating the universe and the Word delivered to us as the Revelation, all are the same and came from the same source - God. It is the same Word of God that John the Apostle talked about when He said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (Jn1:1) And that "He created the world through His Son" (Jn1:2-4).

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the same Word that tells us about the life of God. That same Word was essentially God Himself, Jesus Christ. The Holy Trinity in creating said, "Let there be..." (Gen1:3). Then God the Father said to the Son and the Holy Spirit, "Come, let us make man in our image and likeness" (Gen1:26-31). Today, we can see the evidence of the Word in the Atom and DNA, the two basic units of the universe constructed with the same Word of God.

However, the important thing to note is that the "Word" is the same Word of God He used to create; found embedded in nature after creation; in the Tradition He taught, and in the Bible through His Apostles and Disciples and the Magisterium through His His Popes and Bishops. The Holy Word helps us to know Him, love Him, and serve Him after He has redeemed us. He will glorify us before His Father in Heaven to enjoy eternal bliss.

Do you believe that the Word continues to change and evolve?

 

[Valletta]

Do you believe that the Word continues to change and evolve?

He used the word "same," it should be clear from his comments that the Word of God does not change. Of course people can come into a deeper understanding of the Word of God as time passes.

 

[TrinitarianScience]

Do you believe that the Word continues to change and evolve?

Putting it straight, the

Do you believe that the Word continues to change and evolve?

Putting it straight, the Word is God. It does not change. It is truth, eternal, and irrevocable. By evolving, if you meaning "developing", before men, Yes, but before God, No.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oddly enough, I have. I actually have examined the multiple narratives of various branches of the Christian faith, including your own. I do give the RCC great credit for possessing the chutzpah to elbow out the narrative of the EOC.

How familiar are you with the history of the Oriental and Assyrian churches?

 

[TrinitarianScience]

How familiar are you with the history of the Oriental and Assyrian churches?

Bbbbbbb, Oriental and Assyrian Churches are among what we call the Patriarchates. They are gradual breakaways from the Catholic Church or what you call the Roman Catholic Church. And they never returned. This follows from century to century from the 4th century with major ones like Arianism, Appolinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophyticism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, Photian Schism, and Cerularian Schism. From one error and dispute to the other, even after the Church's Ecumenical Councils corrected the errors, they still went away stubbornly. Maybe sometime in the future, I will list these errors with the Councils that corrected them; and how the Catholic Church corrected and passed decrees over them. They were mainly Christological controversies except for the last three. They then housed themselves in Patriarchal Sees, and sometimes had metropolitan Sees like Moscow overseeing several smaller ones.

The beautiful thing today is that we now witness Trinitarian Science intervening. Science stands on those decrees and confirms them as the Truth.

 

[The Liturgist]

Bbbbbbb, Oriental and Assyrian Churches are among what we call the Patriarchates. They are gradual breakaways from the Catholic Church or what you call the Roman Catholic Church. And they never returned. This follows from century to century from the 4th century with major ones like Arianism, Appolinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophyticism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, Photian Schism, and Cerularian Schism. From one error and dispute to the other, even after the Church's Ecumenical Councils corrected the errors, they still went away stubbornly. Maybe sometime in the future, I will list these errors with the Councils that corrected them; and how the Catholic Church corrected and passed decrees over them. They were mainly Christological controversies except for the last three. They then housed themselves in Patriarchal Sees, and sometimes had metropolitan Sees like Moscow overseeing several smaller ones.

The beautiful thing today is that we now witness Trinitarian Science intervening. Science stands on those decrees and confirms them as the Truth.

Forgive me, who calls them that? I have not heard of a religious movement called “Trinitarian Science” however and I have no idea what @TrinitarianScience is referring to on this point.

I was writing to my friend @bbbbbbb , not you, and I would also note that the Assyrian Church has not been technically Nestorian since the 6th century, and the Oriental Orthodox have never been Monophysite, as my friend @dzheremi can attest - the Monophysites were followers of Eutyches, who was anathematized by St. Dioscorus the Pope of Alexandria, but this was not enough to prevent the injustice that happened to him at the Council of Chalcedon.

Fortunately Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy have become increasingly reconciled, with the exception of some hardline Eastern Orthodox bishops who continue to perpetuate that tragic accident of history, by in my view erroneously regarding the Oriental Orthodox as monophysites, for example, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, and scholars such as Nicholas Marinides, who has written many polemics against the Oriental Orthodox but distressingly none against the Assyrians or against actual Nestorians, and also the Old Calendarists, who regard ecumenism as a “pan-heresy.” I disagree, which is why I am not an Old Calendarist.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How familiar are you with the history of the Oriental and Assyrian churches?

I am not nearly as familiar with their history as I would like to be. I give you credit for providing valuable information to me, as well as others, concerning their history, as well as that of the other Eastern Orthodox churches. Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Forgive me, who calls them that? I have not heard of a religious movement called “Trinitarian Science” however and I have no idea what @TrinitarianScience is referring to on this point.

I was writing to my friend @bbbbbbb , not you, and I would also note that the Assyrian Church has not been technically Nestorian since the 6th century, and the Oriental Orthodox have never been Monophysite, as my friend @dzheremi can attest - the Monophysites were followers of Eutyches, who was anathematized by St. Dioscorus the Pope of Alexandria, but this was not enough to prevent the injustice that happened to him at the Council of Chalcedon.

Fortunately Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy have become increasingly reconciled, with the exception of some hardline Eastern Orthodox bishops who continue to perpetuate that tragic accident of history, by in my view erroneously regarding the Oriental Orthodox as monophysites, for example, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, and scholars such as Nicholas Marinides, who has written many polemics against the Oriental Orthodox but distressingly none against the Assyrians or against actual Nestorians, and also the Old Calendarists, who regard ecumenism as a “pan-heresy.” I disagree, which is why I am not an Old Calendarist.

Thank you, yet again. I am with you in regard to "Trinitarian Science". I am familiar with "Christian Science" of course, not to mention "Relligious Science" and "Positive Thinking".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For many centuries the Bible was on the "list of forbidden books" in some parts of the world --- at least having it in your own language - one you could read.

If a person possessed a Bible in his own language and not in Latin, the RCC burned him at the stake.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Muslims do not "frown upon the Bible". They believe it is the very word of God on the same plane as the Q'ran. The problem, in their view, is that Christians altered the text of the Bible to support such heresies as the idea that God begat a human son by Mary. Also, the very idea that God could die is utterly absurd and was obviously (in Muslim eyes) altered from the original text of the Bible.

Their problem, which is a highly significant one, is that they have been completely unable to produce any unaltered manuscript of the inspired text of the Bible.

You can't walk down the street with a Bible in Saudi Arabia. You would be arrested. You are not permitted to have Bible studies in your own home. Even in the American compound where it is essential U.S. soil, Christian meetings and Bible studies are not permitted. That shoes the Muslim attitude to the Bible.

Also, Allah is not the God of the Bible. It is the Muslim moon god. That is why there is a crescent moon on the Islam flag.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree with the OP that Catholicism is fully biblical.

I don't, because I have studied RCC theology and its traditional doctrines and compared them to what the Bible says, and there are definite serious contradictions between them.

 

[The Liturgist]

If a person possessed a Bible in his own language and not in Latin, the RCC burned him at the stake.

That is completely inaccurate. The RCC published several editions of the Bible in non-Latin languages. In addition, the first English translation issued by the Catholic Church, the Douai Rheims, was published in the mid 16th century. Now if you were caught with a Douai Rheims in England, Scotland, or Wales you would in fact run the risk of capital punishment, whereas on the other hand the civil authorities in Catholic countries, who were the only people who had the power to burn people at the stake (remember, the Spanish Inquisition was conducted by the Kingdom of Spain, albeit with Papal support and Dominican and Franciscan assistance, but Torquemada acted as an agent of the Spanish crown and not the Pope), would not burn you for having a Douai Rheims.

Fortunately, by the time of the second Roman Catholic Bible published in English, the Challoner Douai Rheims, which most people call tne Douai Rheims but it is actually greatly improved and I would argue one of the better traditional language Bibles, particularly since it has a Septuagint based Psalter (albeit one lacking Psalm 151, and therefore defective, but still better than the MT based Coverdale or KJV Psalter when it comes to verses like Psalm 95 v. 5 (which is 96 v. 5 in the Masoretic), it was the 18th century, and conditions had improved for Catholics in the newly united Kingdom of Great Britain, although disgracefully it was not until the 19th century that the various civil disabilities inflicted on Catholics by the Penal Laws were removed by Parliament, and the notorious Act of Succession to discriminate against members of the Royal Family who decided to become Catholics was actually adopted in 1707 and only very recently repealed, one of the last laws of official religious prejudice on the books in any European country.

The continued harping of an exaggerated narrative of Catholic persecution of Protestants while ignoring the numerous Catholics who were put to death by Protestants is a monstrous injustice which runs the risk of promoting continued sectarian hate between Protestant and Catholic populations in areas like Northern Ireland, where both sides are lacking in innocence, and indeed have quite a bit of undeniable nocence, to use an archaic but valid English word, regarding the situation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That is completely inaccurate. The RCC published several editions of the Bible in non-Latin languages. In addition, the first English translation issued by the Catholic Church, the Douai Rheims, was published in the mid 16th century. Now if you were caught with a Douai Rheims in England, Scotland, or Wales you would in fact run the risk of capital punishment, whereas on the other hand the civil authorities in Catholic countries, who were the only people who had the power to burn people at the stake (remember, the Spanish Inquisition was conducted by the Kingdom of Spain, albeit with Papal support and Dominican and Franciscan assistance, but Torquemada acted as an agent of the Spanish crown and not the Pope), would not burn you for having a Douai Rheims.

Fortunately, by the time of the second Roman Catholic Bible published in English, the Challoner Douai Rheims, which most people call tne Douai Rheims but it is actually greatly improved and I would argue one of the better traditional language Bibles, particularly since it has a Septuagint based Psalter (albeit one lacking Psalm 151, and therefore defective, but still better than the MT based Coverdale or KJV Psalter when it comes to verses like Psalm 95 v. 5 (which is 96 v. 5 in the Masoretic), it was the 18th century, and conditions had improved for Catholics in the newly united Kingdom of Great Britain, although disgracefully it was not until the 19th century that the various civil disabilities inflicted on Catholics by the Penal Laws were removed by Parliament, and the notorious Act of Succession to discriminate against members of the Royal Family who decided to become Catholics was actually adopted in 1707 and only very recently repealed, one of the last laws of official religious prejudice on the books in any European country.

The continued harping of an exaggerated narrative of Catholic persecution of Protestants while ignoring the numerous Catholics who were put to death by Protestants is a monstrous injustice which runs the risk of promoting continued sectarian hate between Protestant and Catholic populations in areas like Northern Ireland, where both sides are lacking in innocence, and indeed have quite a bit of undeniable nocence, to use an archaic but valid English word, regarding the situation.

John Hus published the Bible in English and they burned him at the stake because of it. Maybe your version of church history doesn't include that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You can't walk down the street with a Bible in Saudi Arabia. You would be arrested. You are not permitted to have Bible studies in your own home. Even in the American compound where it is essential U.S. soil, Christian meetings and Bible studies are not permitted. That shoes the Muslim attitude to the Bible.

Also, Allah is not the God of the Bible. It is the Muslim moon god. That is why there is a crescent moon on the Islam flag.

When my Christian aunt and uncle lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, they were able to meet in their home with other Christians and to have Bible studies with them. They were not permitted to talk about anything related to Christianity to Muslims.

 

[bbbbbbb]

John Hus published the Bible in English and they burned him at the stake because of it. Maybe your version of church history doesn't include that.

Actually, it was John Wycliffe. Jan Hus was much earlier and lived in Moravia. He stirred the pot with the Catholic heirarchy as a pre-reformer and was also burned at the state. Peter Waldo was even earlier. He and his followers were heavily persecuted, but the Waldensians have survived to this day - waldensians - Bing

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

When my Christian aunt and uncle lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, they were able to meet in their home with other Christians and to have Bible studies with them. They were not permitted to talk about anything related to Christianity to Muslims.

Obviously it is not a blanket rule in Saudi Arabia. Thanks for that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Actually, it was John Wycliffe. Jan Hus was much earlier and lived in Moravia. He stirred the pot with the Catholic heirarchy as a pre-reformer and was also burned at the state. Peter Waldo was even earlier. He and his followers were heavily persecuted, but the Waldensians have survived to this day - waldensians - Bing

Granted. But at that time having an English Bible was a capital offense.