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.
Different definitions have been offered by different people. Many of this definitions contradict one another.
True.
Not true.
This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again.
1 Timothy 3 (where I assume this assertion of yours comes from) says bishops are to be the husband of only one wife. Since most Christians were converts at the time St. Paul wrote to Timothy, the raw material the Church had to work with would've mostly been married men.
Separately, the Church allows married clergy in the Eastern Rites. As a matter of discipline (eg, not dogma), married clergy are typically not allowed in the Roman Rite. But even there exceptions do exist.
Oy.
Here we go again. Have the mentally infirm sinned? Have infants sinned? Did Our Lord sin? After all, the Bible says "all" have sinned, right?
According to the scriptures, how did Elijah die?
Pssst. Purgatory isn't a second chance.
Indeed it does.
The Catholic Church interprets 1 Corinthians 3:5 as a description of the form, effect and purpose of Purgatory. Now, you might disagree that the passage should be interpreted in that way. But that passage means something. And, more to the point, Purgatory is how the Church interprets it.
According to you. But a casual glance around CF shows members who believe that it means that a given religious belief be not forbidden or disproven by scripture. Others believe that scripture can and should cooperate with some form of tradition (even Sacred Tradition).
As with so much else in Protestantism, nobody agrees on what sola scriptura means. In fact, all anybody seems to know for sure is that Protestant apparently love Latin terminology nearly as much as Catholics.
Ironically, scripture doesn't explicitly teach sola scriptura... which, perhaps, results in strange man-made traditions like sola scriptura.
Try reading Song Of Solomon or Revelation to a four year old some time. Let me know how it goes.
Yes that's true.You said to me............
"This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again."
Don't tell me what I do and don't believe and there won't be any problem.Do yourself a real favor my friend and find someone else to bully and threaten because you are wasting your time and efforts on me.
Yes, no disagreement there.... the point is that many since the first century have claimed authority,Yes, however it must be considered in the "context" of where the word is found. In this case it is the Bible and the referrance is to the men that Jesus commissioned to be His spokesmen after He left.
Yes that's true.
Don't tell me what I do and don't believe and there won't be any problem.
Good Day,
....ask away
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
In Him,
Bill
Wow, three pages of discussion and we haven't gotten you there yet.By the way, your challenge to me seems to stem from..............
This is the relevant text. You presumed to know what I believe. Don't do that.you are a Catholic and Catholics do not accept the Scriptures as God's Word.
It is just that simple my friend.
Now IF you accepted the Scriptures as the Word of God, why then do you believe in.............
I addressed this in a previous post.1). Purgatory?
I addressed this in a previous post. Tried to anyway but you never gave a meaningful response to that point.2). Assumption of Mary?
3). Mary was sinless?
4). Mary was a perpetual virgin?
Um, you already mentioned this back in #2.5). Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven.
I addressed this in a previous post.6). Bishops are not allowed to marry.
I assume this question stems from St. Matthew 23:8–10. So here's a question for you: Does this apparent prohibition from St. Matthew 23 include one's biological father?7). Why do you call a man your FATHER'.
If it does include one's biological father, how can we possibly fully obey the commandment to honor our father and mother?
If it doesn't include one's biological father, well, we've identified one exception to that rule. But are there more?
Acts 7:2- St. Stephen speaks of "father Abraham". Was this disobeying Our Lord?
Romans 9:10- St. Paul speaks of "father Isaac". Was this disobeying Our Lord?
St. John 6:31- Our Lord Himself speaks of "our fathers" who ate manna in the desert. Was He disobeying Himself?
I don't think I've ever actually done this, tbh.8). Why do you bow down to statue?
9). The Rosary?
As I've said in previous exchanges with you, the Catholic Church believes in the Communion of the Saints.10). Praying to the dead?
Nonsense, the Hail Mary is taken almost entirely from sacred scripture.Not a one of those is found in the Scriptures. NO NOT ONE!
Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.
Good Day,
One of the most parroted supposed silly issues with the Historical Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura is different understanding of scripture and because of that some how a name it claim it authoritative Church to resolve those types of issues... reminder SS does not address interpretations so it on it's face is a strawman, unless you can prove primary source from history showing other wise and show that you have understood them correctly... if you can not then please do not continue to misrepresent the doctrine.
As to the understanding of scripture that issue is real indeed, but it is nothing new in the church historically:
To ignore this fact and attempt to sweep it under the rug by some name it claim it authoritative back room group of fallible men is hiding your head in the sand
Wow, three pages of discussion and we haven't gotten you there yet.
Okay...
This is the relevant text. You presumed to know what I believe. Don't do that.
I addressed this in a previous post.
I addressed this in a previous post. Tried to anyway but you never gave a meaningful response to that point.
Agreed.
All I need to know for salvation and sanctification is contained in the scriptures themselves.
God Bless
Till all are one.
1). Purgatory?
2). Assumption of Mary?
3). Mary was sinless?
4). Mary was a perpetual virgin?
5). Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven.
6). Bishops are not allowed to marry.
7). Why do you call a man your FATHER'.
8). Why do you bow down to statue?
9). Why do you bow down to statue?
10). Why do you bow down to statue?
I want to know where any of the above is relative to salvation?
Will a belief/unbelief in "purgatory" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Assumption of Mary" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary was sinless" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary was a perpetual virgin" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Bishops are not allowed to marry" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you call a man your FATHER'" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?
Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?
Will believing in or not believing in any of the above save or condemn me?
Fact is, the question has been answered.
All I need to know for salvation, and all I need to know for sanctification is contained in the Holy Writ.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Bill, even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the basics for salvation are contained within the Bible, which is why we can acknowledge Protestants as true Christians. So why aren't Catholics sola scriptura? Let me offer my own definition:The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
Bill, even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the basics for salvation are contained within the Bible, which is why we can acknowledge Protestants as true Christians. So why aren't Catholics sola scriptura? Let me offer my own definition:
Sola scriptura: the idea that the bible is the ONLY INFALLIBLE authority for doctrine and morals, and further, is the ONLY authority of any kind for MAJOR doctrines of the church. Thus, someone who is sola scriptura would never say it is mandatory for a Christian to believe in the assumption of Mary, while a Catholic would, because a Catholic acknowledges that the Church is also a source of infallible authority, and that Sacred Tradition can be a source of major doctrine.
Not true!!!!! We include all baptized believers as part of the Church. CCC 838Your difficulty, of course, is that your definition of "church" is much too narrow. You exclude everyone outside of your particular denomination and its dogmas.
Not true!!!!! We include all baptized believers as part of the Church. CCC 838
This is binding on Catholics. It is not binding on all Christians. You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. Again, we accept all baptized believers as true Christians who have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.You yourself in your previous post excluded everyone who does not hold that the assumption of Mary is an infallible dogma.
This is binding on Catholics. It is not binding on all Christians. You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. Again, we accept all baptized believers as true Christians who have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.
This is binding on Catholics. It is not binding on all Christians. You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. Again, we accept all baptized believers as true Christians who have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.
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?