- Dec 20, 2009
- 30,436
- 8,632
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
okay . that sounds like what's taught in the catechism and practiced . thanks for explaining .
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.
The Full deposit of faith was given to the aposltes, Nothing new may be added. The Charism of infallibility given to the apostles and those they ordained, and so forth, is to protect that all truth.
But what if one teaching of the Pope contradicts scripture? what happens then? are people obligated to do what he says anyway?
I think the Pope and E.W. would have made a cute couple
.
Whenever a pope speaks to the whole church as its pastor and with the intention of speaking infallibly on doctrine or morals then what he says is true and, of course, what is true does not contradict the truth of scripture. So, what happens when a pope says something that is not true and something that contradicts scripture, nobody is obligated to believe or obey what he says.
You know, I hope, that popes are not sinless, don't you? You ought to know that Popes are not infallible, only specific things that they write or say 'ex cathedra' are infallible.
So is it more that the pope is reiterating something that's already been deemed as infallible truth within historic Christianity, rather than saying somethingthat theoretically could be arbitraryand labeling it infallible ex post facto simply because he said it in a certain manner or place?
The visions in Daniel (chapters 7 to 12) are apocalyptic and many non-canonical books from old testament times are too.
Wikipedia lists these Non-canonical
- Apocalypse of Abraham
- Apocalypse of Adam
- Apocalypse of Baruch (Greek)
- Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac)
- Apocalypse of Daniel
- Apocalypse of Daniel (Greek)
- Apocalypse of Elijah
- Apocalypse of Ezra (Greek)
- Gabriel's Revelation
- Apocalypse of Lamech
- Apocalypse of Metatron
- Apocalypse of Moses
- Apocalypse of Sedrach
- Apocalypse of Zephaniah
- Apocalypse of Zerubbabel
- Aramaic Apocalypse
Chiliasm and Amillennialism happily coexisted within the early centuries of the Church.
Great answer, thanks! Next question: which of these are recommended reading?
Yeah .. about that . the passage that speaks of a snatching away is talking about the resurrection . the rapture was a new teaching in the 1800s that lead to a number of adventists groups forming prophetic doctrines without fruit . and lately its been floating around in the new age movement as something called "ascension"
Old testament instances that happened only to two people . don't indicate what happens in the new testament .
But what if one teaching of the Pope contradicts scripture? what happens then? are people obligated to do what he says anyway?
So is it more that the pope is reiterating something that's already been deemed as infallible truth within historic Christianity, rather than saying somethingthat theoretically could be arbitraryand labeling it infallible ex post facto simply because he said it in a certain manner or place?
Great answer, thanks! Next question: which of these are recommended reading?
This seems reasonable to me, and unreasonable to cease. We are talking about what Jesus does upon His return and thereafter, right? So whether we have no opinion or an opinion one way or another shouldn't really matter, right? I mean I've always read the 1,000 years to be figurative, and the more I've learned about Scripture the more that understanding gets reinforced; but I've never been so bold on the point as to think I could dictate to our Lord what He should or should not do.
How so?
It simple means He Ascended and He will come back the same way, in the clouds .. . In other words, He won't appear somewhere on earth teachign again, he won't be in the wilderness, he won't be in the city, He won't be born a baby again . . .
He will appear in the clouds and that's the limit if its meaning.
No that's NOT the limit of its meaning! Ask the Jews what "clouds of glory" means, and remember Jesus was a Jew
Prophecy foretells of a time when the earth will be empty, hence the "rest" that will last one thousand years.
The "Revelation is an Apocalytpic book" excuse is getting old. No offense. What makes you think it's talking about an indefinite period of time? Not every prophetic books is devoid of literal teachings. Is Jesus' return in Revelation literal or is that just symbolic of a futuristic happy time? Is the destruction of the wicked (all inclusive) literal or symbolic?
Prophecy foretells of a time when the earth will be empty, hence the "rest" that will last one thousand years.
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?