re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings

quote:

---

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16

---

Amen. I could not agree more. In fact, I don't know a single trinitarian Christian who does not believe this. I think that is why this passage is typically the most cited in support of sola scriptura. There are several issues with using this passage in support of sola scriptura though.

a - The passage doesn't say "only scripture" or "scripture alone". It just says that scripture is God-breathed, or Theopneustos, which it is.

b - The passage doesn't say that scripture is "sufficient". The man of God is made sufficient, not by having the scriptures alone, but through teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Scripture is described as being useful for those things, but not entirely and singularly sufficient for those things.

I would agree if the argument were "material sufficiency", but that's not the argument. Sola scriptura argues "formal sufficiency". If the formal sufficiency of the scriptures alone were true, the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 wouldn't have needed Philip to teach him what the scroll of Isaiah he was reading meant. That passage supports material sufficiency.

c - It says all scripture is inspired (Theopneustos), but it does not say that all inspiration is only in the scriptures. This would be like me saying that all faithful and practicing Calvinists are Christians, and therefore, Sola Calvinismus is true, or that only Calvinists are Christians. This statement doesn't mean that Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc are not Christians though, only that Calvinists are.

d - It never defines what "all scripture" is. 2 Timothy was not the last book of the New Testament to be written. If we were to take the strong and most often used interpretation of that passage to be accurate, this would mean that at the time 2 Timothy was written, only the currently existing books of the New Testament were enough. This puts the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation all in a very weird spot.

quote:

---

It says all scripture is inspired (Theopneustos), but it does not say that all inspiration is only in the scriptures.

---

But, the Catholic will use verses such as ,” Jesus said so many things, if they were all recorded, all the books of the world couldn’t contain them” to justify making up doctrines that never appear in scripture, and don’t harmonize with the current scripture available. And when you ask them about the inconsistencies, they’ll simply say,” it’s a mystery or it was passed down to the church as oral tradition.

quote:

---

Then someone needs to tell the RCC, because according to them,
It’s a mortal sin to not believe in any of their many Dogmas

---

link?

to clarify a mortal sin requires three things.

1) grave matter
2) full knowledge
3) deliberate consent.

1) to believe in something that scriptures or the church Jesus established teaches is yes a grave matter
2) does the person know the scriptures and/or the church Jesus established, taught the thing they don't believe?
3) Do they continue to not believe it despite knowing it is wrong?

The standard non-catholic christian likely isn't in mortal sin, simply because they don't understand what the church teaches. No disrespect Rev, but you rarely correctly represent what the Church teaches.

To simplify it, most non-catholic christians are not in a state of mortal sin simply from being apart from the church. This is because they grew up apart from the church and may not know the Catholic Church is the true church.

You are oversimplifying things

I’m gonna throw Revelator a bone here. Just to be charitable .

The dogma of the immaculate conception is not “clearly” scriptural and I would assume it was not taught or considered necessary for salvation in the early church. And this may be heretical but I don’t believe it should be necessary for salvation today.
Although I do believe in the immaculate conception.

quote:

---

does the person know the scriptures and/or the church Jesus established, taught the thing they don't believe?

---

There are many more of these teachings that would fall into this category and were added piecemeal throughout the churches existence Heck, it wasn’t officially proclaimed that the Pope could be infallible when speaking ex Cathedra until 1854 or something like that.

quote:

---

What’s bizarre is the Catholic infatuation with venerating her to a status that is unscriptural.

---

When God, the maker of heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible, takes a minute out of his day to impregnate a poor unwed woman in the desert, leading to the birth of God on Earth in human form and two thousand years of Christian religion, it’s a bit unfair to assert that Mary’s role in the whole venture has been overemphasized in any way.

quote:

---

it’s a bit unfair to assert that Mary’s role in the whole venture has been overemphasized in any way.

---

I’d say when you espouse that Mary was sinless, is a co-medatrix and a co-redemtrix, you’ve crossed the line of overemphasizing.

The lack of clarity is intentional. This Pope has weaponized ambiguity so as following popes can move the needle slightly further "building" on Bergolio's work.

This is not what was needed at this time. If his intent was to merely reinforce what catholic beliefs had held why make any announcement?

This lack of clarity is intentional and has put souls at risk. Woe be to those who knew better and still put souls at risk...

quote:

---

Not at all what the Catholic Church teaches. It’s what you believe they teach.

---

Your official Catholic dogmas say Mary is sinless, Mary remained a virgin her entire life, and Mary was born without original sin.
Your own catechism calls Mary a co-mediatrix and Co-redemtrix.