- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings
Posted on 1/3/24 at 8:37 am to Revelator
Posted on 1/3/24 at 8:37 am to Revelator
quote:
Jesus said he’d send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Either you believe this, or your don’t.
Yes, Protestants do have different interpretations of certain scriptures this is true, but ultimately, the scriptures about salvation are pretty plain.
Just because you have a Magisterium of men deciding what you are to believe, doesn’t mean they are right. And if they aren’t, you simply are left with everyone in your church worldwide with an improper theology.
I believe we have a living word as the Bible says, and in many instances, a particular scripture can be used by the Holy Spirit to impart something new to you for a certain situation you are in.
You keep worrying about us Protestants having it wrong because we search the scriptures for ourselves and test them, but you don’t seem at all worried about your myriad of doctrines, dogmas and theologies that the vast majority of Catholics neither know nor comprehend.
What’s worse?
I don't worry about the teaching of the Church to whom Christ gave his teaching authority.
You should worry about Sola Scriptura, which is not suggested anywhere in scripture and makes no sense. Why would Christ spend all of his time prepping men to lead his Church, then intend for their successors to craft the Bible out of their pastoral letters after a couple of generations, and that be the only form of authority? Such a plan is not suggested in scripture at all.
Most people couldn't even read back then, and there was no printing press. The reality is that for most of Christian history, most Christians could not and didn't possess their own Bibles or have the ability to read them. Again, some people don't even have the intellectual capacity to understand it. It makes zero sense that Christ would intend for that to be the method for conveyance of his gospel.
What would make sense is giving a group of men teaching authority and preserving the truth they taught via the Holy Spirit. Because men are needed to put the writings in the Bible in their proper context and correct erroneous understandings of the written word. They can communicate with people who can't read or don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. They can navigate our ever-changing world, cultures, and languages. Having a Church of men on earth with authority is by far the superior option to sola scriptura. And we know Christ could have given such authority to a Church to keep Christians on the straight and narrow. So, why would he not have done that?
This post was edited on 1/3/24 at 8:44 am
1
Posted on 1/3/24 at 8:40 am to Revelator
quote:
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself
Jesus offered up himself once. During the Mass and transubstantiation, the priest is required to offer up Jesus in physical form. If the very real presence of Jesus was in the Eucharist, this would require Jesus to die over and over again.
You're proving my point. Do you think Catholics just ignore this? Or could it be that you are framing it one way and we are framing it in another?
You are simply framing/contextualizing scripture as men taught you to do. The difference between you and me is that the men I trust have Christ's teaching authority on their side. Yours do not.
Catholic Response to "Once and For All"
Posted on 1/3/24 at 8:41 am to Revelator
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I wanted to respond to this.
Paul travels to Thessalonica, and the Jews there reject his oral preaching after examining the scriptures, but the Bereans accept it as sound doctrine.
Both groups examined the scriptures.
So why were the Bereans more noble-minded than the Thessalonians who examined the same scriptures? It's because they accepted the WORD, the oral preaching, the apostolic authority of Paul due to them confirming that the Messiah he spoke of was indeed prophecied in the scriptures they were reading.........which was the Old Testament.
It supports the idea that Sacred Tradition was on par with the OT scriptures as being God's word. As a result, it supports apostolic authority.
It's a text-book example of apostolic authority. Otherwise the Thessalonians, who examined the same scriptures, wouldn't have been considered less noble-minded.
This passage of scripture actually disproves sola-scriptura.
quote:
Why does Paul commend the Bereans for searching the scriptures for themselves and testing his word? He even called them more noble than others who didn’t practice this.
Paul travels to Thessalonica, and the Jews there reject his oral preaching after examining the scriptures, but the Bereans accept it as sound doctrine.
Both groups examined the scriptures.
So why were the Bereans more noble-minded than the Thessalonians who examined the same scriptures? It's because they accepted the WORD, the oral preaching, the apostolic authority of Paul due to them confirming that the Messiah he spoke of was indeed prophecied in the scriptures they were reading.........which was the Old Testament.
It supports the idea that Sacred Tradition was on par with the OT scriptures as being God's word. As a result, it supports apostolic authority.
It's a text-book example of apostolic authority. Otherwise the Thessalonians, who examined the same scriptures, wouldn't have been considered less noble-minded.
This passage of scripture actually disproves sola-scriptura.
This post was edited on 1/3/24 at 8:42 am
Posted on 1/3/24 at 8:49 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:
Most people couldn't even read back then, and there was no printing press. The reality is that for most of Christian history, most Christians could not and didn't possess their own Bibles or have the ability to read them. Again, some people don't even have the intellectual capacity to understand it. It makes zero sense that Christ would intend for that to be the method for conveyance of his gospel.
And it doesn’t make sense saying a mass in Latin when none of your congregation understands it.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 8:56 am to CatholicLSUDude
The Catholic Church has a history of horrible decisions….
From paying to defend children truckers, to mass murders that make the nazis look like Saints.
Luckily they get to write a lot of the history.
From paying to defend children truckers, to mass murders that make the nazis look like Saints.
Luckily they get to write a lot of the history.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:02 am to Stitches
quote:
So why were the Bereans more noble-minded than the Thessalonians who examined the same scriptures? It's because they accepted the WORD, the oral preaching, the apostolic authority of Paul due to them confirming that the Messiah he spoke of was indeed prophecied in the scriptures they were reading.........which was the Old Testament. It supports the idea that Sacred Tradition was on par with the OT scriptures as being God's word. As a result, it supports apostolic authority.
They were searching the scriptures to test if what Paul was saying lined up with said scripture. This means, what Paul was preaching ( oral tradition) wasn’t some nebulas theologies that were extra-biblical in nature, but words that indeed could be backed up and checked by existing scripture.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:05 am to Revelator
quote:
And it doesn’t make sense saying a mass in Latin when none of your congregation understands it.
Well that would be something of a valid point if not for:
quote:
No, the Church’s goal was not to impede the faithful from understanding the Mass. Latin was the universal language of the Church, and that’s why it was used throughout the Latin Rite of the Church.
In addition, people heard the readings proclaimed in their native language, not simply in Latin, and the homily was in their native language as well. And what the Mass was about otherwise, including the central Sacrifice of the Eucharist, was known by the faithful.
Use of Latin
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:15 am to Revelator
quote:
what Paul was preaching ( oral tradition) wasn’t some nebulas theologies that were extra-biblical in nature, but words that indeed could be backed up and checked by existing scripture.
This would make sense, if not for
quote:
Both groups examined the scriptures.
The difference, therefore, is that one group (Bereans) accepted the apostolic authority of Paul, and the other group (Thessalonian Jews) did not.
This post was edited on 1/3/24 at 9:17 am
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:15 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:
In addition, for those who were literate, Bible reading without proper guidance was discouraged, out of concern they might misinterpret Scripture and go astray from Christ and his Church.
Shocked I tell you!
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:15 am to CatholicLSUDude
I am Catholic. I’ve taught RCIA for 8 years.
Vatican 2 opened the door with open ended vague language that stretched the boundaries of acceptable ( in my discernment). This language does the same thing. The book Tumultuous Times was recommended by Latin Mass Catholic Priests to read. It explains how the church has gone off course many times over the years. Sometimes over 100 years. God always steers it back on course. Vatican 2 steered the church off course and God will surely steer it back..
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
Vatican 2 opened the door with open ended vague language that stretched the boundaries of acceptable ( in my discernment). This language does the same thing. The book Tumultuous Times was recommended by Latin Mass Catholic Priests to read. It explains how the church has gone off course many times over the years. Sometimes over 100 years. God always steers it back on course. Vatican 2 steered the church off course and God will surely steer it back..
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:17 am to Stitches
quote:
Both groups examined the scriptures.
The verses never say the Thessalonians did.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:20 am to Revelator
quote:
The verses never say the Thessalonians did.
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Acts 17:1-3
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:24 am to Stitches
quote:
days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
It says Paul reasoned with them using scripture. Now show me where it says the Thessalonians were doing the same ?
Regardless, the main point is, Paul encouraged them to study the scriptures for themselves, and not simply to believe what he was saying, simply because he was a disciple.
This post was edited on 1/3/24 at 9:25 am
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:25 am to Revelator
quote:
Shocked I tell you!
Right right. It's horrible to discourage people to read the Bible without proper guidance.
I mean, if we just let them read it an interpret it how they see fit, they'll all come to the same, correct conclusions about it, right?
They were discourage from reading without proper guidance because the Church had the wisdom to see what disunity could arise if everyone started interpreting it themselves. And Protestantism today is proof that they were right.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:31 am to Revelator
quote:
It says Paul reasoned with them using scripture. Now show me where it says the Thessalonians were doing the same ?
This is an interesting point. So you're saying that one must be able to read the scriptures for themselves, as opposed to hearing it be read, in order for one to reason from scripture?
In that case, and in an attempt to force you to be consistent with your logic, wouldn't that mean sola scriptura was impractical as a doctrine during a period where well over 90% of the world population was illiterate and unable to read scripture for themselves, such as...I don't know...most of recorded church history until recent times?
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:38 am to Stitches
quote:
In that case, and in an attempt to force you to be consistent with your logic, wouldn't that mean sola scriptura was impractical as a doctrine during a period where well over 90% of the world population was illiterate and unable to read scripture for themselves, such as...I don't know...most of recorded church history until recent times?
Add to that how hard it would have been to get ahold of a Bible if they wanted it.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 9:53 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:
Right right. It's horrible to discourage people to read the Bible without proper guidance.
The Holy Spirit is proper guidance
quote:
disunity could arise if everyone started interpreting it themselves. And Protestantism today is proof that they were right.
Because clearly, there is unity in the RCC
This post was edited on 1/3/24 at 9:54 am
Posted on 1/3/24 at 10:00 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:
Add to that how hard it would have been to get ahold of a Bible if they wanted it.
The passages we are talking about in Hebrews says he went into the synagogue of the Jews. Clearly the scriptures being referred to was the Old Testament, and clearly, the Jews had access to them.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 10:06 am to Stitches
quote:
This is an interesting point. So you're saying that one must be able to read the scriptures for themselves, as opposed to hearing it be read, in order for one to reason from scripture? In that case, and in an attempt to force you to be consistent with your logic, wouldn't that mean sola scriptura was impractical as a doctrine during a period where well over 90% of the world population was illiterate and unable to read scripture for themselves, such as...I don't know...most of recorded church history until recent times?
Again, you are writing a word salad to avoid the obvious point.
Paul was encouraging them to read the scriptures instead of just taking his word for it. If Paul believed that only certain trained clergy could interpret scriptures, he would have discouraged them and plainly told them the weren’t equipped for the task.
Posted on 1/3/24 at 10:11 am to Revelator
quote:
The Holy Spirit is proper guidance
You keep forgetting that the eunuch in Acts demonstrated that he needed a teaching authority to help him grasp the full meaning. Lucky for him, a Disciple was there to hand down to him by oral preaching what the Apostles learned directly from Christ by word and deed.
This Bible passage illustrates how the Church and Holy Spirit together guide the flock and bring the flock to Christ. Bible Alone didn't do it. Scripture Alone didn't do it. Faith Alone didn't do it. Sola Scriptura didn't do it.
This Bible passage proves that it was a Disciple commissioned by the Apostles, along with the Holy Spirit, that served as a teaching authority for the eunuch. It wasn't the eunuch alone with his Bible Alone, and it wasn't the eunuch with his Faith Alone.
This Bible passage destroys the two pillars of Protestantism.
Page 20 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News