- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 1/6/24 at 5:40 am to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 1/6/24 at 5:40 am to Mo Jeaux
Mo Jeaux, which gospels were not authored by the men that have their names in the title? Who was banished to the Isle of Patmos with John to pen the book of Revelation? Who took down The exquisite details and ordered the book of Matthew (an educated man), did he carry around a scribe? I did not suggest that their works were not copied but there are some very early manuscripts that still exist. Did not these men eye witness the ministry of Jesus?
1
Posted on 1/8/24 at 12:12 pm to Stitches
quote:No I'm not. It's no straw man. It's not makebelieve statement. Just like sola scriptura is a phrase that describes the authority of Scripture, so too does sola ecclesia describe the authority of the church of Rome. You don't have to say that you agree with it when your actions show that you believe it.
There's that phrase again. Catholics don't believe in sola eclessia. You're attacking a Catholic doctrine which doesn't exist.
I've said it before, but the church teaches that Sacred Tradition is the ultimate authority, and it includes both the written traditions of the Scriptures as well as the oral traditions of the Apostles that were handed down, so while Rome teaches equal authorities between the Bible, the oral traditions, and the magisterium, in practice it is only the Church that is the final authority of all things, and I'll explain.
Rome says that the Church (of Rome) has the sole authority to define what is Scripture, and she has the sole authority to interpret Scripture. She says she has the sole authority to define tradition and to interpret tradition. If the Church defines and interprets these things, then that means that it is ultimately the Church that has the authority, because you can't go against what she says by appealing to a higher authority.
If I say, "this passage doesn't teach what Rome teaches", the default answer is "the Church has determined the passage supports doctrine/dogma x and therefore we must accept it because Jesus gave the Church His teaching through His Apostles, and the Church alone carries on that tradition and succession". The appeal is to the authority of the Church to define and interpret the truth, so I can't appeal to the Scriptures as a higher authority to the doctrines of Rome.
Say what you want, but when there is no appeal to the Scriptures over and against the teachings of the Church because the Church alone has the authority to understand and interpret the Scriptures, then you believe and teach sola ecclesia, whether you affirm it or not.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 12:51 pm to Champagne
Didn't realize Jesus founded the Catholic church. Thought he was Jewish.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 12:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Just like sola scriptura is a phrase that describes the authority of Scripture, so too does sola ecclesia describe the authority of the church of Rome
The difference here is that the Church of Rome does not believe it is the sole authority. It's one of three parts, alongside scripture and tradition. Therefore, sola eclessia is a doctrine which does not exist in the Catholic Church, and as a result, you are straw manning the Catholic position.
quote:
I've said it before, but the church teaches that Sacred Tradition is the ultimate authority
It teaches that God is the ultimate authority. God left us with a Church, and gave revelation to members within that church, who at one point in time wrote down parts of that revelation, and passed others down orally. The church then compiled those writings into a single volume known as the Bible.
There is the written (scripture), the unwritten (tradition), and the body which can settle disputes based on interpretation (magesterium).
quote:
Rome says that the Church (of Rome) has the sole authority to define what is Scripture, and she has the sole authority to interpret Scripture. She says she has the sole authority to define tradition and to interpret tradition. If the Church defines and interprets these things, then that means that it is ultimately the Church that has the authority, because you can't go against what she says by appealing to a higher authority.
If I say, "this passage doesn't teach what Rome teaches", the default answer is "the Church has determined the passage supports doctrine/dogma x and therefore we must accept it because Jesus gave the Church His teaching through His Apostles, and the Church alone carries on that tradition and succession". The appeal is to the authority of the Church to define and interpret the truth, so I can't appeal to the Scriptures as a higher authority to the doctrines of Rome.
This is, quite impressively, both a straw man and a red herring at the same time.
The church has only dogmatically settled the correct interpretation on about 8 passages of scripture in total. It allows several different interpretations for most passages, so long as those interpretations are orthodox.
Therefore, church alone is a doctrine which the church doesn't teach.
It's simply a James White-esque caricature of the Catholic position.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 1:12 pm to Stitches
No entities in history have killed more people and started more wars than the RCC and Islam. The RCC had more crusades against other Christians than they did against the Islamists. Ask a Cathar. Oh wait you can't. The RCC exterminated them all.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 1:13 pm to garyp194
Do you consider Cathars to have been Christians?
Posted on 1/8/24 at 1:30 pm to garyp194
quote:
No entities in history have killed more people and started more wars than the RCC and Islam. The RCC had more crusades against other Christians than they did against the Islamists. Ask a Cathar. Oh wait you can't. The RCC exterminated them all.
The Trail of Blood theology that certain Baptists cling to is laughable. I mean, it claims the Catholic church killed over 50 million Christians during a period of time when there weren't 50 million people alive in the areas where these genocides supposedly happened, much less 50 million non-Catholic Christians.
All of this is patently false. If it weren't for the Catholic church, the entire world would be Muslim today.
Oh, and the Cathars weren't Christians.
This post was edited on 1/8/24 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 1/8/24 at 1:39 pm to Stitches
quote:
The Trail of Blood theology that certain Baptists cling to is laughable.
Not to mention that J.M. Carrol eventually admitted that his revisionist history would have been impossible.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 1:47 pm to CrimsonJazz
quote:
J.M. Carrol eventually admitted that his revisionist history would have been impossible.
Not before the Scofield dispensationalist pre-tribulation rapture KJV only fundamentalists took the theory and ran with it, unfortunately.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 2:04 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You really do latch on to conspiracies, don't you?
It’s funny how Origen quotes from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and also writes how pissed he is that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus Christ and doesn’t even even mention Jesus Christ.
Then about 30-50 years after Origen is dead, this guy named Eusebius comes along and quotes the Antiquities of the Jews which now have in them references to the Christian Jesus Christ including the Testimonium Flavianum.
Do you really believe a Jew, most likely a Pharisee, who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ, would have wrote the following, especially what I’ve bolded?
Josephus mentioned Jesus and at the very least mentioned his brother James. Whether or not some of the "Christianized" language quoted by Eusebius was authentic is irrelevant to what I mentioned, as Origen quotes the part that was relevant to my statement.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 2:46 pm to Stitches
quote:Again, sola ecclesia is a description of the reality of what Rome has implemented in terms of authority. She doesn't have to specifically teach it when it is the reality as put in practice.
The difference here is that the Church of Rome does not believe it is the sole authority. It's one of three parts, alongside scripture and tradition. Therefore, sola eclessia is a doctrine which does not exist in the Catholic Church, and as a result, you are straw manning the Catholic position.
You didn't respond to my assertion that Rome defines what is Scripture and how Scripture can be interpreted, nor that Rome defines what is tradition (oral) and how it should be interpreted. That's the entire basis of my argument: if Rome, alone, can define and interpret these things, then the functional authority belongs to the Church, not God or the Bible, because the Church can just say "you're wrong" when confronted.
I'm not straw manning at all because I'm not saying that Rome teaches that sola ecclesia is an accurate statement and description. Rome teaches just what you said. My statement about "teaching" it is in regards to practice, not in official doctrine. Rome can teach whatever she wants, but if reality is a different thing, people should understand that.
quote:You described in that last sentence what I already had said about the official teaching of Rome. I know what is taught officially.
It teaches that God is the ultimate authority. God left us with a Church, and gave revelation to members within that church, who at one point in time wrote down parts of that revelation, and passed others down orally. The church then compiled those writings into a single volume known as the Bible.
There is the written (scripture), the unwritten (tradition), and the body which can settle disputes based on interpretation (magesterium).
My issue is how the doctrine of authority is practiced. Saying "God is the ultimate authority" is fine as far as it goes (I agree with that, too), but in practice, Rome is the one with all the authority at a functional level, because I can't appeal to anyone or anything greater than Rome for appeal.
quote:You're playing more word games. What Rome considers "orthodox" is up to her on opinion and teaching. Yes, Rome has only "dogmatically settled" a few passages, but the fact that it settles any at all proves my point. But even more than that, Rome has de facto settled interpretation of more than those 8 with its usage of Scripture to support what I believe are unbiblical traditions or even heretical beliefs (like justification by faith and works). If Rome determines a dogma that must be believed and uses the Bible to support that dogma, then in practice, you can't really have a different interpretation of those passages. Psalm 132:8 is used as a supporting text for the bodily assumption of Mary that was defined by the Munificentissimus Deus in 1950. I don't see Mary as the ark in that passage any more than I see Mary as the ark in Jeremiah 3:16, which will not come to mind (be remembered) any longer.
This is, quite impressively, both a straw man and a red herring at the same time.
The church has only dogmatically settled the correct interpretation on about 8 passages of scripture in total. It allows several different interpretations for most passages, so long as those interpretations are orthodox.
Therefore, church alone is a doctrine which the church doesn't teach.
It's simply a James White-esque caricature of the Catholic position.
Sola ecclesia is the logical conclusion of the Catholic teaching on authority.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You really do latch on to conspiracies, don't you?
I’m glad you admitted that the Testimonium Flavianum is a conspiracy, and not a conspiracy theory.
quote:
Josephus mentioned Jesus
An extremely common name at the time. Cognate Joshua. Yashua. There were hundreds and maybe thousands of “Jesus”. Josephus mentions many other Jesuses.
quote:
Whether or not some of the "Christianized" language quoted by Eusebius was authentic is irrelevant to what I mentioned
It’s an indefensible position to apologize for that forgery. Glad you didn’t embarrass yourself trying.
quote:
mentioned his brother James
Another Christian forgery, or interpolation. Antiquities of the Jews, book 20 chapter 9. The context was describing literally the succession of the high priesthood - King Agrippa took the high priesthood from Ananus and gave it to Jesus the son of Damneus. The “who was called Christ, whose name was James” is an obvious insertion. The story was about Jesus son of Damneus.
quote:
Origen quotes the part that was relevant to my statement.
I bet even he knew that was a forgery. Just like a filthy Democrat - the ends justify the means.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:47 pm to Bayoutigre
quote:
divorce yourself from this demonic entity
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:57 pm to Champagne
quote:I've explained my reasoning for saying what I said. It's not a straw man at all because it is the logical conclusion of what Rome teaches about authority.
I think that's called the Strawman method of argument, which is intellectually dishonest and intended to be so. Strawman arguments are intended to persuade by misleading.
quote:It doesn't debunk itself. Sola scriptura is not about what ways God has revealed Himself, but what authority that God has preserved for His Church.
Sola Scriptura debunks itself, and that is demonstrated by many fine well-written articles on Catholic Answers.
Scripture alone speaks to authority, not revelation. It's clear that Jesus' words were authoritative prior to being recorded in the NT Scriptures. It's clear that Moses' words spoken on behalf of God were authoritative to the people of Israel before he wrote them down. It's also clear that the Apostle's authoritative teaching was certainly authoritative prior to being recorded in Scripture. Sola scriptura doesn't deny that at all.
What SS teaches is that God's word alone is the highest authority that all other authority, teaching, and claims of truth are to be judged by. The words of the Apostles were judged by the OT Scriptures. The words of Jesus were in alignment with the OT Scriptures and He even taught against the idea of God-given oral tradition that the Jews believed they had in the traditions of the elders as passed down from Moses which Jesus taught against because they contradicted Scripture.
We have the Scriptures preserved for the Church. The oral traditions of Rome cannot even be written down for us, because it has to be developed over time. The Church has the authority to create a dogma that must be implicitly believed that was essentially unknown to the early Church. The Scriptures alone do not change.
quote:The function was always in place even if the Latin phrase wasn't in use for 1,500 years. This is where Catholics keep falling on their faces: they think that the concept of sola scriptura was created during the Reformation because the words weren't used prior to then. Just like the phrase "trinity" wasn't used for hundreds of years after Christ doesn't mean the concept that the word defines wasn't original to the Scriptures.
Many of us have explained here on PT why Sola Scriptura doesn't work. We have pointed out that it was a totally unknown Theological foundation for over Fifteen Centuries after Christ. We have pointed out how illogical it would be for Almighty God to delay revelation such an important theological foundation for 1,500 years, thus keeping His people in the theological darkness for over 1,500 years after Christ.
Aside from the pattern of Scripture being the supreme standard of authority in the Scriptures (the concept of SS is taken from the Scriptures, themselves), there are examples of this in the early church fathers. Athanasius used Scripture to defend the biblical view of the Trinity, not appealing to apostolic oral tradition against those who denied this biblical position.
quote:Do you deny that there are differences in beliefs about the apostolic gifts to the church? There are charismatic Catholics, for instance, who believe in the continuation of the sign gifts while other Catholics don't believe that. Such a huge difference in belief separates a few different Protestant denominations from others, even if most of the rest of their theology is the same.
It's a lie to argue that the RCC lacks unity. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is the Unity of the Church. It is published. This is what the Church believes. This RCC Catechism is something that absolutely no other Protestant sect possesses, because the Catechism is so thoroughly written, researched and footnoted, with references to the Bible, to history and to the Church Fathers and other early church figures who were not Church Fathers.
HERE is our Unity on-line and free for all to read.
LINK
Highlighting official teachings does not mean there is complete unity. My denomination has standards, too. We subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. They provide an in-depth explanation of key doctrines that many Protestants are unified behind.
What Catholicism has going for it is the rod of iron it uses to rule the souls of people. For about 1000 years, Catholicism was the only option Christians had, and if they opposed the authority of the Church, they were claimed to go to Hell. Most of that time included the physical threat of death to go along with the spiritual death that was taught in separation from Catholicism. That goes a long way when you're dealing with mostly uneducated, illiterate people, too.
So like I said, the unity that Catholicism offers is superficial because it is unity in structure. If you took the variances of beliefs that still exist from parish to parish, you'd see that if not for the alignment with the Pope, they wouldn't be much different than many Protestant denominations that separate over doctrine. It's always about authority.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:00 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I was going to provide an in-depth response like I typically do, but I decided that this topic isn't worth it. You have nothing substantial to contribute here. All you provide are speculative conspiracy theories that are meant to attack Christianity.
Squirrelmeister
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:32 pm to bizeagle
quote:
which gospels were not authored by the men that have their names in the title?
None of them. They are anonymously authored and in very good Koine Greek. The names were assigned to them later in the second century by the church so they could know which gospel variant they were discussing. The names they chose were based on their theology but were still guesses.
The facts is that the sons of Galilean fisherman, who would have been poor, and who would have spoken Aramaic, and would have been illiterate, did not write the gospels in the Bible which were written by very educated literate Greek speakers.
quote:
Who was banished to the Isle of Patmos with John to pen the book of Revelation?
The apocalypse of John was actually most likely written by a man named John (transliterated name of course). It was not anonymous. It was written in crappy Greek, most likely by a non native speaker.
quote:
Who took down The exquisite details and ordered the book of Matthew
No one. The book we call “according to Matthew” was written anonymously. It was a re-written version of the Gospel “according to Mark”. There are word for word, sentence for sentence copy and paste plagiarism of Mark in Matthew. Most likely whomever wrote that version of the gospel “Matthew” disagreed with things in “Mark” and felt “Mark” left out some stories, so he wrote an edited “better” story. Both the original and the new edited copy continued to be copied and circulated.
quote:
Did not these men eye witness the ministry of Jesus?
No, “Mark” used the epistles of Paul, and maybe the Evangelion (the gospel version that Marcion used which was a very early rendition of the gospel according the “Luke” which may have been the original. Whoever wrote “Mark” though probably was a genius - the styles and patterns of his writing, the references to the Old Testament, were extremely clever. “Mark” also knew Aramaic in my opinion or must’ve had a good Aramaic speaking friend… most of Mark’s Aramaic words he left in his masterpiece got edited into Greek words or left out entirely by Matthew and Luke. “Mark” might have even been written as a play to be acted out on a stage.
“Matthew” didn’t like what “Mark” said so he changed and updated it. “Matthew” also didn’t realize that “Mark” was a made up literary story, partially based on the writings of Paul and the Old Testament. “Mark” was the first written account of a flesh and blood Jesus on earth. (If you read the authentic letters of Paul and even Deutero-Paul texts like Ephesians and Colossians plus Hebrews you’ll find no stories of Jesus being on planet earth) “Luke” then didn’t like what either of them said so he created a new version all the while plagiarizing Mark and Matthew’s content.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I was going to provide an in-depth response like I typically do, but I decided that this topic isn't worth it. You have nothing substantial to contribute here. All you provide are speculative conspiracy theories that are meant to attack Christianity.
I accept your acknowledgment of your defeat.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:34 pm to Squirrelmeister
Will this thread ever end? 
Posted on 1/8/24 at 5:38 pm to CatholicLSUDude
So maybe we should be Catholics of the Eastern Orthodox branch or just followers of the gospel and Jesus w/o an organized church? the great Schism and today shows us that man still never learned from Adam and Eve or Jesus
Posted on 1/8/24 at 6:06 pm to Sixafan
quote:
So maybe we should be Catholics of the Eastern Orthodox branch or just followers of the gospel and Jesus w/o an organized church? the great Schism and today
Why are there literally thousands of different Christian groups. It’s a matter of interpretation- the scriptures aren’t clear and leave a lot up to guesswork. Also it depends which way contradictions are interpreted. There’s so many contradictions and so many ways they can be interpreted and denied leaves us with the plethora of Christian sects today.
quote:
Adam and Eve
100% myth. They never existed. Along with a flat earth concept the ancient people didn’t know about cells, DNA, geology, etc. and they sure didn’t imagine the reality of biological evolution of species.
quote:
Jesus
There were dudes named Jesus or Yashua or Joshua or whatever but the one described in the gospels didn’t exist as a flesh and blood real man on planet earth.
Page 27 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News