Standing Up To Rome

[Cruciform]

Hey we have a toss up...Cruciform's personal interpretations...against Bright Raven...its a Tie.

Hardly. I promote the infallible and authoritative interpretations and teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, while BR promotes the interpretive and theological opinions of his chosen recently-invented, man-made Protestant sect. Big difference there. Try again.

 

[Bright Raven]

Therefore, you can stop appealing to the Bible's infallibility as though your interpretations of the Bible were the same thing. THEY'RE NOT.

An infallible book without an infallible interpretation certainly cannot function as the binding authority that both you and I agree the Bible is. This is precisely why the Protestant movement is nothing more than a hopelessly subjective interpretive chaos of competing and contradictory opinions of men. Nor can it possibly be anything else. Ever.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Are your interpretation infallible?

 

[Cruciform]

Cruciforms interpretations are not His own. They are the interpretations of Mother Church.

...just as BR's interpretations are ultimately not his own. They are the opinions of his preferred recently-invented, man-made Protestant sect/doctrinal tradition.

He tosses biblical interpretation out with the dishwater.

Then so does BR (see above).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Are your interpretation infallible?

Not at all. That's why my interpretation of the Bible must always comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. Catholics read Scripture according to the binding doctrines of the one historic Church that Jesus himself founded in 33 A.D., rather than according to the opinions (traditions of men) promoted by the myriad man-made sects of Protestantism.

 

[Bright Raven]

Not at all. That's why my interpretation of the Bible must always comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. Catholics read Scripture according to the binding doctrines of the one historic Church that Jesus himself founded in 33 A.D., rather than according to the opinions (traditions of men) promoted by the myriad man-made sects of Protestantism.

So the Church does the interpreting?

 

[Cruciform]

So the Church does the interpreting?

Not exactly. Rather, I (to use myself as an example) interpret the Bible in accordance with the infallible and authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, and never in contradiction to those binding teachings.

For example, as a Catholic, I am not "permitted"---as Christians never have been---to interpret any individual biblical passage in a way which denies or contradicts the infallible and authoritative doctrine of the Trinity. To do so would, by definition, be to misinterpret the Bible. The teachings of the Church provide a boundary of theological orthodoxy beyond which I am obliged not to proceed.

Non-Catholics, of course, do the very same thing when they interpret the Bible: Pentecostals may not deny or contradict their doctrine of tongues as the sign of the Holy Spirit; Baptists may not deny or contradict their notion of "believers-only" baptism; Presbyterians are not permitted to deny or contradict their doctrines of predestination and election; Lutherans may not deny or contradict their teaching of sola scriptura, and so on. And Catholics do the same with respect to the formally defined and authoritative doctrines of Christ's one historic Catholic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

Hardly. I promote the infallible and authoritative interpretations and teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, while BR promotes the interpretive and theological opinions of his chosen recently-invented, man-made Protestant sect. Big difference there. Try again.

Nope.. its a tie. And if you dont understand this when you get down to brass tacks, you are deceiving yourself.

The only authority that the RCC has is that which you personally have given to it... and that is your personal interpretation.

But I find this comical, because the RCC worships an absentee god, so they have taken it upon themselves to usurp some of this authority when he is away... the reality is that their god does not exist.

Since God has in no way reinforced the authority of the RCC for the last 1000 years to show to the world that it is legit, there is no reason for any person on this globe to continue following them.... they are only wannabes.

You make God out to be a bad manager, one who hires underlings and puts them in a boat with no real power to do anything... pathetic.

 

[Cruciform]

The only authority that the RCC has is that which you personally have given to it...

Post your proof.

...the RCC worships an absentee god...

Post your proof.

You make God out to be a bad manager, one who hires underlings and puts them in a boat with no real power to do anything... pathetic.

Your implicit claim that God is "a bad manager" who is "pathetic" for having "hired underlings" like the "powerless" Apostles to guide and infallibly teach Christ's Church is noted.


Back to Post #361.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[WeberHome]

-
"Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate
things that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe,
because we read it. That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe
because we do not read it." -- Ste. Jerome --

Jerome was correct on one point. Up till the time of Christ's birth, Mary and
Joseph were betrothed, but not yet married. (Luke 2:5)

At one point in their engagement, Joseph wanted to break it off. (Matt 1:18
19)

But a heavenly messenger intervened to prevent him. (Matt 1:20)

Subsequently, Joseph continued to honor the engagement. (Matt 1:24)

Now the really significant part is: the messenger instructed Joseph to name
Mary's baby (Matt 1:21).

Joseph did as he was told. (Matt 1:25)

Mary too was ordered to name her baby; with the very same name the
messenger dictated to Joseph. (Luke 7:31)

So when the time came to give the baby his legal name, both Joseph and
Mary stepped forward together to identify themselves as Christ's parents.

†. Luke 2:21 . . And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising
of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.

Now; by some strange twist of the imagination, Jerome somehow convinced
himself that when Joseph and Mary stepped forward to give Christ his legal
name, they did so as a betrothed couple rather than a married couple. In
other words; Jerome somehow convinced himself that Christ's parents
remained engaged forever and never got around to tying the knot!

But that's not how engagements work. They are not meant to be perpetual
arrangements with no end in sight. No. When a man and woman commit
themselves to an engagement, it's with the intent and fore view of getting
married and settling down together. Why Jerome didn't get it I just don't
know.

A far more sensible take on Joseph and Mary, is that sometime between
Christ's birth and his circumcision, they tied the knot. So when they stepped
forward to give Christ his legal name, they did so as man and wife. Thus, in
full accord with the normal round of human experience: Jesus, Mary, and
Joseph were a family in every sense of the word— a holy family; not some
freak coven consisting of a child shared by two people engaged to never be
married.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Cruciform]

-
"Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate
things that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe,
because we read it. That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe
because we do not read it." -- Ste. Jerome --

"You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born." ~ St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (Ch. 21)​

 

[WeberHome]

-

a virgin wedlock

Webster's defines "wedlock" as the state of being married. Jerome did not
believe Christ's parents were married.

"That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe because we do not
read it." -- Ste. Jerome --

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[HisServant]

Post your proof.


Post your proof.


Your implicit claim that God is "a bad manager" who is "pathetic" for having "hired underlings" like the "powerless" Apostles to guide and infallibly teach Christ's Church is noted.


Back to Post #361.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

How is anyone going to prove that one persons opinion is more important that another.

It is your opinion that the RCC is what it is... most of the world has a different opinion. Both are valid... neither are the truth.

If the Holy Spirit was leading your church... why is it hemorrhaging members and racked with corruption (all provable).

Pretty soon Catholicism in America could be a thing of the past... thankfully!

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/...-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/

 

[Cruciform]

How is anyone going to prove that one persons opinion is more important that another.

So no actual proof for your claims whatsoever. That's what I thought. :yawn: