PDA

View Full Version : Six Arkansas nuns excommunicated for heresy



Hans
09-28-2007, 09:02 AM
Six Catholic nuns have been excommunicated for heresy after refusing to give up membership in a Canadian sect whose founder claims to be possessed by the Virgin Mary, the Diocese of Little Rock announced.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/nuns.excommunicated.ap/index.html

Return of Too Many Daves
09-28-2007, 09:06 AM
Has anyone seen the Devils with Oliver Reed? Why weren't they ex-com'ed?

GenX
09-28-2007, 05:12 PM
Kudos to the RCC!

Return of Too Many Daves
09-28-2007, 05:58 PM
Yeah but Speedy, you should watch the Devils with Oliver Reed! Awesome.

starterwiz
09-28-2007, 11:08 PM
So...what if it's true?

GenX
09-29-2007, 11:12 AM
What if it's not?

The Berean
09-29-2007, 02:46 PM
The Roman Catholic church is not about correct doctrine or heresy. Its about authority. After all they can make up any doctrine they want.

09-29-2007, 02:53 PM
Actually, Conkat, if you look through the church history, the RC church has made very few ex cathedra statements.

Try and name a few doctrines that you view as having been 'made up'.

The Berean
09-29-2007, 03:47 PM
Immaculate Conception
Transsubstantiation
Limbo
Purgatory

Very few you say. How many has your church made??

starterwiz
09-29-2007, 03:58 PM
If it's not true? A few crazy old ladies is all.
If it's true, then the whole Catholic church as well as most of the rest of us are missing out.

There's a passage somewhere that says something about "Christ returning in your generation"...I forget where exactly. What if He does, and is called a heretic?

GenX
09-29-2007, 04:28 PM
Christ would never go to Canada.

Too cold, and taxes are too high.

09-29-2007, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Immaculate Conception
Transsubstantiation
Limbo
Purgatory

Very few you say. How many has your church made?? </div></div>

Strike limbo from the list. I don't think that was ever made official.
The other three spread out over 1500 years, is still only a few.

Oh, I think you could add the infallibility of the magisterium..

GenX
09-29-2007, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How many has your church made?? </div></div>

Your church, Conkat, has made up sola scriptura, sola fide, pre-and post-trib theology...



...shall we go on?

My, how the pots like to call the kettle 'black'.

GenX
09-29-2007, 04:45 PM
Evangelical Protestants sometimes accuse Catholics of basing important doctrines on extra-biblical sources. Now Catholics will have a ready rejoinder: Former Protestant Patrick Madrid's Where Is That in the Bible? informs readers of the biblical origins of Catholic doctrines such as priestly celibacy, veneration of Mary and the saints, mortal and venial sins, and purgatory. While the tone is sometimes strident, the information is clear and conveniently organized by topic.

Educate Yourself (http://www.amazon.com/Where-That-Bible-Patrick-Madrid/dp/0879736933/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3005921-5110048?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191095027&sr=8-1)

09-29-2007, 05:16 PM
Speedy, what is the status of the Council of Trent. Are the anathemas there incontrovertible?

GenX
09-29-2007, 05:30 PM
No, they not. They were so seldom used it was abandoned in 1983.

09-29-2007, 05:34 PM
Help me out here.
The difference between papal bulls, encyclicals, etc.

In researching the various documents of the RCC, how do I know which declarations are considered infallible, true for all, everywhere at all times?

GenX
09-29-2007, 05:42 PM
Infallibility can only be granted to issues of doctrine.

Other matters, such as 'housekeeping' matters (laws, etc) are not infallible, because they do not deal directly with doctrine. Laws and penalties are not infallible. They are human attempts to keep order, and while one would hope and even expect the Holy Spirit to offer guidance and wisdom in such matters, still human beings can be wrong, and occasionally laws and penalties need to be re-fashioned, or in some cases abolished altogether.

When the Pope speaks on global warming he is not speaking with the grace of infallibility because global warming is not doctrine.

Bulls and encyclicals are pontifical musings, to put it in much too general terms. They are not in and of themselves infallible, though aspects of them are infallible because they deal with doctrinal truths.

09-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Are papal bulls to be considered as infallible?

GenX
09-29-2007, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Bulls and encyclicals are pontifical musings, to put it in much too general terms. They are not in and of themselves infallible, though aspects of them are infallible because they deal with doctrinal truths. </div></div>

09-29-2007, 08:37 PM
I foud the answer.. that is if this is from a reliable website: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

We must recognize where the burden of proof lies in this matter. The Code of Canon Law provides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" (CIC 749 § 3). This means that the propositions in Exsurge Domine must be assumed to have received a non-infallible handling unless proven otherwise.

We must look also at the conditions regarding papal infallibility. According to Vatican I, which defined the doctrine, "The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra . . . possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals" (Pastor Aeternus 4). The passage in the ellipsis explains that the pope speaks ex cathedra "when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church."

The key word is "defines." Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. The meaning of this term is explained in a relatio on Pastor Aeternus 4. (A relatio is an official interpretation of the text that is presented to the council bishops by a man called the relator so that the bishops will know the official sense of the text on which they are voting. Thus, what is said in a relatio is key to resolving queries about the meaning of a conciliar text.)

On July 16, 1870, Vincent Gasser, the relator for Pastor Aeternus 4, gave a relatio that explained "the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff" (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).

This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (de fide, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful cannot know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly.
______

So an infallible declaration will be identified as such.

GRUMPY
09-29-2007, 09:23 PM
Shouldn't this be in the pet section, with the bulls and penguins?

09-29-2007, 09:55 PM
ummm... sure Grumpy. Whatever you say.

1337
09-30-2007, 01:06 AM
If Christ returned tommorrow, they would have him sipping on meds in the back room of Riverview!

09-30-2007, 08:34 AM
Why do you say that?
And how does that relate to this thread?

GenX
09-30-2007, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The key word is "defines." Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. </div></div>

I think that sums it up well.

So Aydeloof, is papal infallibility what you thought it was?

I know many non-Catholics take papal infallibility to its illogical extremes, usually as a way to construct an easily defeated strawman. Of course, if the Pope says "2+5=8", it is not an infallible teaching, because it does not deal with doctrine. In the same way, if the Pope says certain things regarding global warming, it is not infallible, and thus Catholics can agree with him or not.

I hope this helps K Dawg see his fundamental error in trying to make an issue where one never existed.

KDawg
09-30-2007, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Relax Speedy. My point isn't about the technicalities of which statements by the pope are to be considered infallible or not. <u>I'll retract the infallibility argument.</u>

The bigger question is why is the pope on the side of the Global Warming proponents and calling it a moral obligation? You've gone on here as much or more than myself against global warming being a man made phenomenom and the actions its proponents are demanding. You know what they call for, and now Pope Benedict is in that camp. What do you say about that?</div></div>

Barry Morris
09-30-2007, 11:22 AM
Infallible statements by the Pope are extremely rare.

Catholics agree on these two infallible ststements.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854. This doctrine states that Mary had been conceived in her mother's womb free from the stain of original sin. The other infallible doctrine, the Assumption of Mary, was declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950. This doctrine states that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven.

Neither is supported by scripture.

GenX
09-30-2007, 11:30 AM
I say that there are basically two camps in the global warming debate: those who believe it is a man-made disaster caused by man that can only be solved by massive restructuring of business and the economy, and those that believe such alarmist thinking is hogwash. Count me in camp number two, like you.

But again, you’re trying to build up a controversy where none really exists. I will guarantee you there is some Protestant who subscribes to your every view on God and Jesus; on all things theological. Yet, this person also vehemently disagrees with you on global warming. Does such an instance automatically place a black eye on your Protestant beliefs? Of course not, because they are not directly related. You can still be a good Protestant and believe much of the global warming rhetoric is alarmist verbiage powered by a leftist agenda. In the same way, I, too, can be a good Catholic and believe much of the global warming rhetoric is alarmist verbiage powered by a leftist agenda. There is no religious issue here.

Now, you might say that this is absurd, because you disagreeing with your fellow worshipper across the aisle is not the same as me disagreeing with the head of the Roman Catholic Church. But here is why our two hypothetical (also true, no doubt) instances are more alike than different: Pope Benedict spoke as a philosopher, not an infallible successor of Peter. That is a huge distinction that must be grasped.

Also, I don’t believe Pope Benedict is in the same camp as the far-left and their agenda-driven rhetoric on global warming. He is speaking from the standpoint that God has made us stewards of the earth, and as such we need to reexamine our responsibility to earth. This is a far cry from the secular adherents of global warming, who only care about a radical restructuring of western life and the free market. I respect Benedict’s appeal because it comes from a transcendent standpoint, even if I do not fully agree with him as to how ‘bad’ the problem is. I do not agree whatsoever with the radical left, because their agenda is void of morality, and filled with political aspirations and desires.

I’ve read many of Pope Benedicts works. I find him to be a man at par with the late John Paul II as far as an in-depth philosopher is concerned. He is as sober-minded a writer I’ve read. He is not some radical pawn of the left. He and I agree on some aspects of global warming, but part ways on others. In the end, this is simply a disagreement between two individuals given the grace of reason from God. It happens every day, every hour, and every minute, between all types of people.

There is no issue here.

GenX
09-30-2007, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Infallible statements by the Pope are extremely rare.

Catholics agree on these two infallible ststements.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854. This doctrine states that Mary had been conceived in her mother's womb free from the stain of original sin. The other infallible doctrine, the Assumption of Mary, was declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950. This doctrine states that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven.

Neither is supported by scripture. </div></div>


That criticism stands as soon as you can show me where sola scriptura and sola fide are 'supported' in scripture.

While you're at it, show me where the Rapture is in scripture.

Good luck.

GenX
09-30-2007, 11:36 AM
I LOOOOVE it when Protestants start talking about things that are not in scripture.

Easy, easy stuff /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

GenX
09-30-2007, 12:03 PM
Like a vampire to garlic, like a vampire to garlic...

Barry Morris
09-30-2007, 01:34 PM
I suppose I should ask first, did Mary EVER sin??

By the way, Rapture is not an "infallible" doctrine in scripture. I personally am not totally convinced either way. Only one issue on it bothers me. Revelation says that the Holy Spririt will be taken away from the earth before the troubles begin. That can't happen if the Christians, filled with the Spirit, are still around. Other than that, as I said, not convinced either way.

Barry Morris
09-30-2007, 01:41 PM
This site had some interesting thoughts:

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-catechism-class-for-catholics-and-orthodox.htm

"Notice that although the church Fathers clearly taught things that were not in the Bible, they still upheld the principle of sola Scriptura because they truly (but mistakenly) thought that the doctrines had scriptural support. Had they said the doctrines of transubstantiation, the Mass, apostolic succession of bishops, the papacy, Mariolatry were not taught in the Bible, but oral tradition alone, only then would their argument even be worth considering. But since all the Fathers believed their doctrines all came from scripture, this actually proves they used sola Scriptura, and not oral traditions. Until Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders are prepared to admit in writing which "Catholic doctrines" (ie mass, real presence, praying to Mary as the co-mediatrix), we suggest they never use this argument again. But of course these Catholic defenders shoot themselves in the foot every time they go to scripture to prove their doctrines! It would be better to say, "hey none of this stuff is found in the Bible, it is oral tradition alone!"

GRUMPY
09-30-2007, 02:48 PM
Having been educated in a Catholic school by nuns all I can say is that every little penguin should be booted out.

GenX
09-30-2007, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the church Fathers clearly taught things that were not in the Bible, they still upheld the principle of sola Scriptur </div></div>

Give me a break! That's just nuts.

GenX
09-30-2007, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having been educated </div></div>

That's quite a stretch, doncha' think?

GenX
09-30-2007, 03:45 PM
So, Barry is asked to prove where sola scriptura, sola fide, and The Rapture are in the Bible...and he attacks Catholicism.

Protestant MO, and it's VERY telling.

Barry Morris
09-30-2007, 04:38 PM
I could spend all kinds of time explaining again, but I won't because you don't see what you disagree with. You could check out the link, but I didn't expect you would.

Attacking Catholicism is not the point. Finding the truth is.

GenX
09-30-2007, 06:53 PM
I read it, Barry (which you obviously do not do when I link to the Catechism).

To say the Fathers subscribed to sola scriptura is absolute fantasy, and incredibly disingenuous.

Read church history.

"To know Church history is to cease being Protestant"
-former Protestant John Henry Newman

Huggy85
09-30-2007, 07:02 PM
Hey Speedy, are you now arguing that your religion is better than everybody else's too?

GenX
09-30-2007, 07:10 PM
Where have you been?

And, I need to ask: why would someone take the name of a product that holds a lot of sh**? http://www.checkout.ie/images/magazine/2002-10/mp-baby-huggies.jpg

Huggy85
09-30-2007, 07:18 PM
Actually the product is meant to keep the sh** from getting spread all over the place. That's what I'm trying to do with all the sh** you have been spewing here.

GenX
09-30-2007, 07:44 PM
Hmmm...that one backfired.

09-30-2007, 09:53 PM
Just a quick search: I haven't read up on the context of each comment:

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

Barry Morris
09-30-2007, 09:53 PM
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-catechism-class-for-catholics-and-orthodox.htm

"Notice that although the church Fathers clearly taught things that were not in the Bible, they still upheld the principle of sola Scriptura because they truly (but mistakenly) thought that the doctrines had scriptural support. Had they said the doctrines of transubstantiation, the Mass, apostolic succession of bishops, the papacy, Mariolatry were not taught in the Bible, but oral tradition alone, only then would their argument even be worth considering. But since all the Fathers believed their doctrines all came from scripture, this actually proves they used sola Scriptura, and not oral traditions"

Barry Morris
09-30-2007, 09:55 PM
Did Mary ever sin??

GRUMPY
10-01-2007, 12:52 AM
Was there really a Mary? Such a nice Jewish name.

GenX
10-01-2007, 05:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.--- St. Athanasius </div></div>


More St. Athanasius...

(Aydeloof's quote in full)...Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed teachers. The ONE WHO READS THEM will ==UNDERSTAND== the INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures AND will be ABLE to GAIN knowledge he desrires'

(See the danger of only quoting those parts that fit your views?)


"'The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT and enough by ITSELF, for the subversion of all ireligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church'"

'But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever'

"But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the NT and the Old."

'For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good
conscience toward the FATHERS, if we be not spurious children, but have received the TRADITIONS from them, and the LESSONS of religion at their hands'

...but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and
holding fast the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may CEASE and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned...'

'But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the
CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith'

But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and PRESERVED by the FATHERS. On this the CHURCH was founded; and if anyone departs from THIS, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.'

GenX
10-01-2007, 05:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mary ever sin?? </div></div>

No.

And if you believe she did, can you tell me why God, He who cannot sin, would be born in a woman who was sinful?

GenX
10-01-2007, 05:37 PM
ANTONY of EGYPT

"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the SCRIPTURE, AND of which you have often been put in mind BY ME"


AUGUSTINE

"For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by
the authority of the Catholic Church"


BASIL

"Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers"


GREGORY of NYSSA

"It suffices for proof of our statement that we have a tradition
coming down from the Fathers, an inheritance as it were, by succession from the Apostles through the saints who came after them."


JEROME

'And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have
Scripture authority sinc the devil himself has quoted Scripture
texts...we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine'

GenX
10-01-2007, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was there really a Mary? Such a nice Jewish name. </div></div>

I wonder if Mary was the translated name from the original?

Ya' think, Grumpy??

GenX
10-01-2007, 06:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a quick search: I haven't read up on the context of each comment:

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
</div></div>

Every one of these can be found on the Catholic website EWTN: LINK (http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/TRAD.TXT)

Again, this shows how Catholics accept Scripture and Tradition as "Both" important, while Protestantism paints itself in a corner by taking the "either/or" stance.

On a brighter note, we have Protestants actually reading the early Church fathers, and not pretending 330 AD - 1535 AD never happened. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

KDawg
10-01-2007, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mary ever sin?? </div></div>

No.

And if you believe she did, can you tell me why God, He who cannot sin, would be born in a woman who was sinful? </div></div>

Where in the bible does it say Mary never sinned?

GenX
10-01-2007, 06:33 PM
It’s important to recognize that neither the words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible. This doesn’t mean the doctrine isn’t biblical, only that the truth of the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and Jesus’ hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures, divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in other words or only indirectly.

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, "You are tall among men" or "You are wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the wealthiest." Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.

-CA

Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin

Now...care to show me where The Rapture, sola scriptura and sola fide are in the Bible? And if you say they are inferred, then we'll simply move on.

GenX
10-01-2007, 06:36 PM
More reading if you're interested LINK (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp)

GenX
10-01-2007, 06:38 PM
"As a former Evangelical, I know anti-Marian arguments. But, having been a Catholic for nearly six years, I've been surprised to discover how much larger Mary looms in many Protestant minds than in Catholic ones. Maybe I'm languishing in a papally-induced spiritual blindness, but Jesus seems as big to me as ever. Only Mary has changed sizes since I "poped." She got a lot smaller and less threatening.

Since I became a Catholic she often, after directing me to her Son, has seemed to slip out of the room for long stretches, leaving me to talk with him while she busies herself with quietly praying for me or doing some other motherly task. She has been a most unobtrusive presence--endlessly loving and interceding, but not nearly as noisy about it as my Protestant upbringing would have led me to believe. "

LINK (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9405fea2sb.asp)

KDawg
10-01-2007, 06:49 PM
From that link:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
4. How can you reconcile Mary’s sinlessness with Paul’s statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made.</div></div>

So Jesus and Mary are on par with each other? That line of thinking makes a mockery of what Jesus has done for all of us.

10-01-2007, 08:24 PM
Speedy, if tradition were deemed fallible, I could buy into the dual-legged approach to the canon; one in support of the other.

I cannot accept that the councils were infallible, nor do I see support for the teaching of infallibility of tradition in the scriptures, aside from what was written down by the apostles.

That is the major divergent point between us. All else hangs on that issue it seems to me, whether one talks about immaculate conception, the apocryphal books, papal infallibility or any other uniquely Roman Catholic dogma.

I agree that the church fathers leaned on tradition, but I fail to see (in those quotes that you supplemented for me,) that they held to tradition as infallible. Nothing above undermines the classic definition of sola scriptura.

Even if they did, I would need to see that apostolic authority extended to a succession of apostles from Scriptures themselves. I see no evidence of that.

In fact, if Peter knew of any apostolic succession, he surely would not have said,"13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things."

If his death was imminent, why did he not let his readers know that he would be passing on the torch to the next pope? Why was he concerned that they would forget what he had taught them? Why the heavy emphasis on the written Word?

Barry Morris
10-02-2007, 09:59 AM
There is nothing to indicate that, by "tradition" the early church fathers meant anything else but the Scripture itself.

10-02-2007, 10:09 AM
No Barry, I do not think that is entirely true. Oral tradition was handed down in addition to Scriptures. I just fail to see that this oral tradition was valued as highly as Scripture itself, or that it was somehow deemed infallible.

Barry Morris
10-02-2007, 11:17 AM
Then let's discuss those oral traditions, individually, and see how they line up with scripture. Perhaps someone has a list.

10-02-2007, 01:31 PM
What's the point? Whether they do or not, one camp believes in tradition being as divinely handed down by God through a succession of the episcopate, while the other camp doesn't believe it.

The issue is not whether the traditions line up with Scripture.
The issue is whether they are divinely inspired and preserved, equating them with Scripture.

Barry Morris
10-02-2007, 02:59 PM
The point is that there is the claim that oral tradition has equal value to scripture. So what ARE those oral traditions?? Are they in use today??

GenX
10-02-2007, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So Jesus and Mary are on par with each other? That line of thinking makes a mockery of what Jesus has done for all of us. </div></div>

Nope, never said they were.

You need to discuss the real issue, and now what you want to be the issue.

Adam and Eve were born without sin. Are they on "even par" with Jesus? Do Adam and Eve "make a mockery" out of Jesus?

GenX
10-02-2007, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that the church fathers leaned on tradition, but I fail to see (in those quotes that you supplemented for me,) that they held to tradition as infallible </div></div>

You keep focusing on small "t" tradition, that of man. We are talking about large "T" tradition, that from God as imparted by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus.

To believe as you do is to believe Christians are 'people of a book'. We are not merely a religion of the book; we are a living religion, one that is continually imparted wisdom from above.

Look at the other religions; they are based on 'the book' (their book, of course, or some ancient m****cript). In a sense, they are dead, because they are based on something of the past. Christianity is alive, and Tradition with 'The Book' make it a living religion. If we do not believe Jesus still imparts wisdom to His Church (Tradition) in ways besides The Bible then we have no claim of being The true religion. We are no better than those who follow The Koran.

If Tradition were not important then why would the fathers spend so much time talking about it? Clearly they say scripture AND oral tradition are what is needed, a direct refutation of sola scriptura (which no Christian believed in for the first 1,500 years of the Church).

10-02-2007, 04:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that the church fathers leaned on tradition, but I fail to see (in those quotes that you supplemented for me,) that they held to tradition as infallible </div></div>

You keep focusing on small "t" tradition, that of man. We are talking about large "T" tradition, that from God as imparted by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus. </div></div>

Therein lies the circularity of the question.
Is there a Large "T" tradition that was promised by God, the Son and/or the Holy Spirit?

I cannot find evidence of that. You assert there is, but do not show me the large T tradition in Scripture.

In fact, when I go to Scripture, I find Jesus' strong warnings against elevating tradition to the extent that it nullifies the written Word. And that is what I am afraid has happened through the centuries. That is precisely why the Reformation was needed.

A realignment of values was long overdue and the traditions and the authority of the church which was being misused needed to be reined in by the power of the Word once again.

The Church did not give birth to the Word. The Word gave birth to the Church.

GenX
10-02-2007, 05:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, when I go to Scripture, I find Jesus' strong warnings against elevating tradition to the extent that it nullifies the written Word. And that is what I am afraid has happened through the centuries. That is precisely why the Reformation was needed. </div></div>

Reform was needed, not The Reformation. The Reformation quickly became the vehicle by which Bavarian nationalists used an initially innocent movement to further political gains. How else to explain how quickly the Reformation split into divisive camps?

Jesus warns against small “t” tradition. Large “T” tradition involves the knowledge imparted by the Holy Spirit after Jesus returned to be with the Father. When you read of Jesus promising the Holy Spirit coming, you read of the Living Tradition which helps sustain the Church.

GenX
10-02-2007, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Church did not give birth to the Word. The Word gave birth to the Church </div></div>

Can we place that under "Most Obvious Post of the Day"?

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

GenX
10-02-2007, 05:06 PM
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).



To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

10-02-2007, 05:13 PM
Speedy:
To believe as you do is to believe Christians are 'people of a book'. We are not merely a religion of the book; we are a living religion, one that is continually imparted wisdom from above.

AY:
We are people of the book, yes, but the book is alive (Heb 4:12) and Jesus said, "The Word that I speak unto you, it is Spirit, and it is LIFE."

So, yes, it is a living faith, but based on God's written Word. Does God make his will known to the church today? I believe He does, but I do not believe that we have the privilege of knowing the divine will, infallibly, apart from the book.

Speedy:
Look at the other religions; they are based on 'the book' (their book, of course, or some ancient m****cript). In a sense, they are dead, because they are based on something of the past. Christianity is alive, and Tradition with 'The Book' make it a living religion. If we do not believe Jesus still imparts wisdom to His Church (Tradition) in ways besides The Bible then we have no claim of being The true religion. We are no better than those who follow The Koran.

AY:
Oh Speedy. Surely you do not believe what you wrote? Here is what you said.
Apart from Tradition, our Bible is as dead as the Koran or the Vedas.

Speedy, apart from tradition, there is a world of a difference between the Scriptures and other religious writings.

Our Book's central character is alive. Jesus is raised from the dead. In addition to that, God's Word is TRUTH. That's large "T" truth. In addition to that, we are promised the aid of the Holy Spirit to help us understand His Word. This aid of the Holy Spirit is not reserved for the episcopate. We are now living in the age of the believer-priest. Every child of God has access to the throne of God, and is imbued with the Holy Spirit.

Now, without small 't' tradition, it is hard to see how anything would have been handed down. But I maintain it is small t tradition that has safeguarded the word over the centuries and has preserved it. Not large T tradition.

Don't forget. Sola scriptura does not mean ONLY Scripture. It means only Scripture is infallible. We do hold to traditions. We'd be foolish to deny them.

We simply do not believe in an infallible Tradition. But we are now treading on old arguments that we've discussed before.

Speedy:
If Tradition were not important then why would the fathers spend so much time talking about it? Clearly they say scripture AND oral tradition are what is needed, a direct refutation of sola scriptura (which no Christian believed in for the first 1,500 years of the Church).

AY:
we are agreed that both are needed. But there is no statement there of equality. Both needed, like 2 wings on a plane? Or both needed like water and a glass. Or mashed potatoes and a fork? The glass is the vessel that does nothing to quench my thirst, but without it, I might never have been able to drink the necessary water.

Tradition has brought me the Word of God, and has given me some guidelines, in terms of the catholic (universal) faith, but it is the Word that gives me life, and anything extraneous from that, I am not obligated to follow.

10-02-2007, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).



To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
</div></div>

Okay, at this point, we are simply repeating ourselves. We've argued this before. In order to establish this, you need to show that in the tradition that Paul was referring to, it was something in addition to what was eventually recorded through the process of inspiration. At the time of Paul's writing, there weren't even any gospels floating around on paper (or papyrus). Most everything was still oral.

GenX
10-02-2007, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We do hold to traditions. </div></div>

I thought Jesus said not to?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are people of the book, yes, but the book is alive (Heb 4:12) and Jesus said, "The Word that I speak unto you, it is Spirit, and it is LIFE." </div></div>

Does that "Word" only exists in the Bible? Is God limited in how vibrant and living the Word can be? The "Word" exists today, in tandem with Scripture. That is Tradition and the Bible.

Again, your "either/or" mindset is the problem here. I believe the Bible is a Living Word, and it exists alongside Living Tradition. Not "either/or" but BOTH.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh Speedy. Surely you do not believe what you wrote? Here is what you said.
Apart from Tradition, our Bible is as dead as the Koran or the Vedas. </div></div>

Nope, wrong.

I am saying the Bible uses Tradition, and vice versa. Try to respond to what is said, and not tell me what I said (or at the very least, ask for clarification).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We simply do not believe in an infallible Tradition. </div></div>

So the tradition that is discussed in places like Corinthians is merely a crap shoot as far as what is to be believed as inspired and what is not.

I don't know any God that would work so carelessly.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tradition has brought me the Word of God, and has given me some guidelines, in terms of the catholic (universal) faith, but it is the Word that gives me life, and anything extraneous from that, I am not obligated to follow. </div></div>

Which is a perfect example of why I dismissed Protestantism as a viable choice. You will put in the category of "extraneous" all those things which support the break from the Church.

It's convenient, but at the end of the day, it's still man meeting Jesus on mans' terms.

GenX
10-02-2007, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Okay, at this point, we are simply repeating ourselves. We've argued this before. In order to establish this, you need to show that in the tradition that Paul was referring to, it was something in addition to what was eventually recorded through the process of inspiration. At the time of Paul's writing, there weren't even any gospels floating around on paper (or papyrus). Most everything was still oral. </div></div>

With all due respect, it is you who belongs to the group that left the Church 1,500 years after its founding. Shouldn’t the onus of proof be on you to show Paul did not mean a living tradition as important and needed now as it was then? People believed in 'Tradition and Scripture' for 1,500 years, 'scripture only' for 500 years. Is the burden of proof really on me? I’ve posted my reasoning many times. You not wanting to accept it is different than me not addressing the issue.

No one believed in post-or pre-trib millennialism before the late-1800’s, yet you have no problem embracing those theories. If those are not in the Bible, then by what authority do you hold on to them as Truth? I'm having great difficulty following your "if it's not in the Bible..." line of debate.

The men who claimed to be given divine inspiration went to extra-biblical sources long removed from the Bible. Rapture? Pre-Trib, etc?

Even Luther said he was inspired by a source outside of the Bible in making his break with the Church. For surely the Bible didn't implicitly say, "Break with the Church at this time..." It was only after this divine revelation that Luther believed he could now read the Bible as it truly was meant to be read. The Bible was there, it took Living Tradition for Luther to be inspired to see it differently.

10-02-2007, 06:08 PM
Just a quick response first..

Put the pre-trib rapture to rest. You don't understand that we put that in the same camp as you guys put Lourdes.. it is not considered dogma. Deal?

We hold to essential doctrine, and then there is latitude given in other areas. Pre-trib rapture doctrine is in those other areas.

Secondly, you said: Luther said he was inspired by a source outside of the Bible in making his break with the Church.

Can you give me the context of that quote?

And, Luther was not claiming infallibility, was he?
That is the issue. Outside of the Word, there is no infallible rule. That "living Tradition" is not regarded as the rule. But if the 'living tradition' pointed him back to the Book, then Praise God.

GenX
10-02-2007, 07:58 PM
If Luther was not claiming or implying infallibility then why on earth is his break from the Church looked to as anything more than one more madman inventing his own faith? If he was not infallible, at least at that time, then surely all those that followed him were following the precepts of man, and not God, for God can only be infallible. If Luther wasn’t infallible, then you have no guarantee what he did was correct, or of God.


Luther was inspired by something along with the Bible. The Bible was there, in front of him practically day and night, for years. Something happened, something changed, which caused him to read the Bible differently, and accordingly see the Church differently. Was it human reason that showed him the ‘error’ of the RCC, or divine inspiration? Again, if it was not divine inspiration then why on earth would anyone risk their soul with the possibly-inspired, possibly-not ruminations of one man?

To make a complete break from the Church that was accepted for 1,5000 years as the Church left by Jesus requires much, much more than a man’s non-infallible reasoning. Certainly something of this magnitude needed divine inspiration. But it couldn’t have been only the Bible that provided Luther such inspiration, for the Bible had always been there. It was the Bible PLUS inspiration of knowledge as imparted by the Holy Spirit (which in essence is what Tradition is).

It is critically important you understand Tradition is knowledge imparted by the Holy Spirit. If it wasn’t the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that energized and provided the intellectual and spiritual motivation for Luther to break from the RCC, then what was it?

If it was divinely inspired then it was by an imparting of knowledge by the Holy Spirit to man after Jesus’ death (which is exactly what Catholic Tradition is). Therefore, you accept Oral Tradition in one aspect, but deny it in another.

Catholics believe Tradition comes from the Holy Spirit in its past and contemporary ‘conversation’ with man and Jesus’ Church. You deny that in one breath, yet in the next breath say the reason sola scriptura works is because...the Holy Sprit imparts knowledge to individuals. The same concept, but only you twist around whom it is the Holy Spirit imparts knowledge to. He’ll impart it on every Tom, [censored], and Harry, but certainly not the Church that was created right after Jesus. That is highly selective.

And last, your attempt to equate Lourdes with Pre-Trib, etc, really doesn’t fly. I could take your example and apply it to everything but the doctrine of the fact Jesus is mankind’s savior. Other than that doctrine, Protestants can believe what they want. In that sense, you could say “infant baptism is like Lourdes...adult baptism is like Lourdes...celebrating the Lord’s Supper is like Lourdes...The Rapture is like Lourdes...and on and on, with the end result being a smorgasbord of beliefs and doctrines.

My believing, or not, in Lourdes is markedly different than your believing, or not, in the Pre-Trib, for example. Even more so, “once saved, always saved”. Both Pre-Trib and “once saved, always saved” have an immense impact on the individuals’ life, and how they live that life. If I believe in “once saved, always saved”, I can live life like a drunken sailor after that one night I accepted Jesus, and was “saved”. My belief, or not, in Lourdes has no such bearing and impact on my life. Same with Pre-Trib. Believing that I’ll escape God’s wrath at ‘the end has a much more fundamental impact on who I am and how I live then believing the Virgin Mary appeared at Lourdes and asked for prayer, penance, and to turn to Jesus.

10-02-2007, 08:10 PM
My belief, or not, in Lourdes has no such bearing and impact on my life. Same with Pre-Trib. Believing that I’ll escape God’s wrath at ‘the end has a much more fundamental impact on who I am and how I live then believing the Virgin Mary appeared at Lourdes and asked for prayer, penance, and to turn to Jesus.

You are conflating two issues.

i.e. rapture and the return of Christ
We all believe in the final resurrection and the judgment of the wicked, the resurrection of the just.

You believe the following, don't you?
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now, some believe the end will come in a succession of events. (rapture, tribulation, 2nd Coming, the millennial reign of Christ)
Others believe that the millennium is a metaphor, and that when Christ comes, it's over.

All Christians believe in Christ's 2nd Coming, one way of another.

Without that belief, you have lost something essential of Christianity.

Thus, I agree, my belief in the return of our Lord has a great impact on my daily life.

But whether that return comes by way of a rapture or not does not make a difference. My hope is the same.
A pretrib rapture is NOT an essential doctrine that affects practice.
The general return of the Lord DOES.

My comparison holds.

GenX
10-04-2007, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You believe the following, don't you?
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. </div></div>

Okay, I didn't read farther than that, because now you're treading on the border of stupidity. To ask such a question borders on insulting.

Maybe next time you can discuss without trying to tell me what it is I believe, and creating your plethora of strawmen.

Have a good one.

10-04-2007, 06:50 PM
I don't think you understand what I am saying.
Oh well.
Once again he resorts to insults. what a thin skin.

GRUMPY
10-08-2007, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think you understand what I am saying.
Oh well.
Once again he resorts to insults. what a thin skin.
</div></div>

Its your own fault you gave him a valid argument and you of all people should know by now he can not deal with those! But you are right about the thin skin and who would have thought with that thick skull of his.

starterwiz
10-09-2007, 01:00 AM
" We are not merely a religion of the book; we are a living religion, one that is continually imparted wisdom from above. "

" If we do not believe Jesus still imparts wisdom to His Church (Tradition) in ways besides The Bible then we have no claim of being The true religion. "

That doesn't sound like you Speedy. So what if these nuns have an inside line, and the church has discredited them?
You gotta have a better answer than "What if they don't?"

1337
10-09-2007, 01:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How many has your church made?? </div></div>

Your church, Conkat, has made up sola scriptura, sola fide, pre-and post-trib theology...



...shall we go on?

My, how the pots like to call the kettle 'black'. </div></div>

Don't for get Sola-Plexes and Sola-panels!

GenX
10-09-2007, 06:19 PM
Your spelling is splendid again, T Pot! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

GenX
10-09-2007, 06:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" We are not merely a religion of the book; we are a living religion, one that is continually imparted wisdom from above. "

" If we do not believe Jesus still imparts wisdom to His Church (Tradition) in ways besides The Bible then we have no claim of being The true religion. "

That doesn't sound like you Speedy. So what if these nuns have an inside line, and the church has discredited them?
You gotta have a better answer than "What if they don't?" </div></div>

I don't understand your question.

starterwiz
10-09-2007, 08:34 PM
I'm asking "What if it's true that Mary is communicating through someone, and the church has dismissed it as false?"

I do believe that God has lots of messengers that are ignored, and it worries me.
Especially so, if the messages are trying to correct the doctrines of major religions.

The Berean
10-09-2007, 08:38 PM
Satan has lots too, how will you tell the difference?

starterwiz
10-10-2007, 12:14 AM
It's easy to tell, no?
One is good, and one is evil.
I't not like a multiple choice question.

starterwiz
10-10-2007, 12:35 AM
Sorry...that didn't quite come out right.
I never met the woman in the story, but'I'd bet I'd know right away.

The question is will you trust those with power.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Barry Morris
10-10-2007, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's easy to tell, no?
One is good, and one is evil.
I't not like a multiple choice question. </div></div>


2 Cor 11:14
14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Multiple choice, no. Always easy, no.