Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does this make any sense at all?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Raynebeau
    started a topic Does this make any sense at all?

    Does this make any sense at all?

    According to The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism regarding the sacraments of penance and matrimony:

    "Absolution must be given orally, and not in writing, or by the use of signs. Hence a priest who is entirely dumb cannot validly absolve. The will of Christ, as interpreted by the [Roman Catholic] Church, is that the form of the sacrament should be expressed in words. This is one of several ways in which the sacraments of penance and matrimony differ radically, since the form of the latter may be validly expressed by signs."

    Volume 51
    Section 5: The Life of Faith



  • 4Him
    replied
    Originally posted by Only_3 View Post

    The only point you have proven so far is this:
    that you can in no way, shape or form, defend your beliefs from Scripture....and you just keep proving my point again and again....


    Leave a comment:


  • Only_3
    replied
    Originally posted by highrigger View Post

    We are interested because we are told by Catholic experts that your church does not interpret scripture at all as it pertains to what the apostle

    meant with his verses.

    But you tell us your church does interpret. So who is right? You or Catholic experts? I am finding that Catholics know little about their church

    except how to do those religious busy works. They seem to know about some of those myth stories but not much about the basics of Christianity

    except they are supposed to believe whatever their church teaches.

    Even your CCC calls itself ESSENTIAL in Prologue III. I guess that means that those dogmas NOT in your CCC are NOT ESSENTIAL.

    Who knows? Do you?

    JohnR
    John, you keep inventing things that the Church doesn't teach.

    Leave a comment:


  • Only_3
    replied
    Originally posted by 4Him View Post

    They've learned from you, that you can in no way, shape or form, defend your beliefs from Scripture....and you just keep proving my point.
    The only point you have proven so far is this: EDIT personal comments
    Last edited by 4Him; 08-23-18, 11:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mica
    replied



    Originally posted by JoeT View Post

    Believe what you will, I've done that somewhere in this thread days ago, even 4Him, listed a similar set of verses.

    But, just for you I'll do it again:
    • John 3:5 (baptism by natural water) Florence
    • Luke 22:19 (apostles as priests) - Trent
    • Cor 11:24 (priestly re-presentation of the Eucharist) - Trent
    • John 20:22 (sacramental ordination) - Trent
    • John 20:23 (sacramental Confession & priestly absolution) - Trent
    • Romans 5:12 (reality of original sin) - Trent
    • James 5:14 ("presbyters" are ordained, not simply elders) - Trent
    These are the seven verses mentioned in the canon of the councils indicated.

    Simple response for simple questions. JoeT
    and it looks like they all have to do with unbiblical catholic beliefs.


    Leave a comment:


  • JoeT
    replied
    Originally posted by highrigger View Post

    So it says each verse is NOT interpreted. But the question is are any? And if there are any, do you know what they are?

    Simple question but vague answers.

    Very few? Likely only 7 interpreted? Where is that in your CCC? I get the impression you don't have a clue.

    JohnR
    Believe what you will, I've done that somewhere in this thread days ago, even 4Him, listed a similar set of verses.

    But, just for you I'll do it again:
    • John 3:5 (baptism by natural water) Florence
    • Luke 22:19 (apostles as priests) - Trent
    • Cor 11:24 (priestly re-presentation of the Eucharist) - Trent
    • John 20:22 (sacramental ordination) - Trent
    • John 20:23 (sacramental Confession & priestly absolution) - Trent
    • Romans 5:12 (reality of original sin) - Trent
    • James 5:14 ("presbyters" are ordained, not simply elders) - Trent
    These are the seven verses mentioned in the canon of the councils indicated.

    Simple response for simple questions.

    JoeT

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by highrigger View Post

    I asked a simple question. What is nonsense about it? Does your church interpret scripture or not? Fr. Brown says not.

    JohnR
    OK, so you say zero verses. Your colleagues say seven. I've seen others say four or five.

    Why don't you all huddle and decide which version y'all want to go with ...
    Last edited by Curious Joe; 08-21-18, 12:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • highrigger
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeT View Post

    You're confused, see CCC 101 through 141. Each verse of Scripture is not painstakingly interpreted by the Church instead "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written." Truth, remains true no matter who utters it. Who knows even you might have stumbled on a truth once and awhile - but that's not the issue here is it? If you read through the whole of the Catechism you'll find there are very few, likely only seven verses found in the canons of the Church 'defined' - and then only to the extent of what's not to be believed.

    The issue seems to me, though unaddressed by any Protestant, including yourself, is why are you concerned with the particular verses defined in the light of the Holy Spirit being they are so few? You don't subscribe to that truth, you've rejected it. The contention of the Protestant is that your inalienable rights are infringed upon if you do not individually sanction the any truism. But now you seem to suggesting that there are not enough verses interpreted by the Holy Catholic Church.

    Which way do you want it? Do you want to argue there are not enough verses defined in the Catholic Church because most every verse in Scripture is defined by you. Or, do you want to argue that the canon of the Church is so confining that your inalienable rights are infringed because you wish to hold a different truism; which by logic can't exist.

    JoeT
    So it says each verse is NOT interpreted. But the question is are any? And if there are any, do you know what they are?

    Simple question but vague answers.

    Very few? Likely only 7 interpreted? Where is that in your CCC? I get the impression you don't have a clue.

    JohnR

    Leave a comment:


  • highrigger
    replied
    Originally posted by Curious Joe View Post

    Nonsense, John. The word infallible appears no where in that text. The number seven is mentioned no where in that text.
    I asked a simple question. What is nonsense about it? Does your church interpret scripture or not? Fr. Brown says not.

    JohnR

    Leave a comment:


  • highrigger
    replied
    Originally posted by Only_3 View Post

    But in post #10 you said that you don't believe that Catholic confession is God's way. So why would you be interested in any Catholic interpretation of scripture?
    We are interested because we are told by Catholic experts that your church does not interpret scripture at all as it pertains to what the apostle

    meant with his verses.

    But you tell us your church does interpret. So who is right? You or Catholic experts? I am finding that Catholics know little about their church

    except how to do those religious busy works. They seem to know about some of those myth stories but not much about the basics of Christianity

    except they are supposed to believe whatever their church teaches.

    Even your CCC calls itself ESSENTIAL in Prologue III. I guess that means that those dogmas NOT in your CCC are NOT ESSENTIAL.

    Who knows? Do you?

    JohnR

    Leave a comment:


  • highrigger
    replied
    Originally posted by Only_3 View Post

    Did you really think that you were fooling us into thinking that you were really interested in the Catholic Church interpretation of scripture?
    We were interested in confirming that your church interprets no verses at all as Catholic experts tell us but Catholics tell us the opposite. We think you do not even understand your own church.

    "In terms of what we might call the literal sense of Scripture,
    ie, what a verse meant when it was first written, it is doubtful
    that the Roman Catholic Church has ever defined the meaning of
    any passage. The church has defined that some ot its doctrines
    are related to scriptural passages, but not necessarily that
    those doctrines were in the minds of the people who wrote the
    passages. Thus, a conflict between private interpretation and
    church doctrine based on scripture is really not relevant to the
    type of commentary help That I have been describing.
    I remember with sad amusement the observation made by a reviewer
    in a popular evaluation of a long commentary I had done. He stated
    he was grateful that he did not have to bother with my opinions
    or those of others since he preached only what the Catholic
    Church taught about this particular book. Since the church had never
    interpreted the literal meaning of any passage in that book,
    I wondered exactly what he found to preach. What he really meant,
    I am sure, is that he preached the opinions about the book that
    he had been taught when he was in the seminary, and he did not
    want to bother seeing whether those opinions still represented where
    most scholars stood today."
    Raymond Brown, Q15 - 101 Questions and Answers to the Bible.
    Page 25. Imprimatur

    I guess you cannot help us because you don't know anything.

    JohnR

    Leave a comment:


  • highrigger
    replied
    Originally posted by Only_3 View Post
    3. "Mass" derives from the Latin word "missa", which simply means to be "sent". So Mass is also called the "Sacrifice of the Mass", because it is the sacrifice of the one sent to be a propitiation for the sins of the people - the sacrifice that is offered to God at every Mass.
    No it is not. Never described as such in he NT. Just a made up sacrifice to copy the pagan rituals of ancient Rome.

    In fact Jesus plainly taught, "I desire Mercy, NOT sacrifice. It is simply religious busy works and not the original intent which was to REMEMBER

    the sacrifice of Christ for us and NOT to repeat it. Then you pay for those Masses to pardon your relatives from Purgatory. What a waste! Give that

    money to the poor. Remember that quote from Jesus.

    JohnR

    Leave a comment:


  • 4Him
    replied
    Originally posted by Only_3 View Post

    Nah, I don't think lurkers have learned anything from you, except maybe your stance against Catholic interpretation of scripture.
    They've learned from you, that you can in no way, shape or form, defend your beliefs from Scripture....and you just keep proving my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Only_3
    replied
    Originally posted by 4Him View Post

    You just keep proving me right....lurkers take note.
    Nah, I don't think lurkers have learned anything from you, except maybe your stance against Catholic interpretation of scripture.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4Him
    replied
    Originally posted by Only_3 View Post

    Well, since you already told us that you couldn't care less about Catholic interpretation of scripture, it looks like you are going to be waiting a long, long time, short of course, of a change in your attitude.
    You just keep proving me right....lurkers take note.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X