User Profile: LestWeForget


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] October 31, 2014 at 8:22am

    The Early Church Fathers teach a great deal about Scripture, Church and Apostolic Authority, and oral Tradition. They address your views.

    “When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ‘ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.”
    Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254)

    “To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

    “For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted….”Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416).

    “If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema.” Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

    “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem AD350

  • [1] October 31, 2014 at 8:09am

    “For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

  • [1] October 31, 2014 at 8:09am

    How can I respond to each point? I don’t have all day, as much as I would like to give you the dignity of a complete response since you took the time to lay out your case, which you would have done only if you cared about me.

    I still don’t see where Scripture tells us to use only logic to helps us determine meaning. It tells us to look to authorities, over and over. Even Jesus says this. The problem is, with the Word of God, there are deep truths to be understood and frankly not every person has sound logic, good reasoning, intelligence. The Lord would have left many at risk of salvation without building His Church. For those years there was no canon of Scriptures, no Bibles, little literacy, no education in logic, people learned by hearing the Word proclaimed at mass. Read the Didache. ~70AD.

    Good you cited Bereans. After affirming Paul’s authority searching the OT, they listened to his ORAL teaching on the Good News. Not sola scriptura and sometimes-faulty logic, but authority, tradition (Oral teaching) and scripture work together without conflict, which is the Catholic position.

    I don’t know why you think the Bible came from nonCatholic sources. The Luther one did, as he made many changes. By what authority?

    “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 8:24pm

    “Roman” or “Latin” is a Rite in the Catholic Church. It’s one in the same which brought us the Scriptures.

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 8:21pm

    Nice try but can you show me scriptural authority Ham can be an infallible interpreter? I’ll even take Oral Tradition. As you argue, he would claim an extrabiblical authority on an extrabiblical argument of observation and logic – which may or may not be perfectly applied.

    If he has that authority, so do I. I observe, use logic, conclude differently.

    Doesn’t work. Leads to chaos. Creation is too perfect and orderly to leave a Church that is a believe-what-you-want-as-long-as-you-claim-strongly-enought-that-it’s-Biblical-observable-and-logical.

    What you are forgetting is Faith.

    Do we observe Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension? no. Is it logical? no.
    Do we observe Jesus walking on water, healing the lame and diseased? no. Is it logical? no.
    Do we observe a person healing from touching an Apostle’s handkercheif? no. Is it logical? no.

    Are these true? Yes.
    How do we know?
    Faith. The Church.
    Peter was made shepherd and asked three times to feed the Lord’s sheep. The Church was built on his strong shoulders, with Jesus as the head. He fed the sheep with the Eucharist and the true faith – Oral Tradition. Authority. And eventually, written Scriptures. We don’t take manipulated Scriptures in 1500s and dump the rest without leaving the security of the sheephold.

    But, praise the Lord, the Good Shepherd seeks out the lost lambs.

    God bless.

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 8:04pm

    I could post more but you get the picture dontchya?

    But you were right about one thing, the Catholic Church HAS for YEARS justified having a pope as head of the Church. Almost 2000 years, as a matter of fact.

  • [3] October 30, 2014 at 8:02pm

    George, Jesus speaking Aramaic to Peter eliminates your misunderstanding expressed in the second paragraph.

    The first, try these quotes. The Church has held this view from the beginning.

    “Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

    “And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).
    “…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256). [this one shows Pope Stephen claimed succession all the way back then unlike you claim.]

    “…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

    “[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

    “Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

    “Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem D

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 7:57pm

    look out, faith alone people are not going to like hearing that works matter. You sound too Catholic.
    alrighty I’m just funnin’ with ya.

    God bless.

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 7:55pm

    jb – Stop assuming things I didn’t even say. I said it perfectly accurately.

    The Church as one for a thousand more years after Ignatius wrote that letter. The term “Roman” is one popularized by the Protestants.

    Roman or Latin is just one of many Rites of the Catholic Church, including some who have returned to be under the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox lung of the Church.

    Do you pick fights with your half-siblings out of the blue? It’s odd.

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 7:44pm

    I’m trying to understand why you think I need to understand what a non-authoritative man’s scripture opinion is when I have an earthly shepherd, thanks to Our Lord and Savior Jesus. Maybe it’s a way of looking at things that a Catholic doesn’t understand. We don’t look for a thinker or preacher we agree with and decide to follow him.

    Ham wasn’t told to feed the Lord’s sheep, Ham denies the Eucharist and Sacraments. There will be many false teachers, but inside the fold I am safe because the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church Jesus founded, guided by the Paraclete, with Apostolic succession.

    Thanks for your explanation of your on views, however. It was good of you to take the time and I mean that sincerely.

    We need to remember we are on the same team here. Nothing but Truth. Jesus loves us both and that is true, so I love you too.

    God bless.

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 7:36pm

    “the rules of the source languages of the Bible tell us how to interpret it. You’re actually accusing us of what your side does… (eisegesis).”

    Your “side”. Are we enemies? Rules of the source languages haven’t prevented there from being 30,000 denominations. If you don’t fight the other 29,999 who get it wrong with the same attention you give the Catholic interpretation, ask yourself why not? (Maybe you do.)

    I wish, bones, that interpretation rules were as you say, but if you know Church History, you know all the heresies that the Catholic Church had to fight (you’d also see there are no really new heresies. Just retreads of ancient private interpretations.) You’d also know however you see the Eucharist, if you aren’t Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, the Church Fathers pretty much unanimously would see your view as heretical. Baptism is pretty much unanimously seen as regenerative in the Early Church.

    How did those who learned from the Apostles, and from their students get so wrong what bonesiii and his pastor gets so right, 1600+ years later?

    Your idea about the languages is good but it still requires a teaching authority. And oral Tradition. Even though a complete Bible came hundreds of years into Christianity, the authority and Tradition were there from 33AD.

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 7:25pm

    ok brigott – you are settled into your interpretation, which is nothing I will change. Besides I doubt this statement is why you remain outside the Catholic Church.

    Did you address John 6 not being taken literalistically? I apologize if I missed that, or the scriptural proof that you know your personal views are the only correct ones.

    I’ll just leave you with the idea that the Word of God in written format does not give you authoritative interpretive abilities. See 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Pet 3:16; 1 Cor 11:2 for starters. The Word of God-made-flesh, however, did give authority to Peter to interpret, loose and bind and to the Church; Scriptures say there should be no divisions among you, avoid those who cause schism, one sheepfold and one shepherd, obey your leaders and submit to them; Christ protects the Church.

    Outside the Church, there can be 100 interpretations of a passage from Scripture between 100 different men and women, and there may not be any who are right. Even if one is, how would we know? That method sounds like a God of chaos not one who knows humans need a pillar and bulwark of truth.

    God bless.

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 7:03pm

    brigott – no he’s not. this is nothing new, as the article even states. people have to stop reading Catholic news out of context.

  • [3] October 30, 2014 at 5:08pm

    No, only in anti-Catholic books.

    Read the Early Church Fathers. All of them. You’re not going to like what you find, but coming home to the fullness of faith will be a beautiful thing, and then you’ll be glad – but only after much turmoil, shedding your former false beliefs.

    ”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

    Need still more?

    But the simplest thing to ask to ask yourself is where do you think the Bible came from if not the Catholic Bishops? Luther, 1500 years after the Church was in existence?

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 5:02pm

    Small – You think I proved that I believe the exact opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches about trusting Sacred Scripture? You have shown yourself to be good at seeing things that aren’t there. If you take Scripture literalistically, then John 6 would require you be Catholic. Or you only take Genesis literalistically? I don’t want to argue with you either. I just don’t like to see false statements slung about by people who claim to be Christian brothers and sisters. Truth matters to our souls.

    grmom2 – Are you serious that you can’t understand what Pope Francis said? If he were a Prot. preacher saying the same exact sentence would you even think twice? Don’t you see the bias you bring into your very reading of the article? As for the rest, it’s the same as I already asked – where in Scripture does it say to take Genesis literalistically? It can still be Divinely Revealed Truth without being taken as a scientific report. If you take this word for word, you MUST take John 6 likewise, to be consistent. The Eucharist awaits you in the Catholic Church.

    Cillindor – Call no man doctor or teacher either. Acts 7:2, Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” Romans 9:10, Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”
    Paul also says “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22). and “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10)

    need more examples, friend?

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 3:28pm

    brigott, Catholics call that ex nihilo. God created everything out of nothing by “speaking it into existence.”

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 3:25pm

    It can’t! God can operate outside the laws of nature.

    I think you missed my point. We’re in full agreement on this.

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 3:24pm

    Is Holy Water bad for a computer screen?

  • [3] October 30, 2014 at 3:24pm

    Hm, that makes this and a vast array of other ancient texts really curious then:

    “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

    St. Ignatius of Antioch, year 107 AD, Catholic Bishop

  • [-1] October 30, 2014 at 3:20pm

    What in the article above is inconsistent with the Word of God?
    Nothing the Holy Father said.

    What you answered was a question not asked: “What is inconsistent with a fundamentalist INTERPRETATION of the Word of God?”

    Aside from the silly thing about Leo I I won’t even give time to, you posted a leap of reasoning that states there couldn’t be 7 days in a week if the Genesis accounts aren’t taken literalistically. Who says? Scripture doesn’t say that. Scripture doesn’t say to take Genesis literalistically.

    The Church believes Genesis literally, not literalistically as you do. Every bit of the Bible (all 73 books) are the inspired Word of God according to Catholicism and there is no belief we hold that is contrary to scripture, so brigott’s comment caught my eye.

    I recommend those who want to malign Catholicism actually study Church history and the Catechism so they can know of what they speak.

123 To page: Go