What is scripture if it is not the authoritave word of God? What else but scripture could be the authoritative word of a God? If you say the Catichism is such them you have no basis for claiming the Book of Morman is not.
Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Cruciform
New member
No one claimed that Scripture was NOT the authoritative word of God. Catholics merely don't buy into the 16th-century Protestant notion that ONLY Scripture is the authoritative word of God.
As even Scripture affirms, Apostolic Tradition is also the authoritative word of God.
Of course I do, since the Catholic Church is that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (thus rendering the content of the Catechism both infallible and authoritative), while the LDS "church" was founded by mere men in 1830, and thus can make no claim to being that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which He declared that the powers of death would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). The Book of Mormon, therefore, can be nothing more than a wholly human composition with no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
RevTestament
New member
Well, thanks I guess, but sure he does. Not everything that claims to be scripture is. There are hundreds of gnostic books I do not accept as scripture. I don't accept the Urantia Book as scripture. Just because there can be additional scripture not currently in the Bible, like the Book of Jasher, doesn't mean Maccabees for example, is scripture.
How does one know? That is a the crux of the matter. I don't accept every word of one of our church authorities as scripture. If they were to represent that the Lord told them to tell us something, then I would probably accept that as scripture. If I saw a potential conflict with other accepted scripture, I would study the issue and pray about it.
TBH I'm not sure how Catholics are supposed to know what their pontiff says is scripture or not. Does he say something like "this is the infallible word?" In my studies it seems this is usually determined after the fact...
turbosixx
New member
Have you ever thought about why in the 16th century men felt they needed to get back to scripture? They saw how they were drifting from it and going off course.
The things you do on a daily bases are not found in scripture and are even aganist scripture. Since you personally can't understand scripture, you have to believe what your told as to why the two do not agree.
RevTestament
New member
In your opinion is there anything in the BOM which is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible?
turbosixx
New member
Celestial marriage
Cruciform
New member
...according to the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. But go ahead and offer an example of a Catholic teaching that you see as "against Scripture."
I interpret and understand Scripture all the time. I simply do so by comparing my understanding with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church. You, by contrast, compare your understanding of Scripture with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
To an outside observer, the Profit and the Pope are functionally identical.
The Catholic Church coattails on Peter's eminence, and yet has the audacity to expound on his weaknesses.
That is to say, the RCC only respects that which is convenient to it at a given time, just as it has only done what has been convenient to itself since it's foundation.
That is to say, the RCC only respects that which is convenient to it at a given time, just as it has only done what has been convenient to itself since it's foundation.
turbosixx
New member
Where to begin? Infant baptism.
Luther, who is the author of Sola Scriptura, believed in the authenticity of infant baptism.
It's not a very good argument.
turbosixx
New member
Not trying to be rude but, I could care less what Luther believed.
The Bible is not the only source of information, some things can be deduced without the words of scriptures.
To think otherwise is just illogical, and that is why I brought up Luther as he proposed scripture as the only thing needed to be learned in all the necessary things of God- yet still held to extra-biblical notions.
Cruciform
New member
Quite a bit, yes.*
_______
*This is a pamphlet, and so should be printed and folded to be read correctly.
Cruciform
New member
This is merely one more opinion that you've derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. The simple fact is that the majority of your fellow Protestants today (and throughout history) wholeheartedly affirm the doctrine of infant baptism, so your minority claim that it is somehow "against Scripture" falls rather flat.
The Christian Church has been baptizing the infant children of believers from the very beginning of Christian history (see this, this, and this).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
turbosixx
New member
I'm not reading your links because they're garbage. I don't care what anyone is doing or has done. I care about it being in the bible. If someone says something that they believe to be truth that is not in scripture, who am I to believe?
turbosixx
New member
The bible is the only thing that matters. I think that is a lot of the problems we have today. People look at the bible through the filters of other men instead of letting the bible explain itself.
I don't consider Luther to be the author of scripture alone, but the first one that was able to proclaim it and escape the "church" hanging.
Cruciform
New member
Well, you certainly care about what the teachers in your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are doing, and apparently think that Christ's Church somehow began with your sect. Sorry, but no. It is a simple thing to read the writings of the earliest Christians to see what they actually believed and did---to see what doctrines they received from the apostles themselves---and one of those things is the baptism of the infant children of believers.
Now cite the biblical text which states that "Only things explicitly stated in the Bible may be believed and done by Christians." Chapter-and-verse, please.
This comment merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, which is itself nowhere taught in Scripture, and which therefore simply refutes itself. Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
turbosixx
New member
See you can't prove infant baptism from the bible so you use all kinds of tactics to misdirect.
What the rcc does can not be supported by scripture.
Baptism is imputed, but is not salvific. It is simply augmenting the soul, and requires no will or an authoritative decision from a catholic priest. They recognize that.