Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 16:44:30 GMT -5
No I belived many things that were True about God before I ever read a Bible. I even knew there was a God. But see I covered all of this already. That's I a natural truth that can known by the light of natural reason. The contents of divine revelation is revealed truth, meaning that we couldn't know it without Christ as Revealer. It is supernatural and, as the name implies, above nature, so it can't be known by natural reason without a supernatural Revealer. On His authority we accept what He says. And one of those supernatural truths is that the Church could never give us stones when we asked for bread. Hence, we can rely on her authority in matters above natural reason to be able to believe the things above our reason that are necessary for salvation. But when it comes to so-called supernatural truths from the concliar magisterium, suddenly we become the authority and start telling the Holy Ghost protected magisterium it is wrong. No, please go back and read my OP. That was the whole point of it. The motives of credibility (the factually verifiable marks of the Church) distinguish her as a divine entity. The gift of faith fills in whatever speculative doubt may remain. The motives of credibility precede believing in her simply because she says so. I cited Radio Replies specifically for this purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 13, 2018 16:58:46 GMT -5
How do you know there are 4 marks or 1 needed or any at all?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 19:53:21 GMT -5
How do you know there are 4 marks or 1 needed or any at all? Because any church that is true is going to be from God (natural reason). And if it's from Him it has to be divine. And if it is divine it has to have certain qualities that distinguish it from non-divine institutions. The writings in Scripture (the bible considered as a historical document, only) tell us what those distinguishing marks are, and reason can deduce them pretty simply.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 13, 2018 21:19:22 GMT -5
Circular...you sited the Scripture as coming from Church authority.(btw I think TC might just be the fess and voxx forum lol)
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 17:57:11 GMT -5
Circular...you sited the Scripture as coming from Church authority.(btw I think TC might just be the fess and voxx forum lol) Please read the one part of OP where Frs. Rumble and Carty address this apparent circulatory in Radio Replies. It's toward th beginning of my OP. I know you already read it, but read that part once more with this point in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 14, 2018 18:41:10 GMT -5
It seems the whole discussion is around this sentence you wrote...and I am telling yo I dont accept the first part... the Faith is Based on what Christ and the Apostles SAID
not what the Popes SAY. The proper sentence as I would put it (which I think isnt a paradox at all) is this way: the Faith is Based on what Christ and the Apostles SAID, and these Popes are saying something different so they are not part of the Apostolic Faith of Christ.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 13:06:45 GMT -5
It seems the whole discussion is around this sentence you wrote...and I am telling yo I dont accept the first part... the Faith is Based on what Christ and the Apostles SAID
not what the Popes SAY. The proper sentence as I would put it (which I think isnt a paradox at all) is this way: the Faith is Based on what Christ and the Apostles SAID, and these Popes are saying something different so they are not part of the Apostolic Faith of Christ. But you only have access to (and hence know) what Christ said through what His Apostles and successors (i.e., the Church) said He said. Christ didn't privately and personally reveal anything to us. He gave it to the infallible medium of the Church to pass on to us.
|
|
|
Post by franciscan on Feb 15, 2018 13:22:24 GMT -5
No...if I was an Episcopalian or some guy who reads the bible alot Id come to the same conclusion. But you're still missing the point: the bible is an authority. You only believe the Trinity because the bible says so. And you only believe the bible because the Church says so (that's who gave it to us). And you only believe in the Church because Jesus said so. At the end of the day, we believe what Jesus said because he proved He was God. Whatever else He said, then, we believe because He was God and couldn't teach error. It's the same with the Church. We can't know these things withoutban authority. And that authority is useless unless it is guaranteed from teaching error.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 15, 2018 15:29:37 GMT -5
I belive in the Trinity because it is ingrained indelibly on my soul. I think we are coming to a clash of east west spirituality. To argue you know nothing of Christ were it not the Church telling you first argues against Christ himself who said my sheep hear my voice...and blessed are you Peter for flesh and blood hath not revealed etc. There is a "predestination" of faith. Faith cometh by hearing but hearing from the word of God...who is the word of God...the Bible...The Church? No it is Christ who loved me first.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 15, 2018 15:35:36 GMT -5
There is a way of knowing Christ before knowing the Church. That is not to say the Church isnt necessary but it is a progression. First I am conceived...then I know my mothers womb and the sound of her heartbeat...then I know her face and her breast...etc...then thanks to Gods mysterious ways I am Baptised (and confirmed in East) and then I enter the Church. I already know many things of God well before I can even talk.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 15, 2018 15:38:49 GMT -5
I would ask for a Catholic source for this assertion. Im sure you mean something more specific. But as its stated you are in error.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 17:08:15 GMT -5
I belive in the Trinity because it is ingrained indelibly on my soul. I think we are coming to a clash of east west spirituality. To argue you know nothing of Christ were it not the Church telling you first argues against Christ himself who said my sheep hear my voice...and blessed are you Peter for flesh and blood hath not revealed etc. There is a "predestination" of faith. Faith cometh by hearing but hearing from the word of God...who is the word of God...the Bible...The Church? No it is Christ who loved me first. Why you personally believe something is different from how we could prove the truth of what we believe to others. If I were born on an isolated island and abandoned at a young age, with no connection to anything or anyone, and with no knowledge of the outside world, I would not be a Christian unless I received some manner of special divine enlightenment. At best, i could knkw the natural law. But as much as we don't want to admit it, we believe what we do because we first heard it. But your personal subjective experience is not the standard by ehich we peove the teuth of that belief to the average aboriginal pagan. You would need to convince him it can't be wrong because the authority that gave us this belief was divinely protected from error. Without that protection, it could be just as false as any other religion.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 17:11:57 GMT -5
I would ask for a Catholic source for this assertion. Im sure you mean something more specific. But as its stated you are in error. The idea that God personally reveals truth to us from within is a modernist error (and might even be condemned as a heresy). Christ reveals His doctrine through hearing (or the Apostles wouldn't have wasted their time preaching) and then uses His grace internally to assent to what we cannot see. The enlightment of the intellect through the ears to hear and eyes to see happens first externally before the will can assent by grace internally. The revelation comes from without; the will to assent to it comes from within.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 15, 2018 17:50:52 GMT -5
I would ask for a Catholic source for this assertion. Im sure you mean something more specific. But as its stated you are in error. The idea that God personally reveals truth to us from within is a modernist error (and might even be condemned as a heresy). Christ reveals His doctrine through hearing (or the Apostles wouldn't have wasted their time preaching) and then uses His grace internally to assent to what we cannot see. The enlightment of the intellect through the ears to hear and eyes to see happens first externally before the will can assent by grace internally. The revelation comes from without; the will to assent to it comes from within. I didnt ask for your opinion...I asked for a Catholic source that states your assertion. If God doesnt personally reveal truth to us (I dont mean "new revelations" I mean simple Truths) Then there is no point in having a personal faith at all. And please dont slap the wet fish on the table a shout modernism. PROVE IT or dont say it. That really bugs me when YOU dont understand what Im saying so you just accuse modernism. Sloppy...and insulting.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 11:20:33 GMT -5
Ok, you're getting too excited in this simple discussion. I came here to discuss, not to argue. Not everything is an attack on you. No one is slapping fish down and accusing you of anything. No one is insulting you. No one is attacking you. No one is condescending to you. No one is attacking your person. A little bit less defensiveness goes a long way. Until then, I'm out.
|
|