1 members (1 invisible),
251
guests, and
87
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,593
Members6,168
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
Originally posted by Theist Gal: Originally posted by wild goose: [b]The Church desperately needs to re-visit the Bible before the next Catechism is published, in my humble estimation.
I guess that says it all ... [/b]I guess that says it all  ... unless you subscribe to a complete disregard for the Witness of Scripture Today, TG. I shouldn't think so, sister. But it sure sounds like that to me... so are you saying Scripture could be consulted in the 1st 4 centuries, while Tradition was being formed... but shan't be consulted ever again? God forbid, yes! 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
p.s. TG, I'm not that easily dismissed! 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30 |
Originally posted by wild goose: Originally posted by Theist Gal: [b] Originally posted by wild goose: [b]The Church desperately needs to re-visit the Bible before the next Catechism is published, in my humble estimation.
I guess that says it all ...  [/b] I guess that says it all ...
unless you subscribe to a complete disregard for the Witness of Scripture Today, TG. I shouldn't think so, sister. But it sure sounds like that to me...
so are you saying Scripture could be consulted in the 1st 4 centuries, while Tradition was being formed... but shan't be consulted ever again? God forbid, yes! [/b]I suspect that Theist Gal was thinking that God gave the Holy Scriptures to the Church through the Church, and that the Holy Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted by the Church from within the Church. There simply is no right to a personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. WG�s novel and unique personal interpretations of the Holy Scriptures in attempts to make Scripture mean whatever he wishes it to mean exemplify the dangers of placing one�s own meaning on God�s Word. I must again ask Wild Goose to preface each and every comment he wishes to make about the Holy Scriptures with �It is my personal belief that�� if he wishes to continue to participate here. It is quite clear from his posts that WG�s personal beliefs about what the Holy Scriptures mean are very far from the correct teaching given by the Church.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by wild goose: p.s. TG, I'm not that easily dismissed! Glenn Close? is that you?? :rolleyes:
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by Administrator: I suspect that Theist Gal was thinking that God gave the Holy Scriptures to the Church through the Church, and that the Holy Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted by the Church from within the Church. There simply is no right to a personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Thank you, Administrator! Yes, it is a little difficult to discuss something when you don't know what authority the person accepts and doesn't accept. If the final authority is the Scriptures, the next question is: whose interpretation? 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
Originally posted by Administrator: Originally posted by wild goose: [b] Originally posted by Theist Gal: [b] </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by wild goose: <strong>The Church desperately needs to re-visit the Bible before the next Catechism is published, in my humble estimation.
I guess that says it all ...  [/b] I guess that says it all ...
unless you subscribe to a complete disregard for the Witness of Scripture Today, TG. I shouldn't think so, sister. But it sure sounds like that to me...
so are you saying Scripture could be consulted in the 1st 4 centuries, while Tradition was being formed... but shan't be consulted ever again? God forbid, yes! [/b]I suspect that Theist Gal was thinking that God gave the Holy Scriptures to the Church through the Church, and that the Holy Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted by the Church from within the Church. There simply is no right to a personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. WG�s novel and unique personal interpretations of the Holy Scriptures in attempts to make Scripture mean whatever he wishes it to mean exemplify the dangers of placing one�s own meaning on God�s Word. I must again ask Wild Goose to preface each and every comment he wishes to make about the Holy Scriptures with �It is my personal belief that�� if he wishes to continue to participate here. It is quite clear from his posts that WG�s personal beliefs about what the Holy Scriptures mean are very far from the correct teaching given by the Church. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">John, What you say is alright up to a point. It can be safely said that the Church gave is the Scriptures and it can be safely said that the Scriptures are a gift to the Church. The fact of the matter is that the Scriptures and the Church grew up together. On the easily worn out example of slavery, the Whole of the Scriptures have not one prohibitive word to say... yet the Church would not countenance an acceptance of slavery today! So we see that what the Church may teach may not agree with or take from the words from Scripture any major supporting documentation. Your point is good... as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough. And you're too intelligent to not know otherwise, my brother in Christ. And on the point that I should preface all my statements here with 'I believe this or that'... I couldn't possibly say what anyone else believes, now could I! I've not stated that anyone here is wrong; I've not said the Church is wrong to have taught certain things. Just as the Church changed Her mind with regard to slavery... so the Church may change Her mind on other things. This is inevitable. Why is there a problem pointing out what is inevitable? blessing, wg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
... the Holy Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted by the Church from within the Church. There simply is no right to a personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. this person does interpret by and from within, thanks... with many other Catholic and Orthodox clergy and laity. blessing, wg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 129
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 129 |
Are we getting into a Sola Scriptura discussion here ?
antonius
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30 |
Originally posted by wild goose: ... the Holy Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted by the Church from within the Church. There simply is no right to a personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. this person does interpret by and from within, thanks... with many other Catholic and Orthodox clergy and laity. blessing, wg WG, you most certainly do not interpret Scripture by and from within the Church. Authoritative teaching on Scripture comes only through the entire Church speaking as one voice (the bishops in council led by the Successor of Peter). What you are doing is ignoring the voice of the Church led by the Spirit and attempting to make the Holy Scriptures say whatever it is you wish them to say. Admin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
the entire Church speaking as one voice as I said earlier John, I look forward to the next time the Church speaks; I remain hopeful! However, even when Cardinal Ratzinger was the top man in the Congregation, not all agreed with him... and that was made clear by further pronouncements from his Congregation. One voice would be good indeed, please God! bless, wg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
Originally posted by antonius: Are we getting into a [b]Sola Scriptura discussion here ?
antonius [/b] Hello antonius, Did you want to? blessing, wg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
Originally posted by Theist Gal: Originally posted by wild goose: [b] p.s. TG, I'm not that easily dismissed! Glenn Close? is that you?? :rolleyes: [/b]Surely you mean the rabbit-boiling character that Glenn Close portrayed, right!?! 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
Dear Wild Goose you said:
"Just as the Church changed Her mind with regard to slavery... so the Church may change Her mind on other things. This is inevitable."
I say: The Church never changed her mind with regard to slavery, but rather made no comment. You seem to forget that the alternative to slavery was and still is death. An ugly death.
Slavery existed throughout history and still does. Now what does one do if one cannot support their children? Should they allow them to starve or sell them?
Also if there are tens of thousands of captives that one conquers in a war and that will always pose a threat what should one do? Sell them to an ally or kill them?
How can the Church condemn one thing when the alternative is just as evil.
Zenovia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
... but rather made no comment. Sorry zenovia, But that is too much like what the Church did during the reign of Hitler in Nazi Germany. It just won't do. It is from evil; human evil, pure and simple and... ugly as hell. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is off to Eaglefields for the G8 in Scotland and the Archbishop of Zimbabwe is raising his voice against the tyranny there... the Church does have a few brave ones. Always has and always will. Sadly, their opposite number exists as well-- 'good' folk who stand by and let evil have its way. grace and peace, sister, wg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217 |
Originally posted by Zenovia: Dear Wild Goose you said:
"Just as the Church changed Her mind with regard to slavery... so the Church may change Her mind on other things. This is inevitable."
I say: The Church never changed her mind with regard to slavery, but rather made no comment. You seem to forget that the alternative to slavery was and still is death. An ugly death.
Slavery existed throughout history and still does. Now what does one do if one cannot support their children? Should they allow them to starve or sell them?
Also if there are tens of thousands of captives that one conquers in a war and that will always pose a threat what should one do? Sell them to an ally or kill them?
How can the Church condemn one thing when the alternative is just as evil.
Zenovia Dear Zenovia, I seriously don't think you've stopped to think about, or feel (with the compassion of Our Lord), what you posted. The Church of God is commissioned to say a bold "No!!!" to slavery and war. We don't just sit back and wring our hands while evil flourishes! God forbid! blessing, wg
|
|
|
|
|