Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A) it's acceptable to believe that Scripture is infallible, but it's unacceptable to believe that the Church is infallible
or
B) it's not acceptable to believe that anything is infallible; neither Scripture nor the Church
Side note: yes, doctrine would be a more appropriate term
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
A. Neither one are correct.
B. Correct.
B is the correct understanding because humans are fallible, period.
To be fair, centuries of Christians had no clue what books were in the Bible, or could even read it, because it wasn't in their language. They had to trust a priest to tell them what it said. And, as you've indicated to us, the Catholic Church isn't real big on following it.
Many people couldn't read period - which is one of many reasons why they didn't own bibles. Also - until the printing press and mass production of books, bibles were very, very expensive and most people couldn't afford to own one - or any book, for that matter.
The Catholic Church IS "real big on following" the bible - it just doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura, which is also not mentioned in the bible, ironically. Most of the Mass is directly from the bible. https://aleteia.org/2017/08/12/who-s...bible-at-mass/
Many people couldn't read period - which is one of many reasons why they didn't own bibles. Also - until the printing press and mass production of books, bibles were very, very expensive and most people couldn't afford to own one - or any book, for that matter.
The Catholic Church IS "real big on following" the bible - it just doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura, which is also not mentioned in the bible, ironically. Most of the Mass is directly from the bible. https://aleteia.org/2017/08/12/who-s...bible-at-mass/
Yes. I grew up Catholic. I know that Scripture is read in Mass. I've heard Catholic apologists say that the Mass is based on the book of Revelation. I've also heard a Catholic Bishop say that he's "not a Scripture guy." I've heard apologists say that Scripture is one of the 3 legs on the 3 legged stool, magisterium, and Tradition being the other 2. I didn't mean to suggest that they ignore it completely, but the church only views it as 1/3 of the equation.
Yes it does. Mary and Joseph were already betrothed when the angel came to Mary. Why would she ask "how can this be since I am a virgin" if she expected to soon have sexual relations with Joseph?
I guess my biggest question would be, why on earth would she have taken such an oath? Would she somehow be defiled by having relations with the man to whom is was married? Is there something wrong with intimate relations between married couples? I jus don't get the point of it all. It's like Catholicism teaches that she was somehow holier by not have relations with her husband.
I guess my biggest question would be, why on earth would she have taken such an oath? Would she somehow be defiled by having relations with the man to whom is was married? Is there something wrong with intimate relations between married couples? I just don't get the point of it all. It's like Catholicism teaches that she was somehow holier by not having relations with her husband.
All their protestations to the contrary, they really do consider sexual relations "dirty," as in unholy, Katz. It is only tolerated between married couples for procreative purposes. A sad commentary on our human sense of morality.
I guess my biggest question would be, why on earth would she have taken such an oath?
Her family group (and Joseph's) might have been affiliated with the Essenes.
Certainly the angel called her " κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē) " - affirming that she was likely already highly consecrated to God!
Her family group (and Joseph's) might have been affiliated with the Essenes.
Certainly the angel called her " κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē) " - affirming that she was likely already highly consecrated to God!
Oh for Pete's sake, CCCyou. I can accept that virginity may have been necessary PRIOR to Jesus, but there is no conceivable way for it to have been possible AFTER the birth of Jesus through the birth canal!!!
Oh for Pete's sake, CCCyou. I can accept that virginity may have been necessary PRIOR to Jesus, but there is no conceivable way for it to have been possible AFTER the birth of Jesus through the birth canal!!!
The Scriptures are not about literal, physical, individual things! They are steeped in symbolism
Even/especially the New Testament is highly symbolic …. You should know this!
I guess my biggest question would be, why on earth would she have taken such an oath? Would she somehow be defiled by having relations with the man to whom is was married? Is there something wrong with intimate relations between married couples? I jus don't get the point of it all. It's like Catholicism teaches that she was somehow holier by not have relations with her husband.
It's the same principle as fasting or giving up any good thing as a sacrifice for our love of God. Nuns, monks, and [most] Priests take vows of celibacy. It's not because sex is bad. On the contrary, it's because sex is good that we can forego the pleasures of it for the purpose of the Kingdom.
A married woman is not defiled by having sex with her husband, as that is a proper thing to do for her state in life. However, if one had taken a vow of celibacy, then to engage in sexual activity would be a defilement as they have been consecrated to God.
We do believe that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. However, that doesn't follow that there's anything wrong with marriage. Everyone has their own unique calling and gifts. I'm married myself and couldn't imagine taking a vow of celibacy, as it's not my calling. I have a great respect for those who can and do follow that call, as it is no doubt extremely difficult.
Marriage and having children comes along with its own set of sacrifices and difficulties, and it's not for everyone. The Catholic standards for marriage is a high calling as well.
The Scriptures are not about literal, physical, individual things! They are steeped in symbolism
Even/especially the New Testament is highly symbolic …. You should know this!
What I know and the levels of understanding I operate at do not preclude my responding to those who I know are NOT operating at those levels, Meerkat. That is the spiritual problem Jesus faced communicating with our extremely carnal ancestors who were terrified of Spirits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
B is the correct understanding because humans are fallible, period.
