Q & A from 19th century catechism

[MoreCoffee]

Q. Have all heretics pretended to prove their peculiar doctrines from Scripture ?

A. All, without exception. The Arians denied the con- substantiality of the Word, depending on that passage of St. John xiv.: " My Father is greater than I." The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, on these words, Romans viii. 26: " The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings." The Manicheans pretended to prove, that Christ became man only in appearance, by Philip, ii. 7 : " Taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," The Nestorians fancied they proved, that in Christ there were two persons, by Colos. ii. 9 : " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead CORPORALLY." The Eutychians cited John i., " And the Word was made flesh," to prove that Christ had only one nature ; and the Pelagians founded their denial of original sin, on Ezech. xviii. 20: " The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,"

 

[MoreCoffee]

The source for the first

CONTROVERSIAL CATECHISM:
OR,
PROTESTANTISM REFUTED,
AND
CATHOLICISM ESTABLISHED.​

 

[Josiah]

Q. Have all heretics pretended to prove their peculiar doctrines from Scripture ?

A. All, without exception. The Arians denied the con- substantiality of the Word, depending on that passage of St. John xiv.: " My Father is greater than I." The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, on these words, Romans viii. 26: " The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings." The Manicheans pretended to prove, that Christ became man only in appearance, by Philip, ii. 7 : " Taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," The Nestorians fancied they proved, that in Christ there were two persons, by Colos. ii. 9 : " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead CORPORALLY." The Eutychians cited John i., " And the Word was made flesh," to prove that Christ had only one nature ; and the Pelagians founded their denial of original sin, on Ezech. xviii. 20: " The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,"

Is it better to follow the RCC/LDS approach of self insisting that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and that whatever self alone says ergo is what God should have said but chose not to, and so whatever self alone says is just to be swallowed whole, in docilicity, as if self = God, so that the issue of Truth is held as irrelevant, stupid ??????? See the current edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination number 87 and "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie.


No one denies that self appointing self as the arbiter in whether self is in concord with Scripture is bad polity. But even THAT absurdity is superior to the RCC/LDS/"cult" approach of self insisting that self can't be wrong and ergo just swallow whole whatever self alone currently says with docility and shut up - laying the issue of truth aside as irrelevant in the sole, individual, exclusive, unique case of self alone. It's better than the LDS or RCC or Pelagius foundationallly insisting, "I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I insist that I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong - why can't you get that through your think skull - so just swallow WHATEVER I' alone currently say (officially, dogmatically anway) and shut up."



From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." Note how the individual RC Denomination itself insists that all are to just swallow whatever it itself alone says.... all are to lay aside that AWFUL, irrelevant, absurd, Protestant point about Truth and rather, in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that - just do what the RCC itself alone says all are to do: just swallow whole whatever it itself currently says, laying aside the issue of truth.

The Catholic Church itself says in the current, latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." Of course, Jesus never said anything to or about the individual RC Denomination or any other individual denomination or person, but the RCC and LDS and every "cult" known to me all spin this so that what Jesus said was, "He who docilicly swallows WHATEVER the RCC or LDS or _______ says is ergo agreeing with Me, so just toss aside the issue of truth and SUBMIT to the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER of _____ to lord it over you as the Gentiles do, and free the ___________ denomination from the issue of truth since truth only matters when OTHERS speak, not when the _______ denomination does."


Yes, ALL reject the rubric of self insisting that self alone is the sole and infallible arbiter of whether the current views of self are in accord with Scripture. While the egoism and individualism of that is absurd.... while that rubric is absurd..... even more absurd is the RCC/LDS rubric of tossing out the whole issue of truth and replacing it with a demand for docilic submission to the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER of it itself individually and thus swallow whole whatever IT itself alone currently says just cuz it does and it demands that.



Thank you



- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], how exactly is self-interpreting the bible not a "self" thing?

 

[Josiah]

Is it better to follow the RCC/LDS approach of self insisting that self alone is infallible/unaccountable and that whatever self alone says ergo is what God should have said but chose not to, and so whatever self alone says is just to be swallowed whole, in docilicity, as if self = God, so that the issue of Truth is held as irrelevant, stupid ??????? See the current edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination number 87 and "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie.


No one denies that self appointing self as the arbiter in whether self is in concord with Scripture is bad polity. But even THAT absurdity is superior to the RCC/LDS/"cult" approach of self insisting that self can't be wrong and ergo just swallow whole whatever self alone currently says with docility and shut up - laying the issue of truth aside as irrelevant in the sole, individual, exclusive, unique case of self alone. It's better than the LDS or RCC or Pelagius foundationallly insisting, "I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I insist that I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong - why can't you get that through your think skull - so just swallow WHATEVER I' alone currently say (officially, dogmatically anway) and shut up."



From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." Note how the individual RC Denomination itself insists that all are to just swallow whatever it itself alone says.... all are to lay aside that AWFUL, irrelevant, absurd, Protestant point about Truth and rather, in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that - just do what the RCC itself alone says all are to do: just swallow whole whatever it itself currently says, laying aside the issue of truth.


The Catholic Church itself says in the current, latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." Of course, Jesus never said anything to or about the individual RC Denomination or any other individual denomination or person, but the RCC and LDS and every "cult" known to me all spin this so that what Jesus said was, "He who docilicly swallows WHATEVER the RCC or LDS or _______ says is ergo agreeing with Me, so just toss aside the issue of truth and SUBMIT to the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER of _____ to lord it over you as the Gentiles do, and free the ___________ denomination from the issue of truth since truth only matters when OTHERS speak, not when the _______ denomination does."


Yes, ALL reject the rubric of self insisting that self alone is the sole and infallible arbiter of whether the current views of self are in accord with Scripture. While the egoism and individualism of that is absurd.... while that rubric is absurd..... even more absurd is the RCC/LDS rubric of tossing out the whole issue of truth and replacing it with a demand for docilic submission to the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER of it itself individually and thus swallow whole whatever IT itself alone currently says just cuz it does and it demands that, tossing out the issue of truth.




Thank you



- Josiah



.

how exactly is self-interpreting the bible not a "self" thing?

Nice attempt at evasion..... Read what you posted, read my reply above.


This thread is not about interpretation (exegesis) it's about arbitration. But of course, you CANNOT, as a docilic Catholic, condemn self alone insisting that self alone is the SOLE, authoritative interpreter of Scripture since that's a foundational insistence of your denomination (see the current edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination itself for it itself #85 where it claims that it permits only it itself alone, uniquely, to authoritatively interpret Scripture). You cannot condemn self insisting only self can authoritatively interpret Scripture without being a heretic in the RCC, without destorying one of the foundational points it makes for it itself alone. Yes - it permits others (even a Mormon) to read Scripture NON-AUTHORITATIVELY (the interpretation thus being meaningless) but IT only allows ONE to do so authoritatively - it itself. So, my Catholic friend, if you now realize you shouldn't have raised the issue of arbitration and wish to divert it into interpretation and who/what may authoritatively do so, you will immediately paint yourself into another corner where you either must denounce your own denomination or - again - try to change the topic. Oh, how I remember my Catholic days when I realize what you should be....



Now, back to the issue of arbitration....... How is the RCC/LDS approach better than the one the uncredited catechism in the op (and everyone else) condemns? See post # 2



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nice attempt at evasion..... Read what you posted ....

I read many of your posts but sometimes skip over the material that is repeated and the material that is unimportant personal opinion. When you are ready to address my question I'll have a look at what you say. In the meantime I am not re-reading the vitriolic comments from some of your previous posts.

 

[Josiah]

I read many of your posts but sometimes skip over the material that is repeated and the material that is unimportant personal opinion. When you are ready to address my question I'll have a look at what you say. In the meantime I am not re-reading the vitriolic comments from some of your previous posts.

... thanks for the admission; it explains a LOT.

And yes, if you won't consider other views you won't grow or learn or have your own views shown to be wrong. But that only confirms the point I made (which you admit you chose to not read, you thought best for you to be exposed to).

And of course, I DID address the issue you raised - you just admitted you thought it best to not read it; friend, you can't rebuke me for your choice to not read or consider what I post. Where truth is irrelevant, well.....


No one is going to defend self insisting self alone is the sole arbiter in whether self is right (what the quote from the Catechism you chose to not identify rebukes) EXCEPT for the RCC, LDS and additionally every cult known to me (a point you choose to evade, which as a Catholic, you are forced to do). But the condemnation in that quote deals with ARBITRATION - self concluding self is right (what all condemn except for the RCC, LDS and additionally every cult known to me, a point you choose to evade, which as a Catholic, you are forced to do).



Now, back to the issue of arbitration....... How is the RCC/LDS approach better than the one the uncredited catechism in the op (and everyone else) condemns? See post # 2



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... thanks for the admission; it explains a LOT. ...

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], it explains only that having read your post once I am not keen to read it again.

 

[visionary]

In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.

The original post mentioned a different catechism in which is written

Q. Have all heretics pretended to prove their peculiar doctrines from Scripture ?

A. All, without exception. The Arians denied the con- substantiality of the Word, depending on that passage of St. John xiv.: " My Father is greater than I." The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, on these words, Romans viii. 26: " The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings." The Manicheans pretended to prove, that Christ became man only in appearance, by Philip, ii. 7 : " Taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," The Nestorians fancied they proved, that in Christ there were two persons, by Colos. ii. 9 : " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead CORPORALLY." The Eutychians cited John i., " And the Word was made flesh," to prove that Christ had only one nature ; and the Pelagians founded their denial of original sin, on Ezech. xviii. 20: " The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,"