I wonder sometimes

I see, so true Catholics reject the Roman Catholic Church? Let me guess you reject Vatican II and want the mass to be done in Latin like it used to be. How do you reconcile the fact that the current pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church with your belief that popes are infallible?

2 Maccabees 15:39
Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. - Douay-Rheims Bible

The author claims that he did his best, which denies that the book is divinely inspired because divine inspiration depends on God who is perfect not on man who is not. If the author denies divine inspiration (and therefore perfection), it is contradiction of reality to declare the book to be divinely inspired. A divinely inspired book would not deny that it was inspired. This refutes the infallibility of the church of Rome who claimed it to be inspired and the claim that the Scripture teaches the false doctrine of purgatory since the author of the book denies that his book qualifies as Scripture.

Author	Comment
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 464 (11/7/02 8:06 pm) Reply	Re: reply I see, so true Catholics reject the Roman Catholic Church? Let me guess you reject Vatican II and want the mass to be done in Latin like it used to be. How do you reconcile the fact that the current pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church with your belief that popes are infallible? 2 Maccabees 15:39 Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. - Douay-Rheims Bible The author claims that he did his best, which denies that the book is divinely inspired because divine inspiration depends on God who is perfect not on man who is not. If the author denies divine inspiration (and therefore perfection), it is contradiction of reality to declare the book to be divinely inspired. A divinely inspired book would not deny that it was inspired. This refutes the infallibility of the church of Rome who claimed it to be inspired and the claim that the Scripture teaches the false doctrine of purgatory since the author of the book denies that his book qualifies as Scripture.
Taemir Arketon Private First Class Posts: 23 (11/7/02 9:06 pm) Reply	Re: reply I may need to read that passage in context, but as quoted I don't think it neccessarily denies divine inspiration, but the author is rather skeptical of his historical treatment. History at this time is quite primitive and many ancient historians try to explain the difficulty in piecing the history together. As an example, think of the atheists that cry "contradictory!" when the Synoptic Gospels put the events of Jesus' life in different order. Well it's not contradictory because ancients don't get bent out of shape over chronology like moderns do. (I think only Luke makes a claim on the order). I might be persuaded that Maccabees is not divinley inspired, but that passage isn't going to do it.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 466 (11/7/02 9:26 pm) Reply	Re: reply "History at this time is quite primitive and many ancient historians try to explain the difficulty in piecing the history together." That's only a problem if the author is writing solely by his own effort. As soon as you factor in the omniscience of God with divine inspiration, that ceases to be a problem. The author admits that the problem applies in his case, thus divine inspiration does not apply in his case.
Taemir Arketon Private First Class Posts: 24 (11/7/02 11:10 pm) Reply	Re: reply This would be true if the author wrote knowing he was or was not inspired and, as far as I can tell, very few authors of the books make explicit claims or were aware of inspiration. In the passage here he is just stating that he is going to approximate the historical data. It as if I was going to document the height of everyone in the class rounded to the nearest inch. If I say "John is 5 foot, 5 inches" when to be precise he's 5 foot, 5 and a quarter inches, I'm not lying when I say the former. So I think the passage from Maccabees neither proves or disproves inspiration. So the question becomes, how do you prove (or disprove) inspiration, or is it soley a matter of faith? Edited by: Taemir Arketon at: 11/7/02 11:16:33 pm
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 467 (11/7/02 11:24 pm) Reply	Re: reply In the Old Testament it is very common for Prophets to say "thus says the LORD", which shows that they knew were the Word was coming from. Even if we assume that the person being inspired is not aware of being inspired, the person doing the inspiration (i.e. the Holy Spirit) is quite aware of what He is doing and would not inspire the human writer through whom He is working to make a statement saying that he tried his best but he could be wrong because that would contradict what Jesus said about the Spirit guiding people into all truth.
Taemir Arketon Private First Class Posts: 25 (11/8/02 11:02 am) Reply	Re: reply If we look at the NRSV version it says "If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine and mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment, so also the STYLE of the story delights the ears of those who read the work." He is talking about his writing ability and presentation. I don't see that he is doubting his ability to get the facts right. Edited by: Taemir Arketon at: 11/8/02 11:24:16 am
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 468 (11/8/02 11:52 am) Reply	Re: reply KJV: [38] And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. [39] For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone; and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end. NAB: 38 If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do. 39 Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end. Seems that it is his story telling ability that he is questioning, which once again is only a problem if the story be told originates with him and would not be a problem if divine inspiration were in affect.
Crusader2002 Private Posts: 9 (11/8/02 12:51 pm) Reply	reply Once again I won't be able to answer as much as I wish, since the Holy Bible is no "pocket-book" and it takes time (which is scarce) to consult and elaborate the required answers. Even though, I will try to answer some things: *Quote:* I'm completely baffled by this part. I assume RCC is Roman Catholic Church No! No! No! There has been an equivocation. If you pay attention to what I said, how can it be that the Roman Catholic has its roots on something that is going to appear 1500 years after it? It would be anachronous and absurd. By RCC i meant "Renova��o Carism�tica Cat�lica - in portuguese" (www.rccbrasil.org.br) or "Catholic Charismatic Renewal - in english" (www.catholic-center.rutge...tic.html). I thought in english it was RCC too, my mistake. I should have explained back earlier to avoid ambiguity. *Quote:* The author claims that he did his best, which denies that the book is divinely inspired because divine inspiration depends on God who is perfect not on man who is not. Who said your interpretation is the correct one? To know who is inspired and who is not, we would need to have a "spiritual vision", what we humans don't. "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom III, 4) Therefore we are not supposed to believe in other man's interpretation, and this is why we are to follow the Pope, who is the only one that has the power given by Christ to interpret the Bible. In order to consider the doctrine of purgatory wrong, you would need to consider the Proverbs, John, Matthew (and other books I don't remember right now)as non-inspired too. I hope you don't get this deep in heresy as you have already by accusing the Maccabees to be non-inspired. And once more I will repeat the protestant riddle: "...about the canon of the Bible: Where is the list of the books of the Bible (which books are inspired and which are not)? Is it inside the Bible? Or is it outside it?" "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (Jhn XXI, 25) Therefore there are things that Jesus did that aren't in the Bible, so the Bible is not the only source to know Christ, it is necessary the Tradition. *Quote:* So the question becomes, how do you prove (or disprove) inspiration, or is it soley a matter of faith? The guarantee we have to know which books are inspired and which are not, is exactly the use of the Pope's infallibiliy in the first centuries. Back then, there were hundreds of books to choose from, and after some time (through a Concil, if I recall correctly), the Pope assured us (using the power of the keys) which books should be in the Bible and which were apocryphas. By reading the Bible (the closest to the Vulgata the better) the protestants indirectly follow the Pope, what is a funny thing to notice. Since I have almost completely answered the riddle, I will follow to another one: "Between the death of Christ and the first publication of the Gospel, there was a GAP of 30 years. What was there in terms of Christianism during this gap? According to protestantism, everything is in the Bible and nothing out of it, therefore there existed Christianism during Christ's life, desappearing with His death, and then reappearing with the First Gospel. Therefore a GAP in terms of Christianism." (what is an absurd by the way) *Quote:* Let me guess you reject Vatican II and want the mass to be done in Latin like it used to be. How do you reconcile the fact that the current pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church with your belief that popes are infallible? About the Vatican II, it was "pastoral" (as so itself says) and not infallible. It did not condemn anything (not even Russia's Communism!), which is the opposite to what concils are supposed to (that is to say what is correct and to condemn what is wrong), being, then, prone to have mistakes (I have already explained how can the Pope commit sin and yet still be infallible - see previous posts). Also, the Latin Mass was not forbidden, on the contrary, it is the only licit and valid Mass, such is written in the infallible Council of Trent (that is also why I recommend you to read the Trent's Cathecism). But this is another whole other subject and I will refrain talking much more about this part to avoid dispersion and to focus on my previous questions and statements, I am still waiting some answers or comments, mainly to this part of my first post: "...for the letter killeth..." and "...faith [cometh] by hearing..." and to the protestant riddles). In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C. P.S: Very nice defense of the Maccabees, Taemir Arketon, I congratulate you, for it seems that you are closer to the truth then the others. If you have any questions towards Catholicism, I will give priority to you.
Taemir Arketon Private First Class Posts: 26 (11/8/02 1:01 pm) Reply	Re: reply OOPS. Crusader posted just as I did so there is a little confusion here. This part is just a restatement of the Maccabbees argument. Well, this is going nowhere so let me just restate my case (you can restate if you want but I'm not going to rebut. Rebutt? sp? ) and let anyone bored enough to read this detour decide and let's move on. The author at the end of this book addresses his readers directly and says if you enjoyed my writing, great, that is what I wanted. If not, please pardon me. It takes unreasonable linguistic gymnastics to interpret this as proof against inspiration. If Maccabees is not divinely-inspired, a serious mind will look elsewhere for evidence. I wanna get Crusader back here to explain the heretical nature of the RCC 'cause I am still baffled by that. >>>>OOOPs! Never mind. We cross-posted. Edited by: Taemir Arketon at: 11/8/02 1:05:35 pm
Taemir Arketon Private First Class Posts: 27 (11/8/02 1:10 pm) Reply	Re: reply *Quote:* By RCC i meant "Renova��o Carism�tica Cat�lica - in portuguese" (www.rccbrasil.org.br) or "Catholic Charismatic Renewal - in english" (www.catholic-center.rutge...tic.html). I thought in english it was RCC too, my mistake. I should have explained back earlier to avoid ambiguity. Ahh I see, we just lost something in the translation. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we can get back to the debate at hand which I completely lost my place on at this point. Maybe a new thread will help.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 469 (11/8/02 7:43 pm) Reply	Re: reply "Also, the Latin Mass was not forbidden, on the contrary, it is the only licit and valid Mass, such is written in the infallible Council of Trent (that is also why I recommend you to read the Trent's Cathecism). " I never said that it was forbidden. The pope permits that the mass be done in Latin but the dominant practice in Canada and the United States is for the mass to be done in the common language of the attendants. Care to tell me which session (and any other more specific information) of the Council of Trent, that what you say was declared?
Crusader2002 Private Posts: 10 (11/8/02 8:14 pm) Reply	reply *Quote:* ...but the dominant practice in Canada and the United States is for the mass to be done in the common language of the attendants. Care to tell me which session (and any other more specific information) of the Council of Trent, that what you say was declared? The dominant practice in the world is not even Christian! Therefore it is not because most people attend to the "common language mass" that it is correct (Even if all the 6 billion humans say that 1+1=3, this won't change the fact that 1+1=2). This is why the Latin Mass (also known as The Tridentine Mass or as Saint Pius V's Mass) is the correct one. About the passage in the Council of Trent: "CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema." (i found it in english here: history.hanover.edu/texts.../ct22.html - there is also CHAPTER VIII of this same page on the subject) Hoping to have helped, In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 470 (11/8/02 8:57 pm) Reply	Re: reply That doesn't say that the Latin mass is the only valid one. It just condemns forbidding that the mass be done in Latin. Vatican II declared that the mass should be done in the vulgar tongue but still permits it to be done in Latin.
Dualhunter Master Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 471 (11/8/02 9:33 pm) Reply	Re: reply A new thread is a good idea.
Crusader2002 Private First Class Posts: 11 (11/9/02 7:26 am) Reply	reply Indeed, if the priest does follow correctly the canon to consecrate the Host (holy bread/eucharist) the transubstantiation does happen, making the Mass valid, but not licit. The same way a Satanic Mass can be valid but will never be licit, for it is abominable. The "New Mass" is also abominable, for containing errors and sacrileges. I remember an american dictate that says "If ain't broken don't fix it", therefore there was no need to change the correct Mass that the Church have always celebrated. In corde Iesu et Mariae, R.A.C.

The Faithful Knights of Christ > Christian Discussion > I wonder sometimes
Page 1 2 3 4	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>