Some basic Catholic beliefs.

[polonius]

These have been described as the basic beliefs of Catholics, although also true for some other Christian groups.

• The Bible is the inspired, error-free, and revealed word of God.

However, the Bible contains numerous errors. Perhaps a most obvious one is the date of Jesus birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died about 4 B.C. Luke claims that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Roman census of Judea.

• Baptism, the rite of becoming a Christian, is necessary for salvation — whether the Baptism occurs by water, blood, or desire.

The necessity of Baptism claim had its origin with St. Augustine who used a Latin mistranslation of Paul’s “Romans.� This contained the infamous “in quo� which lead to the reasoning that everyone was born with the guilt of Adam’s “Original sin� and hence were damned to hell unless baptized.

• God’s Ten Commandments provide a moral compass — an ethical standard to live by.

One of any number of moral codes.

• The existence of the Holy Trinity — one God in three persons.

Catholics embrace the belief that God, the one Supreme Being, is made up of three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Trinity story (ie Three coequal persons in God) had to be developed to cope with the conflict with Jewish law “Hear O Israel, the Lord is one.�

Jesus began to be considered God in the early 80 AD’s by Christians leading to their be anathematized by Jews and excluded from the Jewish synagogues as apostates.

[polonius]

Moderator Intervention

Thread needs a question for debate.

Rules
C&A Guidelines

RESPONSE: You are right. I goofed again. Sorry. I'll try to be more careful.

The above question pretty much summarizes the issue.

A follow-up question - How many irreformable (infallible) Catholic teachings are there?

Actually, I can cite many. But since Vatican II, the Catholic church has been moving away from claims of infallible and therefore unchangeable teachings. except two: The Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception the two left following Vatican 2 which curiously don't meet the requirements for infallibility.

“But there is a hierarchy among church teachings; certain doctrines are considered more foundational than others. The most important of these are dogmas. Dogmas by definition are considered to be infallible, free of error, and central to the faith, and so must be believed by all Catholics. The Trinity, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the full humanity and divinity of Christ are all dogmas. Dogmas are defined either by the world’s bishops in communion with the pope (at an ecumenical council) or by the pope when he formally proclaims an infallible teaching (which has only happened twice)� From a US Catholic article.

[MarysSon]

I totally did.

That's fine, but Paul didn't. Paul was talking about tradition as opposed to Scripture.

Peter didn't write 2 Peter.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 does.

I thought the Catechism reflected official Church doctrine.

I'll go down your list of errors, one-by-one . . .

First of all - if you DID read my post - we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Secondly - it doesn't matter of Paul referred to his writings as Scripture.
SCRIPTURE itself calls them "Scripture".

Thirdly, Whether or not YOU believe Peter to be the author of 2nd Peter is irrelevant.
It is STILL inspired Scripture and refers to Paul's letters as "Scripture."

Additionally - 2 Thess. 2:15 NEVER states that Tradition "trumps" Scripture or vice versa.
It states that they are BOTH equally binding.

Finally - the Catechism of the Catholic Church NEVER makes the claim that Tradition "trumps" Scripture either.
That is a fairy tale of YOUR making . . .

[MarysSon]

Moderator Intervention

Thread needs a question for debate.

Rules
C&A Guidelines

RESPONSE: You are right. I goofed again. Sorry. I'll try to be more careful.

The above question pretty much summarizes the issue.

A follow-up question - How many irreformable (infallible) Catholic teachings are there?

Actually, I can cite many. But since Vatican II, the Catholic church has been moving away from claims of infallible and therefore unchangeable teachings. except two: The Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception the two left following Vatican 2 which curiously don't meet the requirements for infallibility.

“But there is a hierarchy among church teachings; certain doctrines are considered more foundational than others. The most important of these are dogmas. Dogmas by definition are considered to be infallible, free of error, and central to the faith, and so must be believed by all Catholics. The Trinity, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the full humanity and divinity of Christ are all dogmas. Dogmas are defined either by the world’s bishops in communion with the pope (at an ecumenical council) or by the pope when he formally proclaims an infallible teaching (which has only happened twice)� From a US Catholic article.[/quote]
A brief answer from catholicanswers.com:

"The Church has not yet compiled a list of all infallible teachings or dogmatic definitions. However, all of the teachings you name are infallible.

Some of them—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—have been infallibly taught by a definition of the extraordinary magisterium (i.e., in a definition of a pope or an ecumenical council). Others—the male priesthood, the intrinsic evil of abortion and the deliberate killing of innocents—are infallibly taught, without a definition, by the Church’s ordinary magisterium.

Tests for whether a definition has been made include: (a) if a pope is writing, does he use the phrase “I define�? and (b) if a council is writing, does it use the phrase “let him be anathema�? If either of these is the case, it’s probably an infallible definition, especially as this language has been used in recent centuries. There are other ways popes and councils can issue definitions, but these are phrases commonly used to do so."

[MarysSon]

Moderator Intervention

Thread needs a question for debate.

Rules
C&A Guidelines

RESPONSE: You are right. I goofed again. Sorry. I'll try to be more careful.

The above question pretty much summarizes the issue.

A follow-up question - How many irreformable (infallible) Catholic teachings are there?

Actually, I can cite many. But since Vatican II, the Catholic church has been moving away from claims of infallible and therefore unchangeable teachings. except two: The Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception the two left following Vatican 2 which curiously don't meet the requirements for infallibility.

“But there is a hierarchy among church teachings; certain doctrines are considered more foundational than others. The most important of these are dogmas. Dogmas by definition are considered to be infallible, free of error, and central to the faith, and so must be believed by all Catholics. The Trinity, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the full humanity and divinity of Christ are all dogmas. Dogmas are defined either by the world’s bishops in communion with the pope (at an ecumenical council) or by the pope when he formally proclaims an infallible teaching (which has only happened twice)� From a US Catholic article.

A brief answer from catholicanswers.com:

"The Church has not yet compiled a list of all infallible teachings or dogmatic definitions. However, all of the teachings you name are infallible.

Some of them—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—have been infallibly taught by a definition of the extraordinary magisterium (i.e., in a definition of a pope or an ecumenical council). Others—the male priesthood, the intrinsic evil of abortion and the deliberate killing of innocents—are infallibly taught, without a definition, by the Church’s ordinary magisterium.

Tests for whether a definition has been made include: (a) if a pope is writing, does he use the phrase “I define�? and (b) if a council is writing, does it use the phrase “let him be anathema�? If either of these is the case, it’s probably an infallible definition, especially as this language has been used in recent centuries. There are other ways popes and councils can issue definitions, but these are phrases commonly used to do so."[/quote]

By the way - your quote above in RED is completely false.

[Difflugia]

I'll go down your list of errors, one-by-one . . .

I'll do the same for you.

First of all - if you DID read my post - we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, if I believed what you wrote (or if I got tired of you simply making the same assertions larger and bluer rather than actually justifying those assertions) then we wouldn't be having this conversation. if I didn't read it, I couldn't have responded to it.

Secondly - it doesn't matter of Paul referred to his writings as Scripture.
SCRIPTURE itself calls them "Scripture".

Unless you can point to a Catholic doctrine indicating that authorial intent doesn't matter, I disagree. I mean, I still disagree, but in that case I'll be disagreeing with the Catholic Church instead of just you.

Thirdly, Whether or not YOU believe Peter to be the author of 2nd Peter is irrelevant.
It is STILL inspired Scripture and refers to Paul's letters as "Scripture."

But if Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, then it was written before 2 Peter. It may have been, anyway. If the author of 2 Thessalonians wasn't claiming that Pauline epistles were Scripture, then including "...or a letter from us..." doesn't somehow elevate all of Scripture to parity with "tradition."

Additionally - 2 Thess. 2:15 NEVER states that Tradition "trumps" Scripture or vice versa.
It states that they are BOTH equally binding.

It doesn't mention Scripture at all. It says "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions" and then goes on to describe how those traditions were transmitted: orally and in letters.

Finally - the Catechism of the Catholic Church NEVER makes the claim that Tradition "trumps" Scripture either.
That is a fairy tale of YOUR making . . .

The paragraph I quoted is from the Catechism.

[MarysSon]

Unless you can point to a Catholic doctrine indicating that authorial intent doesn't matter, I disagree. I mean, I still disagree, but in that case I'll be disagreeing with the Catholic Church instead of just you.

Once again - SCRIPTURE calles Paul's letters "Scripture".
Nothing YOU say will change that . . .

But if Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, then it was written before 2 Peter. It may have been, anyway. If the author of 2 Thessalonians wasn't claiming that Pauline epistles were Scripture, then including "...or a letter from us..." doesn't somehow elevate all of Scripture to parity with "tradition."

It doesn't matter if 2 Peter was written 1000 years BEFORE or AFTER Paul's letters. It is the Holy Spirit who proclaimed Paul's letters to be "Scripture".
You should know this . . .

It doesn't mention Scripture at all. It says "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions" and then goes on to describe how those traditions were transmitted: orally and in letters.

And the "Letters" are SCRIPTURE, according to the Holy Spirit.(2 Pet. 3:16).

The paragraph I quoted is from the Catechism.

NOWHERE does that paragraph state that Tradition "trumps" Scripture.
It places Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture - as the Scriptures themselves do (2 Thess. 2:15).

There is NOTHING you can do to change this . . .

[polonius]

Difflugia wrote:

(quote) It doesn't matter if 2 Peter was written 1000 years BEFORE or AFTER Paul's letters. It is the Holy Spirit who proclaimed Paul's letters to be "Scripture".
You should know this . . .

And the "Letters" are SCRIPTURE, according to the Holy Spirit.(2 Pet. 3:16).

Difflugia wrote:

The paragraph I quoted is from the Catechism.

RESPONSES:

How do you prove that "the Holy Spirit proclaimed Paul's letters to be scripture, and where do you find that claim? Let me guess, in 2 Peter?

(My friend Ralph is writing epistles too and he says they will be scripture. Should we believe him?

What if he claims that the Holy Spirit said Ralph's letters are scripture? Should we believe the claim? Incidentally, I don't believe reliable scripture scholars claim that the Apostle Peter wrote Peter II.

[MarysSon]

RESPONSES:

How do you prove that "the Holy Spirit proclaimed Paul's letters to be scripture, and where do you find that claim? Let me guess, in 2 Peter?

(My friend Ralph is writing epistles too and he says they will be scripture. Should we believe him?

What if he claims that the Holy Spirit said Ralph's letters are scripture? Should we believe the claim? Incidentally, I don't believe reliable scripture scholars claim that the Apostle Peter wrote Peter II.

And you're STILL not getting it.

First of all - your friend Ralph can make ANY claim He wants about his writings being "Scripture" - but they're NOT. They've never been declared canonical by the Church as the 27 Books of the NT were. Besides - the HOLY SPIRIT says that Paul's Letters ARE Scripture (2 Peat. 3:16).

As for WHO wrote 2 Peter - it doesn't matter if it wasn't Peter. In fact - it doesn't matter WHO wrote it because the Church declared it as part of the Canon along with the other 26 Books of the NT in the 4th century.
Neither YOU nor your friend Ralph have the God-given Authority to make such a claim . . .

[polonius]

Difflugia wrote:

(quote) It doesn't matter if 2 Peter was written 1000 years BEFORE or AFTER Paul's letters. It is the Holy Spirit who proclaimed Paul's letters to be "Scripture".
You should know this . . .

And the "Letters" are SCRIPTURE, according to the Holy Spirit.(2 Pet. 3:16).

Difflugia wrote:

The paragraph I quoted is from the Catechism.

RESPONSES:

How do you prove that "the Holy Spirit proclaimed Paul's letters to be scripture, and where do you find that claim? Let me guess, in 2 Peter?

What if 2 Peter claimed that the Holy Spirit said my friend Ralph's letters are scripture? Should we believe the claim? Incidentally, I don't believe reliable scripture scholars claim that the Apostle Peter wrote Peter II.

See Raymond Brown and Bart Erhman, reliable Church historians.

I personally find it amazing that some Catholics and many fundamentalists claim that the scripture is always accurate. The Catechiam too.

Incidently do you believe scripture proves that there are two Jesus'? One was born before the death of Herod in 4 BC (See Matthew 2) and the other Jesus was born during the 6AD Roman census of Judea (see Luke 2).

Claiming scriptural support (even if true) does not establish accuracy of any such claims. But sometimes the gullibility of the reader.

[polonius]

Difflugia wrote:

(quote) It doesn't matter if 2 Peter was written 1000 years BEFORE or AFTER Paul's letters. It is the Holy Spirit who proclaimed Paul's letters to be "Scripture".
You should know this . . .

And the "Letters" are SCRIPTURE, according to the Holy Spirit.(2 Pet. 3:16).

Difflugia wrote:

The paragraph I quoted is from the Catechism.

RESPONSES:

How do you prove that "the Holy Spirit proclaimed Paul's letters to be scripture, and where do you find that claim? Let me guess, in 2 Peter?

What if 2 Peter claimed that the Holy Spirit said my friend Ralph's letters are scripture? Should we believe the claim? Incidentally, I don't believe reliable scripture scholars claim that the Apostle Peter wrote Peter II.

See Raymond Brown and Bart Erhman, reliable Church historians.

I personally find it amazing that some Catholics and many fundamentalists claim that the scripture is always accurate. The Catechiam too.

Incidently do you believe scripture proves that there are two Jesus'? One was born before the death of Herod in 4 BC (See Matthew 2) and the other Jesus was born during the 6AD Roman census of Judea (see Luke 2).

Claiming scriptural or appeals to the catechismal support (even if true) does not establish the accuracy of any such claims. But sometimes the gullibility of the reader.