A question for Catholics

[jmcrae]

Another point to keep in mind is that the term “Scripture” simply means, “writings.” The word itself makes no assumptions about holiness or lack of holiness in the writings themselves.

If St. Peter were living today, he could write a homily about the “scriptures” of Hugh Hefner. Calling them “scripture” would in no way assume that they were part of a canon of holy books - it simply means “stuff that was written down by Hugh Hefner.”

St. Peter would most likely write, “Avoid having anything to do with the scriptures of Hugh Hefner,” and then all the anti-Catholics would say, “ooooh, he excluded scripture from the Bible; that’s censorship; ooooh, baaaad Catholic Church!!” :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Because it is like some scholar of English literature compiling and publishing a standard edition of Shakespear’s plays, and then claiming that he “worte Shakespear” or “gave us Shakespear” (and therefore no one else has any right or claim to it unless authorized and sacntioned by him).

zerinus

No it is not, Zerinus. Again, your doofus approach betrays your real motive on these threads: to spread Mormonism like so much Mayonnaise.

Your analogy is a non sequitor, but at least you’re consistent to your arguments FOR the Book of Mormon being “the foolishness of the Gospel.”

 

[JonathanKinsman]

The Catholic Church neither “wrote” the Bible nor “gave us” the Bible. The Bible was written by the prophets and Apostles of God under the inspiration of heaven. And guess what—they were all Jews! It is ludicrous and absurd to claim otherwise.

zerinus

Gentle Readers, what the Zerinus group wants everyone to believe is:

The Bible as it exists today existed PRIOR to its collection by Catholic bishops and its acknowledgement for Christians by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD.

And where (you might ask) did that Bible exist in its full form (OT and NT all at one time)?

In the labyrinthan mind of Zerinus.

O those sneaky Jewish prophets! I didn’t know that Micah was alive when Acts and the Pauline letters were written!

I didn’t know that contrary to Jewish scholars themselves, the Bible was already in existence. The Rabbis made a canon!!

This is TOO good! Hey, Zerinus, start a thread and call it,

"The World and What You Should Believe, according to Zerinus."

---

You haven’t the decency to answer questions about your sources (hhmmmm, I wonder why) so maybe you should find a soapbox from where you can play Mormon Prophet.

One request, Z-man, I am STILL WAITING for that list of pre-Koranic Arabic literature that you claimed was in existence.

Where is it??? The testimony of the Holy Spirit told me that you don’t know what you’re talking about on this issue.

Quit bashing Catholics. Quit bashing common sense. Quit the outlandish and goofy assertions about early Church history:

YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to speak on these subjects with anything other than prefacing your statements with “I think that…” or “It is my opinion…”

Ask a “bishop” to sign on, at least we can get some consistency in the Mormon argument from someone with a little more experience and knowledge.

 

[Nan_S]

When some people think of Vatican City, what they immediately picture is something like a wealthy kingdom, complete with palatial living accommodations for the pope and chests of gold tucked away in every corner, not to mention the fabulous collection of priceless art and artifacts. Looking at it that way, it’s easy to see how some people would become indignant at what they think is an ostentatious and wasteful show of wealth.

But the truth is something quite different. While the main buildings are called the “Vatican Palace,” it wasn’t built to be the lavish living quarters of the pope. In fact, the residential part of the Vatican is relatively small. The greater portion of the Vatican is given over to purposes of art and science, administration of the Church’s official business, and management of the Palace in general. Quite a number of Church and administrative officials live in the Vatican with the pope, making it more like the Church’s main headquarters.

I feel that I must interject a Catholic admission here. Some of the lavishly decorated buildings that now house the Vatican museum actually were built to be papal living quarters in the 15th and 16th century for Alexander VI and Julius II. In that period the Borgia and de’ Medici families were major papal patrons, and several were either senior Vatican officials or held the papacy. (Alexander VI was a Borgia.)

The excessively elaborate artwork paralleled the fashion of secular monarchs who were their contemporaries. Consider the castles built in England, Spain, Germany, and France. But resentment over theologically questionable methods used to fund this excess was one of the (numerous) sparks that started the Protestant reformation.

Needless to say, the post-reformation popes abandoned the shameful excesses of the Borgias and de’ Medicis and removed themselves to humbler apartments. Still, the artwork was not the sort that could be sold, assuming you could even find anyone to buy it. The buildings were turned into museums, libraries, and meeting halls.

And the popes did still need large buildings for conciliar meetings. If you ever saw the photographs taken during the second Vatican Council, you’d understand. What were the popes supposed to do anyway? Sell the decorated buildings and tax the laity again so as to build new undecorated ones? I don’t think so.

Nan

 

[kellie]

Because it is like some scholar of English literature compiling and publishing a standard edition of Shakespear’s plays, and then claiming that he “worte Shakespear” or “gave us Shakespear” (and therefore no one else has any right or claim to it unless authorized and sacntioned by him).

zerinus

If this scholar had not COMPILED the plays of Shakespeare, how would anyone know of Shakespeare?

People would know of Shakespeare as this scholar GAVE him to us.

This scholar would be very learned and would know how to sift through all of Shakespeares works to determine what were to be included in this COMPILED edition.

If this COMPILED edition then became the standard BOOK for all the world to learn Shakespeares plays, then YES the scholar has claim to it.

 

[zerinus]

If this scholar had not COMPILED the plays of Shakespeare, how would anyone know of Shakespeare?

People would know of Shakespeare as this scholar GAVE him to us.

This scholar would be very learned and would know how to sift through all of Shakespeares works to determine what were to be included in this COMPILED edition.

If this COMPILED edition then became the standard BOOK for all the world to learn Shakespeares plays, then YES the scholar has claim to it.

I don’t dispute that the scholar has made a valuable contribution. But there are several things that he cannot do:

1 He cannot say that he “wrote” Shakespeare.

2 He cannot claim the exclusive right to comment on Shakespeare, or to determine what is true Shakespeare and what is not.

3 He cannot claim that a better scholar than himself might not arise in the future who might do a better job than him of editing and compiling Shakespeare.

4 He cannot claim that he has exhausted all Shakespearean plays, and that an unknown play by Shakespeare might not be discovered in the future that he might have missed.

zerinus

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t dispute that the scholar has made a valuable contribution. But there are several things that he cannot do:

1 He cannot say that he “wrote” Shakespeare.

Actually, since the entire NT was written by either the Apostles or their disciples and since they are the foundation of the church – then, Yes, the church CAN claim to have wrote it because it was written by it’s members.

2 He cannot claim the exclusive right to comment on Shakespeare, or to determine what is true Shakespeare and what is not.
​

Given the fact that scripture writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is that same Spirit that is guiding the church in all truths, the church CAN claim exclusive right to comment on the bible and determine what is true and what is not.

3 He cannot claim that a better scholar than himself might not arise in the future who might do a better job than him of editing and compiling Shakespeare.
​

A better scholar would still have to be guided by the same Spirit of truth and since there can only be one truth possible, this “better scholar” would be brought to the SAME understanding.

4 He cannot claim that he has exhausted all Shakespearean plays, and that an unknown play by Shakespeare might not be discovered in the future that he might have missed.
​

For that reason, the Catholic faith is made up of not only what is found in the bible but also on the traditions passed down to us by the Aposltes and early church fathers.​

 

[zerinus]

Actually, since the entire NT was written by either the Apostles or their disciples and since they are the foundation of the church – then, Yes, the church CAN claim to have wrote it because it was written by it’s members.
Given the fact that scripture writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is that same Spirit that is guiding the church in all truths, the church CAN claim exclusive right to comment on the bible and determine what is true and what is not.
A better scholar would still have to be guided by the same Spirit of truth and since there can only be one truth possible, this “better scholar” would be brought to the SAME understanding.
For that reason, the Catholic faith is made up of not only what is found in the bible but also on the traditions passed down to us by the Aposltes and early church fathers.

You would be almost right, except for one proviso. I know you don’t like me to say it; but it is an essential tenet of our faith. With all due respect to the Catholic Church, we believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and the Catholic Church no longer possesses the divine authority and the ecclesiastical legitimacy that it once possessed. Therefore the logic of your argument when applied to the subject at hand, which is the canon of scripture, breaks down at that point.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

You would be almost right, except for one proviso. I know you don’t like me to say it; but it is an essential tenet of our faith. With all due respect to the Catholic Church, we believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and the Catholic Church no longer possesses the divine authority and the ecclesiastical legitimacy that it once possessed. Therefore the logic of your argument when applied to the subject at hand, which is the canon of scripture, breaks down at that point.

zerinus

I’ve got a question for you:

1 Timothy 3:2 says “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” and 1 Tim 3:12 says “Let deacons be the husband of one wife…” How is this reconciled with polygamy, and with Mormon doctrines allowing a man to be sealed to more than one wife?

(For sake of discussion, leave the current status of US law aside. The question presumes that a Mormon man could have a legal second marriage after being widowed or divorced, and be sealed to both wives. Alternatively, it also presumes that the Mormon bishop could be living in another country where polygamy is legal.)

I apologize to the OP. I know this is off-topic, so I won’t get into a running debate about the issue here.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

I’ve got a question for you:

1 Timothy 3:2 says “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” and 1 Tim 3:12 says “Let deacons be the husband of one wife…” How is this reconciled with polygamy, and with Mormon doctrines allowing a man to be sealed to more than one wife?

(For sake of discussion, leave the current status of US law aside. The question presumes that a Mormon man could have a legal second marriage after being widowed or divorced, and be sealed to both wives. Alternatively, it also presumes that the Mormon bishop could be living in another country where polygamy is legal.)

I apologize to the OP. I know this is off-topic, so I won’t get into a running debate about the issue here.

Nan

I have already answered that question in these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1794159&postcount=302

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1795253&postcount=311

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

I have already answered that question in these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1794159&postcount=302

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1795253&postcount=311
zerinus

Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, it’s OK for a Mormon bishop to have more than one wife because Paul’s proclamations were merely non-binding guidelines.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, it’s OK for a Mormon bishop to have more than one wife because Paul’s proclamations were merely non-binding guidelines.

Well, hey - the guy was a Catholic, after all. That religion went apostate, you know …

(Just kidding!! Sorry; I couldn’t resist.)

 

[zerinus]

Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, it’s OK for a Mormon bishop to have more than one wife because Paul’s proclamations were merely non-binding guidelines.

Not exactly. Please note the following:

1. It is not OK for a Mormon bishop to have more than one wife because it is against the law of the land, and we intend to abide by the law of the land.
2. It is OK for any Mormon, not just a bishop, to be sealed to more than one deceased wife in the temple because the Lord has permitted it, and the law of the land does not prohibit it.
3. You have judged correctly that “Paul’s proclamations were non-binding guidelines”. However, our belief in the doctrine of polygamy (and later discontinuance of the practice), was not based on what Paul or anybody else wrote, but on revelations we have received directly from the Lord in our time.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

…our belief in the doctrine of polygamy (and later discontinuance of the practice), was not based on what Paul or anybody else wrote, but on revelations we have received directly from the Lord in our time.
zerinus

Do I read this correctly that the “later discontinuance of the practice” (of polygamy) was based on revelations Mormons have rec’d directly from the Lord in our time?

Could you quote the words of the Lord for us on this? Or at least link us to the Lord’s document?

I’m also curious as to why the Mormon sects which still practice polygamy, such as the FLDS (Warren Jeffs) do not apparently accept the revelations of which Zerinus speaks.

 

[Allweather]

… we believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and the Catholic Church no longer possesses the divine authority and the ecclesiastical legitimacy that it once possessed. Therefore the logic of your argument when applied to the subject at hand, which is the canon of scripture, breaks down at that point.

zerinus

You see, Mormons do not understand the meaning of the word “apostasy,” nor can they spell it.

 

[Allweather]

Well, hey - the guy was a Catholic, after all. That religion went apostate, you know …

(Just kidding!! Sorry; I couldn’t resist.)

Not only that! According to Zerinus, Paul must be taken with a “grain of salt.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

Jokerz

The first Synod regarding the Canon of Scripture was in 382 A.D in the Council of Rome so to answer your question it was initiated in 382 A.D by Pope Damasus.

If you want to know why the other Councils were held you need to look what the Council discuss.

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

As stated above, Pope Innocent ratified the Canon of Scripture.

The final Synod that closed the Canon of Scripture is the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. in response to the Protestant Reformation in 1517 A.D by Former Augustinian Monk, Martin Luther.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, the Catholics love their myths, don’t they! Unfortunately for them, that is nothing more than a myth. “Wishful thinking” is another way to describe it. The Catholic Church gave us no such thing. The Bible itself tells us who gave us the Bible. It is God who gave us the Bible; and He did so by inspiring His chosen prophets and Apostles to write them:

The Catholic Church did give us the Bible. History shows it. LDS on the other hand contain many erroneous claims which cannot be supported by historical facts.

The Council of Rome in 382 A.D, Council of Hippo in 392 A.D, and Council of Carthage in 396 A.D.

Find a source outside how the Bible was made, and you’ll be lead directly to these Councils.

Second, Mormonism rely on King James Bible written in 1610 A.D, and was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

The Douy Rheims Bible was written before the King James Bible and this English translation was written in 1609 A.D.

Both these books were translated from St. Jerome’s Latin translation called the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was translated from both Septuagint and the Masoretic Text or the Tanakh.

The Tanakh is an acronym that identifies the Hebrew Bible.

History has show that during the time of Jesus Christ, there was no official canon of Scripture or Tanakh. It was not until the Jewish Leaders themselves were struggling with their own Text during the rise of Christianity.

As we both know, the early Church were Jewish, but soon the Gentile Christians outnumbered the Jewish converts to Christianity. Many of these Gentiles were Greeks or spoke Greek. The Septuagint were widely used by the Christians.

The Jews felt the need to defined what books they should use in their worship and so in the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D, they accept only Hebrew Text as inspired, or the Tanakh.

The 72 Books of the OT was widely used by them and it was commonly used in the early Christian liturgy. It was not until some Gnostics use books claimed to be written by the Apostles were used.

Many of these books are the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Gospels of Judas, etc. So the Council of Rome was gathered. Pope Damasus sent the ball rolling, as St. Jerome as his secretary. St. Jerome translated the Tanakh and the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate.

On another note, the KJV omitted the Septuagint text since Martin Luther feel that it didn’t fit his doctrines. The Book of Maccabees contains a prayer for the dead but that is another discussion.

Now ask yourself. How did the English Translation of the came about? What source did KJV got its Translation from?

The Answer is the Latin Vulgate, which the Catholic Church gave us. This is historical fact my friend. It is NOT MYTH~!!!

 

[Nan_S]

On another note, the KJV omitted the Septuagint text since Martin Luther feel that it didn’t fit his doctrines. The Book of Maccabees contains a prayer for the dead but that is another discussion.

The Greek OT books from the Septuagint books actually were included in the 1611 KJV. These books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. The KJV translation of the Septuagint books is still available today. I just got one for my priest for Christmas.

Martin Luther didn’t like them because 2 Macc 12:39-46 talks about prayer and offerings for the dead that their sins might be forgiven, which he personally opposed. (The practice was being abused during Luther’s time by corrupt church officials who used it to raise money.) Luther couldn’t justify rejecting just 2nd Maccabees, but he did find support from other anti-Catholic reformers in a “return to our Jewish roots” campaign for defining the entire group of Greek OT books as an unjustified addition to Old Testament scripture.

What Luther and his supporters apparently didn’t know, or chose to ignore, was that the Jewish rejection of the Greek OT books was part of an anti-Christian effort, long after Christianity was well-established.

See these articles:
How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (best explanation)
Old Testament Canon (Early Church Fathers’ position on the canon)

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Now ask yourself. How did the English Translation of the came about? What source did KJV got its Translation from?

The Answer is the Latin Vulgate, which the Catholic Church gave us. This is historical fact my friend.

The preface to the KJV states that it was “translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty’s special command”. By the “original tongues” I understand to mean Hebrew and Greek, not Latin; and by the “former translations” I understand to mean earlier English translations mainly, of which there had been quite a few.

zerinus