Can non-Catholics explain what the Rosary focuses on?

[jim1130]

"jim1130:

As for the Bible: What is the origin of the Bible?

The Church!

Sorry, had to answer that. I don’t know if you wanted JC to answer that. I couldn’t resist.

I did want to see if JC could answer that, although I suspect JC’s answer regarding the origin of the Bible would be “the Holy Spirit wrote it" without any further elucidation.

 

[JCPeacekeeper]

As for the Bible: What is the origin of the Bible?

I am aware that you will say the RC Church gave us the bible, if I am wrong, let me know what the RC Church believes.

Old Testament: Long before the RC Church came into existence the Old Testament canon had been determined.

New Testament: This canon began emerging during the lifetime of the jewish apostles. The RC Church did not give us the canon scripture. They simply confirmed what was already accepted as cannonical.

Here is my question to the Catholic Church, why did you add the Apocrypha to the Old Testament 1,500 years (in 1546) after it was canonized.

This is the answer - Because the RC Church did not have scriptural support for such docterines as praying for the dead, justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone they needed to make it look right in the bible, thus the Apocrypha needed to be added.

The Apocrypha is not inspired, it is not quoted from or acknowledged in the New Testament.

The most daming evidence to the Apocrypha is that Jesus himself endorsed the old testament canon, stating that he had come to fulfill all that the law and prophets had said (Luke 24:25-27)

The bottom line is that we have the Bible and you either believe all of it or none of it. Satan has over the years tired to prevert the truth and lead people astray. He is the master deciever. How many things that go directly against the inspired word of God will it take before you will see the light?
The Bible never changes and it will not lead you down a false path. “Take heed that no man decieve you.” John 24:4

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

"Question Presented for Further Discussion:

As for the Bible: What is the origin of the Bible?

I am aware that you will say the RC Church gave us the bible, if I am wrong, let me know what the RC Church believes.

Old Testament: Long before the RC Church came into existence the Old Testament canon had been determined.

New Testament: This canon began emerging during the lifetime of the jewish apostles. The RC Church did not give us the canon scripture. They simply confirmed what was already accepted as cannonical.

Here is my question to the Catholic Church, why did you add the Apocrypha to the Old Testament 1,500 years (in 1546) after it was canonized.

This is the answer - Because the RC Church did not have scriptural support for such docterines as praying for the dead, justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone they needed to make it look right in the bible, thus the Apocrypha needed to be added.

The Apocrypha is not inspired, it is not quoted from or acknowledged in the New Testament.

The most daming evidence to the Apocrypha is that Jesus himself endorsed the old testament canon, stating that he had come to fulfill all that the law and prophets had said (Luke 24:25-27)

The bottom line is that we have the Bible and you either believe all of it or none of it. Satan has over the years tired to prevert the truth and lead people astray. He is the master deciever. How many things that go directly against the inspired word of God will it take before you will see the light?

The Bible never changes and it will not lead you down a false path. “Take heed that no man decieve you.” John 24:4

Where do we start with this one?

I’ve counted at least 8 errors contained in this text. And the things that are correct are nearly distorted beyond recognition.

 

[JCPeacekeeper]

Where do we start with this one?

I’ve counted at least 8 errors contained in this text. And the things that are correct are nearly distorted beyond recognition.

Show Me

 

[LilyM]

Show Me

Just for one - the canon of the OT was NOT settled pre-Christ. Not until the council of Jamnia in AD 80 in fact. That’s why there’s all the debate about Greek (Septuagint) v Hebrew canons of the OT and which was more prevalent at the time of Christ. The issue was far from settled.

Second - the Apocrypha added in 1546? Don’t make me laugh! There are clear papal and conciliar documents going all the way back to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage - the fourth or fifth centuries - that specifically mention the so-called Apocrypha as canonical.

The Orthodox even recognise MORE books as canonical than the RCC, have done since before the schism of the 1000s, so don’t give me spin about the RCC adding ANYTHING in the 1500s. It was all already there.

And I do believe Martin Luther was talking about REMOVING a fair few books from the canon - from the NT as well as the OT, mind you - prior to 1546.

 

[jmcrae]

As for the Bible: What is the origin of the Bible?

I am aware that you will say the RC Church gave us the bible, if I am wrong, let me know what the RC Church believes.

Old Testament: Long before the RC Church came into existence the Old Testament canon had been determined.

Although it seems as though the Jews had no authority to close their canon of Scripture (since they changed it later) there were two normative canons in the time of Christ and the Apostles: the 46-book version familiar to Catholics, which was used by the Pharisees (who found evidence for life after death in books such as Maccabees and Tobit), and the five-book Mosaic canon which was used by the Saducees (who didn’t believe in life after death.)

Later, in about the year 100, after all of the Apostles had departed from the earth, the Jews came up with what we now call the Palestinian canon, which is the 39-book canon that today is familiar to Protestants. Notice that, since it didn’t come into being until after the death of the last Apostle, we assume that Christ and the Apostles must have used the 46-book canon (the one that Catholics still use) that preceded the development of the 39 book canon.

New Testament: This canon began emerging during the lifetime of the jewish apostles. The RC Church did not give us the canon scripture. They simply confirmed what was already accepted as canonical.

While it’s true that the Gospels and most of the letters of Paul were in continuous use right from the start, books such as James, Hebrews, Revelation, I Clement, Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas, among others, were in dispute right up until the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), in the late 300s. The canon of the New Testament promulgated locally by these three Councils was then (after a thorough investigation) promulgated to the universal Church by Pope St. Innocent 1 some time between 400 and 405 AD.

Here is my question to the Catholic Church, why did you add the Apocrypha to the Old Testament 1,500 years (in 1546) after it was canonized.

A better question might be, Why did the majority of Protestantism switch to the Palestinian canon of the Old Testament in 1829 AD.? (Protestants were also using the 46-book Old Testament up until 1829 AD.)

This is the answer - Because the RC Church did not have scriptural support for such docterines as praying for the dead, justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone they needed to make it look right in the bible, thus the Apocrypha needed to be added.

I suspect you have been reading the fictional works of Lorrain Boettner, or some else derivative material based on his works, such as the comic books of Jack Chick, etc. A real scholar would not make such an obvious error.

The Apocrypha is not inspired, it is not quoted from or acknowledged in the New Testament.

So you say, but Matthew himself quotes from the “Apocryphal” version of Isaiah in his Nativity narrative, which even Protestants will hear read out over the next few weeks coming up.

The most daming evidence to the Apocrypha is that Jesus himself endorsed the old testament canon, stating that he had come to fulfill all that the law and prophets had said (Luke 24:25-27)

Which would exclude not only Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, and Judith, but also Esther, Daniel, the Psalms, the Book of Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes - but there would be no reason not to include I and II Maccabees, or Baruch, which are all books of prophecy.

The bottom line is that we have the Bible and you either believe all of it or none of it.

This, I agree with.

Satan has over the years tired to prevert the truth and lead people astray. He is the master deciever. How many things that go directly against the inspired word of God will it take before you will see the light?

One might ask you the same question.

The Bible never changes and it will not lead you down a false path. “Take heed that no man decieve you.” John 24:4

Right back at ya.

Why do you not use the Old Testament that was used by Christ and the Apostles, instead of an altered version that first came out more than 60 years after Christ’s Ascension into Heaven - and that wasn’t used by anyone calling themselves Christians, for another ~1700 years?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Just for one - the canon of the OT was NOT settled pre-Christ. Not until the council of Jamnia in AD 80 in fact. That’s why there’s all the debate about Greek (Septuagint) v Hebrew canons of the OT and which was more prevalent at the time of Christ. The issue was far from settled.

Second - the Apocrypha added in 1546? Don’t make me laugh! There are clear papal and conciliar documents going all the way back to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage - the fourth or fifth centuries - that specifically mention the so-called Apocrypha as canonical.

The Orthodox even recognise MORE books as canonical than the RCC, have done since before the schism of the 1000s, so don’t give me spin about the RCC adding ANYTHING in the 1500s. It was all already there.

And I do believe Martin Luther was talking about REMOVING a fair few books from the canon - from the NT as well as the OT, mind you - prior to 1546.

Good job, LilyM.

JCPeacekeeper, there were so many assertions made in your post, it was almost dizzying to read through. You, in one post, stated some verison of about 60% of all the arguments I hear against Catholicism.

I would love to reply to your post.

LilyM has already done an excellent job responding to some critical errors that we both believe you’ve posted already.

Since this is a thread on the Rosary, perhaps you could start a new thread which states in point-form what you disagree about Catholicism in general. Then we can start to examine your claims more accurately and begin the process of dialogue more formerly.

I’m sure that many Catholics here along with LilyM and myself would love to peacefully exchange some thoughts on this matter with you.

Sound fair?

 

[jim1130]

Jim1130:

As for the Bible: What is the origin of the Bible?

JCPeacekeeper:

I am aware that you will say the RC Church gave us the bible, if I am wrong, let me know what the RC Church believes.

Old Testament: Long before the RC Church came into existence the Old Testament canon had been determined.

New Testament: This canon began emerging during the lifetime of the jewish apostles. The RC Church did not give us the canon scripture. They simply confirmed what was already accepted as cannonical.

Here is my question to the Catholic Church, why did you add the Apocrypha to the Old Testament 1,500 years (in 1546) after it was canonized.

This is the answer - Because the RC Church did not have scriptural support for such docterines as praying for the dead, justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone they needed to make it look right in the bible, thus the Apocrypha needed to be added.

The Apocrypha is not inspired, it is not quoted from or acknowledged in the New Testament.

The most daming evidence to the Apocrypha is that Jesus himself endorsed the old testament canon, stating that he had come to fulfill all that the law and prophets had said (Luke 24:25-27)

The bottom line is that we have the Bible and you either believe all of it or none of it. Satan has over the years tired to prevert the truth and lead people astray. He is the master deciever. How many things that go directly against the inspired word of God will it take before you will see the light?
The Bible never changes and it will not lead you down a false path. “Take heed that no man decieve you.” John 24:4

Since it appears you accepted our accurate interpretation of Matthew 6:7 and Luke 11:27-28 presented to you then perhaps you would be interested in this: **“The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture” **by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church. It is a little lengthy, but it would answer all the questions you posed.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/francisdesales.html

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I suspect you have been reading the fictional works of Lorrain Boettner, or some else derivative material based on his works, such as the comic books of Jack Chick, etc. A real scholar would not make such an obvious error.

If you read his profile his home page is one Mike Gendron. Yes all he is is another Lorrain Boettner regurgitator. I am familar with him. He was recommended to my fiance and I when we were considering converting to Catholicism.

This is from his testimony.

As a devout Catholic, I faithfully participated in religious rituals and received the sacraments to merit God’s grace and to avoid the fires of hell.

Later he says:

This enabled me to quickly obtain great wealth and recognition but it also led me into a hedonistic, pleasure-seeking lifestyle. I was corrupted by deceitful desires and had given myself over to sensuality, with a continual lust for more BTW he wasnt revering to being Catholic doing this to him but his business ventures… Just thought I would make that clear

And

Each time I entered the Catholic Church I saw Jesus hanging on a cross but I never knew why he had to die.

I hate to do this, but did he really sound like the devout Catholic that he makes himself out to be? Does a devout Catholic live a “hedonistic life” or not know why Jesus died on the Cross? When I first read this I wasnt Catholic yet, but what it made me think was, “if this man was Catholic for over 30 years and says he is so knowledgable about Catholicism, why the need to lie about it?”

BTW here is his testimony: pro-gospel.org/02/fc-021.php

Awhile ago he also had a very nasty letter about the death of John Paul II and how he is now in his rightful place and that all he did was decieve millions Here is a fine quote from the article:

Clearly this man was blinded by the prince of this world and never saw the light of the gospel or the glory of Christ. I mourn the death of this man, not for the reason the world mourns, but because he rejected Jesus as God’s only provision for his sins. I also have a solemn compassion for those who blindly followed this pope and his man-centered religion. My heart is painfully burdened to see so many “professing” Christians unable to discern truth from error and genuine Christianity from its counterfeit.

And also

One thing is certain - the pope knows the truth now. I believe he is experiencing what the rich man in Luke 16 endured. Both of them dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in splendor every day. When the rich man died and found himself tormented in the flames of Hades, he begged the Father to send someone to tell his family the truth so they would repent and not end up in the same place. The pope may now be making the same request.

pro-gospel.org/01/ea-027.php

Anyways if you want to get an idea where he will be going just give Mike’s site a look.

God bless

 

[jmcrae]

If you read his profile his home page is one Mike Gendron. Yes all he is is another Lorrain Boettner regurgitator. I am familar with him. He was recommended to my fiance and I when we were considering converting to Catholicism.

Ah, yes - another one of those “devout Catholics” who obviously never paid any attention to the words of the Mass, to the words he both said and heard in Confession, and never knew what he was praying in Morning and Evening prayers every day of his life.

I hate to do this, but did he really sound like the devout Catholic that he makes himself out to be? Does a devout Catholic live a “hedonistic life” or not know why Jesus died on the Cross? When I first read this I wasn’t Catholic yet, but what it made me think was, “if this man was Catholic for over 30 years and says he is so knowledgable about Catholicism, why the need to lie about it?”

Yes, I’ve read a similar testimony from Richard Bennett, supposedly a former Catholic priest who somehow managed to get through Seminary, yet “never read the Bible,” despite the minimum requirement to memorize the Gospels.

What kind of a priest never reads the Bible? Makes you wonder what the heck he was reading from at Daily Mass and in his Divine Office. (Playboy magazine, maybe? ) If he was a bad priest, that’s certainly not the Church’s fault, though.

And bad Catholics aren’t the Church’s fault, either. If he didn’t know why Christ died, then he just wasn’t paying attention at Mass.

I don’t know who these people think they’re fooling - maybe somebody who has no clue about his Catholic faith and hasn’t been to Mass in 20 years could be fooled, but someone who has ever spent any length of time with a priest would know right away that priests read the Bible five or six times a day, and anybody who has ever glanced at the headings in the Missal knows that you can’t have Mass without reading from the Scriptures.

 

[cazayoux]

That verse is very clear. Don’t create “much speaking” by repitition. God’s Word says it’s vain. But do what you want. I’ll believe the Word and only the Word.

believers!

In my reading I’ve run across a couple of pieces of scripture that might show you that repitition doesn’t have to be vain repetition.

Look at Psalm 136. Twenty Six verses repeat the same ending “for his faithful love endures for ever.”
You must agree that the Palms are not displeasing to God.

I was reading different verses that mention the Eucharist and ran across Acts 2:42 about the early Christian community.
“These remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers.”
This seems to indicate that there were a set of prayers to be prayed faithfully.
The verse has a very different connotation than if it had just said “and to pray”.

Would you consider that it’s possible that not all repitition is ‘vain’ repetition?

michel