Catholic history is disturbing

[Realcatholicgk]

We now know Paul’s epistles to be infallible because they made the canon!

Before that, as INFALLIBLE as they obviously ARE, they were the ‘rantings’ of a man who lost his mind from killing to many Christians!

Uhm…Canon of Scriptures…hmmm…A Pope MUST have decided on the books to accept, and CLOSING the Canon!

There’s Popes everywhere!!

**
Hi Deconi,

Just because scriptures are inspired doesn’t make them infalliable. Where did you get that idea? They speak “Truths” that God want us to know and understand so he revealed them. The scriptures are onlt a part of Sacred Tradition. My post to martin below might help you understand better.

Now, about the Infalliabliity of the Pope. Actually every time a Pope declares a person a Saint he is making an infallible declaration, but in terms of ex cathedra proclamations on faith and morals it is actually a rare thing.

The dogma on papal infallibility, which has been taught since the beginning of christianty, was not formally defined until 1870 by the Vatican I Council. The Council, in union with the Pope Pius IX, declared the Dogma of infallibility.

Since 1870, the ex cathedra power of the Pope has been used only once – in 1950 with the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of Mary declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

However, It is universally agreed that Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was also an ex cathedra declaration.

Before that, there are some disagreements even among Catholic theologians as to which documents may have or may not have been ex cathedra. The Vatican has not issued any definitive list. Many of these doctuments cause no conflict in Catholic beliefs so no declaration was needed to unify Catholics to the truth.

There is a Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz who published a list in 1985. It is quoted in the book “Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium,” by Fr. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J.):

+“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449AD, on the two natures in Christ;

+Letter of Pope Agatho, 680AD, on the two wills of Christ;

+Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336AD, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

+Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653AD, condemning as heretical five propositions of Jansen;

+Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794AD, condemning as heretical seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia;

+Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854AD, defining the Immaculate Conception; and

+Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950AD, defining the Assumption of Mary.

AS I said before, only the last two are under total agreement as being ex cathedra. For those that agree that would make 7 instances. If any other Catholic know of any other lists, let me know.
On these threads I have heard upwards to 21 but that includes Magisterium documents and things that I personally wouldn’t include. They cloud the issue even more. I guess we will have to trust historians who has done the research.

Within Scriptural passages, the historical references supporting the Pope’s infallibility, including:
John 1:42,
Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name “Peter”, “Cephas”, or “Rock”)
Matthew 16:18 (“thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
John 21:15-17 (“Feed my lambs.”/“Feed my sheep.”)
Luke 22:31-32 (“confirm thy brethren”)
Acts 15:28 (“For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, …”) (“the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost”)
Matthew 10:2 (“And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,…”)
Matthew 16:19 (“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”)

PROTESTANTS SHOULD READ:
Luke 10:16 (“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”)

DD Ludwig Ott " Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5, points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles:
Mark 5:37,
Matthew 17:1,
Matthew 26:37,
Luke 5:3,
Matthew 17:27,
Luke 22:32,
Luke 24:34,
and 1 Corinthians 15:5

God Bless**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

It is interesting that you cite these three verses. Let us compare these verse in the King James Version and the Douay-Rheims.
**
Hi SyCarl,

The interesting thing is my 'trap" was set for martin not you. It wasn’t about the three verses per say but Sola Scriptura and worshiping a book, a creation of man, rather than God himself. **

As the Douay-Rheims contains that same impugned phrases as the King James Version, are we to conclude that the Douay-Rheims is also a “corrupt, distorted ,twisted, demented version of God’s word”?

**

I am not a Bible scholar, But those three verses are classically known to contain errors. That is why I picked them even though tje error is also in the catholic version. Where do you think the 47 scholars Borrowed" their text? The Catholic bible have some errors that we do not attempt to ‘explain’ or ‘change’. Think for a minute, what if God wanted the errors there for a reason? If he wanted the Bible completely error free don’t you think he could have had it written that way? IMO, God had some appartent errors so we would not do the stupid Sola Scriptura thing! But 1,600 years later. The Bible was dismantled, corrected, changes and distorted. In 1851-1855 alone there were an additional 3,800 “corrections” Like I said ,I am not a bible scholar, and I surly am not as smart as you people! But I know better than to change what had already been declared, by the proper authority, as the word of God! How foolish are some people?

I am not as smart as most of you folks, I am only a Catholic that practices his religion and knows that the Bible could not be infalliable. That defies logic and my God isn’t illlogical is yours?
Catholics have never foolishly claimed Sola Scriptura like some poor lost souls do. We realize that humans wrote the scriptures. God inspired the scriptures. Only His Catholic church is authorized to interpret or, if the HS instructs, correct the Bible. No “counterfeit”
[SIGN]
coun ter feit ‘kaunt-er-fit: to imitate or copy closely
especially with intent to deceive[/SIGN]church has that authority. If you would have went to the three links (That is what they were, you would have seen: "According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus’ text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus “on the spur of the moment” (ibid., page 99). Yet the The 2002 NKJV bible’s Preface stats that the NKJV is “the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts.” That is a lie! The 1611 KJV Erasmus’ Greek New Testament text was based upon copies of the Latin Vulgate, not on any “ancient Greek texts”. In other words, the corruption in these verses had no support in “any Greek texts” prior to 1516. As I said the Catholic church doesn’t claim the bible is infalliable, Only the Pope and the Magisterium.

OK, Sorry, but I am bored! :coffeeread: You can go read and learn. Here is a good place to start:

[latinvulgate.com/](Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side. The Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ)

Remember the Catholic version is the “Authorized Version” for Christians! If you find “any” differences Guess who is wrong?

In various printings of the King James Version of the Bible, some of the more famous (infamous) examples have been given their own names. Among them are:

The Blasphemous Comma Several editions: Part of Luke 23 reads “And there were also two other malefactors. [crucified with Jesus]” It should have read “And there were also two other, malefactors.” (Malefactors: One that has committed a crime; a criminal or an evildoer.)

“Judas Bible” 1611: This Bible has Judas, not Jesus, saying “Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray.” (Matthew 26:36)

ONE OF THE BEST: The “Wicked Bible”, “Adulterous Bible” or “Sinner’s Bible” 1631: Barker and Lucas: Omits an important “not” from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read “Thou shalt commit adultery.” The printers were fined £300 (a lifetime’s wages) and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today. (I would not be surprised if some cult of solo scriptura’s aren’t usesing these! )

“More Sea Bible” 1641 “…the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was more sea.” rather than “…the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea.” (Revelation 21:1)

“Unrighteous Bible” or “Wicked Bible” 1653: Cambridge Press: Another edition carrying this title omits a “not” before the word “inherit”, making I Corinthians 6:9 read “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?..” In addition, Romans 6:13 reads “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness into sin…” where it should read “unrighteousness”. (We have to love you protestants! )

“Printers Bible” bef. 1702: Psalm 119:161 reads “Printers have persecuted me without cause.” The first word was changed, possibly by a disgruntled typesetter, from “Princes”.

“Sin On Bible”: 1716: John 8:11 reads “Go and sin on more” rather than “Go and sin no more”.

God Bless**

 

[Deconi]

**
Hi Deconi,
Just because scriptures are inspired doesn’t make them infalliable. Where did you get that idea? They speak “Truths” that God want us to know and understand so he revealed them. The scriptures are onlt a part of Sacred Tradition. My post to martin below might help you understand better. **

Apologies, real-c. I should be mindful of the literalists among us at all times. I have argued elsewhere that Scriptures is NOT infallible, but inerrant, etc. You are correct.

My point is that St Paul’s writings, would NOT have the same regard they currently have…without the Papal ‘decree’ that numbered them among the canon.
Realcatholicgk;4545528:

Now, about the Infalliabliity of the Pope. Actually every time a Pope declares a person a Saint he is making an infallible declaration, but in terms of ex cathedra

proclamations on faith and morals it is actually a rare thing.

The dogma on papal infallibility, which has been taught since the beginning of christianty, was not formally defined until 1870 by the Vatican I Council. The Council, in union with the Pope Pius IX, declared the Dogma of infallibility.

Formal definition is not the starting point, but the illumination of what IS ALREADY THERE!

Since 1870, the ex cathedra power of the Pope has been used only once

– in 1950 with the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of Mary declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

However, It is universally agreed that Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was also an ex cathedra declaration.

Before that, there are some disagreements even among Catholic theologians as to which documents may have or may not have been ex cathedra. The Vatican has not issued any definitive list. Many of these doctuments cause no conflict in Catholic beliefs so no declaration was needed to unify Catholics to the truth.

…

Adult or infant baptism. Six day Creation or Eons of development. Books for the canon or removed from it…et al.

Disagreements among Catholic theologians matters ONLY if they cause dissention within The Church, at which point, …??? Yep. Popes decree the settlement.

The protection of Infallibility is Peter’s, ALONE!

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Apologies, real-c. I should be mindful of the literalists among us at all times. I have argued elsewhere that Scriptures is NOT infallible, but inerrant, etc. You are correct.

My point is that St Paul’s writings, would NOT have the same regard they currently have…without the Papal ‘decree’ that numbered them among the canon.

Formal definition is not the starting point, but the illumination of what IS ALREADY THERE!

Adult or infant baptism. Six day Creation or Eons of development. Books for the canon or removed from it…et al.

Disagreements among Catholic theologians matters ONLY if they cause dissention within The Church, at which point, …??? Yep. Popes decree the settlement.

The protection of Infallibility is Peter’s, ALONE!

**
Hi Deconi,
Great post until the end… Not to pick at nits. many of them here would!

[SIGN]"An absolute statement is absolutely wrong every time! "[/SIGN]

In your last remark I would have to add, the HS and the Magisterium.

Did you get the humor in my “quote” ? Some do, some don’t. **

 

[benedictus2]

**Hi Deconi, **

**Just because scriptures are inspired doesn’t make them infalliable. Where did you get that idea? They speak “Truths” that God want us to know and understand so he revealed them. The scriptures are onlt a part of Sacred Tradition. My post to martin below might help you understand better. **

**Now, about the Infalliabliity of the Pope. Actually every time a Pope declares a person a Saint he is making an infallible declaration, but in terms of ex cathedra **proclamations on faith and morals it is actually a rare thing.

The dogma on papal infallibility, which has been taught since the beginning of christianty, was not formally defined until 1870 by the Vatican I Council. The Council, in union with the Pope Pius IX, declared the Dogma of infallibility.

**Since 1870, the ex cathedra power of the Pope has been used only once **-- in 1950 with the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of Mary declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

**However, It is universally agreed that Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was also an ex cathedra **declaration.

Before that, there are some disagreements even among Catholic theologians as to which documents may have or may not have been ex cathedra. The Vatican has not issued any definitive list. Many of these doctuments cause no conflict in Catholic beliefs so no declaration was needed to unify Catholics to the truth.

There is a Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz who published a list in 1985. It is quoted in the book “Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium,” by Fr. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J.):

**+“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449AD, on the two natures in Christ; **

**+Letter of Pope Agatho, 680AD, on the two wills of Christ; **

**+Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336AD, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment; **

**+Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653AD, condemning as heretical five propositions of Jansen; **

**+Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794AD, condemning as heretical seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia; **

**+Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854AD, defining the Immaculate Conception; and **

**+Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950AD, defining the Assumption of Mary. **

AS I said before, only the last two are under total agreement as being ex cathedra. For those that agree that would make 7 instances. If any other Catholic know of any other lists, let me know.
On these threads I have heard upwards to 21 but that includes Magisterium documents and things that I personally wouldn’t include. They cloud the issue even more. I guess we will have to trust historians who has done the research.

Within Scriptural passages, the historical references supporting the Pope’s infallibility, including:
John 1:42,
**Mark 3:16 (“And to Simon he gave the name “Peter”, “Cephas”, or “Rock”) **
**Matthew 16:18 (“thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock) **
**John 21:15-17 (“Feed my lambs.”/“Feed my sheep.”) **
**Luke 22:31-32 (“confirm thy brethren”) **
**Acts 15:28 (“For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, …”) (“the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost”) **
Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,…”)
**Matthew 16:19 (“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”) **

PROTESTANTS SHOULD READ:
**Luke 10:16 (“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”) **

DD Ludwig Ott " Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5, points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles:
**Mark 5:37, **
Matthew 17:1,
**Matthew 26:37, **
**Luke 5:3, **
Matthew 17:27,
**Luke 22:32, **
**Luke 24:34, **
and 1 Corinthians 15:5

God Bless

And you said you’re not into reading?

 

[Hisalone]

**
**
Hi Martin,

You are an amazingly ill-informed individual. I wish you had promised to enter RCIA Hey, can we make that deal now? The KJV was revised many times between the date of its first unauthorized publication in 1611 and the Revised Version, around 1881, to make “correct” 3,800 “errors”. Many revisions have been published without even being labeled as "revisions. Bottom line: "The KJV bible is a corrupt, distorted ,twisted, demented version of God’s word. No more, no less.

So let me start you with three verses, you do the rest, it will take years:

Click on:

1 John 5: 7-8 ****
1 John 5: 7-8 Details
Rev 22:19 Details
Act 9:5-6" Details

To learn about some of these errors, one source is: KJV and the Textus Receptus:

Now a little history lesson for you. Remember, I am not a bible scholar. And I am not as smart as many of you people here, therefore, I can only repeat what are historical facts.

In 787 AD The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out until 1442AD, in Florence. At the Council of Florence, the “entire” Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published in 382 AD, over a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This was 100 years before the so called “Reformation”. During his translation of the Bible from Greek into German in 1536 AD, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix because in his opinion they were less than canonical. He had no authority to do such so in 1546 AD, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books at the council of Trent. That council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and had been confirmed at the councils of 393, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good or so we thought

From 1604 to 1611, King James1 had 47 protestant scholars rewrite the bible to ensure it would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. This bible wasn’t never even authorized by the Protestant church after it was finished. The KJV actually was revised many times between the date of its first publication in 1611 and the publication of the Revised Version, which was published between 1881-1885. All these early KJV revisions were published without being labeled as “revised.” Though the NKJV provides a modern English rewording of the KJV wording, the NKJV still has all of the same errors that the KJV derived from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, which is plagued with corrupt readings and also many more. Oh what a tangled web was weaved!

“The more nearly we can verify, understand, and obey Jesus’ actual words, actions, and life, the more we can cooperate with the demands (and opportunities) of his loving sacrifice, victory, and liberating salvation. These are demands that each one of us must ultimately face. With or without our cooperation, these demands and the genuine spirituality they require will increasingly compel us to “put off the old self with its habits and … put on the new self. This is the new being which God, its Creator, is constantly renewing in his own image, in order to bring you to a full knowledge of himself.” (Colossians 3:9,10 - TEV) Resistance to God’s demands - even ignorant resistance - is ultimately both futile and very uncomfortable; thus, it seems much more desirable and more efficient to participate willingly, humbly, lovingly, reverently, and understandingly. An accurate and understandable representation of especially Jesus’ and the apostles’ actual words and actions can be a big help!” - Robert Nguyen Cramer, BibleTexts.com (version 5.2.19.2)

You even have a Protestant that writes, what I would have written as a Catholi. However I would have said all versions of the KJV Bibles not just the NKJV.

CLICK ON: The NKJV Bible: Counterfeit"

Glad to be of help Martin, I hope it starts to clear your vision.

God Bless

The KJV is the version officially autorized by the Orthodox Church.

 

[SyCarl]

**

Where do you think the 47 scholars Borrowed" their text? The Catholic bible have some errors that we do not attempt to ‘explain’ or ‘change’.

God Bless**

Actually the translators of the King James Version borrowed more from William Tyndale’s version, the first in modern English, and from the Geneva Bible. Both of these versions predated the Douay-Rheims.

It should be noted that the current Douay-Rheims Bible is much different from the original. When Bishop Challoner did his revision most of his changes conformed to the King James.

But there’s another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: “In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized * Version.”*
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Please note as well that the current Catholic versions use the same textual basis as the current Protestant versions.

 

[guanophore]

The KJV is the version officially autorized by the Orthodox Church.

Hogwash!

 

[SyCarl]

While it is not the official version of the Orthodox Church, it does appear to be highly respected. After all it uses the Textus Receptus based on the Byzantine text preserved by the Orthodox Churches.

What Translation Should I Use? The answer is this: the King James Version (KJV) is the most reliable and faithful English translation,

serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

 

[Peter_J]

The KJV is the version officially authorized by the Orthodox Church. (emphasis added)

I think (name removed by moderator) and SyCarl have already done a good job of responding to this post, but I would just like to add a side note: your use of the word “the” gives me the impression that you think the whole world revolves around the English language.

 

[Peter_J]

The protection of Infallibility is Peter’s, ALONE!

Source?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Actually the translators of the King James Version borrowed more from William Tyndale’s version, the first in modern English, and from the Geneva Bible. Both of these versions predated the Douay-Rheims.

**

Hi Sy,

But the actual catholic scriptures predates everything else**

It should be noted that the current Douay-Rheims Bible is much different from the original. When Bishop Challoner did his revision most of his changes conformed to the King James.

It should be noted that the Devil works his magic throughout the world. No wonder the HS doesn’t want us to rely only on written words. If it is written the devil can make it mean anything but the truth!

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Please note as well that the current Catholic versions use the same textual basis as the current Protestant versions.

Cancer is a growth that spreads and spreads. Looks like God needs to “operate” on the body of Christ and real soo. 61,000 denominations, 100 versions of the bible and it has invaded the 'healthy" body of Christ. I hope it doesn’t prove terminal. Actually so epeople thing the “judgement” will come when Satin toumbles the Catholic church. But the gates of hell cn not prevail against God and His real church, so I personally dismiss that!

*Twas the month before Christmas

When all through our land,

Not a Christian was praying

Nor taking a stand.

See the PC Police had taken away,

The reason for Christmas - no one could say.

The children were told by their schools not to sing,

About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say

• December 25th is just a ‘Holiday’.*

Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit

Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!

CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod

*Something was changing, something quite odd! *

Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa

In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

As Targets were hanging their trees upside down

• At Lowe’s the word Christmas - was no where to be found.*

At K-Mart and Staples and Penny’s and Sears

You won’t hear the word Christmas; it won’t touch your ears.

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty

Are words that were used to intimidate me.

Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen

On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter

To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.

And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith

• Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace*

The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded

The reason for the season, stopped before it started.

So as you celebrate ‘Winter Break’ under your ‘Dream Tree’

Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.

Choose your words carefully, choose what you say

*Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,

not Happy Holiday!*

Please, all Christians join together and wish everyone you meet during the holidays a **MERRY CHRISTMAS

Christ is ‘The Reason’ for the Christ-mas Season!

 

[SyCarl]

It should be noted that the Devil works his magic throughout the world. No wonder the HS doesn’t want us to rely only on written words. If it is written the devil can make it mean anything but the truth!

Are you saying that God’s word has not been preserved in Scripture in purity and truth?

 

[Martin777]

Right on the head.

Can you give me an important example of a misinterpretation?

 

[guanophore]

Can you give me an important example of a misinterpretation?

You mean like baptism has nothing to do with water, and John ch. six has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper?

Or maybe that Tim 3:16 = sola scriptura?

 

[Martin777]

The KJV is the version officially autorized by the Orthodox Church.

I think you are a little behind the times. I study primarily with the New American Standard Bible, and it doesn’t include those erroneous texts. It has many marginal notes about certain manuscripts. It is considered to be the most faithful to the Greek and Hebrew of any Bible. What is your problem?

 

[Martin777]

Okay guys, time out.

The original questioin dealt with Papal Decrees ex-cathedra exclusive of Councils and the Magisterium.

Does that clarify the question?

Regarding praying to Mary and to ‘saints’, Do a NT word study with your concordance on the words ‘pray’, ‘prayer’ and ‘ask’, and notice all the wonderful instruction and promises there are that God has provided for his children. He gave us all we need to know, and He made not ONE mention of praying to ‘saints’ or Mary. That makes that doctrine really irresponsibe hermeneutics. Jesus said “If you ask for ANYTHING in my name, I will do it” What else do you need? The doctrine of Mary prayer is flagrant unbelief and even disrespect of that promise.

By the way, has anyone addressed what I said about Paul’s use of the word ‘saint’?

 

[guanophore]

By the way, has anyone addressed what I said about Paul’s use of the word ‘saint’?

I think you are just suffering a misunderstanding here. Yes, generically speaking, all who are baptized are “saints” on several levels. We are set aside, and made holy unto God for the works that he has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. We are also called to live a “saintly” life, one that is worthy of the calling to which we have been called. Some persons exemplify this in more purity,and are honored for their holiness and good example. The Church recognizes that some who have departed have gone to be with the Lord, and holds these persons up especially as role models for us. The fact that we know they have received their heavenly reward does not take anything away from us who are still working out our salvation, and hope to join them!

 

[Deconi]

Source?

Christ.

Mat.16.

You want me to A, B, C, it as well?

 

[Peter_J]

Regarding praying to Mary and to ‘saints’, Do a NT word study with your concordance on the words ‘pray’, ‘prayer’ and ‘ask’, and notice all the wonderful instruction and promises there are that God has provided for his children. He gave us all we need to know, and He made not ONE mention of praying to ‘saints’ or Mary. That makes that doctrine really irresponsibe hermeneutics. Jesus said “If you ask for ANYTHING in my name, I will do it” What else do you need? The doctrine of Mary prayer is flagrant unbelief and even disrespect of that promise.

The Catholic take on the matter is that we always prayed to the saints, i.e. we always asked them to pray for us, even in the early centuries of Christianity, but we didn’t realize that we were “praying to the saints” until St. Thomas Aquinas came along and explained it to us.