P
Peter_J
Guest
My bad. What I meant to ask was: do you have a source for claiming that the protection of infallibility is Peter’s alone?Christ.
Mat.16.
You want me to A, B, C, it as well?
- Status
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
I can’t help it, I love RealCatholicgk’s posts. He is a riot…but oh, soooo true! :extrahappy: :clapping:
R
RobHom
Guest
Pray tell, WHO among you possessed the AUTHORITY to declare any text erroneous?? Pray tell???
No doubt. And pray tell, by who’s authority are those “notes” given credence?
By “whom”…those who wrote it and those who have embraced the illicit deviations from pure scripture?
No problems at all, mate…nary a one…
Really…by whom
R
RobHom
Guest
I would clearly scream that to the skies!!
D
Deconi
Guest
Sorry, Pete.
Just so ‘we’ do not argue unnecessarily, I mean that infallibility is for St. Peter ‘alone’ because Our Lord DEFINED it as being so!
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood that reveals this to you, but my Father in Heaven who reveals this to you.
Clearly, “the Father” reveals things to Peter outside of dreams, angelic visitations, suggestive smoke signals, talking bush, et al.
Obviously with the entrustment of The Church UPON him,(Peter) and The Promise of sending His Holy Spirit to guide Her (The Church) and protecting her from error, verifies the Apostolic illumination that Peter’s succesors ‘have’ the same moments when necessary.
Hmm…I probably messed that up a bit, but I am a bit poorly at the mo’.
M
Martin777
Guest
Amazing. So they were praying to dead guys and didn’t know they were praying to dead guys?
S
SyCarl
Guest
My understanding is that the Catholic Church claims responsibility for preserving Scripture. If it couldn’t preserve God’s written word in purity and truth, how can we trust it to preserve a more nebulous oral Tradition?
M
Martin777
Guest
Who said baptism has nothing to do with water? You do know that there is water baptism and there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Paul talks about a lot, right?
M
Martin777
Guest
Do you want to learn? I was talking about the texts mentioned in the link Realcatholicgk provided in the post. Maybe you didn’t read them. It pointed to texts that had late additions in them. The notes I refer to are done by guys like the scholars mentioned in the articles at those links. Guys like F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger. Brilliant NT scholars. You couldn’t find a hair’s worth of significant difference between the NASB and the Douay. So that is a meaningless point. Can you name an ‘illicit deviation’ from Scripture that is not handled in the NASBPray tell, WHO among you possessed the AUTHORITY to declare any text erroneous?? Pray tell???
No doubt. And pray tell, by who’s authority are those “notes” given credence?
By “whom”…those who wrote it and those who have embraced the illicit deviations from pure scripture?
No problems at all, mate…nary a one…
Really…by whom
M
Martin777
Guest
Then I don’t think you read it very much.
R
RobHom
Guest
I’m sorry…I probably should have answered a little differently.
I have no doubt that the Catholic Church has in fact preserved the purity of the Holy Scriptures, and as such the Church has preserved Oral Tradition.
My comment was really to indicate that there are those that have taken and literally rewritten the bible to fit their religion. I will use as an example the JW’s…and though I am not an authority on religions, I understand…there are some other religions that have altered the bible and they stand alone in their differences with the balance of Christianity as a whole.
Hope that clarifies it.
R
RobHom
Guest
I probably shouldn’t generalized so much… I did read them, and I looked at the Douay and the NAB, and the only actual difference was some minor changes in wording…modernization of the language.
What late additions were there? I’m always willing to learn. I’m an old dog, but I can still learn new tricks!
Now, I may not agree with you, but I can accept your position and agree to disagree with you, and still be a nice guy.I haven’t done a comparison.between the NASB and the Douay, so truthfully…I’m not able to comment.
Peace!
P
Peter_J
Guest
No problem, I’m not in any hurry.Sorry, Pete.
Just so ‘we’ do not argue unnecessarily, I mean that infallibility is for St. Peter ‘alone’ because Our Lord DEFINED it as being so!
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood that reveals this to you, but my Father in Heaven who reveals this to you.
Clearly, “the Father” reveals things to Peter outside of dreams, angelic visitations, suggestive smoke signals, talking bush, et al.
Obviously with the entrustment of The Church UPON him,(Peter) and The Promise of sending His Holy Spirit to guide Her (The Church) and protecting her from error, verifies the Apostolic illumination that Peter’s succesors ‘have’ the same moments when necessary.
Hmm…I probably messed that up a bit, but I am a bit poorly at the mo’.
R
RobHom
Guest
Oh I do… but to clarify, please read my post at #1003, that should clear it up.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Exactly! (I’d prefer the phrase “saints in heaven” rather than “dead guys”, but other than that you just hit the nail on the head.) Pre-Aquinas, Christians just called it “asking the saints for prayers” and such like – which, come to think of it, we still do sometimes.
M
Martin777
Guest
The links she had talked about were on 1 John 5: 7-8I probably shouldn’t generalized so much… I did read them, and I looked at the Douay and the NAB, and the only actual difference was some minor changes in wording…modernization of the language.
What late additions were there? I’m always willing to learn. I’m an old dog, but I can still learn new tricks!
I haven’t done a comparison.between the NASB and the Douay, so truthfully…I’m not able to comment.
Peace!
Rev 22:19 and
Act 9:5-6
M
Martin777
Guest
Do you know how Paul defines a saint?Exactly! (I’d prefer the phrase “saints in heaven” rather than “dead guys”, but other than that you just hit the nail on the head.) Pre-Aquinas, Christians just called it “asking the saints for prayers” and such like – which, come to think of it, we still do sometimes.
R
RobHom
Guest
Acts 9:5-6:
drbo.org/chapter/51009.htm
5 Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
6 And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
Here is verse 7:
7 And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:5-6;&version=49;
Acts 9:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)
5And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
6but get up and enter the city, and (A)it will be told you what you must do."
I guess you could say they are essentially the same, though numbered differently, and worded differently, though there is a different meaning in it…
Revelations 22:19 (Douay = Apocalypse)
drbo.org/chapter/73022.htm
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2022:19&version=49
Revelation 22:19 (New American Standard Bible)
19and if anyone (A)takes away from the (B)words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from (C)the tree of life and from the holy city, (D)which are written in this book.
Quite similar.
1 John 5:7-8
drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm
7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7-8;&version=49;
1 John 5:7-8 (New American Standard Bible)
7For there are (A)three that testify:
8[a]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Footnotes:
- 1 John 5:8 A few late mss add …in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit
Illuminate please?
R
RobHom
Guest
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=57&ch=4&l=21&f=s#x
21 Salute ye every saint in Christ Jesus. 22 The brethren who are with me, salute you. All the saints salute you; especially they that are of Caesar’s household.
Is that what you are referring to? Truthfully its not much of a “definition”…more of a possible “inference”. Leaves things very open to conjecture.
Philippians 4:21 (New American Standard Bible)
21Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. (A)The brethren who are with me greet you. 22(B)All the (C)saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.
One of the things that I learned as a youth was that the early “Christians”, ie; followers of Christ…were called by the title of “saints” as it safer to address them as such, and because it only marked them as followers of Christ, to fellow Christians,not as Christians…to non-Christians. Christians were openly persecuted in those days. Such as in the time of Diocletian. newadvent.org/cathen/01315a.htm
*In the early days the Christians were accustomed to solemnize the anniversary of a martyr’s death for Christ at the place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of St. Basil of Caesarea (397) to the bishops of the province of Pontus. Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of St. Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of St. John Chrysostom (407). At first only martyrs and St. John the Baptist were honoured by a special day. Other saints were added gradually, and increased in number when a regular process of canonization was established; still, as early as 411 there is in the Chaldean Calendar a “Commemoratio Confessorum” for the Friday after Easter. In the West Boniface IV, 13 May, 609, or 610, consecrated the Pantheon in Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs, ordering an anniversary. Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a chapel in the Basilica of St. Peter to all the saints and fixed the anniversary for 1 November. A basilica of the Apostles already existed in Rome, and its dedication was annually remembered on 1 May. Gregory IV (827-844) extended the celebration on 1 November to the entire Church. The vigil seems to have been held as early as the feast itself. The octave was added by Sixtus IV (1471-84). *
To better acquaint you with the Catholic perspective regarding “Saints”, please read here: newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
I think we can safely say that Catholics feel that the opposite take on the word “saints” is a diminution of its true meaning.
Even Webster isn’t in agreement with either side: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/saint
As you can see, we obviously have a different take on what a “saint” is.
S
SyCarl
Guest
The portions I have put in bold are the parts that differ from the earliest extant manuscripts now known. In Acts and 1 John, they are added words, while in Revelations the difference is book of life instead of tree of life.Acts 9:5-6:
drbo.org/chapter/51009.htm
5 Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. I**t is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
6 And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? **
Here is verse 7:
7 And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:5-6;&version=49;
Acts 9:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)
5And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
6but get up and enter the city, and (A)it will be told you what you must do."
I guess you could say they are essentially the same, though numbered differently, and worded differently, though there is a different meaning in it…
Revelations 22:19 (Douay = Apocalypse)
drbo.org/chapter/73022.htm
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2022:19&version=49
Revelation 22:19 (New American Standard Bible)
19and if anyone (A)takes away from the (B)words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from (C)the tree of life and from the holy city, (D)which are written in this book.
Quite similar.
1 John 5:7-8
drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm
7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7-8;&version=49;
1 John 5:7-8 (New American Standard Bible)
7For there are (A)three that testify:
8[a]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Footnotes:
Here is the greatest difference that I see…and it appears that a later amendment to the text was made…to correct it, and bring it in line with the original scriptures textually. Am I correct?
- 1 John 5:8 A few late mss add …in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit
Illuminate please?
- Status