Catholic vs. Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter hockeyfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ajcstr said:
I’m pretty sure the Vulgate had the 7 books in a separate section, but it contained the same OT books we have in the Bible today. Would be very interested if this was not the case.

Im not saying Flyers got value for Richards/Carter, I’m just saying they had to go, I think it goes beyond Pronger, I think their attitude was the issue. I do think there were issues with Laviolette and then it becomes one or the other.
Click to expand...
That is what I understand on the Vulgate too.

On Richards/Carter, I think that is a little post-trade trash talk. Just a year ago, they were the heart and soul of their organizations.
 
amber_lux said:
The individual patriarchs are subordinate to the entire group of patriarchs.

Amber
Click to expand...
ok but even they say that the Bishop of Rome is the First among Equals. also I think you are confusing a counsels of Bishops with just the Five Patriarchs.

And even then it would not make them his superiors.

And Why am I debating the the working of the chruch Heirachy with someone that is not even a christian? Someone that as made claim and yet provided nothing to support them?
🤷
 
amber_lux said:
Anglican Bibles are closer to Jerome’s Vulgate than Catholic Bibles. Both omit books that were in Jerome’s Vulgate.

Well, there is the book (note:singular) that Luther threw out of the canon. A book that is so obscure that 99.9999% of Lutherans and Catholics have never heard of it, much less read it.

There also is the entire debate about the Peshitta, which Rome won through the use of superior sword play. Not theology, but the literal spilling of blood and guts.

Technically, the Vulgate is still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vulgate has never been the official Bible of the Orthodox or Oriental Christian Church.

Orthodox Christianity does not have the same pathological need as Catholic Christianity to define each and every thing. It prefers to emphasis the mystery of Christ. It can accept that in one country, one book might be considered canonical, whilst in another country, that book is merely considered to be “good reading”, and in a third country, that book might be completely ignored.

The Bishop of Rome was never the leader of Orthodox Christianity. He was a representative of Western Christianity, until he chose to break with his superiors, because of his pride, and his point blank refusal to accept their guidance, which, as bishop, was canonically required to do,. His disobedience, and refusal to adhere to canon law, resulted in the catholic church wandering into schism, teaching heresies that could only result in further heresies.

Amber
Click to expand...
When discussing the King James which version the 1611 or later?

Which Books. Differentiate and name them for me.

You may want to consider the Oriental Churches and the Orthodox Churches as snapshots in time that have not changed. They are the Catholic Church as it was in the year 500 and in the year 1000. The mysteries are not in contradiction with the definitions you deem pathological. This can be viewed in many ways. Was there unity among those that chose to stay as they were ie Oriental Orthodox in order to hammer out definitions?

The organization of the Oriental and Orthodox would have to be viewed and understood to clarify your understanding of the unity of the OHCAC. This also would have to be looked as the Oriental and Orhtodox look to unity of some sort. Your views I anticpate will not be expected to have much impact in those discussions of unity and that means you can reformulate them if unity is achieved.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top