Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[Veritas41]

You didn’t answer my question about how we got the Bible – the Church determined the canon of the Bible *600 years *before Pope Innocent III. By the way, quotes should always be taken in context. In this case, historical context. Pope Innocent III wasn’t against people reading the Bible in the vernacular per se, but during the time of his papacy there was constant conflict with the Cathars (Albigensians), a Gnostic-influenced heretical group:

The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. . .The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875).

Now please note what these scholars and historians, many of them *Protestant *, have to say about the Catholic Church and the Bible:

There was never a time in the history of the western Church during the ‘Dark’ or ‘Middle’ Ages when the Scriptures were officially demoted. On the contrary, they were considered infallible and inerrant, and were held in the highest honour.(Peter Toon, Protestants and Catholics, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983, 39)Please check out the Vatican document, “Divine Revelation**,” and the papal encyclicals of Leo XIII (1878-1903): “On the Study of Holy Scripture” (Providentissimus Deus** - 1893), and Pius XII (1939-58): “Promotion of Biblical Studies” (Divino afflante Spiritu - 1943). (They can be easily located online).

It would be to perpetuate a prejudice . . . founded on Luther’s often false or at least exaggerated statements, were one to fail to recognise how widely the Bible was known even before Luther’s day and to what extent it was studied among educated people.(Hartmann Grisar, Luther, translated by E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917, volume 5, 536)The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . .(Janssen,* ibid*., vol. 1, 56-57; vol. 14, 388)

The well-known Anglican writer, Dr. Blunt, in his History of the Reformation (Vol. I. pp. 501-502), tells us that:

There has been much wild and foolish writing about the scarcity of the Bible in the ages preceding the Reformation . . . that the Holy Scripture was almost a sealed book until it was printed in English by Tyndale and Coverdale, and that the only source of knowledge respecting it before them was the translation made by Wyckliffe. The facts are . . . that all laymen who could read were, as a rule, provided with their Gospels, their Psalter, or other devotional portions of the Bible. Men did, in fact, take a vast amount of personal trouble with respect to the productions of the Holy Scriptures . . . The clergy studied the Word of God and made it known to the laity; and those few among the laity who could read had abundant opportunity of reading the Bible either in Latin or English, up to the Reformation period.(O’Hare, ibid., 185-186)​

Says another Protestant scholar, . . . :

It can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture . . . We must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame.(Ibid., vol. 5, 537. Citation of E. v. Dobschutz, Deutsche Rundschau, 101, 1900, 61ff.)

Scoff all you want, it’s clear that the Catholic Church doesn’t supress the Holy Bible – only heretical versions of it. Would you pass out copies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ *New World Translation *to people and encourage them to read it?
​

 

[Veritas41]

You didn’t answer my question about how we got the Bible – the Church determined the canon of the Bible *600 years *before Pope Innocent III. By the way, quotes should always be taken in context. In this case, historical context. Pope Innocent III wasn’t against people reading the Bible in the vernacular per se, but during the time of his papacy there was constant conflict with the Cathars (Albigensians), a Gnostic-influenced heretical group:

The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875).

Now note what these scholars and historians, many of them *Protestant *, have to say about the Catholic Church and the Bible:

There was never a time in the history of the western Church during the ‘Dark’ or ‘Middle’ Ages when the Scriptures were officially demoted. On the contrary, they were considered infallible and inerrant, and were held in the highest honour.(Peter Toon, Protestants and Catholics, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983, 39)Please check out the Vatican document**, “Divine Revelation,” and the papal encyclicals of Leo XIII (1878-1903): “On the Study of Holy Scripture” (Providentissimus Deus - 1893), and Pius XII (1939-58): “Promotion of Biblical Studies” (Divino afflante Spiritu - 1943).** (They can be easily located online).

It would be to perpetuate a prejudice . . . founded on Luther’s often false or at least exaggerated statements, were one to fail to recognise how widely the Bible was known even before Luther’s day and to what extent it was studied among educated people.(Hartmann Grisar, Luther, translated by E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917, volume 5, 536)The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . .(Janssen,* ibid*., vol. 1, 56-57; vol. 14, 388)
The well-known Anglican writer, Dr. Blunt, in his History of the Reformation (Vol. I. pp. 501-502), tells us that:

There has been much wild and foolish writing about the scarcity of the Bible in the ages preceding the Reformation . . . that the Holy Scripture was almost a sealed book until it was printed in English by Tyndale and Coverdale, and that the only source of knowledge respecting it before them was the translation made by Wyckliffe. The facts are . . . that all laymen who could read were, as a rule, provided with their Gospels, their Psalter, or other devotional portions of the Bible. Men did, in fact, take a vast amount of personal trouble with respect to the productions of the Holy Scriptures . . . The clergy studied the Word of God and made it known to the laity; and those few among the laity who could read had abundant opportunity of reading the Bible either in Latin or English, up to the Reformation period.(O’Hare, ibid., 185-186)​

Says another Protestant scholar, . . . :

It can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture . . . We must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame.(Ibid., vol. 5, 537. Citation of E. v. Dobschutz, Deutsche Rundschau, 101, 1900, 61ff.)

Scoff all you want, it’s clear that the Catholic Church doesn’t supress the Holy Bible – only heretical versions of it. Would you pass out copies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ *New World Translation *to people and encourage them to read it?

​

 

[Nick_Jones]

You didn’t answer my question about how we got the Bible – the Church determined the canon of the Bible *600 years *before Pope Innocent III.

The canon is determined by God, not by men.

By the way, quotes should always be taken in context. In this case, historical context. Pope Innocent III wasn’t against people reading the Bible in the vernacular per se, but during the time of his papacy there was constant conflict with the Cathars (Albigensians), a Gnostic-influenced heretical group:

The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875).

The problem with your explanation is that the writers of the bible didn’t take the view that the “simple and unlearned” should be denied access to the scriptures. It is all the more troubling when you find that searching the scriptures is actually the very best antidote against heresy.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Here are a few more along with some of their writings. To check out the accuracy, any decent non religious European and world history textbook can verify it for you. I mean don’t take our word for it. Even Luther didn’t have the stones to deny these men their place in the sun.

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]

**
Alexander of Lycopolis **

**
Ambrose (340-397)** [SAINT] [DOCTOR]

Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)

**
Archelaus**

**Aristides the Philosopher **

**
Arnobius **

**Athanasius [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Athenagoras **

**Augustine of Hippo [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Bardesanes (154-222) **

**Barnabas [SAINT] **

**Basil the Great [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **
**
Caius **

**Clement of Alexandria [SAINT] **
**Clement of Rome [SAINT] **

**Commodianus **

**Cyprian of Carthage [SAINT] **

**Cyril of Jerusalem [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **
**Dionysius of Rome [SAINT] **

**Dionysius the Great **

**
Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) **[SAINT] [DOCTOR]​

**
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340) **

**
Gennadius of Marseilles **

**Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604) **[SAINT] [DOCTOR]

**Gregory Nazianzen [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Gregory of Nyssa [SAINT] **

**Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT] **
**
Hermas **

**Hilary of Poitiers [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Hippolytus [SAINT] **

• The Refutation of All Heresies
• The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Exegetical
• Expository Treatise Against the Jews
• Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe
• Against the Heresy of Noetus
• Discourse on the Holy Theophany
• The Antichrist
• Appendix

**Ignatius of Antioch [SAINT] **

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians

**Irenaeus of Lyons [SAINT] **

**Jerome [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

• Letters
• The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
• To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem
• The Dialogue Against the Luciferians

**John of Damascus [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435) **

• On the Incarnation of the Lord (Against Nestorius)

**John Chrysostom [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**
Julius Africanus **

**Justin Martyr [SAINT] **

**Lactantius **

**Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461) [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Malchion **

**Mar Jacob (452-521) **

**
Mathetes **

**Methodius **

**
Minucius Felix **

**Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490) **

**
Novatian **

**
Origen **

**Pamphilus [SAINT] **

**Papias [SAINT] **

**Peter of Alexandria [SAINT] **

**Polycarp [SAINT] **

Rufinus

**Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450) **

**
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447) **

**Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420) **

**
Tatian **

**Tertullian **

**
Theodoret **
** - Counter-Statements to Cyril’s 12 Anathemas against Nestorius **

**
Theodotus **

**Theophilus **

**Venantius **

**Victorinus [SAINT] **

**Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450) [SAINT] **

Not all were Bishops but most were. Others held various positions within the infant church. Some such as Nestorius held erroneous doctrines.
newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm

If I need to be a professor of history in order to know that the Roman church is the church that Christ established then your whole project seems to be nothing but elitism. Since I find nothing in the word of God to indicate that only the learned (historians and such) will enter the kingdom of heaven, your approach to knowing the right church to trust is not very convincing to me.

 

[Nick_Jones]

In Matthew 23:1-3 Jesus tells His listeners to “obey” and “do everything” the Pharisees tell them to do, but don’t follow their hypocritical example,and then he goes on to blast the Pharisees. Strange. What’s the reason for that? Why doesn’t Jesus just tell them to read the Scriptures for themselves and forget the Pharisees? He gives the answer in verse 2, “The teachers of the law and thePharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” Look through the entire OT, and you won’t find a single reference to “Moses’ seat.” It comes from Jewish oral Tradition, and Jesus is referring to it, and using it to tell His listeners that they should obey the teaching of the Pharisees because they have teaching authority from God – “Moses’ seat.” The moral character of the Pharisees is irrelevant to their teaching authority, because God guards the truth even through wicked men.

I disagree. Jesus was not teaching that hypocrisy is not a problem! Take a look at Gal. 2:11-14 and tell me if Paul teaches contrary to Jesus.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I don’t believe God gives “part” either. God gives grace, which is what saves us, and we respond to that grace by cooperating with it or rejecting it.

The theory, “I’m saved by my free-will cooperation with God’s grace” brings with it a great many absurdities, all of which glorify men instead of God:

1. It makes man the cause of his own salvation.
2. It puts grace into man’s power, not man’s will under the power of grace.
3. It robs God of the honor of making one person to differ from another, and ascribes it to man.
4. It allows man a liberty of boasting to God, saying, “God, I thank you that you gave me power to will (yet you gave that to Judas as well as me), but I thank myself for the act of willingness, since I receive from you no more than Judas did.”
5. It exempts the creature from the power of God, as if man, spider-like, could spin a thread out of his own bowels whereon to climb to Heaven.
6. It makes man the cause why God wills this or that; so God must attend on the will of man, and not be infallible in His decrees, nor working all things according to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11 Psalms 115:3).
7. Then the apostle James lied in saying “every good gift” is from God (James 1:17); and Paul also was mistaken in Romans 9:11. He should have said, “It is of man that willeth and runneth,” and not, “Of God that showeth mercy.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I need to be a professor of history in order to know that the Roman church is the church that Christ established then your whole project seems to be nothing but elitism. Since I find nothing in the word of God to indicate that only the learned (historians and such) will enter the kingdom of heaven, your approach to knowing the right church to trust is not very convincing to me.

You don’t have to be a historian, but ignorance of history has proven to be a poor servant of many Protestants. John Henry Newman wrote, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

“Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (2 Corinthians 13:1)

The witness of the early Christians is that the Church is Catholic. After reviewing the words of the “two or three witnesses” quoted above, you can see that the earliest Christians would consider Protestantism to be a false belief system and a theological novelty.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I disagree. Jesus was not teaching that hypocrisy is not a problem! Take a look at Gal. 2:11-14 and tell me if Paul teaches contrary to Jesus.

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Instead, Jesus admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The canon is determined by God, not by men.

Sure thing. The Canon was established by the Holy Spirit leading men who infallibly recognized which books were inspired and which were not. After all, God never gave us an inspired table of contents!

The problem with your explanation is that the writers of the bible didn’t take the view that the “simple and unlearned” should be denied access to the scriptures. It is all the more troubling when you find that searching the scriptures is actually the very best antidote against heresy.

The problem with your understanding is that Jesus didn’t leave us a book - he left us a Church - and He never commanded the Apostles to write books, either. The Great Commission talks about preaching and baptizing, not writing.

I won’t argue that the Holy Spirit did not guide the early Church to write; He did. But the writing was not designed to take the place of the preaching. So, the “simple and unlearned” always had the clear preaching of the Church to lead them to salvation.

This was true for the 400 years or so before the Canon was formalized. This was true for the 1500 years or so before the invention of the printing press made books affordable. This is true even today when we, the Church, continue to preach the truth to the unlearned on this very forum.

 

[tequilamac]

Sure thing. The Canon was established by the Holy Spirit leading men who infallibly recognized which books were inspired and which were not. After all, God never gave us an inspired table of contents!

Perhaps it can be found by enterprising sola scripturists in the Bible which font should be used, Times New Roman or Courier. Perhaps sans serif. And should it be double spaced, triple spaced or single spaced. Should it have an introduction and should it state which translation it is. What should the cover look like? Is there a map included or a dictionary?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And the solution to finding the Bishops who are successors to the Apostles is…?

I already gave you the answer. Find Peter. There is the Church.

Do you doubt the unbroken line of Apostolic Succession from Peter to Benedict XVI?

I’ll be happy to entertain questions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps it can be found by enterprising sola scripturists in the Bible which font should be used, Times New Roman or Courier. Perhaps sans serif. And should it be double spaced, triple spaced or single spaced. Should it have an introduction and should it state which translation it is. What should the cover look like? Is there a map included or a dictionary?

Well, there is an old joke in Protestantism that says, “I believe the Bible - from Genesis to Maps.”

While they want to give the impression that they believe it cover to cover, they sort of skip over a few of the verses in John 6, Matthew 16 and others that don’t preach what “their itching ears want to hear.”

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Tim 4:3)

(I sometimes wonder…it must truly bedevil the Protestants who come to this forum to learn that Catholics really do know and read their Bibles after all. That’s one of their favorite canards…what a shame to have it spoiled by truth.)

 

[Nick_Jones]

The witness of the early Christians is that the Church is Catholic.

Perhaps, but Roman Catholic?

After reviewing the words of the “two or three witnesses” quoted above, you can see that the earliest Christians would consider Protestantism to be a false belief system and a theological novelty.

It is hard for me to understand how Protestantism could be **a belief system **if they all believe different things.

 

[Nick_Jones]

While they want to give the impression that they believe it cover to cover, they sort of skip over a few of the verses in John 6, Matthew 16 and others that don’t preach what “their itching ears want to hear.”

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Tim 4:3)

(I sometimes wonder…it must truly bedevil the Protestants who come to this forum to learn that Catholics really do know and read their Bibles after all. That’s one of their favorite canards…what a shame to have it spoiled by truth.)

I have not seen any comments by non-Catholics in this thread suggesting that RC’s don’t know or read the bible.

The main criticism I have, is that the CC teaches things that the apostles never taught. I have listed several of those items in this thread. If you can demonstrate that the apostles DID teach all of them, then I’ll admit my mistake.

In addition, the CC has taught in the past that it is absolutely neccessary for salvation to be a RC!!! Your “church” doesn’t seem to teach that anymore.

 

[Nick_Jones]

While they want to give the impression that they believe it cover to cover, they sort of skip over a few of the verses in John 6, Matthew 16 and others that don’t preach what “their itching ears want to hear.”

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Tim 4:3)

(I sometimes wonder…it must truly bedevil the Protestants who come to this forum to learn that Catholics really do know and read their Bibles after all. That’s one of their favorite canards…what a shame to have it spoiled by truth.)

I have not seen any comments by non-Catholics in this thread suggesting that RC’s don’t know or read the bible.

The main criticism I have, is that the CC teaches things that the apostles never taught. I have listed several of those items in this thread. If you can demonstrate that the apostles DID teach all of them, then I’ll admit my mistake.

In addition, the CC has taught in the past that it is absolutely neccessary for salvation to be a RC!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have not seen any comments by non-Catholics in this thread suggesting that RC’s don’t know or read the bible.

Not in this thread. But c’mon…you know it a commonly heard charge at the Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ meetings and such.

The main criticism I have, is that the CC teaches things that the apostles never taught. I have listed several of those items in this thread. If you can demonstrate that the apostles DID teach all of them, then I’ll admit my mistake.

I have noted those issues and challenged you to start a new thread on each and every item. Now, will I say that Peter, John, James, etc. taught those doctrines explicitly? Of course not. But they never used the word “Trinity”, either. Therefore, if you’ll allow me that latitude to illustrate how EVERY SINGLE DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church can be found either explicity or implicity in the verses of scripture, then I will happily do so. Remember, I could reference the Church Fathers, but I restrict myself to teaching you exclusively from the Bible. Fire when ready.

In addition, the CC has taught in the past that it is absolutely neccessary for salvation to be a RC!!!

True enough. And we have graciously allowed you “separated brethren” some 'imperfect communion" with us in the hopes that some of you “may be saved”.

All kidding aside, start a thread. I’ll be there.

 

[Ignatius]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”
.

You’re a little confused here. There is only one way,The Catholic Church is Jesus’ way, that is why He founded it.

 

[Veritas41]

You seriously misunderstand Catholic soteriology. We are not saved by our free will. We are saved by grace.
From the book *Predestination *by Garrigou-Lagrange :

The Council of Orange in 529 (in response to the Pelagian heresy, which said man was capable of faith and perserverance without grace) taught . …Complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to unforeseen merits. Hefele comments, 'What seems to be an undeniable fact is, that the Church adopted . . the Augustinian theory. . of the necessity and gratuitousness of grace, and of our absolute dependence upon God for every salutary act."
Scripture teaches there is efficacious grace and sufficient grace. Efficacious grace always produces its effect and sufficient grace can be resisted:
Efficacious grace: Ezekiel 36:26ff, Philippians 2:13, John 10:27ff, Proverbs 21:1, Esther 13:9 & 14:13 and Ecclesiasticus 33:13 33:24-37
Sufficient grace: Proverbs 1:24, Isaiah 65:2, Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:51, 2 Corinthians 6:1, 1 Timothy 2:4ff

He doesn’t distribute His grace equally and uniformly, which it states clearly in 1 Corinthians 12. . Take the apostles and OT prophets-- they were the recipients of divine revelation and some of them wrote inspired Scripture and were made infallible by God’s grace as they wrote Sacred Scripture. The Catechism:
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. . … Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

Also from the Catechism,St. Augustine:

"You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts."

I have been Catholic for 8 years, and I have never seen, heard or read anything in Catholic teaching that suggests we may boast because we have received God’s grace. I challenge YOU to study the lives of Catholic saints and see if you can find any of that kind of prideful attitude in them. Grace is a gift that brings humility, not pride. And having been Protestant (Reformed) before that, I saw alot more pride among Protestants about their salvation than I have among Catholics. They were *certain *they were the “elect” and felt quite confident in judging others they thought not to exhibit enough of the characteristics of a “true Christian.” As a Catholic I haven’t seen that kind of attitude --we leave the judging of men’s souls to God and pray for those whose salvation we are concerned about and humbly ask God to continue to give us the grace we need to persevere until the end so that we may behold Him in heaven when we die.

the Catechism, which is quoting St. Rose of Lima, a 16th century saint:
**Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven. **

Basically, what you’re saying is that God can’t be sovereign if man has a free will. I used to believe as you do, that man didn’t have a free will because I thought that to teach man had a free will would somehow deny God’s sovereignty. Much greater minds than mine have tried to understand the mystery of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom, and I don’t pretend to have any new insight into the matter. I just know the Bible teaches both, and I accept them both to be true. The *how *I leave up to God, just like with so many other mysteries!

Every good gift is from God ( free will–that in itself is a gift!) and it is all by God’s mercy – He didn’t have to die on a cross for us or offer us any mercy --it’s all *gratuitous *and undeserved

 

[Veritas41]

The canon is determined by God, not by men.

What, did the Bible descend from heaven, already assembled? You really need to read history – it’s obvious you haven’t. The Bible didn’t always exist as we have it now. It’s actually a collection of many books written by many different authors spanning millenia. At the time of Christ there was no set canon of Scripture among the Jews. Some accepted only the first 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch, some accepted only the Hebrew Palestinian canon and others (most) accepted the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT which the Catholic and Orthodox OTs are based on. The situation was the same in the early Church–the Gospels and letters of the apostles were written over a period of decades, and other religious writings (some perfectly orthodox but not inspired, others definitely heretical) circulated at the same time. There wasn’t “a” Bible so to speak, and there was disagreement among the various churches about *which *religious writings were truly apostolic in authorship and inspired by God. This matter was settled the biblical way – with a Church Council (see Acts 15 for the first Church council). Pope Damasus I convened the Synod of Rome in 386 that was followed by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397 AD, all determining the identical canon of Scripture used by the Catholic Church today. This canon wa also affirmed by the Council of Florence (in 1442 I think) and solemnly affirmed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Look it up for yourself – don’t take my word for it God did determine the canon, *through *the Church (our disagreement has never really been whether God does things, it’s really been over *how *He chooses to do them). Remember that promise Jesus made to the apostles before His death? To send the Holy Spirit to lead them into “all truth?” (John 16:13) and He gave them the authority to “bind and loose” (Matthew 16 and 18:18) It’s all there in black and white!

The problem with your explanation is that the writers of the bible didn’t take the view that the “simple and unlearned” should be denied access to the scriptures. It is all the more troubling when you find that searching the scriptures is actually the very best antidote against heresy.

Actually, that’s not true. In 2 Peter 3:16 it says, “He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain *things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” *The Church has never “denied” access to the Bible in the sense of absolutely prohibiting people from it. The Bible is read at every Mass, and as you’ve probably read in anti-Catholic literature, Bibles were actually *chained *in churches, but not for the reasons the anti-Catholics give (to keep people *from *the Bible) --it was so people *would *have access to the Bible. One thing you have to keep in mind is that you as a 21st century American Christian have access to a machine printed Bible that didn’t cost much to buy; you were blessed with an education to learn how to read; you probably have been blessed with the financial ability to buy books to learn *about *the Bible and maybe even have been able to attend classes at a Bible college or something of the kind. However, for the first 15 centuries of the existence of the Church, Bibles had to be *hand copied, *which was a laborious, time-consuming effort that made Bibles very expensive. *That’s *why they were chained in churches – so people could read them and they not get stolen! And even if you were rich enough to afford a Bible, you would have to have been one of the tiny minority of people who could read and write. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe descended into chaos and barbarism which took centuries to recover from. Most people were lucky to just survive and didn’t have the luxury of attending school and learning to read and write as we do. This is just one reason why the idea of the Bible alone being all we need with no Church to teach and interpret just doesn’t work in practice --for most of the Church’s history it would be completely unworkable. And today, with all the Bible study aids, Bible schools and seminaries, etc, Protestants still don’t agree on what the Bible actually teaches, because knowledge of the Bible itself doesn’t make a person infallible – that is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to the divinely ordained teaching authority of the Church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

You’re a little confused here. There is only one way,The Catholic Church is Jesus’ way, that is why He founded it.

Then why didn’t Jesus say, “the CC is the way.”?

Or, “I am the way, but only through the CC”?