Catholocism the only true choice

[wisdomseeker]

Do you have evidence that supports your claim that “your church tried to ban the Bible from anyone else to read”? I don’t think you can produce any proof of that accusation, because it’s a flat-out lie (probably perpetuated by the likes of McCarthy and/or Boettner, paragons of truth, virtue, scholarship and Christian charity that they are )

I was a ‘Bible-only’ evangelical Protestant for nearly a decade before I was received into the Catholic Church (in fact, I spent a significant portion of my time in such churches as a Bible teacher, teaching and believing many of the things I’ve seen you write in this thread), and my good friend and mentor Church Militant was an evangelical Protestant elder/deacon for far longer than that. We’re more than familiar with all of the supposed Biblical refutations of our most holy faith, mostly because we’ve used most of them in the past ourselves in mistaken efforts to draw Catholics away from their Church (and may God have mercy on our souls for those errant attempts). So we know that these so-called ‘learned’ men have done great violence to the Bible to justify their post-Reformation rejection of truths that had been accepted by just about everyone in Christendom for the 1500 years prior to Luther. So you’re not surprising anyone - because we’ve heard, seen, read and imbibed it all. So I suspect that your efforts to defeat Catholicism will, like many, many efforts by far more learned men before you have failed for the past 500 years.

:clapping: :tiphat:

 

[backfrmthebrink]

Do you have evidence that supports your claim that “your church tried to ban the Bible from anyone else to read”? I don’t think you can produce any proof of that accusation, because it’s a flat-out lie (probably perpetuated by the likes of McCarthy and/or Boettner, paragons of truth, virtue, scholarship and Christian charity that they are )

I was a ‘Bible-only’ evangelical Protestant for nearly a decade before I was received into the Catholic Church (in fact, I spent a significant portion of my time in such churches as a Bible teacher, teaching and believing many of the things I’ve seen you write in this thread), and my good friend and mentor Church Militant was an evangelical Protestant elder/deacon for far longer than that. We’re more than familiar with all of the supposed Biblical refutations of our most holy faith, mostly because we’ve used most of them in the past ourselves in mistaken efforts to draw Catholics away from their Church (and may God have mercy on our souls for those errant attempts). So we know that these so-called ‘learned’ men have done great violence to the Bible to justify their post-Reformation rejection of truths that had been accepted by just about everyone in Christendom for the 1500 years prior to Luther. So you’re not surprising anyone - because we’ve heard, seen, read and imbibed it all. So I suspect that your efforts to defeat Catholicism will, like many, many efforts by far more learned men before you have failed for the past 500 years.

with your impressive background then you should know better but that is how the enemy works. The Bible cannot be understood by unregenerate people. I would make every effort to make sure of your salvation before I proceed. If you were searching enough at that point in your life that you believed the cc had some kind of answers for you that you were not getting then you may not be saved? God knows that alone not I.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

You deny that the Bible was banned? That is common knowledge even the cc does not deny in its history. I suppose I could dig for the documents on that one if I have time for that but so can you. William Tynndale (sp?) translated the Bible into english and was murderd by the church for that. The fact that the cc did not want the Bible read by anyone including their own priests. Even priests could not read and “interpret” what was never approved for them to do so by the Bishop.How can you deny the cc history? and this is anotrher example of the cc and its members rewriting history

 

[Deconi]

You deny that the Bible was banned? That is common knowledge even the cc does not deny in its history. I suppose I could dig for the documents on that one if I have time for that but so can you. William Tynndale (sp?) translated the Bible into english and was murderd by the church for that. The fact that the cc did not want the Bible read by anyone including their own priests. Even priests could not read and “interpret” what was never approved for them to do so by the Bishop.How can you deny the cc history? and this is anotrher example of the cc and its members rewriting history

Since you’ve read that ‘history’ somewhere, how about reading HOW THE BIBLE CAME INTO EXISTENCE!!??

Do you think The Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the books of Holy Writ would ban it?

Do some research, Brink. Thinking and Reasoning should do the rest! And please stop citing Our Lord as your Guide all the time, because what you are saying is that every other Christian before you does NOT have His guidance!! A bit selfish of you really.

Just read and research…

 

[djrakowski]

with your impressive background then you should know better but that is how the enemy works. The Bible cannot be understood by unregenerate people. I would make every effort to make sure of your salvation before I proceed. If you were searching enough at that point in your life that you believed the cc had some kind of answers for you that you were not getting then you may not be saved? God knows that alone not I.

Is this how ‘regenerated’ people act - questioning the salvation of other people? Have you been granted a share of God’s knowledge that no other man on earth has been granted?

And suddenly, 1500 years after Christ, the Protestant Reformers finally started getting it right, leaving generations of ‘un-regenerate’ people behind them? That’s utterly unbelievable in light of Matthew 16:18 -

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So the gates of hell prevailed against the 1500 years worth of Christians who believed as I do (and as the Catholic Church does), until Martin Luther appeared on the scene with a proper explanation of Sacred Scripture?

And it’s our theology you question?

You deny that the Bible was banned? That is common knowledge even the cc does not deny in its history. I suppose I could dig for the documents on that one if I have time for that but so can you. William Tynndale (sp?) translated the Bible into english and was murderd by the church for that. The fact that the cc did not want the Bible read by anyone including their own priests. Even priests could not read and “interpret” what was never approved for them to do so by the Bishop.How can you deny the cc history? and this is anotrher example of the cc and its members rewriting history

If it’s such common knowledge, then perhaps you should be able to produce some evidence?

Tyndale wasn’t condemned for having translated the Bible into English - he was condemned for a Bible that included improper and heretical translations - BIG difference. Further, I’m digging for nothing - the burden of proof is on the accuser in this case. I’d suggest you do an honest study of the history surrounding William Tyndale and find out what *really *happened. Here’s something to get you started - Tyndale’s Heresy. Here are a few excerpts:

On Sunday, February 24, 2002, the *Greenville News *ran an article by Deb Reichardson-Moore. She wrote that the business of biblical translation can be dangerous, citing as evidence William Tyndale, whom she wrote “was burned at the stake for the heresy of translating the Greek New Testament into English in 1525.” She reported that today he’s known as “the father of the English Bible.”

Phrasing it this way makes it sound as if the heresy Tyndale was condemned for was the act of translating the Bible into English. This is a common mistake and often repeated.

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

If it were indeed the case that the Catholic Church didn’t want the Bible translated into English, then why did it permit the production of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was completed in 1610 (and was, in fact, a significant influence on the translation of the benighted KJV)?

And yet another supposed ‘fact’ of yours - show us all some evidence that “the cc did not want the Bible read by anyone including their own priests.” Again, you’re going to have a tough time proving something that simply isn’t true.

I suggest you “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)

 

[MrS]

You deny that the Bible was banned? That is common knowledge even the cc does not deny in its history. I suppose I could dig for the documents on that one if I have time for that but so can you. William Tynndale (sp?) translated the Bible into english and was murderd by the church for that. The fact that the cc did not want the Bible read by anyone including their own priests. Even priests could not read and “interpret” what was never approved for them to do so by the Bishop.How can you deny the cc history? and this is anotrher example of the cc and its members rewriting history

Okay, now I get it. This is all in jest.

You were sent here to try and challenge Catholics. Somebody somewhere though we needed a workout of sorts to make the days more interesting.

Karl Keating, did you send this dude here to tease us??

No, it couldn’t have been KK, because he would at least given brink some better ammunition, and not the same list of unsubstantiated claims that most strong Protestants have given up on long ago (cuz like a strainer, they don’t hold water)

Brink, if you are for real, perhaps you can do two things…

1] Use the search pulldown to read how many more times these topics of yours have been raised… and credibily and Scripturally dismissed.

2] PM me if you want a copy of the Gospel According To James McCarthy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Is this how ‘regenerated’ people act - questioning the salvation of other people? Have you been granted a share of God’s knowledge that no other man on earth has been granted?

And suddenly, 1500 years after Christ, the Protestant Reformers finally started getting it right, leaving generations of ‘un-regenerate’ people behind them? That’s utterly unbelievable in light of Matthew 16:18 -

So the gates of hell prevailed against the 1500 years worth of Christians who believed as I do (and as the Catholic Church does), until Martin Luther appeared on the scene with a proper explanation of Sacred Scripture?

And it’s our theology you question?

If it’s such common knowledge, then perhaps you should be able to produce some evidence?

Tyndale wasn’t condemned for having translated the Bible into English - he was condemned for a Bible that included improper and heretical translations - BIG difference. Further, I’m digging for nothing - the burden of proof is on the accuser in this case. I’d suggest you do an honest study of the history surrounding William Tyndale and find out what *really *happened. Here’s something to get you started - Tyndale’s Heresy. Here are a few excerpts:

If it were indeed the case that the Catholic Church didn’t want the Bible translated into English, then why did it permit the production of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was completed in 1610 (and was, in fact, a significant influence on the translation of the benighted KJV)?

And yet another supposed ‘fact’ of yours - show us all some evidence that “the cc did not want the Bible read by anyone including their own priests.” Again, you’re going to have a tough time proving something that simply isn’t true.

I suggest you “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)

what an amazing thing the CC did. to go back 2000 years and rewright the whole history of christianity because ML discovery of the Truth.

2Peter 3:15-17,
**“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.” **

1John 4:6,
"We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

 

[djrakowski]

wisdomseeker, what are you doing quoting scripture? Didn’t you know that we’re not allowed to read the Bible? After all, ‘backfrmthebrink’ told us so…

 

[Kansasdad]

kansasdad:
sorry I missed that post but read it now. Sorry though I 1) do not put creedence in writings that contradict the Word of God.

*“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]). *

There is no more alter. That is part of the message to the Hebrews. It is basically saying what are they going to do as there is no more alter, no place for them to bring their sin for repentence other than Christ Jesus. He is the final everything. In fact there in lies many problems for the catholic faith. Christ died once and for all. No more is sin the issue for death as it has been delt with but rejection of Christ is the issue. Not rejection of the cathoilic church, CHRIST. I cannot put any even partial emphasis on other writings to support cath when they go against scripture’s very words. That is a cath ploy.
Man is fallible, even the pope. He is not Christs vicar and Christ is not brought down time and again to be consumed in your communion. THAT is not scriptural. Man being fallible cannot record history correctly from day to day much less over a time of 1600 years. The Bible has been the only document to do that and that is because it is a superhuman act of our God.

I am not so concerned whether you give credence to the early Church Fathers or not. YOU MISSED THE POINT. The fact is that the very first Church Fathers recognised the primacy of Peter. You made the claim that Peter’s primacy was not recognised until much later and that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early years. You assertion is not supported in historical fact. We know for a fact that the very first Church fathers DID recognise the primacy of Peter, We also know for a fact that there was only ONE church. So IF there is a church in the year 200AD that recognises the primacy of Peter, how could it be anything other than the Catholic Church?

God Bless,
K.D.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

Since you’ve read that ‘history’ somewhere, how about reading HOW THE BIBLE CAME INTO EXISTENCE!!??

Do you think The Catholic Church who compiled and canonized the books of Holy Writ would ban it?

Do some research, Brink. Thinking and Reasoning should do the rest! And please stop citing Our Lord as your Guide all the time, because what you are saying is that every other Christian before you does NOT have His guidance!! A bit selfish of you really.

Just read and research…

First He is my guide who is yours? That said no I am not saying others do not. Where do you get THAT reasoning from? As for your comment on who gave us the Bible. Let me think…God??? This has been answered before and no It really was not your cc.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

I am not so concerned whether you give credence to the early Church Fathers or not. YOU MISSED THE POINT. The fact is that the very first Church Fathers recognised the primacy of Peter. You made the claim that Peter’s primacy was not recognised until much later and that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early years. You assertion is not supported in historical fact. We know for a fact that the very first Church fathers DID recognise the primacy of Peter, We also know for a fact that there was only ONE church. So IF there is a church in the year 200AD that recognises the primacy of Peter, how could it be anything other than the Catholic Church?

God Bless,
K.D.

Thank you God bless you too. Funny how Peter did not recognize this nor did Paul or any of the other Apostles. Review how they made decisions. who wrote to who, who confronted who and who spoke up. If only you could get away from the writings of men. even the early church fathers and read the Word. God will not contradict His word nor will he have and gods before him. That means btw infront of His eyes. yada yada yadda.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

wisdomseeker, what are you doing quoting scripture? Didn’t you know that we’re not allowed to read the Bible? After all, ‘backfrmthebrink’ told us so…

Ah qui chang, your cc told you so. you still have not snatched the pebble from my hand.

 

[MrS]

First He is my guide who is yours? That said no I am not saying others do not. Where do you get THAT reasoning from? As for your comment on who gave us the Bible. Let me think…God??? This has been answered before and no It really was not your cc.

God for you, I mean Good for you.

You have answered the question half right… and by ommission, half wrong.

God, in His plan of Salvation, has chosen and guided man to fulfill His wishes

1] He chose man (and woman) to cooperate in multiplying the human race… man has to cooperate.

2] He chose man to be the dominate one over the species… man has to cooperate

3] He has given man free will to accept or reject… man has to cooperate.

4] He has offered abundant graces, free, to those who love Him and want to avail themselves of the graces, found most strongly in the seven Sacraments… man has to cooperate.

5] He has safeguarded a ministerial Priesthood to continue to offer sacrifice to God in Heaven, and forever remember the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord… man has to cooperate.

6] He has built His One Church to hold the Fullness of the Faith, evangelizing all the world with the Good News of the Gospel… man has to cooperate.

7] He send His only Son to take on a Human Nature along with His Divine Nature… but again, man had to say yes, and cooperate.

8] He gave the Apostles the Tradition… the Oral Teaching of the Truth… to share and pass on to those in that One Church for all to join in and share… but man had to cooperate.

9] And through the Holy Spirit, he placed much of that Tradition into the written word, in letters and in the Gospels so that more of us could have greater accesss to the Truth… but man had to cooperate.

10] nd He planned that a teaching authority, clearly begun by Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures, would proclaim to the world which of the writtings were inerrant, and which were not necessarily so… all of which was done by man and the Holy Spirit in cooperation with each other.

Ten more reasons why Catholicism is the only True choice.

you are part right, part wrong on this issue… and all wrong on many others

my offer still holds for you to read the rebuttal to the erroneous book you have which was written by a fallen away Catholic who has rejected what you have rejected.

.

 

[djrakowski]

Ah qui chang, your cc told you so. you still have not snatched the pebble from my hand.

You keep repeating this charge, and as yet, have offered no support for it. It’s easy to figure out why - the Catholic Church has never forbidden laypeople from reading the scriptures - and I have material that proves we’ve always been encouraged to read the Bible:

“Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” - St. Jerome

**Catechism, #132 **“Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”

**Catechism, #2653 **The Church “forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ’ (*Phil *3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles.”’

Are Catholics Allowed to Read the Bible? - The laity are more than encouraged, they are urged to read the Bible. By Pius VI (1778), bv Pius VII (1820), they were earnestly exhorted to read it, by Leo XIII a special blessing was given to all who would read the Gospels for at least a quarter of an hour daily.

So, where are the quotes you claim to have re: Catholics not being permitted to read the Bible?

 

[djrakowski]

A few more passages related to the Church’s encouragement to the faithful re: scripture reading:

Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. - Dei Verbum, VI, 22 (promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1965).

The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). “For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”(5)- Dei Verbum, VI, 25

Now We, who by the help of God, and not without fruit, have by frequent Letters and exhortation endeavored to promote other branches of study which seemed capable of advancing the glory of God and contributing to the salvation of souls, have for a long time cherished the desire to give an impulse to the noble science of Holy Scripture, and to impart to Scripture study a direction suitable to the needs of the present day. The solicitude of the Apostolic office naturally urges, and even compels us, not only to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ, but also not to suffer any attempt to defile or corrupt it, either on the part of those who impiously and openly assail the Scriptures, or of those who are led astray into fallacious and imprudent novelties. - Providentissimus Deus, 2 (promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1893)

Nor should We fail to mention here how earnestly these same Our Predecessors, when the opportunity occurred, recommended the study or preaching or in fine the pious reading and meditation on the Sacred Scriptures. Pius X most heartily commended the society of St. Jerome, which strives to promote among the faithful—and to facilitate with all its power—the truly praiseworthy custom of reading and meditating on the holy Gospels; he exhorted them to persevere in the enterprise they had begun, proclaiming it “a most useful undertaking, as well as most suited to the times,” seeing that it helps in no small way “to dissipate the idea that the Church is opposed to or in any way impedes the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular.” - Divino Afflante Spiritu, 9 (promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1941)

 

[Kansasdad]

Thank you God bless you too. Funny how Peter did not recognize this nor did Paul or any of the other Apostles. Review how they made decisions. who wrote to who, who confronted who and who spoke up. If only you could get away from the writings of men. even the early church fathers and read the Word. God will not contradict His word nor will he have and gods before him. That means btw infront of His eyes. yada yada yadda.

Do you honesty not understand. Jesus Christ set up HIS church and it continued after the Apostles. God gave us a promise that the Gates of hell would not prevail against it. You seem to want to skip 1500 years, as if God’s promise didn’t hold true for that time.

Tell me, in your opinion, did that gates of hell prevail against the church in 200AD? Did the Church established by Jesus cease to exist?

 

[Deconi]

First He is my guide who is yours? That said no I am not saying others do not.** Where do you get THAT reasoning from?**…

Because you claim to be correct and the catholics are wrong. You claim to be guided by the Holy One, sooo…that means the catholics are guided by “The flying Shuriken” ??

As for your comment on who gave us the Bible. Let me think…God??? This has been answered before and no It really was not your cc.

Yes, well done, Brink. God did give us the Bible. Who did He give it to? Your pastor? You? The Fathers of a Church?

You do know that YOUR BIBLE is a copy, of a copy, of a copy of St. Jerome’s translation? Who was he? Where did he get the Scriptures to translate? A saint? Isn’t that a Catholic thing? …etc…etc…etc!

Currently you don’t care how / who / when / whatever, the Bible came to be, because you can just say, “God did it!” I guess it matters not to you why the version of The Bible you have IS DIFFERENT to the ones “other Christians” have!

There’s some startling history lessons for you to realise, Brink. If I take you by the hand and we walk into a library that is 2-miles long and holds just the history of Christian denominations, that building will not be big enough to contain the history of The Catholic Church alone.

The ENTIRE history of your denomination will be on a napkin by the door!

The point is not to show off, Brink. But an attempt to point out, that there are truly, truly, holy men and women who have followed Christ before you and I came along. The stuff you are spouting are the ‘suppositions’ of the authors you have read who are some centuries removed from actualities. Just be aware that The Catholic Church has 2000years of RECORDS of “history” by Catholics who were actually there!..um…including Scriptures!

 

[awantz]

How do you know that when Jesus says, “church” He is not referring to all believers?

 

[MrS]

How do you know that when Jesus says, “church” He is not referring to all believers?

The noun translated “church” is ekklesia, and is mentioned in Matt 16:18 for the first time in the New Testament.

It derives from the prefix ek, out of, and kaleo, to call.

It means the set of individuals called out of the unbelieving world to become and remain believers. The enclitic pronoun mou, “my”, is the genitive of ego, I. The Lord Jesus is not only going to build His church, He is going to possess it in the fullest sense. It is His church, an no one else’s.

It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have such complete control and ownership… and then allow one to join (be baptized), to love the Lord, but pick and choose which things he wants to believe or deny.

Yes the church, in one sense, is the body of believers. It replaces the OT Temple which was restricted to the Jews. The Church is universal, in that anyone can come to the Lord, and be baptized for the remission of sins, by water and the Holy Spirit.

“he who believes…” does not include those who deny.

The word Church, for 1500 years, referred only to the one group of “believers” in the world… The Catholic Church.

It has become only a bad and uncorrected habit that others, who may be part of the Body of Christ by virtue of their Trinitarian Baptism, have taken the name Church for their own use(misuse).

It is proper, though not well received, to refer to all “groups” other than the Catholic Church, as faith communities, or faith groups, or communities etc. Blunt… but true.

.

 

[Namesake]

no one questioned the CC except heretics. after a proud monk called ML left the CC, he launched an attack to destroy her. but as you can see She still here because of our Lord’s promise.

The RCC changed because Martin Luther did what he did.