How do I answer this one?

[Trumpetcall]

The Protestants were in such a hurry to catch up with the Catholic Church in making an ACCURATE translation available to all that the original KJV was riddled with errors, requiring dozens of revisions over the following half-century.

No history book on planet earth will verify your bogus claim that “Protestants were in such a hurry to catch up with the Catholic Church in making an accurate translation”, and THAT, as they say, is THAT.

I also found it amusing that you are castigating a Bible riddled with errors, when your own church is guilty of this in the most stunning sense. In case you don’t know,

One example where papal infallibility has self-destructed is found in the example of Pope Sixtus V. In the 1500’s, he took it upon himself to create a new translation of the Bible. Using the 3 conditions supplied by the Roman Catholic church to recognize an infallible ex-cathedra statement, Sixtus gloriously fulfilled them ALL by 1) exercising his office as Pastor of the church; 2) Speaking on faith and morals; and 3) indicating that it be held by the universal church. He thus said in the Bull, “Aeternus Ille”… “Speaking with the fullness of apostolical power given to me, we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestionable in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.” Sixtus, however, was bordering on the brink of dementia. His translation was so full of errors that the copies distributed in April 1590 were recalled and destroyed in September, one month after he died. The decree was REVERSED by his successor Clement VIII, and hence the Bull (which warned that anyone contravening this edict was to be excommunicated) was rejected by the entire Catholic populace! Excuse me, but who gave Clement the right to overrule his predecessor and replace the botched work of Sixtus with his own “Clementine Vulgate”? Damage control experts have unconvincingly argued that the proclamation of Sixtus did not have anything to do with faith and morals. Nonsense! He was advocating a translation of Holy Writ which had everything to do with such topics and used the same terminology JPII did when drawing up the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “[This catechism] I today order by virtue of my apostolic authority, is a statement of the church’s faith…” (Paperback ed, p. 5). If a catechism is a statement of the church’s faith, how much more so a translation of the Bible edited by the Pope himself! To be sure, the intentions of Sixtus were cyrstal clear. Copies were distributed for over 4 months to cardinals, ambassadors and the public, and then the Pope died.
I have thoroughly researched this incident from every angle. Any and all attempts by desperate RC theologians to tiptoe around this as a NON-infallible statement, fail miserably. If words have any meaning whatsoever, that declaration may be taken as an ex-cathedra statement in its highest, most pristine usage because Sixtus insisted he was speaking “WITH THE FULLNESS OF APOSTOLIC POWER GIVEN TO ME.” If he was not to be believed then, there is absolutely no reason to believe any pope claiming similar apostolic power in the future. Hence, the decree of Sixtus, all by itself, swings the wrecking ball to the entire claim of papal infallibility with this “Bible translation riddled with errors”.

 

[Trumpetcall]

Sola scriptura is a lie [See 2 Thess 2:15].

Au contraire, pierre.

One may assume you are holding to the RC opinion that God’s full revelation is incomplete if we do not hold to those “nebulous” traditions the Catholic Church bids us to adhere to. Excuse me, but since the RCC has never listed them, how do you know you are keeping them? Hmmmmm?
The epistle is written to the church at Thessolinica, and you think that Paul commanded them to preserve and pass on a body of unwritten traditions committed to their care. O.K., where may I ask, ARE THEY??? The fact of the matter is, if you say such a tradition was left in the care of the church at Thessolinica, everyone must agree that they failed, since there exists NO extant unwritten apostolic traditions that have been left by them! In any case, in the context of 2 Thess, Paul is not alleging a dual mode of divine revelation!!! From the wider context, (2 Thess 2:1-12) we note that they were to stand fast to the traditions that had ALREADY been delivered to them and to hold to them in the face of eschatological apostacy and decpetion that would arise in future days. Thus, 2 Thess 2:15 signifies the two-fold apostolic METHOD of delivering the SAME doctrine, whether orally or in writing. There is not the slightest inference in this passage that the apostle’s oral proclamations differed in substance from that which was delivered by written tradition. It simply does not follow that there remains any part of apostolic tradition that remains unwritten, especially given the fact that no single instance of it has ever been produced! Thus it is resolved: the traditions mentioned in this verse are in reference to the SAME message delivered in two different modes. The coordinating conjunction…“WHETHER/ OR” signifies the two-fold method of proclaiming the same doctrine, WHETHER it be orally, ORRRRR in writing.

As Paul said, he stood as a witness, “saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22). And so it is with us. We must believe none other things than those preached by the apostles, committed to writing and “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

 

[Trumpetcall]

Private interpretation of the scriptures is a lie [See 2 Peter 1:20].

Wrong again!

First, the RCC has only “officially” interpreted the amount of verses that can be counted on one hand, so you are no better off than Protestants.

Second, one uses private judgment to answer the question of historical reliability of Scripture. The same as my private judgment.

Third, one uses private judgment to decide the meaning of Scripture as to whether a single, institutionally unitary church or many institutionally separate churches were founded. And my private judgment has told me to reject RCism, and who is to say whose private judgment is the better?

Fourth, one uses private judgment to decide that this single church is taught as being infallible rather than as being fallible. My private judgment is that the RCC is NOT infallible, so there.

Fifth, one uses private judgment to identify this single church as the Roman Catholic church instead of, say, the Eastern Orthodox church or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Sixth, one uses private judgment to decide that the Roman Catholic church teaches that the Bible is inspired.

Worse (for Catholicism) than the issue simply being a matter of silence, Scripture actually ENCOURAGES the use of private judgment. For example, the Scripture many times and in various ways encourages people to apply personal judgment to arrive at the truth. For instance, the Bereans are commended for using private judgment and Scripture to judge Paul, and Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make one “wise unto salvation.” Furthermore, John tells us that his gospel was written so that we would believe it and have life through faith in Jesus, and of course, the Lord Himself held even the common folk responsible for knowing the Scriptures in too many places to list here.

Your claim that the Bible discourages private judgment is deceptive and erroneous.

Furthermore, while it might be nice to hand over one’s brain to the church, so that one doesn’t have to think about the meaning of Scripture, that’s just not how God ordained things. The fact that it would be convenient or handy doesn’t make it so.

Instead, God provided fallible churches with fallible elders over them. These fallible teachers are to teach the Scriptures to their people, but the unchanging Scriptures serve as the rule and measure of the Christian faith, with the fallible churches serving as guides.

 

[Trumpetcall]

protestant denominations have, in just 500 years, fractured and divided into more than 30,000 denominations.

Wake up and smell the coffee…

ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

 

[Abu]

How convenient to ignore Jesus of Nazareth and to substitute “private judgment” as a god! What a cop out!

Having provided His teaching for us through His Church, not losing sight of Jesus requires that we listen, learn and assent to His Will – He who installed St Peter and his successors to teach us infallibly in His Church – the divine Christ who rose from the dead and gave His authority to Peter:

All four promises to Peter alone:

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus mandates all eleven apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Given His Church, with His Vicar on earth, with Her Scriptures and Her Tradition – the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the example of the many Saints – some try to make their own selfist constructions. Lord that they may see, help them to overcome their disbelief. No wonder the West is sinking more and more into relativism and secularism – anything goes.

 

[jericho777]

Jericho777
You are unaware that Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

As you don’t have the Tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of Christ’s Catholic Church from the beginning, how can you know unless you are shown? As the eunuch said to Phillip: “How can I know unless some man shows me?” (Acts 8:31). Jesus did not leave us orphans; He gave us His Church and She gave us the Bible.

As you are now aware, Christ’s Catholic Church gave us the Bible and selfist interpretations, like your own, have produced many thousands of sects of all shades of belief and unbelief, with no authority to guide anyone. “Scripture alone” denies Christ who gave us His Church with His Vicar on earth.

The square of choices into which you have boxed yourself by choosing to deny Christ’s teaching and action: Peter: pope/apostle only |Salvation: Church/Jesus only |Final authority: Pope/Bible – are incompatible with reality and truth. Only you can choose to return to both.

I pray and trust that you do.

Hi Abu
Yes I’m aware catholic means universal but it does not mean a denomination as you imply.

The Holy Spirit inspired men to write scripture. It is God’s word for His people it also reveals His perfect will. It’s our instruction manual. 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Christ is the linving Word of God. Also Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[patrick457]

So let me see all the things stated in the opening post are wrong. No body here supports or condones or justifies what the church did. Is that what you are saying.

First, let me observe that the question lies in the assumption that all those red herrings about the Church are true - which puts a bias into it.

If by “what the church did” you meant that “the very wicked church kept the bible from the people”, then yes, no one here supports it. Fortunately, we know that the Church is not so stupid like that. We have our evidence - which I realize full well would not be enough for you.

A very nice - albeit cold - morning here; I hope you don’t have any problems with the weather.

 

[chessmane4e5]

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you…If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen to listen even to the church(1), let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector(2). Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven(3).”

(1) The adverb even implies a sense of disbelief that anyone would dare to defy the authority of the Church any more than one would dare to defy Moses. The Jews understood authority and had the example of Korah, who “rose up before Moses together with some of the sons of Israel” Num 16:2, in which judfment fell and the earth swallowed the men who opposed Moses’ unique position among God’s people. Korah’s death, at the “feet” of Moses, could be a foreshadowing of Peter’s authority displayed in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)

(2) To the Jew, a Gentile was a dog and outside of the covenant of God; a tax collector was ostracized and separated from religious life, considered ceremonially unclean…The Jew would be forbidden to eat with such a one; and thus in the Church, one who is excommunicated is to be considered an outside and one who is unclean.

(3) Mt 18:15-18. For Jesus’ instructions to be feasible, the Church must be a visible, unified, and recognizable entity with universal jurisdiction and binding authority. The Christian must “listen to the Church.” The Church is singular, with definite Greek article signifying and pointing to a particular entity. It is not plural, churches divided up into competing fractions. Matthew is referring to the Catholic Church as understood by the Fathers, in many locations though still unified as one house. This Church Jesus founded can be appealed for judiciary purposes, and her rulings are binding upon the hearts and souls of the believers universally. In today’s denominational climate, where is the Church? What church can a Baptist brother take his Methodist brother to for reproof and judgment? The words of our Lord are reduce to nonsense in our age of ever-dividing factions and independent sects and groups.

Taken from Steven Ray’s “Upon this Rock” pg 43

 

[Abu]

Jericho777
The Holy Spirit inspired men to write scripture

That’s a terminological inexactitude! The “men” who wrote SOME of what Jesus said and did were the Apostles and Paul of Christ’s Catholic Church who gave you and I the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The Church which Jesus of Nazareth built on Peter the Rock (He changed his name, remember?) also has given us seven sacraments, participation in HIs Holy Sacrifice, and HIs Body and Blood as commanded at the Last Supper, and all of His teaching.

Self-interpretation of His commands has no place in His Church. BTW “denominations” only developed with dissent and falling away from truth known as private interpretation – there are many thousands.

A useful explanation of Christ’s mandate to Peter is in Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic, David B Currie, Ignatius, 1996.

 

[chessmane4e5]

St. Paul to Timothy 3:14-15

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark [foundation] of the truth.” (1)

(1) For the Fundamentalist or Evangelical, the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, even though the Bible gives this place of honor to the Church and, therefore, to the hierarchy that gives her visible form.

In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank Gaebelein), Ralph Earle comments, “Taken together these two terms [pillar and foundation] emphasize the certainty and firmness of ‘the truth’ that is revealed in God’s Word [the Bible]” (11:370).

One might reasonable ask: Where does Paul mention the Bible in this passage?

This classic Protestant assertion is made because the Evangelical and Fundamentalist cannot comprehend the concept of a universal and visible Church used by God to preserve his truth infallibly. But what does Paul say? Does he say the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth? No, he says the Church is.

Protestant scholar Donald Guthrie has a problem with this verse: “The phrase the pillar and ground of the truth has caused difficulties, mainly because it appears to give greater eminence to the Church than to the truth.” (The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1980],88). Guthrie then goes on at length to fit this passage into the Protestant mold. If this passage did indeed refer to the Bible, it would become the strongest - no, the only - biblical passage to imply Sola Scriptura, and it would become the blazing banner carried aloft by those espousing it.

However, as Paul says it is the Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”, there is an unmistakable silence and general partisan dismissal of the true meaning of the text.

However, the Fathers understood that the Church is the Bank into which Christ was to be the guardian and defender of that truth. Protestants see the deposit of faith as lodging exclusively in the Bible. But Jude says we should “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”. Where was the faith deposited? Into the Bible?

There was no collected New Testament canon for several hundred years. The truth had been delivered unto the saints: deposited into the Church. It is not either the Church or the Bible; it is rather both the Church and the Bible.

The early Christians had a perspective much different from that proposed by today’s Protestant traditions. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200), the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, writes, “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down” (Against Heresies 1, 10, 2, ANF 1:331).

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth; so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth…For how should it be if the apostle themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition that they handed down to those to who they did commit the Churches? To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition” (Against Heresies 3, 4, 1-2, ANF 1:416-17)

Taken from Steven Ray “Upon This Rock” pages 60-61

 

[kepha1]

No history book on planet earth will verify your bogus claim that “Protestants were in such a hurry to catch up with the Catholic Church in making an accurate translation”, and THAT, as they say, is THAT.

I also found it amusing that you are castigating a Bible riddled with errors, when your own church is guilty of this in the most stunning sense. In case you don’t know,

One example where papal infallibility has self-destructed is found in the example of Pope Sixtus V. In the 1500’s, he took it upon himself to create a new translation of the Bible. Using the 3 conditions supplied by the Roman Catholic church to recognize an infallible ex-cathedra statement, Sixtus gloriously fulfilled them ALL by 1) exercising his office as Pastor of the church; 2) Speaking on faith and morals; and 3) indicating that it be held by the universal church. He thus said in the Bull, “Aeternus Ille”… “Speaking with the fullness of apostolical power given to me, we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestionable in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.” Sixtus, however, was bordering on the brink of dementia. His translation was so full of errors that the copies distributed in April 1590 were recalled and destroyed in September, one month after he died. The decree was REVERSED by his successor Clement VIII, and hence the Bull (which warned that anyone contravening this edict was to be excommunicated) was rejected by the entire Catholic populace! Excuse me, but who gave Clement the right to overrule his predecessor and replace the botched work of Sixtus with his own “Clementine Vulgate”? Damage control experts have unconvincingly argued that the proclamation of Sixtus did not have anything to do with faith and morals. Nonsense! He was advocating a translation of Holy Writ which had everything to do with such topics and used the same terminology JPII did when drawing up the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “[This catechism] I today order by virtue of my apostolic authority, is a statement of the church’s faith…” (Paperback ed, p. 5). If a catechism is a statement of the church’s faith, how much more so a translation of the Bible edited by the Pope himself! To be sure, the intentions of Sixtus were cyrstal clear. Copies were distributed for over 4 months to cardinals, ambassadors and the public, and then the Pope died.
I have thoroughly researched this incident from every angle. Any and all attempts by desperate RC theologians to tiptoe around this as a NON-infallible statement, fail miserably. If words have any meaning whatsoever, that declaration may be taken as an ex-cathedra statement in its highest, most pristine usage because Sixtus insisted he was speaking “WITH THE FULLNESS OF APOSTOLIC POWER GIVEN TO ME.” If he was not to be believed then, there is absolutely no reason to believe any pope claiming similar apostolic power in the future. Hence, the decree of Sixtus, all by itself, swings the wrecking ball to the entire claim of papal infallibility with this “Bible translation riddled with errors”.

If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, “Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him.” But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit’s promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. “Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church.” (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

Papal Infallibility
%between%

 

[kepha1]

Au contraire, pierre.

One may assume you are holding to the RC opinion that God’s full revelation is incomplete if we do not hold to those “nebulous” traditions the Catholic Church bids us to adhere to. Excuse me"…MESSAGE TRUNCATED…"Thus it is resolved: the traditions mentioned in this verse are in reference to the SAME message delivered in two different modes. The coordinating conjunction…“WHETHER/ OR” signifies the two-fold method of proclaiming the same doctrine, WHETHER it be orally, ORRRRR in writing.

As Paul said, he stood as a witness, “saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22). And so it is with us. We must believe none other things than those preached by the apostles, committed to writing and “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

“extant unwritten apostolic traditions” is an oxymoron. Your definition of Tradition has nothing to do with Catholic teaching, therefore you are resorting to a straw man argument.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith **(TRADITION) **included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

You do yourself a grave injustice by dismissing the writings of the early Church Fathers, and re-writing church history.

Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible).
The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

1. Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.
   Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.
2. The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book and the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

1. a proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place — just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

 

[kepha1]

Wake up and smell the coffee…

ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

quote: "Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations;…

I suggest you put on a fresh pot.

 

[Trumpetcall]

If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, “Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him.” But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit’s promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. “Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church.” (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

If you think Mr. Madrid has solved the problem with one puny chapter in his book, you are gravely mistaken. As one has wisely noted:

"The question concerning the infallibility of a given doctrine of the Catholic Church has always been a minefield of debate and dissent. Debates over everything from whether the decree was disseminated to the universal church, to whether it was said in forma specifica, to whether the decree was directly-- as opposed to indirectly pronounced, to altering the definitions of “declare and define,” —to whether the pope can use any medium he wishes as long as he makes clear his intentions, continue to rage today. Because of its self-imposed restricted domain as to when it is applicable, it invariably creates a whole new set of problems, one chief problem being how we determine whether a specific Church teaching is infallible. Often the Church does not explicitly and unequivocally state that a given doctrine is infallible. Odd as it may seem, the words “infallible” or “irreformable” are not used in dogmatic proclamations. Even the four criteria for papal infallibility established in the decree of Pius IX in 1870 [NOTE: Four, not the three you surmised] do not make it foolproof for the cleric or the layman to determine when, precisely, a given papal teaching is infallible, since the doctrine in question, ironically, is never preceded by the explicit words: “This teaching is an infallible and irreformable declaration of the Catholic Church for it fulfills all four criteria of the doctrine of papal infallibility.” The whole process can easily become a quagmire of distinctions and counter-distinctions that turn into a tedious, hair-splitting legalese that often confuses more than it clarifies.
The four criteria for papal infallibility are delineated in the following paragraph of Vatican-1 “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians [2] in accord with his supreme apostolic authority [3] he explains a doctrine of faith or morals
[4] to be held by the universal Church…”.

So how does one come to a conclusion on the decree of Sixtus? We can at least know for certain the 4 criteria set forth from Vatican 1 must be met for a decree to be considered infallible. Sixtus fulfilled these four in ALL of their effervescent glory. The problem with you and Madrid is that you have ADDED A FIFTH requirement, which is unwarranted and out of sinc with your own theology. One RC apologist opined that the decree was “not officially promulgated…[for while] advanced copies of the proposed Vulgate were issued unofficially with the Bull printed at the beginning, THE NOTE concerning the Bull’s promulgation in the original of the Bull, was omitted…which is proof this solemn promulgation never took place-- even though it was delivered to cardinals and ambassadors over a four month period.”
NO! Vatican 1 did not make any such provision for a Bull to be "officially promulgated with a specific statement contained in a NOTE to be included in all “advanced” or normally distributed copies. The intentions of the pope were absolutely clear as the noon day sun/ It is nothing more than an escape route to avoid the obvious; namely that the Pope was wrong when issuing an ex-cathedra statement. Apparently there was a mystery person involved who decided that the nebulous “NOTE” concerning the Bull’s promulgation which was found in the original, was to be henceforth REMOVED! In any case, it really doesn’t matter because when Sixtus invoked by “the fullness of [my] apostolic power… this edition…[is] approved by the authority of the Lord”…he was at that moment “promulgating” it to the entire church. These “hair-splitting distinctions and counter-distinctions” that demand an offical blue ribbon ceremony and the appearance of a “NOTE” to validate its “apostolic authority” is an insult to the intelligence of the honest inquirer of truth. Again, it is an obvious fifth requirement pulled like a rabbit out of hat to convince the gullible that God killed the Pope before an official ribbon-cutting ceremony could take place!

I have done my research and have confidence that I will hear from him, “Well done! You have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them to be liars.” (Rev 2:2).

 

[kepha1]

I advise the Protestant to stay where they belong and do not bow your knee to the claims of Rome. To begin with, why are you so infatuated with the Magisterium’s alleged ability to interpret the Bible? The amount of verses they have “officially” interpreted can be counted on one hand. She has therefore left 98% of the Bible UNINTERPRETED.

The Catholic Church does not claim to fully understand **all **Scripture. There are many mysteries within its pages that still are not fully understood. What the Church is saying is that whatever has been revealed to it and set out in Dogma is true. There are many areas of Scripture that are still mysteries, and therefore not defined as Dogma. There is much for the Church to learn. We believe God is not finished with us. That is why we say that the Catholic Church is on a pilgrimage.

How is it possible for one organization to be confident in its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture? Perhaps the question should be “Can God make it possible for one organization to have the power of discernment?” Could God do this if He wanted to? I believe every Christian would agree that He can do anything. The Church believes Jesus wanted to do this, He promised it, and He delivered. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13).

Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having a thousand variations of Catholicism based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. (the flaw with private judgment) If this happened, it would not be consistent with Jesus’ wish for Unity. (Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5).

In regard to Justification being by faith alone, we need to recognize that the typical Roman Catholic complaint is that Martin Luther manipulated the Scriptures by inserting the word “alone” following “faith” to validate his doctrine. However, according to R.C. Sproul’s, “Faith Alone”, ROMAN CATHOLIC translators before Luther had done the same thing! The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 reads, ".

Sproul confuses translation with teaching. Justification by faith alone as a teaching was non-existent when that translation (which was limited to Germany by one bishops’ permission) was circulated.

Furthermore, in our own day, representatives of John Paul II signed a joint statement with Protestants that
(…MESSAGE TRUNCATED…)
books were thereafter burned and he was ex-communicated in still yet another Bull. So the Council of Trent was more than a little aquainted with his writings. And guess what? LUTHER’S WORKS WERE NEVER OPPOSED TO FAITH DEVOID OF LOVE!

"…But they are guilty of gross misrepresentation, railing against a complete misunderstanding of sole fide which Luther never taught, neither did the Reformers ever believe, nor do Protestants today! Trent said, “the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified”…). And Luther said, “[We] are accepted as such through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but our hearts also become righteous because God’s Holy Spirit is poured into the heart and He brings love and new obedience with Him.” (“The Theology of Martin Luther”, by P. Althaus, p. 234).

When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love.

The word faith was also used in two different senses. Luther used it in the broad sense of the person’s acceptance of God’s offer of salvation. It included repentance, faith, hope, and charity. This is the sense Saint Paul uses in Romans. But in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul uses it in a more specific sense, as just one of the three theological virtues, with hope and charity added to it. In this narrower sense faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, for hope and charity must be present also. That is the sense used by the old Baltimore Catechism too: faith is “an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe what has been revealed on the grounds of the authority of God, who revealed it”. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

There is no gross misrepresentation with Trent, and no railing either; there was a gross misunderstanding that got resolved. You can read the full text here
There is no screaming or negative adjectives being thrown around in this document. Why you are so hot on this issue and misrepresent the Pope is anybody’s guess.

 

[kepha1]

If you think Mr. Madrid has solved the problem with one puny chapter in his book, you are gravely mistaken. As one has wisely noted:

I have done my research and have confidence that I will hear from him, “Well done! You have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them to be liars.” (Rev 2:2).

I am beginning to see why few people in here bother to respond to you.

 

[Trumpetcall]

St. Paul to Timothy 3:14-15

For the Fundamentalist or Evangelical, the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, even though the Bible gives this place of honor to the Church and, therefore, to the hierarchy that gives her visible form.

I trust then that you Catholics will cease and desist from using Irenaeus in any of your apologetics, because he believed that the SCRIPTURES were the pillar and ground!

IRENAEUS: “handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith”
(Against Heresies, 3.1.1.) “Let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel” (ibid, 3.4.1; 3.5.1).

And while I’m at it, I might remind you that Vatican 1 said PETER was the pillar and ground:

“Peter, the Prince and Chief of the apostles, the pillar of the faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church” (On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of Peter, chapter 2).

The next thing we will read is the Popemobile is the pillar. Yikes, what a mess.

In any case, you are grossly misleading in saying that for Evangelicals, the Bible is the pillar and foundation. There is NOT ONE EVANGELICAL ON EARTH WHO BELIEVES ANY SUCH THING AND I REBUKE YOU. But will you retract your allegation? Of course you won’t. A Catholic would rather die than be found to have made a mistake. I tell you, if I had a nickel for every falsehood I read on these threads, I could retire to the Bahamas.

We believe precisely what 1 Tim 3 says, and it says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation. There is, on the other hand, a vast difference in recognizing that the church (body of believers) are the pillar and support of the truth (which the Bible affirms) and confessing that the Roman Catholic Church in particular is the final arbiter of truth (which the Bible NO WHERE confirms). A pillar holds something up, and in this case, it is the truth of God. The body of believers upholds the truth, but she remains subservient to it! The church remains the bride of Christ and as such, she listens obediently and intently to the words of the Lord Jesus----end of story.

 

[Trumpetcall]

I am beginning to see why few people in here bother to respond to you.

Could it be that they can’t? Oh no, we musn’t consider THAT possibility.
Let’s cut to the quick. If you want to open a thread and invite me to debate you on any topic of Catholicism, I will accept your challenge.
And by the way: You will lose.
So either make good on your speculations as to why people are not responding to me and prove it by challenging me on any topic, or cease and desist with these “mind-reading” comments that makes you appear as if you have a crystal ball into people’s heads. I’m sure no one is impressed.

 

[Trumpetcall]

“extant unwritten apostolic traditions” is an oxymoron. Your definition of Tradition has nothing to do with Catholic teaching, therefore you are resorting to a straw man argument.

It is a fact that there isn’t one Catholic in the universe who can define just exactly what those nebulous unwritten traditions are and you know it. In case you don’t know, the question was put directly to the Council of Trent, to paleeeeeze define what all those traditions are. They refused, saying the task would be too cumbersome. If the RCC WERE to do that, that, ipso facto, would be classified as the deposit of “extant unwritten apostolic traditions”. But you and I both know it’ll never happen because the task would not only be impossible, but it would breed a mass riot as everyone would disagree with what ought to be and what not ought to be classified as Tradition. In any case, to put them, therefore, on the same pedastal as the word of God, is sheer madness. Needless to say, the RCC has not defined one word out of the mouth of Jeus Christ that is not already contained in Holy Writ.

you said:

[The early church] included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon)

response:

The only priesthood reported in the New Testament is the priesthood of ALL believers who are to offer up SPIRITUAL sacrifices!!! (so says your alleged first Pope in 1 Peter 2:5). These sacrifices do not have anything to do with any so-called “mass”, but center around a humble heart, praise, thanksgiving and beneficence (Ps 50:23; 60:30-31; 51:17; Phil 2:17; 4:18; Rom 12:1-2, 15-16, Heb 5:5; 12:28, 13:15-16, 1 Pet 2:9).

you said:

[we have] the evangelical councils.

response: And there was not one council for the first 1,000 years of Christianity that looked to the authority of the bishop of Rome as having a worldwide primacy over the entire church militant.

you said: Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.

response: The fact that not everything is written in Scripture (like the size of the apostle’s shoes and the chemical composition of water) is wholly irrelevent to the principle that the Bible may indeed function as the sole rule of faith. To put it bluntly, we are forbidden to “exceed what is written” (1 Cor 4:6). And the Lord does not define Tradition as being “God-breathed” as Scripture is. Furthermore, this escape hatch that not everything was recorded in Scripture is your yellow brick road to validate every unusual Catholic doctrine in the blink of an eye.
“It only means that the subject was not mentioned”. NO. For example, the Bible is ADAMENT that ALL HAVE SINNED, mentioned in no less than 10 places, and says Christ was the exception. The Holy Spirit does NOT make any exception for Mary–when exceptions of smaller sorts are mentioned in many other places. That tradition is WRONG. In essence, there is nothing in Scripture that encourages or commands to look to an ongoing authoritative “sacred tradition”. When a question of truth was at stake, the admonition was to point BACKWARDS to the apostolic doctrine ALREADY GIVEN, not to a new unfolding of tradition. The reference point was always to the PAST (Rms 16:17, Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 11:1; 23-25; Col 2:6-7, Heb 13:8-9, Jude 1:3.) “The tradition which you were taught” (2 Thess 2:15), “which you have heard” (2 Tim 2:2). and as I (Paul) delivered to you (1 Cor 11:2).

 

[Trumpetcall]

Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having a thousand variations of Catholicism based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. (the flaw with private judgment) If this happened, it would not be consistent with Jesus’ wish for Unity. (Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5).

First of all, the Lord Jesus Christ did not come into this world to begin “Catholicism”, whether singularly, or in a thousand different variations. If the apostle Paul went out of his way to exclude the law of Moses as a basis for justification, then He certainly would never approve of the Roman Catholic Church with all HER requirements and demands ad nauseum in all her “unwritten traditions” (whatever they are), canon laws, encyclicals, etc.

Next, I found your complaint against the “flaw of private judgement” to be most amusing.

Yet you have made the above pronouncement based on (guess what?) your own private judgment! It really is too funny for words. (Conversely, by virtue of my own private judgment, I have decided not to accept the RCC claims, so there).
At the outset then, we are on equal footing. Your proclamation above to accept Rome, is no more initially vindicated than my own private decision to reject her. In order for you to arrive at the conclusion that Rome is Christ’s true church and all others are liars, you must first compare Rome to Scripture and church history, do you not? Hence, you must first engage in…(hello!) PRIVATE JUDGEMENT before choosing Rome. But wait! If you are relying on your private judgment of Scripture and history to be SUFFICIENT to convince you that Rome is the true church, kindly inform me how it is that that same private judgement is suddenly rendered DE-ficient and must be abandoned once you get there??? Therefore, Rome’s scowling at private judgment is nothing less than a hypocritical double-standard to say the least. “Use your PJ to get here, but when you do, throw it overboard and bow your knee to US”. Wake up. If it must be rendered deficient once you have crossed the Tiber, it can only logically be assumed that it MAY have been deficient before you got ON the boat. You have made a fallible decision to believe in an “infallible” authority. Fine. You could be wrong. Opening arguments strongly suggest that you are. These are just some of the MANY darts that could be thrown at your completely illogical stance on P-J.

At the end of the day, the Lord Jesus Christ demanded we use our private judgment in FAR too many places to quote here—which, if you are familiar with the Bible, you ought to know about! But if you think for a moment they don’t exist and wish to challenge me on it, go right ahead.