T
Trumpetcall
Guest
The lies just never cease around here.
2 Thess 3:14 reads, “And if any man obey not our word BY THIS EPISTLE, note that man and have no company with him.”
- Status
2 Thess 3:14 reads, “And if any man obey not our word BY THIS EPISTLE, note that man and have no company with him.”
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
There are so many holes in this statement that it reminds me of a slice of swiss cheese.
Under no circumstances whatsoever did Jesus guarantee the infallibility of the church in either the Old or New Testaments. The very concept is anitethical to descriptions of the church which, in abnormal times, may teach falsehood, and completely derails your assumption of an “infallible” magisterium that is now carried over into the new covenant (Jer 5:31; 6:13; 8:10; 13:25; 14:14; 23:32; Isa 29:10, 59:14-15; Ezek 22:25; Judges 2:10, Ps 14:2-3; 53:2-3, Micah 7:2). If they could err THEN, they are subject to err NOW.
Next, the seat of Moses refers to a seat in front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading from the Scripture. ALERT! Synagogue worship came into being long AFTER Moses’s day, so people like you who attempt to make this an oral tradition going back to Moses are engaging in nothing but wishful thinking.
Even if we were to assume that the idea of “Moses’ seat” came from Moses himself, the RC camp now has to explain how it is that the “infallible Jewish magisterium” could infallibly pass on THAT tradition, but FALLIBLY pass on the Corban Rule which Jesus attacked and emphatically rejected in Mark 7:1-13. In case you’ve forgotten, they claimed divine authority for THAT tradition as well; and it was a tradition that Jesus subjected to scriptural correction! Read that again. They were claiming divine authority for that tradition and Jesus would have none of it! Hence, under these circumstances, it is simple to conclude that Christ would NEVER initiate dogmatic, unbiblical traditions on the same level as His Holy word which He has magnified even above His very name! (Ps 138:2) For example, Karl Keating says in his book (“C & F”, p. 275) that there is strictly no biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. “The mere fact that the Church teaches it as something that is true is a guarantee that it is true.” Oh is it really? This is a bombastic statement that Christ would swing the wrecking ball at in accordance with the above example.
The RCC uses the seat of Moses passage to argue that the Lord sanctioned authoritative oral tradition as it was delivered by the official leaders of His day. But lest you forget:
- Jesus condemned the Pharisees (Matt 23:13)
- They were not entering the kingdom of God and were shutting out those who wanted to enter (Matt 23:13)
- They made their converts “sons of hell” (Matt 23:15)
- He told His disciples to beware of their teachings (Matt 16:6-12)
- Their traditions contradicted the Scriptures (Mk 7:1-13)
- He denied they were children of the covenant (John 8:39-41)
- He called them “children of Satan” (John 8:44)
- The majority of them rejected the Messiah.
D
Detales
Guest
A simple exercise in translation such as below will show why it is said that “All translators are liars.” It will also be clear why the Romans said “Idem non idem.” Translated, lol, that means the same (in one language) is not the same (in another language.)
And when it comes to the Bible, we have to ask a number of questions in addition to the questions pertinent only to translation in addition to the chief question about it, which is, "If Ieshua, Iusu, or whatever His name was in His own language spoke Aramaic, how are we to rust the Greek and Latin Gospels compiled at later dates which do not have Jesus’ nihil obstat and imprimature?
Additional serious questions are to be asked about many things, such as the natures of witnessing, meaning, communication, the collection process, interpretation, etc, etc. There are books on comparative religion that give some remarkable insights as to these concerns, as well as the most disconcerting one, the nature of insertions and deletions according to agendas, alleged or real of the Fathers of the Church. We also have to remember that there are, according to experts, very unclear areas in the early history of the Church when it comes to distinguishing christianist practices from pagan practices, such as the celebratory meal.
The question of greatest importance, though, bar none, is whether or not the Church is itself no more than the popularization of a very practical and functional mythology aimed at spiritual transformation of the few rare people who could actually do that. Many of the statements attributed to Jesus actually bear this out, horrified piety of standard Catholics not withstanding. This goes with another question of fundamental importance.
That is the question of whether or not religion or good have anything but a nodding acquaintance with one another. Certainly religions are about “God,” or at least people’s thoughts about God, but is God about religion? Clearly not. If all men and women on the Earth came as the result of God’s Creation, then the fact that religions tend to be local and parochial seems to point to the idea that religion is an idea of mankind. Even the relationship of Catholicism to such things as Zoroastrianism, ancient Egyptian religions, and paganism seems to bear this out. If these are denied, it is through the blindness of piety and general ignorance of the history and nature of religions.
Here is the exercise:
There is also the question of where is one studying the bible from? As in the thread question, understanding of the Bible has “evolved.” Does one study the Bible piously from the inside, having made a faith commitment to a particular stream of consensus, or from the outside as a phenomenon of history, literature, and interpretive thought, or both?
How many ordinary readers of the Bible, for instance, have considered such pertinent disciplines as anthropology, archeology, comparative linguistics and religion, theory of meaning, semantics, symbology, General Semantics, mythology, the natures of abstracting, witnessing, memory, collections, processes in the formation of groups and their interactions, the nature of belief itself relative to human psychology, integrational philosophy, communication theory, single and multi- level logics, etc, etc, etc?
Not many have, I wager, even taken a superficial course that includes these matters, as easy as it is to get a course book on such. Eg, here is a very simple exercise in translation. Below are four sentences in English. Can you come up with the exact meaning? The question is based on the fact that texts in Hebrew and Aramaic are written without vowels, punctuation, or capitalization and depend on context for the meanings of consonant groups. Try it:
1: THSSNXPRMNTNTHDCPHRNGFMSSG
2: THBBLFTHHBRWSWSWRTTNNTHSMNNRWTHTVWLSNDWT HTPNCTTNFNYKND
3: TSMSCLRTHTMNYRRRSFNTRPRTNCLDBMD
4: FRXMPLGDSNWHRCLDBNDRSTDBYSMNTBNSTDGDSNWR
One might soon agree with Robert Ingersoll that it could take twice as much inspiration to read such text as to write it. And then, despite crediting earlier translators with devotion and piety, and knowing in more detail some technicalities of language, are we in our century yet familiar with words, idioms, and modes of thinking of the original writers of whose work we only have copies, some of them obviously altered? For my part, I have to ask myself: Am I devoted to theological ideas based on original perception, or on linguistic events that took place well after the fresh revelation?
Again, how many know that “rope” is in fact the preferred translation now of the consonant group GML, not “camel.” Also, in the story of Elijah, is RBM “Arabs,” “ravens,” or “the inhabitants of Oreb,” a village hard near where Elijah was ensconced on the brook of Cherith? The only sensical translation is now thought to be “the inhabitants of Oreb.” And two millenia of misogyny might be attributed to the mistranslation of TZD, which actually means “side,” not “rib” and all the implications ancient and modern that go with that.
These differences are predicated on the actual speaking of Aramaic as we now know it. A critical example to some points of faith is this one: where is the comma in Luke 28:43? Is it “Verily, I say unto you, today…”? Or is it “Verily, I say unto you today, …”? The second is the nuance preferred by native speakers of Aramaic in their idiom, changing a major point of “proof” theology. The Bible, all of the versions of it, are riddled with such considerations.
That last one hinges on a comma!!! Which wasn’t there! In Fresno, California, on May 5, 1969. a barber and another man shot each other to death over the true meaning of certain passages of the Bible. The true meaning!!! Is that the kind of piety and devotion we are at the level of here? Is that what we have evolved to? What an excellent recommendation (along with Northern Ireland etc, etc.) for christianism."
And when it comes to the Bible, we have to ask a number of questions in addition to the questions pertinent only to translation in addition to the chief question about it, which is, "If Ieshua, Iusu, or whatever His name was in His own language spoke Aramaic, how are we to rust the Greek and Latin Gospels compiled at later dates which do not have Jesus’ nihil obstat and imprimature?
Additional serious questions are to be asked about many things, such as the natures of witnessing, meaning, communication, the collection process, interpretation, etc, etc. There are books on comparative religion that give some remarkable insights as to these concerns, as well as the most disconcerting one, the nature of insertions and deletions according to agendas, alleged or real of the Fathers of the Church. We also have to remember that there are, according to experts, very unclear areas in the early history of the Church when it comes to distinguishing christianist practices from pagan practices, such as the celebratory meal.
The question of greatest importance, though, bar none, is whether or not the Church is itself no more than the popularization of a very practical and functional mythology aimed at spiritual transformation of the few rare people who could actually do that. Many of the statements attributed to Jesus actually bear this out, horrified piety of standard Catholics not withstanding. This goes with another question of fundamental importance.
That is the question of whether or not religion or good have anything but a nodding acquaintance with one another. Certainly religions are about “God,” or at least people’s thoughts about God, but is God about religion? Clearly not. If all men and women on the Earth came as the result of God’s Creation, then the fact that religions tend to be local and parochial seems to point to the idea that religion is an idea of mankind. Even the relationship of Catholicism to such things as Zoroastrianism, ancient Egyptian religions, and paganism seems to bear this out. If these are denied, it is through the blindness of piety and general ignorance of the history and nature of religions.
Here is the exercise:
There is also the question of where is one studying the bible from? As in the thread question, understanding of the Bible has “evolved.” Does one study the Bible piously from the inside, having made a faith commitment to a particular stream of consensus, or from the outside as a phenomenon of history, literature, and interpretive thought, or both?
How many ordinary readers of the Bible, for instance, have considered such pertinent disciplines as anthropology, archeology, comparative linguistics and religion, theory of meaning, semantics, symbology, General Semantics, mythology, the natures of abstracting, witnessing, memory, collections, processes in the formation of groups and their interactions, the nature of belief itself relative to human psychology, integrational philosophy, communication theory, single and multi- level logics, etc, etc, etc?
Not many have, I wager, even taken a superficial course that includes these matters, as easy as it is to get a course book on such. Eg, here is a very simple exercise in translation. Below are four sentences in English. Can you come up with the exact meaning? The question is based on the fact that texts in Hebrew and Aramaic are written without vowels, punctuation, or capitalization and depend on context for the meanings of consonant groups. Try it:
1: THSSNXPRMNTNTHDCPHRNGFMSSG
2: THBBLFTHHBRWSWSWRTTNNTHSMNNRWTHTVWLSNDWT HTPNCTTNFNYKND
3: TSMSCLRTHTMNYRRRSFNTRPRTNCLDBMD
4: FRXMPLGDSNWHRCLDBNDRSTDBYSMNTBNSTDGDSNWR
One might soon agree with Robert Ingersoll that it could take twice as much inspiration to read such text as to write it. And then, despite crediting earlier translators with devotion and piety, and knowing in more detail some technicalities of language, are we in our century yet familiar with words, idioms, and modes of thinking of the original writers of whose work we only have copies, some of them obviously altered? For my part, I have to ask myself: Am I devoted to theological ideas based on original perception, or on linguistic events that took place well after the fresh revelation?
Again, how many know that “rope” is in fact the preferred translation now of the consonant group GML, not “camel.” Also, in the story of Elijah, is RBM “Arabs,” “ravens,” or “the inhabitants of Oreb,” a village hard near where Elijah was ensconced on the brook of Cherith? The only sensical translation is now thought to be “the inhabitants of Oreb.” And two millenia of misogyny might be attributed to the mistranslation of TZD, which actually means “side,” not “rib” and all the implications ancient and modern that go with that.
These differences are predicated on the actual speaking of Aramaic as we now know it. A critical example to some points of faith is this one: where is the comma in Luke 28:43? Is it “Verily, I say unto you, today…”? Or is it “Verily, I say unto you today, …”? The second is the nuance preferred by native speakers of Aramaic in their idiom, changing a major point of “proof” theology. The Bible, all of the versions of it, are riddled with such considerations.
That last one hinges on a comma!!! Which wasn’t there! In Fresno, California, on May 5, 1969. a barber and another man shot each other to death over the true meaning of certain passages of the Bible. The true meaning!!! Is that the kind of piety and devotion we are at the level of here? Is that what we have evolved to? What an excellent recommendation (along with Northern Ireland etc, etc.) for christianism."
S
Subrosa
Guest
If this were true, then why did Pope Adrian II send Sts. Cyril & Methodius to the slavic countries to bring them the gospel? The two brothers have been credited with developement of the Cyrillic alphabet (named for St. Cyril) in order to bring the Word of God, the Bible to the slavs.
newadvent.org/cathen/04592a.htm
Something else you need to know: the Holy Scripture has been read out loud to all who care to hear it from the beginning of christianity. It has never been unavailable. The problem lies with it’s interpretation.
Sub
S
Subrosa
Guest
You have seemingly been to Mass. The first half of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Word, where the Bible is read to whole assembly. It is read daily to anyone who attends Mass. It has been read at every Mass since the beginning of christianity and throughout it’s history.
How can you say that the church has not made God’s word known in the face of this historical fact? Were you not paying attention for those 24+ years you say you spent as a catholic? Were you one of the ones who approached the mass haphazardly and rushed to get out? Maybe cleaning your nails, or thinking about the football game that afternoon? Wishing you were somewhere else?
How can you say that the church did not make the scriptures available? This is an utter lie! A complete falsehood! The blind truth is that in no other church can you find more of the bible proclaimed on more days and with the most consistancy. No protestant church even comes close. usccb.org/nab/
Sub
A
Abu
Guest
Strange how reality evades those who don’t want to know it.
The facts speak for themselves:
Christ’s Church gave us the Bible and only She can protect the truths contained therein
The Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).
We only know which books belong to the Bible through the authoritative decision of the Church in the fourth century. Anyone is able to have a Bible today, as I have, because the Catholic Church collected the writings and made an infallible declaration on the canon of the Scriptures as to which books are the inspired Word of God. Most non-Catholic Bibles are missing seven books and thus many also miss out on vital truths as they follow the error of “Scripture Only”.
From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. Without the Holy Mass, Protestants had only the Bible for spiritual growth and came to see it as the only way to God, missing out on many essential truths, and splitting into some 50,000 differing denominations. Also, the Scriptures privately interpreted cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty and lack of unified Christian action at times. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating].
Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.
Christ’s Church has declared that the Sacred Scriptures are without error as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, while individual opinions and interpretations are not without error. Error is incompatible with truth.
The facts speak for themselves:
Christ’s Church gave us the Bible and only She can protect the truths contained therein
The Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).
We only know which books belong to the Bible through the authoritative decision of the Church in the fourth century. Anyone is able to have a Bible today, as I have, because the Catholic Church collected the writings and made an infallible declaration on the canon of the Scriptures as to which books are the inspired Word of God. Most non-Catholic Bibles are missing seven books and thus many also miss out on vital truths as they follow the error of “Scripture Only”.
From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. Without the Holy Mass, Protestants had only the Bible for spiritual growth and came to see it as the only way to God, missing out on many essential truths, and splitting into some 50,000 differing denominations. Also, the Scriptures privately interpreted cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty and lack of unified Christian action at times. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating].
Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.
Christ’s Church has declared that the Sacred Scriptures are without error as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, while individual opinions and interpretations are not without error. Error is incompatible with truth.
D
Detales
Guest
Abu~Strange how reality evades those who don’t want to know it. True
The facts speak for themselves: True
Christ’s Church gave us the Bible and only She can protect the truths contained therein This is not a fact, this is opinion of the most unfounded order. See line 1.
The facts speak for themselves: True
Christ’s Church gave us the Bible and only She can protect the truths contained therein This is not a fact, this is opinion of the most unfounded order. See line 1.
B
beeliner
Guest
Abu, I agree with you that the deuterocanonicals belong in the Bible due to their inclusion in the LXX.
I am not so sure, however, that they contain ‘vital truths’. Can you list some of the ‘vital truths’ contained in, say,Tobit? Can burning fish innards really keep demons away?
And by the way, the canonicity of these books was decided much later than the 4th century.
A
Abu
Guest
Since the facts prove the certification and authorisation of the Sacred Scriptures by Christ’s Catholic Church (O.T & NT) from His Vicar as the canon of the Scriptures for use as the inspired Word of God, all attempts to evade these truths merely show not only the false god of private interpretation but privation and deprivation for those so victimised.
Or perhaps the moon is made of green cheese for Detales…
Beeliner – it’s good to be sure. You’ll find the doctrine of Purgatory in 2 Macc 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.” This ties in with 1 Cor 3:15.
Or perhaps the moon is made of green cheese for Detales…
Beeliner – it’s good to be sure. You’ll find the doctrine of Purgatory in 2 Macc 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.” This ties in with 1 Cor 3:15.
D
Detales
Guest
Abu~Since the facts prove the certification and authorisation of the Sacred Scriptures by Christ’s Catholic Church (O.T & NT) from His Vicar as the canon of the Scriptures for use as the inspired Word of God, all attempts to evade these truths merely show not only the false god of private interpretation but privation and deprivation for those so victimised.
This is opinion. How are you justifying calling it fact?
This is opinion. How are you justifying calling it fact?
F
fbl9
Guest
It is written thus it is so.
.try reading a little further than what you have quoted and you will learn that those whom pratice birth control are the one’s whom the devil has power over.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
The key is that Jesus SPOKE in Aramaic. The Gospels were written in Greek, so the only translating would have been in the actual message. Assuming the Apostles understood the teachings, and then passed this knowledge on, I see no problem. When St Jerome translated everything into Latin, then yes maybe we should be concerned.
This is where Tradition helps to solidify Christianity. How likely is it that the 12 Apostles added or deleted from the message that Christ gave them? Not likely, because they all would have had to agree, otherwise there would have been fighting amongst them, which is not evident from history.
Apply this same principle to those that the Apostles taught. There is no major division until 1000 AD and 1500AD. You might want to point out “heretics” within the Church that did preach something different but were excommunicated. To me this is actually proof that the true Church, founded by Christ, is protecting itself.
I might agree were it not for the fact that Jesus Christ did indeed live as a person, suffer under Pontius Pilate, and was Crucified. Then we have the eyewitness testimony of His 12 Apostles that He was resurrected. Did they all lie about this? Not likely, since they really had nothing to gain, while they had their lives to lose (all but John were martyred for preaching the Gospel) This is evidence enough for me.
Only if you do not believe that God did not give Moses the Ten Commandments, or that Jesus did not establish His Church here on earth. To me, God is about religion.
Religion is local, just like accents (and skin color used to be). Technology is helping to change all that. But I guess what you are saying, is why did God appear only to Moses when He could have “talked” to a bunch of people? I don’t know, lol, but that doesn’t really both me. It makes sense that religion is localized. When the Mormon religion was created, do we expect everyone to know about it? The Greeks invented a religion to help explain the world they lived in, which seems quite natural to me if they had no other explanation.
Which is why I put my trust in the Catholic Church, because they have had men that have studied those topics you listed. When I read the Bible, I take it with a gain of salt, because I know that I do not have all the information (original text, customs, idioms, etc.)
Again, good thing the Catholic Church has Tradition to guide Her. Otherwise, you are right, it would be guess work.
D
Detales
Guest
That it is.
D
Detales
Guest
The Bible is True: www.youtube.com/watch%253Fv%253DbGoYbjzy8-s
O
OraLabora
Guest
In 1229 you’d be hard pressed to find a handful of people who could read the Bible in the vernacular, let alone in Latin. In 1700 for example, nearly 70% of people in France were illiterate!!! Not only could they not read, but even if they could, the level of education the would possess would be woefully inadequate to make a reasonable interpretation of what they were reading.
So the historical context of these statements needs to be considered.
Also Bibles did not fall from the sky in that era. This was before the printing press. Every official copy of the Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand by monks, letter-by-letter. These were precious documents.
This Protestant canard is so easy to shoot out of the sky, it isn’t even sporting…
J
jericho777
Guest
Hi patrick are the crusades and inquisition are those red herrings too?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.
Like I said at the beginning of this post I am concerned because people were fawning all over themselves how the church was justified in their actions.
Do you think any non clergy should read scriptures today?
A
Abu
Guest
For Beeliner & Detales
On canonicity, in 382 A.D. Pope Damasus I published the complete list of books of the OT and NT decreeing: “what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what it must avoid.” Councils at Hippo, Carthage, Florence and Trent confirmed what Pope Damasus had decreed. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 46).
Those who don’t know their history need to. The authorisation, coming from Christ’s Vicar and His Church, didn’t fall out of thin air, but from Christ’s mandate to teach all that He had commanded.
On the value of Tobit: The Catechism of the Catholic Church twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28: “From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites **Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” **Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.
The god of private interpretation was born of the god of private selection also known as opinion or prejudice.
On canonicity, in 382 A.D. Pope Damasus I published the complete list of books of the OT and NT decreeing: “what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what it must avoid.” Councils at Hippo, Carthage, Florence and Trent confirmed what Pope Damasus had decreed. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 46).
Those who don’t know their history need to. The authorisation, coming from Christ’s Vicar and His Church, didn’t fall out of thin air, but from Christ’s mandate to teach all that He had commanded.
On the value of Tobit: The Catechism of the Catholic Church twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28: “From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites **Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” **Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.
The god of private interpretation was born of the god of private selection also known as opinion or prejudice.
A
Abu
Guest
When you accept Christ’s Church you will then have His Mystical Body the pillar and ground of the truth --** “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19). Those who continue to deny Christ will be denied by Him to His Father in heaven (Mt 10:13).**
Such selfism can only be cured by facing reality-- you don’t have the excuse now of not knowing.
Farewell.
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19). Those who continue to deny Christ will be denied by Him to His Father in heaven (Mt 10:13).**
Such selfism can only be cured by facing reality-- you don’t have the excuse now of not knowing.
Farewell.
P
patrick457
Guest
Good morning (well, it is morning here, at least)!
Ah, I knew the Crusades and the Inquisitions (yes, there was not a single one) would be brought up.
So the thread won’t be derailed, I invite you to send a PM to me detailing your grieviances for these events, and then we’ll talk about it in detail. Okay?
Now, for laymen reading the Bible: yes, by all means. In this day and age when many people can read and write, and where Bibles are not so scarce, yes.
Did you know? A special indulgence is granted to ANYONE who reads the Bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: “A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.” The indulgence issue might be something you might want to question.
Now, why would the Church grant indulgences for Bible reading if she doesn’t want her flock to read it? That’s rather weird, don’t you think?
And, to close this post, the opening words of Spiritus Paraclitus:
Since the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, had bestowed the Scriptures on the human race for their instruction in Divine things, He also raised up in successive ages saintly and learned men whose task it should be to develop that treasure and so provide for the and so provide for the faithful plenteous “consolation from the Scriptures.”[1] Foremost among these teachers stands St. Jerome. Him the Catholic Church acclaims and reveres as her “Greatest Doctor,” divinely given her for the understanding of the Bible. And now that the fifteenth centenary of his death is approaching we would not willingly let pass so favorable an opportunity of addressing you on the debt we owe him. For the responsibility of our Apostolic office impels us to set before you his wonderful wonderful example and so promote the study of Holy Scripture in accordance with the teaching of our predecessors, Leo XIII and Pius X, which we desire to apply more precisely still to the present needs of the Church. For St. Jerome - “strenuous Catholic, learned in the Scriptures,”[2] “teacher of Catholics,”[3] “model of virtue, world’s teacher”[4] - has by his earnest and illuminative defense of Catholic doctrine on Holy Scripture left us most precious instructions. These we propose to set before you and so promote among the children of the Church, and especially among the clergy, assiduous and reverent study of the Bible.
- Status