H
hope
Guest
He knows little of history. So important did the Church believe that people be familiar with scripture that windows portrayed Scripture.
How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?
- Status
M
MarysLurker
Guest
… was a local council that banned Bible distribution temporarily because of the Cathar heresy.
… was another local council that was involved in the politics of the Spanish Inquisition (which was a a political tool of the Spanish Crown, not the Church which tried to suspend it)
Quoted out of context. Read the whole thing. https://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L12UBIPR.HTM
So when are you going to explain the Byzantines/Orthodox?
H
hope
Guest
Just like your quotes from the Bible your information is twisted with your personal interpretation instead of what is really being said hence distorted.
S
steve-b
Guest
You were complaining about the scriptures not being printed in the vernacular. So I corrected you.
And you are always lecturing people to only use the bible to answer questions. Church Tradition is NOT to be used. THAT idea is from Luther. NOT from scripture.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Ah, I always liked Jimmy Akins’ Tip Toe through the Tulip article (I must have read it for the first time back in 2002). I’m aware of the distinctions between Calvin and St. Augustine/St. Aquinas on falling from grace, etc (I side with Luther, St. Augustine and St. Aquinas on the question of God granting the gift of faith without the gift of final perserverance to some, hence the reality of genuine apostasy).
That said, despite the nice job Jimmy’s article does on a number of points, my memory is that it does try to make distinctions at times that are not substantively present in Calvin and Aquinas. Unfortunately, it’s been a while since I read the article and it would take much more time than I have at present go point by point through items that I disagree with.
The point for this discussion is (absent the gloss of modern and historic apologists), the actual writings of St. Augustine explicitly maintain double predestination. Further, St. Augustine’s teaching that it was impossible for anyone to be finally saved without the gift of final perseverance (sovereignly given only to those elected apart from foreseen works) makes it in effect impossible according to St. Augustine for any non-elect to inherit eternal life. In fact he makes it clear throughout his writings that no one will or can come to Christ (or persevere in Christ), except those particular individuals whom God has elected to do so.
Of course, the above only speaks of things from the perspective of the mystery of God’s sovereign decrees. In contrast, under the Augustinian/Thomistic/Calvinist position the gate of heaven is open wide to all who will enter, and anyone who desires may come and take freely of the water of life (and our sharing of the Gospel is genuinely effective to win souls for Christ that would otherwise be damned). Anyone who doesn’t accept the offer of Salvation is (according to the Augustinian/Thomistic/Calvinist tradition) effectively using their own corrupt will to purchase for themselves damnation.
Some of the most genuine and powerful appeals that you’ll hear to reach each and every lost soul in this world with Salvation are from Calvinists. I wish I had more time to flesh out this point, but I will really have to call it quits for this thread for the time being. Have a good week (or month).
That said, despite the nice job Jimmy’s article does on a number of points, my memory is that it does try to make distinctions at times that are not substantively present in Calvin and Aquinas. Unfortunately, it’s been a while since I read the article and it would take much more time than I have at present go point by point through items that I disagree with.
The point for this discussion is (absent the gloss of modern and historic apologists), the actual writings of St. Augustine explicitly maintain double predestination. Further, St. Augustine’s teaching that it was impossible for anyone to be finally saved without the gift of final perseverance (sovereignly given only to those elected apart from foreseen works) makes it in effect impossible according to St. Augustine for any non-elect to inherit eternal life. In fact he makes it clear throughout his writings that no one will or can come to Christ (or persevere in Christ), except those particular individuals whom God has elected to do so.
Of course, the above only speaks of things from the perspective of the mystery of God’s sovereign decrees. In contrast, under the Augustinian/Thomistic/Calvinist position the gate of heaven is open wide to all who will enter, and anyone who desires may come and take freely of the water of life (and our sharing of the Gospel is genuinely effective to win souls for Christ that would otherwise be damned). Anyone who doesn’t accept the offer of Salvation is (according to the Augustinian/Thomistic/Calvinist tradition) effectively using their own corrupt will to purchase for themselves damnation.
Some of the most genuine and powerful appeals that you’ll hear to reach each and every lost soul in this world with Salvation are from Calvinists. I wish I had more time to flesh out this point, but I will really have to call it quits for this thread for the time being. Have a good week (or month).
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Then please Quote Augustine, properly referenced, that prove that.
R
ReadTheBible
Guest
Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:
“to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)
That’s his quote untwisted and clear. Anything philosophically you disagree with you claim has been twisted.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It sure sounds like the Pope and scripture are at odds. This was the reason Rome fought so hard to keep a lid on scripture.
H
hope
Guest
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
Continued:
Because of this, when the high priest “asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine, Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing.” Furthermore, if anyone objects that according to the Lord’s command “give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine”, since Christ himself also said “unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables”, he should understand that dogs and pigs are not things which happily bring holiness and willingly accept pearls, but things which tear apart holiness and scorn pearls, just like those who do not venerate the words of the Gospel and the ecclesiastical sacraments as Catholics, but rather detest them as heretics, who are always chattering and blaspheming, whom the apostle Paul teaches should be avoided “after the first and second admonition.”
The mysteries of the sacraments of faith should not be explained everywhere to everyone, since they cannot be understood everywhere by everyone, but only to those who can conceive of them by their faithful intellect . Because of this the Apostle said to the simpler people: “As unto little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not meat.” For “strong meat is for the perfect”, as he said to others: “we speak wisdom among the perfect;” “for I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified.” Such is the profundity of divine Scripture, that not only simple and illiterate men, but even prudent and learned men do not fully suffice to investigate its wisdom. Because of this Scripture says: “They have failed in their search.” From this it was rightly once established in divine law that the beast which touches the mountain should be stoned; that is, so that no simple and unlearned man presumes to concern himself with the sublimity of sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cum_ex_injuncto_(1199)
(Emphasis added to show the snippets which were combined to create something the original text did NOT say!)
Now, this document cum ex injuncto , is not even contained within the pages of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum! In fact, the reference to 770-771 refers to a part of the “List of Errors of Martin Luther, which was compiled about 300-400 years AFTER Pope Innocent III was alive! The sections of Denzinger which contain quotes from Pope Innocent III are from reference 404-427, and again, cum ex injuncto is not found among those quotes!
(False Citation? | CathApol's Blog)
Because of this, when the high priest “asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine, Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing.” Furthermore, if anyone objects that according to the Lord’s command “give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine”, since Christ himself also said “unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables”, he should understand that dogs and pigs are not things which happily bring holiness and willingly accept pearls, but things which tear apart holiness and scorn pearls, just like those who do not venerate the words of the Gospel and the ecclesiastical sacraments as Catholics, but rather detest them as heretics, who are always chattering and blaspheming, whom the apostle Paul teaches should be avoided “after the first and second admonition.”
The mysteries of the sacraments of faith should not be explained everywhere to everyone, since they cannot be understood everywhere by everyone, but only to those who can conceive of them by their faithful intellect . Because of this the Apostle said to the simpler people: “As unto little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not meat.” For “strong meat is for the perfect”, as he said to others: “we speak wisdom among the perfect;” “for I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified.” Such is the profundity of divine Scripture, that not only simple and illiterate men, but even prudent and learned men do not fully suffice to investigate its wisdom. Because of this Scripture says: “They have failed in their search.” From this it was rightly once established in divine law that the beast which touches the mountain should be stoned; that is, so that no simple and unlearned man presumes to concern himself with the sublimity of sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cum_ex_injuncto_(1199)
(Emphasis added to show the snippets which were combined to create something the original text did NOT say!)
Now, this document cum ex injuncto , is not even contained within the pages of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum! In fact, the reference to 770-771 refers to a part of the “List of Errors of Martin Luther, which was compiled about 300-400 years AFTER Pope Innocent III was alive! The sections of Denzinger which contain quotes from Pope Innocent III are from reference 404-427, and again, cum ex injuncto is not found among those quotes!
(False Citation? | CathApol's Blog)
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures (in the vernacular) was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearnedhope:
Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:
“to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)
That’s his quote untwisted and clear. Anything philosophically you disagree with you claim has been twisted.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It sure sounds like the Pope and scripture are at odds. This was the reason Rome fought so hard to keep a lid on scripture.
And we know, all too well, what the simple minded and unlearned can and will do, with scripture.
For some reading on this
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Here is the book you are supposedly quoting.
There is no page 770 or 771.
And why would a supposed Bible ban be in the Enchiridion Symbolorum, which is exactly what it says on the tin: a handbook of creeds?
It doesn’t look like you’re being completely transparent about this.
He/she isn’t, probably because the anti-Catholic website he/she is getting this junk from can’t reconcile its “dark ages led to Mary worship” theory with the Eastern Roman Empire’s contemporary golden age, or explain why they kept Mary when they broke off from Rome.
Last edited:
This is so patently false it boggles the mind.
Steve, please stop doing this. Sola scriptura does NOT teach that Tradition should not be used. That is a misuse of sola scriptura, often referred to as solo scriptura, something Luther would not approve of.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
On the contrary Scripture and Tradition | Catholic Answerssteve-b:
This is so patently false it boggles the mind.
Steve, please stop doing this. Sola scriptura does NOT teach that Tradition should not be used. That is a misuse of sola scriptura, often referred to as solo scriptura, something Luther would not approve of.
Note: the opening statement (emphasis mine)
“Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it.”
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
OK. Where is your quote from Augustine, in this answer to prove your point?
Then Adding to this response, another response I made previously, HERE
Last edited:
I
Isearch
Guest
I
Isearch
Guest
The next chapter of the same work provides an explanation: the reason God predestines some by providing Graces prior to considering their future merits and reprobates others by withholding His Graces is a mystery.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Augustine’s writings, ≠ double predestination
Excerpt from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm
…The only ambiguous passage containing the expressions “unavoidable and invincible” (De corrept. et gratia XII, xxxviii: indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter) does not refer, as is clear from the context, to Divine grace but to the weak will which by means of grace is made invulnerable against all temptations, even to the point of being unconquerable, without, however, thereby losing its native freedom. Other difficult passages must likewise be explained in view of the general fundamental principles of the saint’s teaching and especially of the context and the logical connexion of his thoughts (cf. J. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus”, LI, 25 sq.; Freiburg, 1909). Hence St. Augustine, when towards the end of his life he wrote his “Retractations”, did not take back anything in this matter, nor had he any reason for doing so. But as to God’s relation to sin, nothing was further from the thoughts of the great doctor than the idea that the Most Holy could in any way or for any purpose force the human will to commit sin. It is true that God foresees sin, but He does not will it; for He must of necessity hate it. St. Augustine draws a sharp distinction between prœscire and prœdestinare, and to him the infallible foreknowledge of sin is by no means synonymous with a necessitating predestination to sin. Thus he says of the fall of Adam (De corrept. et gratia, 12, 37), “Deo quidem præsciente, quid esset Adam facturus injuste; præsciente tamen, non ad hoc cogente” (cf. Mausbach, ibid. 208 sq.). The question whether and in how far St. Augustine assumed, in connexion with the absolute predestination of the elect, what was later on known as the negative reprobation of the damned, is quite distinct from our present question and has nothing to do with heretical Predestinarianism.
The work “prædestinatus”
That the Pelagians after their condemnation by the Church had a great interest in exaggerating to their ultimate heretical consequences those ideas of St. Augustine which may easily be misunderstood, that thereby they might under the mask of orthodoxy be enabled to combat more effectually not only the ultra-Augustinian but also the whole Catholic doctrine on grace, is clearly proved by a work written by an anonymous author of the fifth century. This work, edited by Sirmond for the first time in 1643 in Paris under the title of “Prædestinatus” …
G
GKMotley
Guest
A bunny trail I’ve been down many times, over many years. One comes out in varying places.
In the quoted part occurs an historical infelicity. But no matter (little double entendre there.)
In the quoted part occurs an historical infelicity. But no matter (little double entendre there.)
I
Isearch
Guest
I do concede that Saint Augustine rejected double predestination; but, he did upheld the belief that God had predestined a portion of humanity to salvation prior to considering their future actions and had left the rest to their own perdition. As far as I am aware of, it seems that the doctrine of predestination considering future actions was only revived by the Molinist school after centuries of those espousing Augustinian predestination had become prominent.
And Saint Augustine definitely did not abandon free will.
And Saint Augustine definitely did not abandon free will.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
since I’m not qualified to make the judgement
made in the encyclical, Apostolicae Curiae and that same understanding to my knowledge continuies to this day,then,
From Canon Law: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
- Status