A
adf417
Guest
Can I get an “AMEN!”?
If the Bible is a 'Catholic book', are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
The point Jimmy is making, the writers can know THEY were writing scripture when they wrote a letter or a gospel, but look at all the writings that purport to be written by an apostle but weren’t. Or purported authentic writings but weren’t. From a Protestant site earlychristianwritings.com/ Were there disagreements on which writings were authentic? Yep. Who determines who’s right and who’s wrong? It’s the Church
There’s only one authentic Church established by Jesus. The Catholic Church. And Jesus promise, not even the gates of hell will prevail against His Church.
The father of Protestantism, is Martin Luther. He disagreed with Revelations (saying noway did the writer of the 4th gospel write that). He also rejected Hebrews, Jude and James. James he called an epistle of straw. Reason being, “by faith alone” legitimately appears in scripture, except James wrote “NOT” in front of it. That went against Luther’s belief system. So James was an epistle of straw. Luther ultimately was convinced to leave those books alone but he still eliminated 7 OT books from his bible. To this day as a result of Luther, Protestants have 66 books in their bible, not 73.
So you’re own bibles contradict your own argument.
Point being, the Catholic Church made the decision of the canon. No authoritative canon no authoritative bible.
a:
I showed you the roots in Greek where Catholic Church came from. When Paul wrote to Timothy, in 1 Tim 3:15, and said the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, “church” isn’t capitalized there either. But we know who Paul is talking about. It’s the church throughout all, the church universal, the catholic church. Which soon became a proper name.
That’s why I quoted Bp Ignatius of Antioch who was made bishop by the apostles and was a direct disciple of John the apostle.
He was bishop from ~70 a.d. to ~107 a.d. NO ONE asked
- Bp Ignatius what he meant by “Catholic Church”. (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics and protesters to the faith and the Church won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that, and give that warning and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for commiting and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church? Paul condemned division / dissention from the Church Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 and Jesus does NOT approve of division in His Church John 17:20-23 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 no one can say the HS inspired all the division we see today in Christianity. There is no expiration date to that warning and condemnation
- what Bp Polycarp ~150 a.d. meant by “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
- what Bp Irenaeus ~180 meant by “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm”]Chapter 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3, v 2-3]
- what “Catholic Church” meant in the Muratorian canon ~180 a.d. earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html
- what Bp Cyprian meant by “Catholic Church” ~250 a.d. Epistle 54
- what the council of Nicea meant by “Catholic Church” ~325 a.d. newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
- what Augustine meant by “Catholic Church” Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental (ch 5 v6)
- etc etc etc
If you were validly baptized then you are “part” in some way but you are not in the Church. You are outside the Church
a:
You have the freedom to defy Jesus command John 17:20-23
I recommend you don’t die in that state
G
guanophore
Guest
Great post Steve, a lot of great historical references. I am going to save this one!
I think you are saying that the communion is imperfect, but the CC recognizes that there is only One Body, so all who are validly baptized are members of it. They are not part of the “visible” Church, but baptism joins them to Christ, and to us.
1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”
If they are saved, it will be through the CC whether they know it, or not.
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
I have met some on these threads that want nothing to do with the CC and don’t want to be called siblings. :bigyikes:
S
steve_b
Guest
Luther knew what the canon of scripture was. It was 73 books
Luther’s canon which he established on his own, was 39 OT books + 27 NT books = 66 books . Luther removed 7 OT books from the canon by demoting 7 canonical books to apocryphal status. THAT is removing books from scripture.
Luther’s own quote
“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”
And then there’s this quote
"“We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”
Thinking outloud, I’d say Luther’s statement is a lethal admission
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think he really saw himself “removing” the books because he never considered them to be part of the canon. He never accepted the canon defined in 483 and subsequently. He thought all of the bilbles up to that time that contained these books contained “apocrypha” that were good to read, but not Scripture.
S
steve_b
Guest
From my previous post, Allow me to quote Luther again
(emphasis mine)
"“We concede–as we must--that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that **the papacy has God’s word ** and the office of the apostles, and that **we have received Holy Scriptures, **Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”
THAT is a lethal admission from Luther himself, from a Lutheran source. Don’t make excuses for Luther after he already admitted he received the scriptures from the Catholic Church. He admitted he wouldn’t know anything about them (the scriptures) if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church.
He had the Vulgate, (73 books in the canon) to refer to. It had been that way since Pope Damasus I, decreed that canon in 382. Florence, an ecumenical council, also validated that same canon. Look at his quote above. He knew. And he knowingly and deliberately rebelled .
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, he admits he received the Scriptures, but he never acknowleges that he believed the “apocrypha” belonged in them.
He believed that his biblical scholarship was on the same level as any church Fathers such as Jerome, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius and that it was his perogative to classify them as such.
I am not saying he did not knowingly and willingly rebel, over a great many things. But there were also Catholics that shared his opinion about the deuterocanon.
S
steve_b
Guest
Re: the highlighted text 1271
Baptism outside the Catholic Church doesn’t mean one is automatically “IN” the Catholic Church. Just because one is baptized, does it mean, one can receive the sacraments in the Church. For example catholic.com/quickquestions/as-a-protestant-who-wishes-to-stay-focused-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri
Re: highlighted text 818
That is NOT a be all to end all statement. ONCE a person is given the truth about the Catholic Church, and freely rejects it, THEN they make an informed decision. THEN they are no longer innocently ignorant of their status. They are now guilty of being separated from the Church just like their ancestors were when they refused to join or remain in the Catholic Church. 846
S
steve_b
Guest
Those 7 books are NOT apocrypha. They are scripture.
Luther admits he received the scriptures from the Catholic Church. Those scriptures = 73 canonical books specifically named by book. There is no confusion here.
Luther demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal status. That’s on him. Those 7 books for 1200 years are scripture, they by definition are canon, NOT apocrypha…
g:
Luther’s quote I gave is lethal to his case.
And
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
Re: those saints mentioned see the following entry
g:
As I’ve said in many posts previously, before the Church closes the canon, the canon is open for opinion.
Jerome had his opinions about the canon, but his translation, the Vulgate, had the 73 book canon Damasus I, decreed.
Origen, died before Damasus decreed the canon
Cyril of Jerusalem, didn’t accept John’s Revelation either. Was Cyril wrong? Yes. He died ~386.
Athanasius died before Damasus decreed the canon
G
guanophore
Guest
Baptism is what joins one to the Church. One is “in” because there is only One Body, and Baptism is what makes members of it. They are not visible members of the Church, because they are members of other ecclesial communities. They are imperfectly joined, and the reason you state is exactly why. They cannot receive the other Sacraments of the Church.
They are considered “in” because when they do come to full communion later, they are not rebaptized. Their trinitarian baptism is considered the valid sacrament.
It certainly seems to me that Luther was confused.
I am not sure he did. I am not sure he ever held them in that regard. He did seem to have problems recognizing other books as properly part of Scripture as well.
Does he have a case?
I thought all that was settled by Pope Leo?
I think this is the difference. All of these scholars submitted their opinions to the Church, where Luther would not.
Jerome’s hesitation was that they never found a copy of the Deuterocanonicals in the original Hebrew. I often wonder if Luther had known about the Dead Sea Scrolls if it would have changed his mind, as I am sure it would have Jerome’s.
S
steve_b
Guest
They are still received into the Church. You don’t receive one “into” the Church if they are already “in”, that would make no sense.
Besides if they were already “in” the Church (which they are not) they could receive the sacraments with no exceptions or caveots, etc (which they cant do)…
S
steve_b
Guest
As an excommunicated heretic? I think not
g:
Jerome had the discipline and humility to follow the Church.
Look at what Luther recognized and still would not be disciplined, and would not obey the Church.
“We concede–as we must--that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that **the papacy has God’s word ** and the office of the apostles, and that **we have received Holy Scriptures, **Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”
P
PRmerger
Guest
They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and are imperfectly joined to us through their baptism.
P
PRmerger
Guest
They are received into…FULL COMMUNION with us.
Which means they are in… PARTIAL COMMUNION with us until the are received into the Church.
S
steve_b
Guest
Imperfectly joined as in not in the Church YET
Until they are fully received into the Church they aren’t in the Church, YET
because there is no communion, no unity of community YET.
Baptism is not the be all to end all sacrament. It’s a beginning.
Those passages from the CCC you quote, don’t say all the “baptized” are “in” the Church. For proof, if Protestants were “in” the Catholic Church based on their baptism, they could walk off the street and receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. But they can’t. As the bishops state in the misselettes, to allow non Catholic Christians to receive the Eucharist is to acknowledge a unity that is yet not there.
Another reason that non-Catholics of the Protestant variety may not receive Communion is for their own protection, since many not only reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but may be in mortal sin also, and as I gave the link previously, they can’t go to confession to a Catholic priest to be sure of ridding themselves of that sin…
catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion
Jesus wants perfect unity. Not a suggestion but a mandate. John 17:20-23
837* “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.”
*
Without that unity, one is NOT “in” the Church*
*
837 continues with those who already are incorporated into the Church**
**"Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart’"
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. This is very Catholic.
- Status