T
Tietjen
Guest
What do you want me to address about indulgences? And as for the rest of your post… what I understood of it… I’ll simply leave it alone.
Im writing this in hopes we can live together as a unified body of God
- Status
R
Rolltide
Guest
I’ve been reading over your posts for a while now, and although your intentions are most definitely good, you do hold some distinct misconceptions about the Catholic Church.
Actually, in the Catholic Church, doctrines and dogmas are almost never formally defined until challenged by someone. The pope definitively defined the official canon specifically in response to Luther’s challenge of those seven books, which had been accepted by Christians ever since the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 300s AD. These councils were deemed to be sufficient until Luther’s challenge, and so the language was strengthened so that there would be no possibility of dispute or misunderstanding in the future.
I work professionally as a professor of history at a major private Southern college, so I was able to look up the exact documentation and references from the early councils that prove these books were included:
The Council of Rome - 382 AD
Pope Damasus I is the pope the commissioned the Latin Vulgate. This is the canon that was selected for inclusion by St. Jerome:
The “Damasine list”, issued by Pope Damasus I at the council, is as follows:
Code:
"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;
Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.
Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.
Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.
Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.""“It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.”
continued…
R
Rolltide
Guest
Indulgences have nothing to do with buying your way into heaven, and in fact, still exist within the Catholic Church. What Luther (rightly) was protesting was the abuse of indulgences, where certain unscrupulous people would sell them. This was NEVER condoned by the Church. An indulgence is simply a sort of penance that can be applied to yourself or someone else to lessen their time in Purgatory. (The deuterocanon of the Bible, which Protestants dispute, discusses how prayers to the dead can help their cause. The added books of the Bible are necessary to support this assertion, which is one reason Luther rejected them.) Any person who is in Purgatory is GUARANTEED to go to heaven. NO ONE can buy or sell salvation, or bail someone out of hell. An indulgence, like a penance at confession, can only help reduce the temporal stain of an ALREADY forgiven sin.
You’re right, Jesus never did use the actual term pope, but of course, the Bible never uses the terms “Bible” or “Trinity” either, and that doesn’t change the fact that they exist. The actual title of the pope is, in fact, the “Bishop of Rome”, and we do know that Peter was bishop of Rome and was crucified upside-down in that city from other historical documents of that period.
I WORK as a professional historian, and I can tell you, using the proof provided above from the historical record, that the deuterocanonical books WERE included since the early church.
Actually, the Vulgate DID include the deuterocanon, and although St. Jerome initially challenged their inclusion, he became a defender of their inclusion later in life. If you like, I can show you the table of contents from a Vulgate from the 400s AD, or some quotes from St. Jerome to verify this.
This is also incorrect. 300 out of 350 quotes from the Old Testament that are included in the New Testament come from the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon. There are also at least three instances in which Jesus potentially paraphrases the Deuterocanonical books, and even the Dead Sea Scrolls include the books in Hebrew. (The disputed books were once challenged because it was believed they ONLY existed in Greek, not Hebrew. We know know this to be false.) Further, MOST of the Early Church Fathers supported the Deuterocanon. Granted, a few did not. But… a few ALSO rejected Revelation, 2 Peter, and 1 James. Does this mean that those books need to go as well?
The Douay-Reims translation of the Bible is almost a word-for-word translation of the original Vulgate from Latin. The books were NOT added in later, and that’s very easy to prove.
I agree. We should not be disrespecting each other. It is most certainly not what Jesus would want.
No, but even in the time of the Apostles, we have testaments to the importance of baptism and confession. The Didache, the oldest historically accurate document on early Christianity, and written while the Apostles were still alive, confirms this. In fact, this book ALMOST made it into the Bible! The only reason it didn’t is that while all of the information contained within was considered accurate, it was considered more of an instruction manual for early Christians, and didn’t contain any actual inspired revelation. That said, it is considered a completely accurate description of the Christian Church from around 70 AD.
Yes, everyone in heaven is “Catholic” (meaning believing in Christianity the way people do “universally” across the globe).
When we say that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, it does NOT mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved! It means that they might be saved in SPITE of a lack of knowledge. They will be doing the will of God, as passed down through the Bible and proclaimed most fully through the Catholic Church, without even realizing it. It’s akin to this. Imagine the Catholic Church as a 16 year old who goes out and buys a brand new car. They read the entire instruction manual, sign up and take driving lessons, and successfully make it to school. Now, imagine other groups are 16 year olds who go out and buy used cars. They have only partial instruction manuals, or perhaps no instruction manual at all. Some get lessons, but some do not. Now, they may eventually make it safely to school as well, but if school represents the Kingdom of Heaven, which route is the safer choice? If they DO make it to school, it will be by unintentionally following the rules that were in the book they never read and the lessons they never signed up for. (In other words, they were still saved THROUGH the Catholic Church). That is how and why everyone in heaven, even those who weren’t Catholic on earth, will actually indeed be “Catholic”.
N
nsper7
Guest
Whether it is disrespectful or not, we can ask you the same question. Why should we care what you believe? So far, you have been shown to be factually incorrect on numerous occasions. If you want to argue Protestant contrived pseudo-historical supposition…well, you have been shown facts. Either try to disprove them or find your own facts (NOT SUPPOSITION) to back up your arguments, but don’t play the old game of evasion or just ignoring the facts in favor of your views. It makes you look foolish.
Well, maybe take a little bit more time to think your posts through then. Run it through a spell-checker, re-read it a couple of times, etc. You can have the most brilliant and truthful argument in the world, but if people have trouble reading it, it doesn’t really matter how good it is then.
Huh? You claimed that the Deuterocanonical books were not in the Scriptural canon before the Council of Trent. You have been shown otherwise.
You are correct that the Virgin Mary did not die for our sin, but she did give birth to the Son of God. She is the Mother of God (not chronologically of course, for she is a created being) and even your man Luther would agree.
Why should we accepting of falsehood and half-truths? We who are Catholic have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ. You may not like that, but tough nuggets, you’re on a Catholic forum. One of the biggest problems the more Traditionally minded Catholics (myself among them) see in the Church today is that in our desire to be more “ecumenical”, certain elements of the Faith have gotten watered down by some Catholics.
Truthfully, you have little to offer to the conversation so far. Your arguments have been made by many others numerous times before and, each time, they have been refuted.
People have free-will. If they choose to reject the Catholic Church, which can be traced back to the Apostolic Era, in favor of some man-made religion which can be traced back to Luther in the 1600s, then that is their choice.
In terms of “converting Christians to christianity”, we are trying to bring Non-Catholics to the Truth of Catholicism.
Are you saying Catholics don’t believe in Christ?
We are trying to help you see the Truth of the Catholic Church and realize that your arguments are flawed.
Maybe if you’re posts were easier to read, we wouldn’t have so much trouble interpreting them.
For Catholics, worshiping (especially through the Mass) implies unity. There can be no unity until you realize you are incorrect in your assertions against the Church and are willing to humbly accept the Truth and submit yourself to the Successor of St. Peter.
No, it is the mentality of Protestants who continue to rebel against the True Church and each other that causes divisions. There will be no divisions when the Protestants re-enter full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Because we are unified under the Bishop of Rome. Catholics disagree on many things and, in some areas, disagreement is allowed since the Church has not spoken. In other areas, while an individual is free to hold their own beliefs on an issue, they must be willing to submit to the teaching authority of the Church in order to be an orthodox Catholic.
There can never be unity in Protestantism because there is no truly authoritative…well…authority. You can claim ‘Sola Scriptura’ until you’re blue in the face, but in the end, it is subject to interpretation and that is why, while the Catholic Church remains One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, Protestantism continues to self-destruct, falling into the muck of progressivism (think of the Episcopal Church’s ordination of openly gay bishops) or the darkness of illogical fundamentalism.
No, we can never unite until you get past the fact that there was One Church founded by Christ and that is the Catholic Church shepherded by the Sucessor to St. Peter and there are thousands of man-made denominations.
We are not the ones that have to learn, you are. You continue to make easily refutable arguments and claims against the Catholic Church. When are you going to recognize the logical and historical futility of your beliefs and enter full communion with the Catholic Church?
N
nsper7
Guest
Yes, people will always disagree. And we will not get past it until people recognize that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ. Truth can have no part with untruth. And the fact that a belief is more or less common does not make it more or less right or wrong.
See, you are trying to get us to sympathize with your views, to be subjective in our beliefs. I cannot speak for others, but as for me, I am a Catholic and a Catholic I shall remain and I will do my best to make sure that neither my own personal beliefs or those of other Catholics are watered down or twisted by a false sense of ecumenism.
If you want to debate facts, if you want to examine Catholic theology in light of history and Scripture and Tradition, I am more than willing to do so, but if all you want is to take potshots at the Church, make arguments based on supposition and your personal interpretation of Scripture…well, there is little reason to play that game. You are free to believe you want, but don’t you dare come onto a Catholic website and then insult the Church and then tell us to go somewhere else. You are free to leave whenever you feel like it.
T
Tietjen
Guest
Actually, if you will go back and re-read my posts, I never said that we can’t worship together. BUT, since you bring it up, what do you mean exactly? See, when I think about worship, I picture Mass. So, in order for me to say one way or another as to whether we can worship together, I would need a point of reference concerning your definition of worship. Because if you are suggesting that a Catholic can go to your Sunday service and not go to Mass, I would most certainly have to disagree with you. However, if you wanted to come to Mass with a Catholic, then I believe that we in fact CAN worship together. By the way, have you ever been to a Catholic Mass?
Again, I am perfectly willing to explain indulgences should you wish me to do so. I didn’t mention them in answering your earlier post because frankly, I don’t know what exactly you are questioning. Is it indulgences themselves or is it the fact that there were SOME who went against the Church and actually charged money for indulgences? Or is there some other facet which you would like me to address concerning indulgences?
And finally, allow me to offer a bit of advice. You may of course take it or leave as you see fit. If you indeed want to come into a Catholic community (that’s what this is for the most part) for the purpose of seeking common ground, don’t come out and present yourself in a way that makes you look as though you are attempting to instruct us (Catholics) in how we are to behave and what we should and shouldn’t believe. The words and instruction you have thrown at us are insulting. It’s as if you believe us to be ignorant of Christianty and what Christ said and did. Believe me, this is not the case. I am saying this out of charity so that perhaps you will not run into similar situations when you take part in other threads. If I was harsh in my earlier posts, please forgive me. I some times get irritated too quickly when dealing with what I preceive to be another Protestant attacking the Church or Catholic beliefs.
Oh, and on a lighter issue… I enjoyed the “Old timer” title. Actually, me and dirt share the same birthday.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;
Well according to sacred scripture and a long 2000 year old Apostolic Catholic Tradition; THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST.
1Timothy 3:14 **I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. **
Ephesians 3: **10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities 6 in the heavens. **
**14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, **
**20 Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. **
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,
Ephesians 4::** 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;**
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, 12** to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, **
Ephesians 4:15 **Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, 7 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love. **
Ephesians 5: 22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. 25 Husbands, love your wives, **even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. **29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, **even as Christ does the church,**30 because we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." **32 This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. **
Wherever the Church is there is the body of Jesus Christ, and wherever the body of Jesus Christ is there is also the head of the body (Church) Jesus himself. If your not in the Church Jesus himself founded and died for? then your not in Christ Jesus.
Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
bstrong; I can sympathize with your charity, all Christians try to live a life of charity and morality in our societies, this is one feature that bonds our humanity. Without these Christian virtues being practiced you will always find “war” amongst humanity.
I believe no one argues with you on practicing Christian virtues and Christian charity. The fight against “powers and principalities” is what unites Christianity . I look forward to a discussion someday among our seperated brethern at naming these “powers and principalities” to fight the good fight in unity, for one example “abortion”.
I believe preaching to the choir amongst Christian unity can come when everyone has the correct biblical understanding of what “Church” means, and Jesus Christ True Presence among his body of believers, not to exclude the correct historical facts of when, where, and who canonized the New Testament books of the bible, and who put the canonized books of the bible together. I am not saying here dont listen to your Pastorial leadership, all I pray for is that you excercise your liberties and look into these matters instead of taking anothers word or teaching from a non denomination. To the body of Jesus Christ the Catholic Church and those who hold to a denominational Church teaching body have foundations, structure and creeds to hold too where by a non denominational Church does not carry such a backbone, because the latter do not hold itself accountable to a structure of doctrine.
From what I read from your non denominational posts, I would recommend you do a little more background check on the facts of the bible books and their history and how we have come to know them today. You may have to go outside of your non denominational representatives for these facts, dont be afraid, you only have “Truth” to gain here, and trust always in Jesus to lead you.
Peace be with you
I believe no one argues with you on practicing Christian virtues and Christian charity. The fight against “powers and principalities” is what unites Christianity . I look forward to a discussion someday among our seperated brethern at naming these “powers and principalities” to fight the good fight in unity, for one example “abortion”.
I believe preaching to the choir amongst Christian unity can come when everyone has the correct biblical understanding of what “Church” means, and Jesus Christ True Presence among his body of believers, not to exclude the correct historical facts of when, where, and who canonized the New Testament books of the bible, and who put the canonized books of the bible together. I am not saying here dont listen to your Pastorial leadership, all I pray for is that you excercise your liberties and look into these matters instead of taking anothers word or teaching from a non denomination. To the body of Jesus Christ the Catholic Church and those who hold to a denominational Church teaching body have foundations, structure and creeds to hold too where by a non denominational Church does not carry such a backbone, because the latter do not hold itself accountable to a structure of doctrine.
From what I read from your non denominational posts, I would recommend you do a little more background check on the facts of the bible books and their history and how we have come to know them today. You may have to go outside of your non denominational representatives for these facts, dont be afraid, you only have “Truth” to gain here, and trust always in Jesus to lead you.
Peace be with you
B
bstrong
Guest
First let me say thank you for addressing me in a respectful understanding manner. It is deeply appreciated, if you do not mind, i would like to address somethings that i apparently missunderstand. I would hope that we could keep this civil so we may learn to understand one another and work together rather than against one another in the service for Christ.
B
Code:
To address any type of condemnation i may have against any church, i do not have any of these feelings. My location in this country puts me in a Catholic culture, I work and go to college with many Catolics. I ave no enemies with them, actually we get along very well and I am friends with almost all of them. I am actually dating a woman who was one point in time Catholic, and we have plans of marriage in the near future. I did however display some sort of frustration and for that i sincerly apologize to anyone that i may have offended. Also, in my questions that I am about to ask, if i may misinterperet some aspect of the idea, i do it out of lack of knowledge of the concept, not so that i may offend anyone.
My first question concerns the writings; I do acknowledge that the writings were apart of the Greek translation of the “Septuagint” by the Jews of Egypt, but they were not included in the Hebrew Canon and please excuse my spelling, I am doing this by memory. The Jews of Palestine rejected them because- Jesus never quoted them,
- They did not appear in the Canon,
- The inferior quality of the books compared to the canocial books, stamped the writings as unworthy of the “Sacred Scriptures”.
- (as I noted earlier) The early Fathers regarded them as “uninspired”.
Honestly, whether or not the books were added of deleted, does not make a difference to me. I believe that Jesus is the New Covenant that I so willingly participate in. That being said, I do not see why books in the OT effect my salvation, which is presented in the NT. From my knowledge, the Vulgate was the standard Catholic Bible from 400 A.D. until 1546 A.D. when Pope Clement declared the writings as Canocial and published the revised version of the Vulgate in 1592. This version’s OT was finished in 1609, in Douay, thus the Douay Bible. My concern is this, Martin Luther published his NT of the Bible in the German language in the year 1522 and te OT in 1534. It is my belief that the only thing he dismissed was the indulgences. As stated by my friend earlier, when Martin wrote that Mary was with out sin only shows that he did not disagree with all of the teachings. With that being said, the Great Bible was the second edition in the set in the “Protestant” Bible history. This Bible was published in 1538. Here is were it gets interesting for me, the King James and even the New Living Version that i use was translated from these two original Bibles. This is why we say that he did not take them away. Remember this is from wat i have found and researched, so please tell me your thoughts.
A more direct question that I have concerns confession. My asked my girl friend if confession is required in forgiveness? She informed that it is not, I then asked her why she did it? She had no answer for me, so I can only hope that any of you have a clear reason for why Catholics participate in confession to a priest. Also, she would not tell me how it works, so please enlighten me on this sublect.
All in all, i still feel the same way that Jesus is the one the forgave us all and he called us his brothers and sisters, children of God. However, I respectfully disagree with the statement of religion in Heaven. It is my belief that God sees the blood of Christ on us, or he doesn’t. Also, no I did not intend to infer that Caholics do not have Christ, my implication was that i see all of us as Christians and Catholics already have Christ. I was intending to say that if i wanted to convert someone it wouldn’t be a Christian, it would be an atheist or Budist or any non-believer. Please do tell me your thoughts and if possible an answer to my question, and when you guys do I will ask another one.
B
N
nsper7
Guest
Which ‘Jews of Palestine’ are you talking about? Remember, some Jews rejected Jesus. Other accepted Him as their Messiah and were the early Christians (i.e. Apostles, etc.).
I believe others have shown you to be incorrect here. I believe there are references to the Deuterocanonical Books (i.e. quotes and paraphrases) in the Gospels.
This makes no sense. You’re saying the Deuterocanonical Books were not included in the Canon (whose Canon? Jewish or Christian?) because they did not appear in the Canon. That is either circular reasoning or an error on your part.
Explain this please. How were they ‘inferior quality’?
Untrue. While some Early Church Fathers may have viewed the Deuterocanonical Books as “uninspired”, other ECFs viewed them as inspired.
It’s a matter of accepting the Truth (in this case the Church-defined Canon). To knowingly reject Truth is to commit heresy. Heresy, if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, is a mortal sin. Remember, from the Catholic standpoint, all Catholic doctrines must be accepted as the Truth. To knowingly reject a Catholic doctrine would be heresy. To unknowingly do so would still be to hold a heterodox belief.
What are you trying to get at? The Vulgate includes the Deuterocanonical Books and, as someone else pointed out, although St. Jerome first rejected these books as ‘Apocrypha’, he apparently changed his opinion later on. We have also shown you that the Deuterocanonicals were listed as being part of the Canon over a millennium before the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent merely re-affirmed something that was already fact.
Jesus gave His Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23). The Bishops are the successors to the Apostle and the Priests are Sacramental representatives of the Bishops and, thus, have the authority to forgive and retain sins. That is what Confession is: we confess our sins to the Priest and he pronounces Absolution.
Forgiveness without Confession requires a Perfect Act of Contrition (sorrow for sin because you have offended God, as opposed to fear of punishment), so it is possible to be forgiven without Confession, but it is difficult.
Protestants, if they are validly Baptized, are part of the Catholic Church, but they are imperfectly connected to it. They are our brothers and sisters, but they are separated. If a Protestant was Catholic before he became Protestant, then they are guilty of schism and heresy (whether it is mortal sin or not depends on whether they had full knowledge and full consent).
Well, but Protestants do need to be brought back to fullness of communion with the Church. In America at least, Catholics are much more likely to interact with Protestants than with say Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.
T
Tietjen
Guest
The Church choose to use the Greek (Septuagint) because this was the most popular version at the time of Christ and was most likely the same version which Christ and His disciples used. This is further substantiated by the fact that the majority of O.T. quotations found in the N.T. are from the Septuagint. To be precise, there were 340 places in the NT where quotes from the Septuagint are found as opposed to just 33 places where quotes from the Hebrew cannon are found. The Septuagint was completed between 250-125 BC where as the Hebrew canon wasn’t established until approximately 100 AD.
In 393 AD the Church officially decided which books to include in the canon of the Bible. This was done at the council of Hippo. Then in 397 AD at the council of Carthage, the Church again affirmed it’s decision.
Now, fast-forward to 1529 AD and we find Martin Luther proposing to re-invent the Bible using the Hebrew canon. Luther preferred the Hebrew canon because it contained 7 fewer books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 & 2 Maccabees were not in the Hebrew canon). These books were problematic for Luther on issues such as purgatory (especially 1 & 2 Maccabees). Luther attempted to also remove several other books of the Catholic Bible (James, Esther, and Revelation) but his supporters did not look favorably on these other books being removed so Luther relented.
The Hebrew Canon was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia in about 100 AD. Many believe that the Hebrew Canon was in reaction to the newly formed Christian movement’s use of the Alexandrian Canon (AKA - the Septuagint AKA - the LXX). This was, of course, AFTER the Assumption of Christ and after most of the Apostles (St. John may have still been living) were dead. Therefore, they (Jesus and his followers) could not have used the Hebrew Canon. The rabbis that put together the Hebrew Canon excluded the 7 books found in the LXX because they simply could not find any Hebrew versions of these books (which the LXX supposedly translated into Greek). The other criteria, which the rabbis used to determine which books to include in the Hebrew Canon were:
- It had to be written in Hebrew
- It had to conform to the Torah
- It had to be older than the time of Ezra (400 BC)
- It had to have been written in Palestine
What it comes down to is this; which canon should a Christian be using? The one with the OT used by Christ, the NT writers, and the early Church, or the one with the OT used by the Jews who rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity? God bless.
- Status