I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Are you sure that wasn’t Dr. Doofenshmirtz?
I could not help myself… I’m going to regret it later.
- Status
I could not help myself… I’m going to regret it later.
A
adf417
Guest
Lent is not over yet! You still have time.Are you sure that wasn’t Dr. Doofenshmirtz?
I could not help myself… I’m going to regret it later.
P
pablope
Guest
[/QUOTE]
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
No, because he defines what tradition he is referring to. He is not referring to a revealed oral tradition that exists outside of Scripture, or adds to the doctrinal content of Scripture, but rather, is referring to the substance of what the Scriptures contain, delivered orally instead of written form, namely the Gospel:
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? 2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, **believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. **Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 4, 1-2)
The latter.
P
Phineas
Guest
Dear Nicea 325,
Do you think the declaration that forgiveness of sins can only be obtained through the intercession of a priest is not putting the church hierarchy between Christ and man???
Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the whole process of penance is termedexomologesis, which means confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only “through the priests.” Ambrose says “this right is given to priests only.” Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an “invention.” (See the Catholic Answers tract Confession for full quotes from the early Church Fathers on the sacrament of penance.
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
Hmmm…Do you think that ministers preaching God’s word is putting the church hierarchy between God and man?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sorry,but you are totally wrong and have a profound misunderstanding of the priesthood and the sacrament of reconciliation. No offense,but you have a lot to learn and ought to really stop presenting information about Catholicism based out of ignorance.
P
Phineas
Guest
Iggy
No I don’t. Every pastor, priest ,minister or even layman has the duty to go out into all the world and preach the “Good News” of the gospel of Jesus Christ… That is scriptural.
2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
What is not scriptural is demanding that every one seeking forgiveness of sins has to first go through a priest or he cannot be forgiven. That is a man made restriction and is definitely interposing the church hierarchy between God and man. No where in scripture is this requirement stated and there is never an incident recorded in scripture where any apostle ever even intimated that forgiveness could come only through confession of sins to an apostle.
Another egregious interposing of the Catholic hierarchy between Christ and man was the banning of laymen from reading the bible in their own native language.during the middle ages.and later.( see Catholic Encyclopedia)
S
stevekehl
Guest
I haven’t read all the post on this thread so I may be repeating the message, but I applaud your search for truth. My personal philosophy is never stop studying. Luke wrote his gospel to assure us that all the things reported about Christ were true, testified to by eyewitnesses. If something doesn’t seem right to you, question, study, and seek. Don’t be ashamed of your doubts, the opposite of faith is not doubt, but sight. Doubts answered become convictions. Don’t forget to pray, ask God to reveal His truth to you and He will. God Bless you as you start this journey.
P
Phineas
Guest
The New Testament considered those who adhered to Sola Scriptura as noble.
Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.
17:11 These were MORE NOBLE than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO.
The Berians were careful not to receive any doctrine from Paul or Silas until they searched the scriptures to see if this new doctrine was in accord with known scriptures and did not contradict them .
Contrast this with the Catholic hierarchy of the Middle Ages and later, when reading the Bible in the native language was forbidden in most respects.
Quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia, section titled “Attitude of the Church towards the reading of the Bible in the vernacular” :
'It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.
17:11 These were MORE NOBLE than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO.
The Berians were careful not to receive any doctrine from Paul or Silas until they searched the scriptures to see if this new doctrine was in accord with known scriptures and did not contradict them .
Contrast this with the Catholic hierarchy of the Middle Ages and later, when reading the Bible in the native language was forbidden in most respects.
Quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia, section titled “Attitude of the Church towards the reading of the Bible in the vernacular” :
'It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Phiny, Phiny…just take a moment. This is like the 2Timothy 3:16 that only verifies the Old Testament. Have a brief look here.
Paul goes on over to the synagogue and reads the Old Testament…OK
But, there is always a big But…But Paul then proclaims Christ after reading the Old Testament…
Acts 17
So everyone understands that Scripture speaks and everyone got it…Oh, Oh…looky here…
Some guys did not get it and after Paul expalined, not read, not appealed, but interpreted the OT…the Jews did not say Oh yeah the Scriptures…right there I see, yeah…Uh Uh…“one called Jesus”…they could not verify the Scriptures…what’s up here…
No look at what Paul says here…
2
Paul did not say “read”…he said “heard”
And since Scripture is so clear all you have to do is read it…wait…lets check with Paul one more time…Gasp…
It is possible to read it and not understand it…somehow the Jews could not see Jesus…so what this says is that the only way to understand what is written is to have it…are you holding your breath…are you waiting…the words are on your lips, they are in your heart…you don’t have to go up to heaven…yup…the only way to understand is to have it “interpreted”…Oh…Oh…don’t worry
Since it would be impossible to read the OT and see the Messiah as Jesus the only way to be noble was to accept Paul and his…sit down now…here it comes again…“interpretation”…based on his Apostolic Authority…not because they could extract the meaning on their own…Oh…Oh…imagine a plane going down in flames…on one wing is sola and the other is scriptura…
nice try
D
DJK100
Guest
Hi Suzq,
Here is a link to a free online Catholic Bible study…
agapebiblestudy.com/
Also, please take a look at this site…
biblechristiansociety.com/download
the man who runs this site is a former protestant convert who uses only the bible to explain Catholic faith. I think you might benefit from being able to download the talks and burn the on cd to listen in your car. I know how busy Mom’s can be between work, kids and errands that it might help you to understand the faith by listening to the defense of it while you are doing all your errands.
Also, if you have a Catholic radio station in your area, I would suggest listening to it. That is a good and easy way to get information on what and why the Church teaches as she does.
O
onthisrock
Guest
Catholics aren’t from pagans. The whole sola scripura thing is pretty simple. The protestants who subscribe to it, are using the Catholic Canon compiled in the 4th century, so they are basically setting fire to their own house with sola scriptura arguments. Another thing is that the Bible consists of different kinds of books, such as historical books, books full of lessons or parables and so on. In any other faith but the Catholic Church, people are interpreting things both 100% literally, then switch it up to be “symbolically” when it suits their lifestyle ie John 6. If you just read two passages this should help you get the sola scriptura idea out of your mind. First…The last chapter of the Gospel of John…There are NOT enough books in the world to describe Jesus’ good…so the bible is telling you it is NOT complete Christianity. then please read 2 thessalonians 2:15…Paul tells everyone to stay true to what "we have taught you either by WORD OF MOUTH*** OR *** By letter. Now if you’re sola scriptura, and the bible says not to only listen to it, then you can continue to follow sola scriptura without ever even doing it…sounds round about but true. I would suggest the importance of the Apostles this week and read the gospel of John, and the Acts of the Apostles…pay attention to Acts 5…you will see that if peter wasn’t that important…why was only his shadow on dying people enough to heal them? If you’re Catholic, don’t leave. I am a convert and I wish I had the faith my whole life. Ithankfully God cracked my hard exterior and here I am 14 years later
Have faith, and God Bless!
S
suzyq_psu
Guest
I am not leaving, but studying! I have been really busy, there is so much to look at! I really do feel though as if God speaks to me through Catholicism. Specifically with the Divine Mercy and with St.Guerin. There are many reasons why I can say this, but I won’t get into it here due to being off topic.
Also I did want to say that the friend I am studying with is not a Catholic basher. She had a very rough childhood and found salvation through Jesus so she is definitely a good person. I just want to make sure I am not studying incorrectly. I looked at the Agape study guide and I will research that way before I go to our next meeting, so I can explain it from my point of view and see where it goes.
Thank you all
Also I did want to say that the friend I am studying with is not a Catholic basher. She had a very rough childhood and found salvation through Jesus so she is definitely a good person. I just want to make sure I am not studying incorrectly. I looked at the Agape study guide and I will research that way before I go to our next meeting, so I can explain it from my point of view and see where it goes.
Thank you all
N
Nicea325
Guest
Is it me or just your stubborness? You do not seem to listen to no one about your false beliefs. NO WHERE DOES THE NT TEACH ABOUT CHRISTIANS FOLLOWING AND TEACHING SOLA SCRIPTURA! THAT IS YOUR FIRST BOGUS BELIEF!
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay,but where does the Bible explicitly teach the Word is binded to the written word? Tell us what Bible Abraham used since you believe SS is Biblical?
WRONG! First of all,show me one Catholic document stating the CC **DEMANDS **everyone seek forgiveness of sins through a priest or else one CANNOT be forgiven. Documents please…no biaed views of yours.
I’ll tell you what is not scriptural: Sola Scriptura (no where mentioned by Jesus or the 12) or any mere person given the authority to found their own church.
Man made? Show me one verse where Jesus allowed anyone to start their own church based on the Bible-alone and many of them teaching conflicting beliefs? Chapter and verses please…
WRONG! It is clear you do not understand scipture as you want to believe you do. Gospel of John 20 verses 22-23. It is clear those verses go over your head. There is no recorded incident in scripture where any Apostle ever even intimated the forgiveness of sins? First of all, show us where scripture explicitly teaches the Bible must say everything about everything? Where is an incident of ANY Apostle saying: Sola Scriptura (Bible-only) or start your own church or READ your Bible or WRITE Bibles in English or ANYother languages? Where is an incident of ANY Apostle discussing about canonizing the NT into 27 books? Where is such an incident?
I do not think so! It goes a lot deeper than what you believe and want to present to the world as “truth” Why would a farmer living in 800 AD want to read ANY Bible,if more than likely he or she could NOT READ? Why would anyone want a Bible? More important, if you believe in SS and the Bible is HOLY & SACRED…then why would the CC which canonized and protected it for centuries want to hand it to ANYONE? You mean people can only know about God by reading the Bible-only?
O
onemangang
Guest
Are you suggesting the Bereans had personal copies of both Old and New Testaments to cross reference in the book of acts?
Or just Old Testament Scriptures, that were being used to verify Paul and Silas doctrines?
You are aware that the Old Testament back then wasn’t a compiled Canon and the most referenced Old Testament translation was the Septuagint.
When using passages to show that Jesus is the Messiah, The book of Wisdom would be used.
Here is what the Bereans may have been using to confirm Paul and Silas Oral Teaching matt1618.freeyellow.com/wisdom2.html
If Sola Scriptura was true back then, (it wasn’t) the scriptures being referenced would have consisted of books like
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom (or Wisdom of Solomon)
Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (or Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
More books were circulated than the above mentioned as well, but not considered canon by the Catholic Church
Since there was NOT an Old Testament Canon of Scripture compiled, how could the Bereans use Sola Scriptura?
I don’t want to go off topic, but your claim of Scriptures being kept from the laity is way out of context and removed from history! First of all, the text in question were poor translations that were being used to promote the Albigensian/Manichean Heresy! The Scriptures were corrupted!
Would you use a Jehovah Witness (New World Translation) Bible to conduct a bible study?
Here are some links to provide you with Truth regarding your Dave Hunt type Revisionist Historical claims.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=272675
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/was-catholic-church-avowed-enemy-of.html
This could use another thread, though it is relevant here, it would hijack the thread and take it in a different direction. If you would like to continue dialoging on the fallacy of “Reading the bible was banned by the Catholic Church” then start a new thread.
Peace and Love in Christ!
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You may want to put this in perspective. As I recall all these books were hand written and chained to the Church. The literacy rate was not very high.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I am not sure that I would raise a fuss about Pagans. Paul says God is God of all, Jew, Gentile, Greek, Barbarian and although not mentioned Pagans.Catholics aren’t from pagans. The whole sola scripura thing is pretty simple. The protestants who subscribe to it, are using the Catholic Canon compiled in the 4th century, so they are basically setting fire to their own house with sola scriptura arguments. Another thing is that the Bible consists of different kinds of books, such as historical books, books full of lessons or parables and so on. In any other faith but the Catholic Church, people are interpreting things both 100% literally, then switch it up to be “symbolically” when it suits their lifestyle ie John 6. If you just read two passages this should help you get the sola scriptura idea out of your mind. First…The last chapter of the Gospel of John…There are NOT enough books in the world to describe Jesus’ good…so the bible is telling you it is NOT complete Christianity. then please read 2 thessalonians 2:15…Paul tells everyone to stay true to what "we have taught you either by WORD OF MOUTH*** OR *** By letter. Now if you’re sola scriptura, and the bible says not to only listen to it, then you can continue to follow sola scriptura without ever even doing it…sounds round about but true. I would suggest the importance of the Apostles this week and read the gospel of John, and the Acts of the Apostles…pay attention to Acts 5…you will see that if peter wasn’t that important…why was only his shadow on dying people enough to heal them? If you’re Catholic, don’t leave. I am a convert and I wish I had the faith my whole life. Ithankfully God cracked my hard exterior and here I am 14 years later
The Jew put their faith in their faith claiming descendancy from Abraham and Paul pointed out that they were descendants of Adam. Pagans, Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, Gentiles…are they all not descendants of Adam…?
- Status