I
InOmnemTerram
Guest
Correlation does not equal causation. Statistics 101.
Pope Francis: turn to the Bible to engage in spiritual combat [CWN]
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
Agree. Just agreeing with what was presented.
D
Duane1966
Guest
But then you added probably not. I missed nothing you stated.
But it is that simple. You stated that Christianity almost didn’t survive at a time when historians admit that Europe was almost totally Christian, and that the form of Christianity that Europe took at the time was Catholic. For your statement to be TRUE, would have to entail that Catholics are not Christians in your mind. But you have now stated that Catholics are Christian. If Catholics are Christians now, than they must have also been back then, as the teachings are the same. The two positions you have stated are opposite of each other, and one must be false.
Subjective. I can guarantee there will be many people you or I do not consider true Christians in Heaven, and others that we think are true Christians, in Hell.
Which means at a time when the bible was not in the hands of the laity, which is as it was when Christianity was born, it was alive and well. Which again contradicts your statement.
P.s. I enjoy the dialog, and harbor no animosity towards you.
W
Wannano
Guest
I enjoy dialogue with other people as well. Dialogue to me does not facilitate the “gotcha” element of conversation. I know that I am not always innocent of that as well.
It is thrilling for me to see how vastly different the leadership of the Catholic Church is in our present time as compared to those times when private Bible reading and ownership was not allowed. Can we agree that something has drastically changed for the better?
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think the issue of “private Bible reading” is more complicated than assuming the Church did not want laity to study Scripture. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s was not the case.I enjoy dialogue with other people as well. Dialogue to me does not facilitate the “gotcha” element of conversation. I know that I am not always innocent of that as well.
It is thrilling for me to see how vastly different the leadership of the Catholic Church is in our present time as compared to those times when private Bible reading and ownership was not allowed. Can we agree that something has drastically changed for the better?
Many elements of “private Bible reading” should be considered during pre-printing press times. Consider that Martin Luther was encouraged to study Scripture (Romans) by his confessor.
Was “private Bible reading” encouraged by Jesus or the Prophets? There were problems with allowing the masses to handle and use the scrolls. That’s why readings were much longer in those days and early Christianity. The Scriptures have always been read and discussed through the Mass.
I agree that we are blessed to have personal Bibles to study. And the laity has always been able to apply the Scriptures to their lives and nourishment. But I also have to admit that there is a negative aspect of “private Bible reading” too! There is a plethora of opposing interpretations out there in Christendom. And somehow a common Communion of His Body and Blood is professed by most of these groups! That doesn’t seem right to me. The Lord’s Supper has been compromised because the teaching of Scripture has been divided.
W
Wannano
Guest
I share many of your concerns. I have long said that one can make the Bible say almost anything you want if you have that desire. I also believe that ALL churches are guilty of that to some extent.
I know the Lord’s Supper is central to Catholic belief. The whole message of the Bible seems to indicate God’s desire to have a personal relationship with each individual. It seems to me that the big picture of the NT portrays the aspect of relationship with more emphasis than just participating in a repetitive ritual. However, I do not want it to be said that I am against your belief system for I believe God will meet us and relate to us wherever He finds us. He judges our hearts and deals with us accordingly and draws each one to Him as He determines.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Fair enough. Yes, my understanding of the Catholic Communion, is that those who receive it, should be professing one body of doctrine, and would be contradictory to Commune with others who are fundamentally opposed to one another in serious matters.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t have any common/fundamental communion with one another. And we should always strive to fellowship with one another. And the goal should be a common Supper. That common Supper is the arrival of Jesus Himself!
The Word of Scripture is the Word of the Lord, right? But it can be manipulated. Can His own Body and Blood be manipulated? If we call it a symbol, what does it symbolize, but our own manipulation of His Word?
So I agree with Transubstantiation, because we cannot manipulate what is Him.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Consider what happened with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus opened up all the Scriptures to them. When they accepted/received His testimony, by inviting Him to stay for a meal, He gave them His Eucharist which opened their eyes to know Him fully!
They already knew the Scriptures, but they did not know their complete interpretation. When they were given the meaning of the Scriptures, concerning Jesus, and they accepted and invited Him, He delivered His Eucharist which opened their eyes, but then He vanished out of their sight!
They already knew the Scriptures, but they did not know their complete interpretation. When they were given the meaning of the Scriptures, concerning Jesus, and they accepted and invited Him, He delivered His Eucharist which opened their eyes, but then He vanished out of their sight!
W
Wannano
Guest
It symbolizes His broken body and blood shed for each human person. We eat it to identify with Him and participate in a ritual of remembering just as he instructed at the Last Supper.
That is His unmanipulated instruction.
I like your thought of the common supper being the arrival of Jesus Himself. It may be soon!
R
rcwitness
Guest
The arrival I meant is at the Supper, in the manner of food. He is with us, in our hearts, He comes to us in the Scriptures, and He comes to us in His Eucharist.It symbolizes His broken body and blood shed for each human person. We eat it to identify with Him and participate in a ritual of remembering just as he instructed at the Last Supper.
That is His unmanipulated instruction.
We are called to remember Him when partaking in the Supper. The remembering is not the ritual, but what we are to do during the ritual. We invite Him (like the two disciples going to Emmaus did), we offer Him bread and wine (like the two disciples did) and He makes them His true Body and Blood.
W
Wannano
Guest
I had never heard that explanation until recently. I has always understood they recognized the way He held the bread and broke it as a familiar action. When they realized it was Him, He disappeared.
Is there concrete proof that He gave them His Eucharist as opposed to them recognizing his method of twisting the bread apart.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Thread topic is the use of the Bible in spiritual combat…not the Eucharist.
Please return to topic and remain there.
Fresh topics should be addressed in a separate thread and there is already such a thread in progress.
Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist***
***Thread topic is the use of the Bible in spiritual combat…not the Eucharist.
Please return to topic and remain there.
Fresh topics should be addressed in a separate thread and there is already such a thread in progress.
Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist***
R
rcwitness
Guest
It says, “… their eyes were kept from recognizing Him”
He blessed it, broke it and gave it to them.
Then their eyes were opened.
I think there is a deliberate message there. Why would they spend hours walking and talking with Him, only to recognize a single gesture that they only saw once, if they even saw the Last Supper at all. We’re they of the 12?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Oh kayyy… 
… 
…
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m di lighted if you can agree that the leadership of the RCC has drastically changed for the better-- I mean, you didn’t think that Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, to name just a few of our reform efforts since the Protestant Reformation, were just for fun did you??
The only thing is, your phrase “those times when private Bible reading and ownership was not allowed” is a rather broad net. There were times in church history when common folk didn’t have scriptures for good reason … and other times not so much. Cf RCW’s reply.
D
Duane1966
Guest
See the problem Wannano? The part highlighted is another false statement. Private Bible reading and ownership was allowed. Only reading and ownership of unauthorized translations was not allowed. Not only that, but as I am sure you know, before Luther was born there were over twenty authorized translations in the vernacular of the bible available to the laity in Germany.
What the Catholic Church was afraid of was private interpretation, which can only lead to fragmentation. Which is why St. Peter warns to stay away from private interpretation. The fragmentation of Christianity shows the fruits of private interpretation.
W
Wannano
Guest
I can see that you feel I am a problem and I do not want that so I will evaporate.
Just to set the record straight I in fact did not have the knowledge of twenty authorized translations. How you can be so sure I knew that baffles me because you don’t even know me.
In Catholic eyes the Pope speaks to the world on behalf of Jesus. As I understood his address he is suggesting the world would become changed if Christians would become as familiar with their pocket Bibles as the are with their cell phones for the Bible contains the Word of God and gives us the information we need to combat evil.
I thought his insight into how we should implement the Word of God in our lives with as much familiarity as our own cell phone was incredibly insightful. Now I am somewhat discouraged for he did not say which translation and interpretation is acceptable.
S
susanlo
Guest
There was a time when, at least in certain locations, owning Scripture was prohibited. Later at the Council of Trent, Scripture in select translations was allowed to be read only if the parishioner had written permission to do so. I don’t know when the Council of Trent’s ban was lifted allowing Catholics to read any version of the Bible even without getting special written authorization to do so, but I am glad that the Bible is being embraced and read regularly by Catholics today.
Council of Toulouse 1229:
“We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
Council of Tarragona 1234:
"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
Council of Trent 16th century:
IV
“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM
Were there really 20 authorized German translations? That sounds like a lot and I can’t find a source that agrees with that. Do you have any more information about the translations? Are you sure they were all authorized? I can only find 2 printed Bibles before Luther’s Bible. These were often forbidden by local churches where they were being printed.
This is what Wikipedia says about the German Bible:
“An Old High German version of the gospel of Matthew dates to 748. In the late Middle Ages, Deanesly thought that Bible translations were easier to produce in Germany, where the decentralized nature of the Empire allowed for greater religious freedom. However, these translations were seized and burned by inquisitors whenever they were found.[25] Altogether there are 13 medieval German translations before the Luther Bible.[26] In 1466, Johannes Mentelin published the first printed Bible in the German language, the Mentelin Bible, one of the first printed books in the German language and also the first printed vernacular Bible. The Mentelin Bible was reprinted in the southern German region a further thirteen times by various printers up until the Luther Bible. About 1475 Günther Zainer of Augsburg printed an illustrated German edition of the Bible, with a second edition in 1477.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages#German
I guess if you count printing one Bible 13 times that would raise the number. Or is Wikipedia missing some translations?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
translations was allowed to be read only if the parishioner had written permission to do so. I don’t know when the Council of Trent’s ban was lifted allowing Catholics to read any version of the Bible even without getting special written authorization to do so, but I am glad that the Bible is being embraced and read regularly by Catholics today.I don’t see any citation of source for that stuff…
:
"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."Only certain vernacular translations which were either very poor or more likely contained misleading notes. Tell me Susan; Do you keep the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, or even the Quran in your home?
The Council pronounced:
“We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”[8][9]
:
"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”Same as above and again my same question…
:
IV
Again, if the translations had been good and uncorrupted by heretical notes then there might have been no problem, but that was not the case and so it was prudent of the council to do that. I would no more have a copy of such a Bible in my home today such as the Schofield Reference Bible for those same reasons.
How about this Susan…do you have a Catholic Bible in your home that contains all 73 books? If so/not, why?
Cite source please?
I guess if you count printing one Bible 13 times that would raise the number. Or is Wikipedia missing some translations?Better information…
Chapter X. Where then are all the Mediaeval Bibles?
Chapter XI. Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff
Chapter XII. Why Wycliff was Condemned
Chapter XIII. Tyndale’s Condemnation Vindicated by Posterity
Chapter XIV. A Deluge of Erroneous Versions
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No need for that friend.
Isn’t it a given that he would prefer a Catholic version? However, most Catholics will tell you that the best translation is the one that you will read. I prefer unabridged versions with all 73 books and no notes that offer misinterpretations and doctrines that are (at best) shakily based upon someone’s personal interpretation of passages. But that’s just me…I thought his insight into how we should implement the Word of God in our lives with as much familiarity as our own cell phone was incredibly insightful. Now I am somewhat discouraged for he did not say which translation and interpretation is acceptable.
- Status