Protesant ?s What would your Church service be like if you had no bible or would you even have a Chruch if you didnt have a bible?

[SyCarl]

This is a joke. You read decrees the same way a Muslem reads the Qu’ran; the same way a literalist reads the Bible. No wonder you are so confused with your own admitted hasty conclusion. You make it sound as if Trent INVENTED the canon. You don’t seem to see historical context in anything, including scripture, let alone definitive decrees. It wasn’t necessary for the Pope, after the Council of Hippo to be so definitive as the Council of Trent, because the Church wasn’t challenged in the same way, and the Church had developed the manner in which infallibility was applied. Nobody was ripping out entire books and adding words to the bible in 393 AD, the way it was being done in the 16th century. You confuse definitive with invention, take entire councils out of historical context, and refuse to see the facts of the development of Sacred Scripture.

Well as to 393, this is what Jerome wrote at that time.

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.x.html

 

[Kimella]

Wow! I’m learning a lot of history here, thanks for the site.

 

[epostle]

My relpy is under THREAD SPLIT St. Jerome and the Dueterocaonicals in the Scripture forum.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2997807#post2997807

 

[Atemi]

Well as to 393, this is what Jerome wrote at that time.

And we got a lot more information than from just Jerome…but let’s not muddy this thread with facts now, SyCarl.

As some zealously believe:

“The canon of scripture was universally accepted in the 4rth century”

Wow.

This cannot be changed by citing actual history. There is too much riding on such thinking.

…

 

[Pwrlftr]

As some zealously believe:

“The canon of scripture was universally accepted in the 4rth century”

Obviously, the canon was not settled until Trent for our Catholic friends.

It seems that it is obvious that believers did not have to accept the decrees of either Carthage or Hippo with regards to the canon and from Jerome on we see that many didn’t accept the 7 books Catholics call the deuterocanonicals.

 

[Pwrlftr]

This blatant lie is typical anti-Catholic propaganda. (that you accept) Trent DID NOT define the canon, Trent REAFFIRMED the existing canon in reference to previous councils because Protestants and some Catholic bishops had brought the canon into question. The dispute was declared settled and the canon CLOSED for man-made deletions and alterations.

As newadvent.org says, “The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

If Trent was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the canon addressed to the Church universal that means the earlier councils were less than infallible.

To assert that Trent merely reaffirmed the canon is to ignore history. The earlier councils were not ecumenical and did not have the authortity to decide something for the “church universal”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

But the canon that they used was still the 73 book one we have today and you are quite right that they did just fine with it. In fact the whole Church did until the 16th century when it became necessary for the Council of Trent to dogmatically define it as something that the Church had already held from its beginning. That’s how that works. The Church does not define something until there is a need to do so.

The church universal did not hold to the 73 book OT canon as can be seen by a brief review of history.

 

[Odell]

The bottom line is Jesus gave us a Church and threw the Church we got Scripture. A protestant Church would not exist without the bible that the Catholic Church gave to the world. A Protestant Church could not determine what was and is not infaillible scripture. For 300 hundred years we had scripture floating around that people taought to be infaillible but were actually not.

The Church came first. Before the New Testament. If your denomination came into existence because somebaody decided to read scripture and be the infaillible interpriter that Church could not possibly be the Church Jesus foiunded because it came from there interpritation of scripture. Why not go to the Church that at least claims to be founded by Christ who held the councils of what scripture was infaillible or not.

All I ahve gotten from this thred is that your denomination would not exist if you had no scripture. You would not have a service because all you would have is Old Testament you would not know what is correct teaching of Christianity. for the most part with the bible most Christians still get it wrong

This is why Protestant Churches are so allian to how the early Christians worshiped. Teh Mass is where we heard scripture the mass is where we learned salvation history. if you onestly looked into how the early Christians worshiped you would see that the Catholic Church is a mirror imamge of how they worshiped!

 

[Rightlydivide]

The bottom line is Jesus gave us a Church and threw the Church we got Scripture. A protestant Church would not exist without the bible that the Catholic Church gave to the world. A Protestant Church could not determine what was and is not infaillible scripture. For 300 hundred years we had scripture floating around that people taought to be infaillible but were actually not.

The Church came first. Before the New Testament. If your denomination came into existence because somebaody decided to read scripture and be the infaillible interpriter that Church could not possibly be the Church Jesus foiunded because it came from there interpritation of scripture. Why not go to the Church that at least claims to be founded by Christ who held the councils of what scripture was infaillible or not.

All I ahve gotten from this thred is that your denomination would not exist if you had no scripture. You would not have a service because all you would have is Old Testament you would not know what is correct teaching of Christianity. for the most part with the bible most Christians still get it wrong

This is why Protestant Churches are so allian to how the early Christians worshiped. Teh Mass is where we heard scripture the mass is where we learned salvation history. if you onestly looked into how the early Christians worshiped you would see that the Catholic Church is a mirror imamge of how they worshiped!

I have honestly looked at it and absolutely not.

 

[teachccd]

I have honestly looked at it and absolutely not.

Didn’t look very hard. This is the from the “First Apology” letter written by Justin Martyr in the second century. (150 A.D.) This is how Catholics still worship. Does this sound Protestant??

**CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST. **
**"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.**For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. "
CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS. "And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

**Wow! This sounds like the Catholic Mass. Imagine that! They got it wrong since 150 A.D… No Sony Trinitron big screens with contemporary worship music and self proclaimed pastors. How did Christianity ever remain with such “unchristian” worship such as done in 150 A.D. ???.. And we must be Baptized to live as Christ enjoined?? See top… **

 

[teachccd]

This is why Protestant Churches are so allian to how the early Christians worshiped. Teh Mass is where we heard scripture the mass is where we learned salvation history. if you onestly looked into how the early Christians worshiped you would see that the Catholic Church is a mirror imamge of how they worshiped!

Yes, indeed!!

 

[SyCarl]

Protestants also refer to the elements as the body and blood and this could also be any mainline Protestant church I have attended.

I would note that in the paragraph just before the one you quoted, that Justin continues to call the elements bread and wine even after they are consecrated. Thus his meaning is not really clear at all.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Then in his Dialogue with Trypho he again speaks of the sacrifice of the Eucharist being bread and wine.

He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e.,** the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist**, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it].

newadvent.org/fathers/01282.htm

With respect to the Eucharist being a sacrifice, he says that the only acceptable sacrifice is one of prayers and thanksgiving.

"Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices.** Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food**, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.

newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm

With this most Protestants would be pleased to agree.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Didn’t look very hard. This is the from the “First Apology” letter written by Justin Martyr in the second century. (150 A.D.) This is how Catholics still worship. Does this sound Protestant??
I am not Protestant but it sounds A LOT like we worship.

CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS. "And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;

 

[teachccd]

Well you both managed to dance around what Justin Martyr wrote as most Protestants do. Do you know that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus as Justin proclaims?? In Scripture things are called what they resemble even after a change has taken place. See where the staffs turn into snakes and then are referred to as staffs again. There is no confusion in what Justin martyr proclaims and the necessity of baptism. How can you both toe dance around the obvious?? Pick and choose.

And by the way, statues were used in the early church because most couldn’t read so they learned through stained glass and statues. Incense is in the Book of Revelation as representing our prayers. Mary is the Mother of Jesus (who is indeed God). And Jesus is the eternal High Priest. (See Hebrews) And the many other items and people that you mention are all rooted in Church history. Justin Martyr’s quote that I provided was to illuminate the core of Christian worship and was not meant to be exhaustive. Notice that Justin made no mention of Pastors, Bibles, (he does mention the gospels but not a completed canon) Contemporary worship music, altar calls, once saved, always saved, the Sinner’s prayer, accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, choirs, church buildings and whatever else is used in the layering down of Christianity from the Anglican Church to the little fundamentalist church on the corner with a self proclaimed pastor.

You say:

Sounds like MY CHURCH.Your Church?? There is only ONE Church founded by Christ in the year 33 A.D.

 

[teachccd]

teachccd;2998552:

I am not Protestant but it sounds A LOT like we worship.

Sure but no priest, a president of the congregation.
No statues.How People learned and received the gospel

No prescripted prayers.HMMM…Jesus says in Luke, “When you pray say this…”
No robes.They had 501 jeans in the early Church
No mentions of Mary. WOW! Scripture mentions Mary
No incense. Book of Revelation. Sorry you missed that. And incense pre-dates Christianity and was always used
It sounds nothing like the Catholic mass.100% pure ignorance of the Mass or denial of the truth

No nuns. No monks. No priests. No elaborate ceremony.No Trinity, No Incarnation HMMM… A few other things not mentioned
In fact, that passage said nothing about Gregorian chants or anything about music did it? So why do most if not all Protestant services have music. OOPS!
The Bible does not describe the Catholic (Mass) service and neither did Justyn Martyr. Ignorance or denial
Reading the Bible.
Sermon
Prayers according to your ability (not predetermined or scripted)
a short meal All in the Catholic Mass
Welcome to my church. No, thank you. I’m in Christ’s Church which is where you belong. I do not have MY Church and neither do you.
God Bless

So much to think about…

 

[teachccd]

No Mary, No Jesus…

Know Mary, Know Jesus…

Jesus, all praise and glory is given to You for fashioning not only for Yourself but for all of us a Mother whom we look through to see You. Saint Luke tells us that she ‘magnifies’ You. Like a looking glass, our Mother helps us to “see” You more clearly and know You as she knows you. We are Your Body and she is Your Mother. So, praise be to You for giving us, Your Body, Your Mother… so many are the priceless gifts You give…Amen.

 

[epostle]

As some zealously believe:

“The canon of scripture was universally accepted in the 4rth century”
Wow.

This cannot be changed by citing actual history. There is too much riding on such thinking.

True, actual history cannot be changed (which you cite none of) . There are too many opinions riding on revisionism, as some zealously believe.

 

[Pwrlftr]

True, actual history cannot be changed (which you cite none of) . There are too many opinions riding on revisionism, as some zealously believe.

Surely you don’t believe the OT canon as you now have it was universally accepted in the 4th century do you?

Now that I think about it, it would depend on what you mean by “universally accepted”. The earlier councils (Carthage and Hippo) did not have the authority to settle the issue for the church universal.

 

[jmcrae]

It is not really necessary to answer this question as we do in fact have the Bible.

Also, reversing the question, what would tradition be like if there was no Bible. The Church Fathers are full of biblical quotations and say very little without scripture. To them Scripture was basically the oral tradition in writing. How would they have disputed heresy if they did not have the Scriptures to support them?

Considering that they were doing quite well with that before we had a Bible, let’s take a look at what they did:

First, they said, “Are these people teaching in accord with the teachings of the Apostles?” Next, they asked, “Have these people been authorized by the Apostles to teach in the name of Christ?” Third, they would hold a Council (like the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD, or the Council of Nicea in 325 AD) and they would put the question to the Bishops of the world, including the Pope, and they would say, “What say you? What is the teaching of the Church on this subject?” And then they would hash it out, and then the Pope would say something to the effect of, “Okay, here’s the deal. We believe in one God, Creator of Heaven and earth … etc.” and then letters would be sent out to the entire Church, informing them of the results of the investigation. The heretics would then be given the opportunity to either bring their teachings in line with the Church, or be excommunicated, and then that would be that.

The Bible was not intended to be used as a weapon against heresy; its primary function is as a support for the faithful, in their education and in their faith development. It is intended to be read out at Mass and to be used in Catechism classes, rather than as a weapon against unbelievers. For that, we have the Magesterium.

It is not true either to say that the earliest Christians did not have the Bible. They may not have had the New Testament but they did have the Old Testament. The New Testament was written by the death of John and end of the period of new revelation.

Yes, but when they were combatting heresy, they didn’t refer to the Scriptures - rather, they referred to the teaching of the Apostles; essentially, the Magesterium. They used the Scriptures in their worship and in their teaching; not in their arguments against heresy.

 

[Petergee]

Well said, teachccd. I would add that “Gregorian” type chant did NOT start with Pope St Gregory the Great. He merely standardised it and instituted an ingenious means of writing it down on paper (the ancestor of all our musical notation today). But the Israelites had been chanting the Psalms and other liturgical prayers in Gregorian-style chant for at least 1000, maybe 2000 years before that. As did the first Christians in their liturgies, as we see in the NT.