Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[Ginger2]

A Bit Off Topic But Needed Clarification

Re: My comments about the Bible.

Ginger, I did not say the NT came from the Latin Vulgate. I said the NT in the KJV was translated from it. Different point.

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Also, the Jews did use the Greek Septuagint and the apostles quoted from it, which contained the deuterocanonical books. (Moreover, all of the apostles would have been aware of the Septuagint’s use in the temple). They only quit using them in the second century. Their motivation? Denial of the Messiah, of course. Do you share that motivation of theirs as well?

Lisa

This is so wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus or the Apostles ever quoted the Septuagint.

Furthermore, If the Jews were removing books to dispel Jesus as the Christ,

Why did they throw out books that don’t allude to Jesus?

Why would they keep books like Isaiah which so clearly point to Jesus?

The Jews were keepers of the Torah - God appointed. They would not throw out inspired prophesy. More likely, they would interpret it to discredit Jesus or deny that Jesus life fit the prophecies. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what they did in the New Testament.

Do any of the apocrypha allude to the Messiah and contain prophesy that points directly to Jesus?

 

[Cinette]

What I said on Post #93 is not bashing - it is the truth. You will note that I was referring to a group and, of course, you choose NOW to identify yourself with that group. I would not go to far as to say that you are “an agent of the evil one” but we do find them on these threads, full of hatred.

It is curious that after I asked you to answer my question on post #396:

A question for Ginger and all Protestants on this thread.

Why have you come to CAF? Is it to share and learn? Is it to debate respectfully with Catholics? (which so far has not been evident)

Is it to teach us about our Catholic faith which you feel we do not know or understand?

or do you have another Agenda?

*Now, because you wish to avoid answering my question you decide that you do not “wish to discourse” with me because of what I said on Post #93 - 367 postings ago!

Are you are a “Cafeteria Protestant” Ginger? You even told me AFTER I had posted #93 that you respected me etc etc. Have you been emboldened by the “acolade” of someone on this thread?

I say this in all sincerity - I would really wish for us to discourse as sisters in Christ - which we are, even if we do not belong to the same Faith.

Hmmmm

 

[Peter_J]

Peter - please show me one posting of mine that can be categorized as “Protestant bashing”.

I’ve given you examples of “Protestant bashing” already. So rather than repeating myself, I’ll give you an example of a different kind of unreasonableness:

I was not on tht thread but I know Catholic well enough to know that they must have answered all questions exhaustively and painstakingly.

You weren’t on the thread, but you “know” that the Catholics must have answered all questions exhaustively and painstakingly? You “know” this just because they are Catholics?

The thing I don’t understand is why Ginger continues trying to dialogue with you. (Perhaps Ginger, like me, remembers how you used to post reasonable, logical arguments against Protestantism, and she’s still holding out hope that you will return to that?)

 

[Ginger2]

What I said on Post #93 is not bashing - it is the truth.

It was not my intent to give an example of my being bashed, but a generalization of Protestant bashing.

Odd you don’t see calling Protestants “agents of the evil one… consumed with hatred” bashing, but rather a “truth”.

However, since you seem unable to see yourself clearly and ask about bashing me personally, I will provide one example to help you. The following quote from you was addressed to me:

… you attack, you criticize - do you not respect us for our beliefs. Sure, you can disagree, but just look at yourself.

… I just don’t like bigots who lie about the Catholic Church.

Again, it is not your question that has made me decide not to discourse with you. It is the obvious conclusion that our discourse in unprofitable. Possibly even harmful.

Let us simply part without animosity, anger or hurt.

For anything I have said that was offensive or hurtful to you I apologize and I forgive you the same.

 

[Cinette]

I’ve given you examples of “Protestant bashing” already. So rather than repeating myself, I’ll give you an example of a different kind of unreasonableness:

You weren’t on the thread, but you “know” that the Catholics must have answered all questions exhaustively and painstakingly? You “know” this just because they are Catholics?

The thing I don’t understand is why Ginger continues trying to dialogue with you. (Perhaps Ginger, like me, remembers how you used to post reasonable, logical arguments against Protestantism, and she’s still holding out hope that you will return to that?)

I was not on that thread as I said but on the different threads I have been on I have found most Catholics reasonable and patiently responding painstakingly to questions. Some Protestants have been extremely gracious as well.

The bashing has been mainly with people with fundamentalist tendencies.

 

[Cinette]

It was not my intent to give an example of my being bashed, but a generalization of Protestant bashing.

Odd you don’t see calling Protestants “agents of the evil one… consumed with hatred” bashing, but rather a “truth”.

However, since you seem unable to see yourself clearly and ask about bashing me personally, I will provide one example to help you. The following quote from you was addressed to me:

Again, it is not your question that has made me decide not to discourse with you. It is the obvious conclusion that our discourse in unprofitable. Possibly even harmful.

Let us simply part without animosity, anger or hurt.

For anything I have said that was offensive or hurtful to you I apologize and I forgive you the same.

Yes, Ginger, you arrive at the conclusion that discourse between us is not profitable only AFTER post #396 when I posed that question - not even then - 62 posts after that when I insist you respond.

You only now object to post #93 and use it as an excuse.

Ginger - need I say more? You have exposed yourself.

 

[Peter_J]

It was not my intent to give an example of my being bashed, but a generalization of Protestant bashing.

Odd you don’t see calling Protestants “agents of the evil one… consumed with hatred” bashing, but rather a “truth”.

Not to rehash the matter, but I saw that one as a grey-area, because the post didn’t name anyone specifically (if I remember correctly), but just complained about ‘some Protestants’ who are “agents of the evil one… consumed with hatred”, etc.

Again, it is not your question that has made me decide not to discourse with you. It is the obvious conclusion that our discourse in unprofitable. Possibly even harmful.

Let us simply part without animosity, anger or hurt.

In this instance, I completely agree with you, Ginger. The internet has a lot of people on it, and it just doesn’t make sense to get hung on one person that you have a disagreement with.

 

[Cinette]

The following is an example of a truth from the Bible which some people might categorize as “bashing”

2 Peter 3:16
“For there are many things in scripture that are hard to understad which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their destruction.”

There is a question I have posed on two threads - I am not sure that this thread is one of them.

It was when I read Karl Keating’s book “Fundamentalism and Catholicism” that I learned of the extent to which non-Catholics will go to bash the Catholic Church. Books full of lies about the Church have been published. For some, it is a profession to bash the Catholic Church! There is a ton of them out there. My question was if anybody knew of a Catholic who might have written a book full of lies about Protestants? This question was never answered.

I have had to endure insults about the Church being “the whore of Babylon, the Pope the antichrist” and so on and so forth. In response we might have joked about non-Catholics but never have I heard a Catholic insult Protestants this way. Never.

I prefer to be respectful and to try to discuss intelligently. As I have said, I am a revert and am learning about my faith. It is no fun to argue and spar on these threads. I prefer to reason.

I confess that my frustration begins to get really hot when people insult and put down the CC. I get really upset.

Well, since I cannot get a response to my question which is legitimate I will unsubscribe from this thread. There is no point in continuing here.

To those of you who have been kind and gracious to me with your kind words, I thank you. Pray that I shall do more good and less harm.

Thank you
Cinette

 

[Leonius]

I’ve given you examples of “Protestant bashing” already. So rather than repeating myself, I’ll give you an example of a different kind of unreasonableness:

You weren’t on the thread, but you “know” that the Catholics must have answered all questions exhaustively and painstakingly? You “know” this just because they are Catholics?

The thing I don’t understand is why Ginger continues trying to dialogue with you. (Perhaps Ginger, like me, remembers how you used to post reasonable, logical arguments against Protestantism, and she’s still holding out hope that you will return to that?)

Peter you really do need to stop trying to manipulate Cinette into behaving the way you want her to behave, it is quite insulting and all it is doing is making you look like you consider yourself to be morally superior to her.

 

[Ginger2]

Not to rehash the matter, but I saw that one as a grey-area, because the post didn’t name anyone specifically (if I remember correctly), but just complained about ‘some Protestants’ who are “agents of the evil one… consumed with hatred”, etc.

I used that as a general example of Protestant bashing.

When Cinette disputed it because it didn’t refer to me and claimed I took it that way I gave another example: POST# 114

This post is addressed to me and says:

Cinette:

…you attack, you criticize. …just look at yourself.

I have shared views with Protestants … we have had “strong exchanges” but we continue friends. You Ginger are not like that.

…I just don’t like bigots who lie about the Catholic Church.

What if I told you some catholics “are agents of the evil one consumed with hatred”?
What if I’d said to Cinette, “you attack, you criticize. …just look at yourself. I just don’t like bigots who lie about Protestants”
I could have said that with more honesty then she based on her comments

 

[Peter_J]

I will unsubscribe from this thread. There is no point in continuing here.

Alright. Say a prayer for me, if you have a moment.

Just for the record (I’m not trying to trick you into continuing the conversation) I don’t think that you given even a remotely satisfactory answer to #463.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

I read the text. The additions were for clarity and understanding by the laity only. This happens all the time. It certainly happened when the Bible was translated into English. Is that an imperfection?

What Bible do you use?

Lisa

One of the texts that were improved was Genesis 3:15

The Douay Rheims Bible which was translated from Jerome’s Vulgate says “she (Mary) shall crush” satan’s head. The original text say “he (Jesus) shall crush” satan’s head.

The RC admits the original text says “he”, not “she”.

NEW ADVENT Catholic Encyclopedia:
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed (Jesus)…

The RC explains that by using “she” the passage makes clear Jesus is the one who really crushes satan’s head.

“According to our version, … the woman herself will win the victory; …The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version …”

The DR Bible states “he/she” makes no difference,
but this 1st pope who set out to correct errors like this obviously recognized the importane, and his successor found it important enough to see the work to completion.

Genesis 3:15 has been corrected to read “he” as was written in the original Hebrew.

 

[Peter_J]

One of the texts that were improved was Genesis 3:15

The Douay Rheims Bible which was translated from Jerome’s Vulgate says “she (Mary) shall crush” satan’s head. The original text say “he (Jesus) shall crush” satan’s head.

The RC admits the original text says “he”, not “she”.

NEW ADVENT Catholic Encyclopedia:
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed (Jesus)…

I have heard an explanation of why it can be “he/she” rather than “he”, but I don’t remember it precisely. If I find it I’ll post it here.

The RC explains that by using “she” the passage makes clear Jesus is the one who really crushes satan’s head.

I don’t believe that’s an accurate presentation of the Catholic thinking on the matter.

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t believe that’s an accurate presentation of the Catholic thinking on the matter.

That is my paraphrase of the NEW ADVENT Catholic Encyclopedia:
According to our version, … the woman herself will win the victory;.…The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; **it is rather an explanatory version **expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, …

an explanatory version would be to point out the reference is singular, masculine and is a prophecy of Jesus. Changing “he” to “she” is deceiving and causes confusion.

The DR footnote explains it thus:
v. 15 She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

I see this error as a problem leading to false doctrine.

This verse erroneously using she has been cited to defend certain Catholic doctrines that I believe would not have been adopted if Gen 3:15 had correctly been translated from the start.

 

[llblarosa]

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

This is so wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus or the Apostles ever quoted the Septuagint.

Furthermore, If the Jews were removing books to dispel Jesus as the Christ,

Why did they throw out books that don’t allude to Jesus?

Why would they keep books like Isaiah which so clearly point to Jesus?

The Jews were keepers of the Torah - God appointed. They would not throw out inspired prophesy. More likely, they would interpret it to discredit Jesus or deny that Jesus life fit the prophecies. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what they did in the New Testament.

Do any of the apocrypha allude to the Messiah and contain prophesy that points directly to Jesus?

Ginger:

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek undertaken by the Jews themselves. This was the text utilized by all of the Jews of the dispersion. (And why would they undertake the translation if they were not going to use it.) If there was a problem with the inclusion of certain books within it, surely the Apostles would have indicated such. The Jews had not definitively defined their canon until around 400 A.D. or so (Council of Jamnia), where they also condemned the entirety of the NT. This they did in response to the circulation of the Scripture among the new Christians. When they left out certain books, they did so, I believe, because they said they had to have been originally written in Hebrew and had to have been written before a certain time. Why did they do this? And what was this criteria based on?

I don’t know if any of the apocryphal books point to the Messiah. This was my conclusion. It may or may not be correct, but it does not invailidate the above point or the fact that these books were included in the Christian Bible until Luther. I do not need the Bible to validate itself because I believe in Sacred Tradition as well. I know you do not.

I am trying to recall the name of the book I read about the above topic, but I cannot. I will ask my friend, Sarah. I know she has it. I will let you know.

Finally, we can say the Jews did this or the Jews did not do that. In the end, we will have to take the opinions of scholars on it, and there are many of these. We all make decisions as to which ones we trust or not. I simply think the weight of the evidence with regard to the Bible is in the Catholic corner.

Blessings,

Lisa

 

[llblarosa]

One of the texts that were improved was Genesis 3:15

The Douay Rheims Bible which was translated from Jerome’s Vulgate says “she (Mary) shall crush” satan’s head. The original text say “he (Jesus) shall crush” satan’s head.

The RC admits the original text says “he”, not “she”.

NEW ADVENT Catholic Encyclopedia:
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed (Jesus)…

The RC explains that by using “she” the passage makes clear Jesus is the one who really crushes satan’s head.

“According to our version, … the woman herself will win the victory; …The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version …”

The DR Bible states “he/she” makes no difference,
but this 1st pope who set out to correct errors like this obviously recognized the importane, and his successor found it important enough to see the work to completion.

Genesis 3:15 has been corrected to read “he” as was written in the original Hebrew.

I don’t know anything aboutthis, but this still does not seem problematic to me. Jesus comes to Earth through the vessel, the Holy Mother. Either way, Satan will be crushed, and the two are involved.

Blessings,

Lisa

 

[llblarosa]

Ginger:

I asked which Bible you use. Do you not want to tell me?

What is your denomination?

Do you believe in the Trinity?

Blessings,

Lisa

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek undertaken by the Jews themselves. This was the text utilized by all of the Jews of the dispersion. (And why would they undertake the translation if they were not going to use it.) If there was a problem with the inclusion of certain books within it, surely the Apostles would have indicated such. The Jews had not definitively defined their canon until around 400 A.D. or so (Council of Jamnia), where they also condemned the entirety of the NT. This they did in response to the circulation of the Scripture among the new Christians. When they left out certain books, they did so, I believe, because they said they had to have been originally written in Hebrew and had to have been written before a certain time. Why did they do this? And what was this criteria based on?

Lisa

Lisa, you are misinformed.

I just went thru this whole discourse in another thread only to have the entire thread deleted and the moderators have declined to tell me why.

So I’m not sure I want to go thru all that trouble again.

Instead, maybe we could ask moderator Rachel Malloy to reinstate the thread: Protestants: Why Can’t You Ever Answer A Question From History As Catholic Can? in it’s entirety.

I will say that your comment “The Jews had not definitively defined their canon until around 400 A.D. or so (Council of Jamnia), where they also condemned the entirety of the NT.” is totally baseless.

There is no evidence any of the Apocrypha were even discussed at Jamnia.

Christians don’t have a lot of info on this topic - probably because the Jews were not accustomed to fraternizing with Christians. So any “absolute” claims of what happened at Jamnia are all mere speculation by Christians.

On the other hand, the Jews were there and recorded it. Theirs is the only source of info.

If you have access to a document from Jamnia please share the link. I would be very interested in reading it. Until then I will take the word of the Jews concerning what was discussed over that of any Christian speculation.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

I asked which Bible you use. Do you not want to tell me?

What is your denomination?

Do you believe in the Trinity?

Blessings,

Lisa

I used my Catholic Bible, and several Protestant Bibles.

At the present time I am not a member of any denomination.

 

[Ginger2]

Lisa, I don’t recall you responding to the statement about the Apostles quoting from the Septuagint.

That is inaccurate. There is no evidence the Apostles or Jesus quoted the Septuagint.

Do you have some info that suggests otherwise?