Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[llblarosa]

It is interesting to note what Jerome had to say about whether the Apostles used the Hebrew version of the Scriptures or the Septuagint. He has this to say with respect to this issue and the Septuagint of his day.

Apology Against Rufinus
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxvi.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxviii.html

It seems that Jerome, looking at the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of his day, felt that Jesus prefered the Hebrew to the Septuagint.

SyCarl & Ginger:

I never said the Apostles quoted the deuterocanonical books. I said they quoted the Septuagint. Again, you have misquoted me, so your quote above is irrelevant, except to say that Jerome confirms the use of the Septuagint by the Apostles. At least, we seem to agree on that point now.

There is no doubt that Jesus would have preferred the Hebrew. He is the Jewish Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecy. He came to teach the Jews and was a Jew. This still does not address the issue.

Incidentally, many scholars claim through various texts that the Apostles were familiar with stories from the DC books, though I leave this discussion to the competencies of people smarter than myself. Also, I do not think any Catholic would say that these books carry the same weight as the major prophets like Isaiah or the other ancient Hebrew texts. That too is not the issue.

This is the issue. The earliest Bibles do contain these books. The earliest Protestant Bibles do contain these books. So, the more modern ones must have removed them, not the other way around! What was the motivation for this? In my opinion, it was the Protestant Reformation. As people began to break away from the Catholic Church, they rejected Catholic doctrine in specific ways. Some didn’t like the icons, some didn’t like the Pope, some didn’t like confession, some didn’t like music, etc. The various outcroppings of churches (continuing to this present day) and their customs essentially develoepd out of rejection of something, not out of positve affirmation of belief. This is just like what a child does when he rebels against his parents. He beomes, for a time, their opposite. He is a prodigal. Hopefully, the prodigal will return.

I would like to refer you to Why Are Catholic Bibles Bigger by Gary G. Michuta.

I may not be back to this thread. I’m going to be very busy in the coming days.

Blessings to all,

Lisa

 

[benedictus2]

Hilary tells us that the Scriptures are plain on the Trinity and that heresies arose because the Scriptures were distorted, not because they were not plain.

On the Trinity, Book 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ii.html

Would every Tom,Dirk and Harry who are believers and read the scripture in a vacuum arrive at the Trinity?

Based on scripture alone, would every believer conclude Three Persons in one God, not Three Gods or even just two?

The scripture may be plain to the likes of Hilary and Agustin, but your average believer will not come up with the Trinity if you give them the Bible.

The fact that the heretics can find support in scripture for their position means its not plain.

Another example would be the Eucharist. We Catholics believe it is one of the clearest in the Bible and yet a lot of protestants don’t believe it.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Peter feeling morally superior? Now, why ever would you think that?

 

[benedictus2]

Well, I’d rather believe what I believe God is showing me in His word than what someone else says it says. No matter what their claims for themselves. Psalm 118:8.

Bob Sungenis, a protestant who converted to Catholicism wrote : " I finally realized that My seventeen-year experience with Protestant biblical scholars had made one thing very clear to me: Sola scriptura is a euphemism for "sola ego"

 

[benedictus2]

Hilary tells us that the Scriptures are plain on the Trinity and that heresies arose because the Scriptures were distorted, not because they were not plain.

On the Trinity, Book 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ii.html

Also, in the quoted text he is already exposing the Trinity but notice, you have Father and Son. Do you think an average believer would conclude that they are not two separate Gods in the same way that a father is separate from his son. How can an average mind come up with Three Persons in One God when any person knows that three does not equal one. Even to the most learned Theologian the Trinity is still a mystery and you think it is so plain in the Bible the ordinary Christian can deduce this from the text?

 

[Ginger2]

Okay, fair enough. Scriptural references as I have said are not necessary and have no bearing on the question because the question is not scriptural.

Scripture is necessary as that is what I base my claim on. (1John 5:13; John 20:31)

If it is PLAIN in its meaning, we would all come up with the same conclusion.

I attended a non-denominational service to oblige a friend. Some believed in the apostles creed in its entirety, some didn’t believe in some parts like the communion of saints, some did not believe in the virgin birth.

All of them believed they are 100% Christian.

All this you learned from attending only one service?

The answer can be found in Scriptures. (Matthew 13:24 - 30 )

I do not disagree with your conclusion that some Christians are in name only. I just thought it interesting that protestants also consider other protestants non Christian. Just a side comment.

Salvation is not based on having perfect understanding of all things. Understanding is based on God opening our minds, hearts and souls to understanding. If we are truly seeking God, God will not let us down He will reveal Himself to those who love Him.

Just as Protestants can and do misinterpret Scriptures at times, Catholics also can and do misinterpret Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.
If this were not true, there would be no ex-catholics, right?

 

[Ginger2]

.

NO IT IS NOT. The statement is “The Trinity is plain from the Bible” is only supportable by the Bible if the Bible itself had a an explicit statemetn on the Trinity.

The word “Trinity” was coined later as a way to explain One God yet Three Person’s.

The word “Trinity” is not found in Scriptures, but the concept is clearly there.

The word “homosexuality” is not found in Scriptures, either. But it is clear there were men practicing homosexuality in Biblical times.

Some will deny these clear facts. It’s simply because they are choosing to reject God’s Word.

 

[Ginger2]

The point is not Augustnie’s contention.

When something is plain all believers would agree on it.

It is plain to all believers. It’s is not plain to heretics. Heretics are not believers.

 

[Ginger2]

SyCarl & Ginger:

I never said the Apostles quoted the deuterocanonical books. I said they quoted the Septuagint. Again, you have misquoted me, so your quote above is irrelevant, except to say that Jerome confirms the use of the Septuagint by the Apostles.
Lisa

I did not misquote you. The Apostles did not quote the Septuagint.

The Septuagint are copies of the Hebrew Scriptures and other writings, including secular writings.

Why would Jews quote copies or other books that may have a quote or two from the Torah or Prophets?

They quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures.
**
If I quoted Mark Twain and someone else had once quoted that same statement, would you say I quoted the guy who quoted Twain, or would you say I quoted Twain?**

 

[Ginger2]

Lisa,

Catholic Bibles are bigger because they added uninspired books to their Bibles.

When Jerome was asked to add these extra-biblical books he separated them from the inspired texts - for good reason:

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

 

[Ginger2]

Also, in the quoted text he is already exposing the Trinity but notice, you have Father and Son. Do you think an average believer would conclude that they are not two separate Gods in the same way that a father is separate from his son. How can an average mind come up with Three Persons in One God when any person knows that three does not equal one. Even to the most learned Theologian the Trinity is still a mystery and you think it is so plain in the Bible the ordinary Christian can deduce this from the text?

I knew a woman who did not believe Jesus is God. She wouldn’t listen to anything I said. I stopped talking about God with her and began praying.

One day I mindlessly started talking about God and she said she would like to know what the Bible really says.

I was floored as in the past she always declined to do a Bible study stating she already read the Bible.

She agreed to come to my home each morning to study Scriptures one-on-one.

To male a long story short…I used only the Scriptures to teach. I crossed reference from one book to another to clarify meanings.

This woman now believes in the Trinity.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, Scripture alone was sufficient. It became plain and easy to understand when God opened her mind to understanding.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl & Ginger:

I never said the Apostles quoted the deuterocanonical books. I said they quoted the Septuagint. Again, you have misquoted me, so your quote above is irrelevant, except to say that Jerome confirms the use of the Septuagint by the Apostles. At least, we seem to agree on that point now.
Lisa

The quotes from Jerome also indicates that the Apostles gave preference to the Hebrew by quoting it where it differed from the Septuagint. Consequently he also gave preference to the Hebrew over the Septuagint.

 

[Ginger2]

The quotes from Jerome also indicates that the Apostles gave preference to the Hebrew by quoting it where it differed from the Septuagint. Consequently he also gave preference to the Hebrew over the Septuagint.

Jerome was wrong. There is only one reference that can even be remotely assumed to be taken from the Septuagint - and that quote comes from a pseudo- writing.

Can any of us claim the Bible quotes pseudo-texts with a clear conscience?

Just because a forgery contains some true statements, does not validate the entire document. It only means the author included some accurate information in his writing.

In other words, the Bible is validating one statement, for which we do not have the original document. But it does not mean the Biblical author received his info from the pseudo-work. It only proves the pseudo-author and the Biblical author both knew about the information.

 

[SyCarl]

Jerome was wrong. There is only one reference that can even be remotely assumed to be taken from the Septuagint - and that quote comes from a pseudo- writing.

Can any of us claim the Bible quotes pseudo-texts with a clear conscience?

Just because a forgery contains some true statements, does not validate the entire document. It only means the author included some accurate information in his writing.

In other words, the Bible is validating one statement, for which we do not have the original document. But it does not mean the Biblical author received his info from the pseudo-work. It only proves the pseudo-author and the Biblical author both knew about the information.

Actually my copy of the TEV from the Canadian Bible Society gives more than 80 places where the Septuagint is used in the New Testament.

 

[Peter_J]

To male a long story short…

Snail, or e- ?

By the power of the Holy Spirit, Scripture alone was sufficient.

But, as I always say, Sufficiency of Scripture is not the same as Sola Scriptura.

 

[Peter_J]

The quotes from Jerome also indicates that the Apostles gave preference to the Hebrew by quoting it where it differed from the Septuagint. Consequently he also gave preference to the Hebrew over the Septuagint.

Actually my copy of the TEV from the Canadian Bible Society gives more than 80 places where the Septuagint is used in the New Testament.

Okay, now you’re just trying to confuse me. :tsktsk:

 

[Peter_J]

When Jerome was asked to add these extra-biblical books he separated them from the inspired texts

Jerome made a distinction between those books that are found only in the Septuagint (which he called “Apocrypha”), and those books that are found in both the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts (both of which are inspired texts, FYI). But he did not separate them – he left them in the order they appeared in the Septuagint.

 

[SyCarl]

Okay, now you’re just trying to confuse me. :tsktsk:

I am not trying to confuse you. What Jerome says is that somethings referred to in the New Testament are found in the Hebrew Scriptures but not in the Septuagint. To him this shows that the Apostles used the Hebrew Scriptures.

However, when quoting something that is in both the Septuagint and the Hebrew, they would use the wording in the Septuagint since they were writing primarily to a Greek speaking audience. This audience would not have access to the Hebrew Scriptures but would have access to the Septuagint from the Greek speaking Jews of the Diaspora. They used the words that would be familiar to those people.

But this thread seems to have gone quite off topic.

 

[Peter_J]

Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases.

SyCarl or Ginger,

Are there any other examples you can provide besides this one?

 

[Ginger2]

Actually my copy of the TEV from the Canadian Bible Society gives more than 80 places where the Septuagint is used in the New Testament.

Think about it Sycarl,

If I say “A penny saved is a penny earned”, would you assume I am quoting Benjamin Franklin or would you assume I am quoting someone who quoted Benjamin Franklin because that quote is found in some other source?

That is what they are doing when they claim the Apostles quote the LXX.

I will give you that since the the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek because that was becoming the more common language, they may have quoted using language that was closer to what was written in the LXX,

however, there is absolutely no credible evidence they quoted from any the extra books found in Catholic Bibles.

That is my point because Catholics use the “Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Septuagint” defense to create support for their false claim the deuteros were always included in the Scriptures.

Agreed or no?