P
PerryJ
Guest
Why did the Protestant Bibles carry the cross references for a couple hundred years?
- Status
P
PerryJ
Guest
I forgot to add that you have seven other books with no direct quote from Jesus. Why do use them then? Why do you not throw them out?
Why not be consistent?
J
justasking4
Guest
The early protestants were still heavily influenced by the Catholic church and things like these things took time to work out. The history of the DC’s is not like the other 66 books. They were always full of contraversy through history.
P
PerryJ
Guest
Of course you also know the answer to this. Prior to that we did not need to state the obvious. Everyone was using them and they were in all Bibles.
You can play these question games; but, your an intelligent person. You know that this line of thought doesn’t make any sense. Do you truly find it more important to stand against the Catholic Church than follow Christ’s teachings?
P
PerryJ
Guest
So were many of the NT books. The authorship of many are not truly known.
You know that you are making up excuses not to follow his teachings.
J
justasking4
Guest
The DC’s as i said have a long history of contraversy and the church was unable to come to some kind of agreement about them until Trent. Some historians are doubtful of the motives of the Catholic church at this time to elevate these books to full canonical status. Many feel it was in reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
Jesus quoting or not quoting from a book is not the only test that a book had to pass before it was considered Sacred Scripture.
J
justasking4
Guest
There are many teachings in the Catholic church that are not the teachings of Christ.
I
IronHammer
Guest
Is this true?Would you believe i’m 13?
po18guy
Well-known member
Sadly, it appears so, as with nearly all Protestants.
D
distracted
Guest
I’m sorry (Or am i??) but this response makes no sense to me…
D
distracted
Guest
Is that a rhetorical question…
Or do you actually want an answer?
Here’s my answer: considering how a lot of Protestants on the forums act… i would say:
quite likely…
D
distracted
Guest
actually, i don’t think a 13 yr old would resist the Church like you do… Children are teachable…Would you believe i’m 13?
Suffer the little children to come to Me, Jesus says… for of such is the kingdom of Heaven…
D
distracted
Guest
i’m not trying to be rude but the thought occurs to me that you are, generally speaking, in most of your posts, swatting at the gnat and swallowing the camel…
I figure that when one faces a difficult “issue” or something perplexing or mysterious… it is always best to start at the beginning… it is best to get to the real heart of a matter… What is the main problem you have w/ the Church??
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
That explains a lot.Would you believe i’m 13?
J
justasking4
Guest
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
This is a lie. Christ is the Head of the Church. He sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth.
ja4 being 13 explains his inability to do anything buy parrot a few phrases he has heard with no explanation. He’s going on my ignore list.
J
justasking4
Guest
A
Agnes_Ainsworth
Guest
There is a lot of misunderstandings about the role of Church Councils throughout the history of the Catholic Church, even by Catholics themselves.
In the gradual revelation of all Truth by the Holy Spirit, not all the teachings of the Church were very widely defined even though widely accepted by the faithful. In the liturgy, Scripture readings were used and Feast days developed, together with direct revelations of God through chosen souls who we call mystics who possessed charismatic gifts of prophecy and knowledge. As St Augustine proclaimed and Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document reiterated; “God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.”
Do you agree with this statement, Just asking4? This is the key to the future revelations of teachings that you deny are “in the Bible”.
Jesus told His disciples there was too much to take immediately but He would reveal all and this is how it was. The prefigurng of the Chair of Peter by the Chair of Moses is an excellent example.
Whenever there was a conflict about a Church teaching that the Magisterium believed to be serious, a Church Council was called just as the pattern was set by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. In fact Peter got up and addressed the assembly, claiming his leadership; “My brothers, you know perfectly well that in the early days, God made His choice among you: the pagan were to hear the Good News from me and so become believers.” Acts 15: 7-8. The conflict was resolved by the Council and the Truth was dogmatically declared in a much deeper explanatory manner so that never again within the Church would that heresy arise.
The Council of Trent had a huge task of dealing with all the heresies brought about by the Protestant Reformation, which incidentally was actually a deformation in the view of the Catholic Church. There was no doubt reform was needed, but not the Schism that followed. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide wreaked havoc as did Luther’s attempts at discarding certain books of Scripture. Both these major heresies were addressed together with correction of other false teachings which abounded caused by the diverse interpretations of Scripture which divisions grow by the day. The definitive listing of the books of the Bible which of course included the DCs was the final reiteration of the true Canon of the Bible. They were not added at Trent, just as the teaching on the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not changed or added to. The term Transubstantiation was coined to make absolutely clear what had been taught from the beginning from Jesus teaching in John Ch 6.
When Church Councils declare Dogmas from the Chair of Peter, (the Pope reigning at the time), much previous study of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, teaching from Scripture, how it has been understood and believed, used in feast day celebrations, and taught in papal Encyclicals; even art is considered as seen by the many famous paintings of the Assumption of Our Lady, centuries before the Dogma in 1950 Each Dogma takes years of preparation on the part of Theologians and Scripture scholars renowned throughout the world. When the Pope is satisfied after long prayer and exhortation of the Holy Spirit, he will declare the dogma. Another example is the dogma of Papal Infallibility which has nothing to do with papal sinning. Not one of the few “bad” Popes defined a dogma or changed or denied any teaching (as far as I know).
Incidentally, the Council of Trent, in correcting another heresy of unbelief of the Protestants viz; “Whoever refuses to believe in miracles let him be anathema.” Ironically, just as many Protestants have come round to a belief in the True Presence as many Catholics have turned away finding the teaching “too hard to take”: so many Charismtic Protestants believe in miracles, manifested in prophecy and healings, spiritually and physically.
In the gradual revelation of all Truth by the Holy Spirit, not all the teachings of the Church were very widely defined even though widely accepted by the faithful. In the liturgy, Scripture readings were used and Feast days developed, together with direct revelations of God through chosen souls who we call mystics who possessed charismatic gifts of prophecy and knowledge. As St Augustine proclaimed and Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document reiterated; “God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.”
Do you agree with this statement, Just asking4? This is the key to the future revelations of teachings that you deny are “in the Bible”.
Jesus told His disciples there was too much to take immediately but He would reveal all and this is how it was. The prefigurng of the Chair of Peter by the Chair of Moses is an excellent example.
Whenever there was a conflict about a Church teaching that the Magisterium believed to be serious, a Church Council was called just as the pattern was set by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. In fact Peter got up and addressed the assembly, claiming his leadership; “My brothers, you know perfectly well that in the early days, God made His choice among you: the pagan were to hear the Good News from me and so become believers.” Acts 15: 7-8. The conflict was resolved by the Council and the Truth was dogmatically declared in a much deeper explanatory manner so that never again within the Church would that heresy arise.
The Council of Trent had a huge task of dealing with all the heresies brought about by the Protestant Reformation, which incidentally was actually a deformation in the view of the Catholic Church. There was no doubt reform was needed, but not the Schism that followed. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide wreaked havoc as did Luther’s attempts at discarding certain books of Scripture. Both these major heresies were addressed together with correction of other false teachings which abounded caused by the diverse interpretations of Scripture which divisions grow by the day. The definitive listing of the books of the Bible which of course included the DCs was the final reiteration of the true Canon of the Bible. They were not added at Trent, just as the teaching on the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not changed or added to. The term Transubstantiation was coined to make absolutely clear what had been taught from the beginning from Jesus teaching in John Ch 6.
When Church Councils declare Dogmas from the Chair of Peter, (the Pope reigning at the time), much previous study of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, teaching from Scripture, how it has been understood and believed, used in feast day celebrations, and taught in papal Encyclicals; even art is considered as seen by the many famous paintings of the Assumption of Our Lady, centuries before the Dogma in 1950 Each Dogma takes years of preparation on the part of Theologians and Scripture scholars renowned throughout the world. When the Pope is satisfied after long prayer and exhortation of the Holy Spirit, he will declare the dogma. Another example is the dogma of Papal Infallibility which has nothing to do with papal sinning. Not one of the few “bad” Popes defined a dogma or changed or denied any teaching (as far as I know).
Incidentally, the Council of Trent, in correcting another heresy of unbelief of the Protestants viz; “Whoever refuses to believe in miracles let him be anathema.” Ironically, just as many Protestants have come round to a belief in the True Presence as many Catholics have turned away finding the teaching “too hard to take”: so many Charismtic Protestants believe in miracles, manifested in prophecy and healings, spiritually and physically.
G
GeorgiaPeach
Guest
Of course the same applies to me.
Unlike you, I have no need for personal interpretation. I have the Church founded by Christ, the one He promised to guide in truth.
G
guanophore
Guest
So far, it only means that you have accepted the majority of Catholic Sacred Tradition, based on your own “study and conclusion”.To think that i got 66 books that the Roman Catholic church agrees with me on has to mean something…
On the contrary! You are claiming as the ultimate rule in matters of faith a book which cannot authenticate itself, and which you consider inspired-inerrant based only on your own “study and conclusions”. Unfortunately, you have again proved the point of the OP that you are using something outside of scripture to validate the Scripture, even if it is only your own opinion.
This is a case of bearing false witness against your neighbore, ja4. You might want to check on the acceptability of this practice in the book of Deuterotomy. You have been shown repeatedly on many threads that the DC’s were included since prior to the canonization in the 4th century. Or, you may wish to check with your cadre. Maybe you can do a search, and just review what was written to y’'all?Keep in mind the DC"s were not considered fully canonical by the church until Trent. So it seems the Christians before Trent had the right canon…
I think the answer is relevant to this thread, too. I believe you urged that one should compare what the Church teaches to scripture, since you perceive that they are in conflict with one another. This is one of the ways we know that SS is incorrect. The scripture was produced by the Catholic Church, and that is why nothing in it contradicts Catholic Teaching.
No, but that belongs on another thread. The only part relevant here is that the personal interpretation of inspired-inerrant = sole ulitimat authority.
False, and off topic.
- Status