Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Was the Mass Liturgy taught in a native language?
The earliest surviving account of the celebration of the Eucharist or the Mass in Rome is that of Saint Justin Martyr (died c. 165), in chapter 67 of his First Apology [2]:

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.

In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to *“the president of the brethren.” *The language used was doubtless Greek, except in particular for the Hebrew word *“Amen”, *whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (γένοιτο), saying that by it “all the people present express their assent” when the president of the brethren “has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings.”

Here are some history of the Mass Liturgy. In the beginning, the Mass was read in Greek. Historians are not sure when the Western Churches change from Greek to Latin.

Pope Victor I, an African, (190-202) may be the first to have introduced Latin in the Roman Liturgy.

According to Wikipedia, the change was gradual.

Here are some more detailed information.
Before the pontificate of Pope Gregory I (590–604), the Roman Mass rite underwent many changes, including a “complete recasting of the Canon” (a term that in this context means the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer), “… the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Liturgy of the Mass”),[3] the number of Scripture readings was reduced, the prayers of the faithful were omitted (leaving, however, the “Oremus” that once introduced them), the kiss of peace was moved to after the Consecration, and there was a growing tendency to vary, in reference to the feast or season, the prayers, the Preface, and even the Canon.
With regard to the Roman Canon of the Mass, the prayers beginning Te igitur, Memento Domine and Quam oblationem were already in use, even if not with quite the same wording as now, by the year 400; the Communicantes, the Hanc igitur, and the post-consecration Memento etiam and Nobis quoque were added in the fifth century.[3]
Pope Gregory I made a general revision of the liturgy of the Mass, “removing many things, changing a few, adding some,” as his biographer, John the Deacon, writes. He is credited with adding a phrase to the Eucharistic Prayer, and he placed the Lord’s Prayer immediately after the Canon, as he himself wrote.
((continue))
 
I know that it was preached in the Latin language in America quite recently or is the Mass Liturgy different than Mass itself?
The language of the Mass since Vatican changed. Today Mass is read in the venacular language. Prior to that the Mass was read in the Tridentine Mass
Since the accusation of heresy is being thrown around, what about the babylonianism heresy and its influence on the Catholic Church?
Babylonianism heresy? There wasn’t any. That’s the first I heard of it.
Babylonianism is something I am finding that explains the origins of controversial Catholic doctrines. If it is true
than it explains everything to me. I have only recently found this subject and have only done limited searches on it. Is there an official Catholic response to these accusations?

These accusations are false. It is apparent of your lack of the history of the Mass Liturgy.

Here how the Liturgy of Mass change starting from Middle Ages to the Tridentine Mass.
Towards the end of the eighth century Charlemagne ordered the Roman rite of Mass
to be used throughout his domains. However, some elements of the preceding Gallican rites were fused with it north of the Alps, and the resulting mixed rite was introduced into Rome under the influence of the emperors who succeeded Charlemagne. Gallican influence is responsible for the introduction into the Roman rite of dramatic and symbolic ceremonies such as the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, and much of the Holy Week ritual.

The **recitation of the Credo (Nicene Creed) after the Gospel is attributed to the influence of Emperor Henry II **(1002–1024). Gallican influence explains the practice of incensing persons, introduced in the eleventh or twelfth century; “before that time incense was burned only during processions (the entrance and Gospel procession).”[4] Private prayers for the priest to say before Communion were another novelty.

About the thirteenth century, an elaborate ritual and additional prayers of French origin were added to the Offertory, at which the only prayer that the priest in earlier times said was the Secret; these prayers varied considerably until fixed by Pope Pius V in 1570. Pope Pius V also introduced the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, previously said mostly in the sacristy or during the procession to the altar as part of the priest’s preparation, and also for the first time formally admitted into the Mass all that follows the Ite missa est in his edition of the Roman Missal. Later editions of the Roman Missal abbreviated this part by omitting the Canticle of the Three Young Men and Psalm 150, followed by other prayers, that in Pius V’s edition the priest was to say while leaving the altar.[4]

From 1474 until Pope Pius V’s 1570 text, there were at least 14 different printings that purported to present the text of the Mass as celebrated in Rome, rather than elsewhere, and which therefore were published under the title of “Roman Missal”. These were produced in Milan, Venice, Paris and Lyon. Even these show variations. Local Missals, such as the Parisian Missal, of which at least 16 printed editions appeared between 1481 and 1738, showed more important differences.[5]

The Roman Missal that Pope Pius V issued at the request of the Council of Trent, gradually established uniformity within the Latin Rite after a period that had witnessed regional variations in the choice of Epistles, Gospels, and prayers at the Offertory, the Communion, and the beginning and end of Mass. With the exception of a few dioceses and religious orders, the use of this Missal was made obligatory, giving rise to the 400-year period when the Roman-Rite Mass took the form now known as the Tridentine Mass.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass
 
I know this question isn’t for me, but I have this thought. I thought there have only been two infallible declarations - 1) Immaculate Conception, 2) Assumption.
I think the Magisterium of the Church declaring which books are part of the Canon of Scripture is infallible. The Magisterium also declare that Mary was the Ever-Virgin, and that she is the Theotokos.

Those statements you made about the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are **two Papal **infallible declarations. The Pope did so under his authority of his office.
 
I think the Magisterium of the Church declaring which books are part of the Canon of Scripture is infallible. The Magisterium also declare that Mary was the Ever-Virgin, and that she is the Theotokos.
Council of Ephesus, 431.
Those statements you made about the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are **two Papal **infallible declarations. The Pope did so under his authority of his office.
Once the concept of Infallibility in faith and morals was estalished, a council was not necessary to make such declarations. The Pope could speak directly Ex Cathedra. Correct me if I am wrong?

Wow has that thread wandered from it’s OP. :eek:
 
Council of Ephesus, 431.

Once the concept of Infallibility in faith and morals was estalished, a council was not necessary to make such declarations. The Pope could speak directly Ex Cathedra. Correct me if I am wrong?

Wow has that thread wandered from it’s OP. :eek:
You are right. Once the Church Council declare doctrine binding. There is no need to make a declaration.
 
A non essential doctrine would be knowing the names of the 12 apostles.
This is incorrect. Knowing the names of the 12 apostles is not a “doctrine” at all.

Doctrine is not equal to knowledge or even practices.
 
HOW it was decided… I know that you are just trying to get me to admit that it was the catholic church that decided this… *sigh… I have never denied this. BUT it was God who decided it and told the catholic church to compile the bible as they did. The writings that are not included in the bible are not inspired. My point is that those that were included were inspired even before the council decided it and the Church followed those writings. So the bible, in essence, did in fact exist while the Church was growing. It doesn’t matter that those other un-inspired works were around, that isn’t what I have been talking about. I have been talking about what is in the bible. Even tho there were other writings out there it doesn’t negate the fact that those that are included in the bible existed WAY before the Church finally put it together in one convenient spot.
Hi singingbeauty:)

The Statement I bolded is what Manny is objecting to. The Bible is not exist, in essence or otherwise. The Bible is a Holy Spirit led compilation of God’s inspired writings. This compilation, this leading of the Holy Spirit, did not occur until much later.

What the Church was led to declare as inspired existed from the time God inspired the writing of it. It continues to exist whether people acknowledge it as inspired or not.

But, the Christian Bible, the “list” of books, did not exist until God led the Church to make a list several hundred years into Christianity. The inspired writings have been around since they were written, side by side, with uninspired writings that some considered to be inspired. The* Bible* came to existence much later.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Hi singingbeauty:)

The Statement I bolded is what Manny is objecting to. The Bible is not exist, in essence or otherwise. The Bible is a Holy Spirit led compilation of God’s inspired writings. This compilation, this leading of the Holy Spirit, did not occur until much later.

What the Church was led to declare as inspired existed from the time God inspired the writing of it. It continues to exist whether people acknowledge it as inspired or not.

But, the Christian Bible, the “list” of books, did not exist until God led the Church to make a list several hundred years into Christianity. The inspired writings have been around since they were written, side by side, with uninspired writings that some considered to be inspired. The* Bible* came to existence much later.

God Bless,
Maria
Very well put Maria.

I will continue to pray for Manny and for Singins’ husband in Iraq. Manny must have something going on tonight, because he is not here. May God keep him safe, and may we always remember the sacrifices of our soldiers made in the name of freedom.

It’s been a beautiful, beautiful day. Father Dave Pollack, a Redemptorist, spoke at our annual parish Daughter’s of Mary (Sodality) breakfast. He was so full of joy, vibrant, humble, reverant.
 
Since the accusation of heresy is being thrown around, what about the babylonianism heresy and its influence on the Catholic Church?

Babylonianism is something I am finding that explains the origins of controversial Catholic doctrines. If it is true than it explains everything to me. I have only recently found this subject and have only done limited searches on it. Is there an official Catholic response to these accusations?
I am not sure what this is, but I am sure it belongs on another thread.
 
I know this question isn’t for me, but I have this thought. I thought there have only been two infallible declarations - 1) Immaculate Conception, 2) Assumption.
Councils have been making infallible declarations since the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. I think you are referring to ex cathedra statements, and there are more than two, but the rest are not of this century.
 
Councils have been making infallible declarations since the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. I think you are referring to ex cathedra statements, and there are more than two, but the rest are not of this century.
I think you might be right.
 
I am not sure what this is, but I am sure it belongs on another thread.
I think we already decided “Bible” is not in Bible. Let’s find out more about this Heresy.

Church Fathers and Church history have been around for over 2,000 years. It never fails to amaze me to what lenghts people will go to come up with new ideas that twist history so they don’t have to believe in the truth of the Catholic Church. “New Ideas” started right after the death of Jesus with early heresies, and continue today. Good thing we have our Catholic Christian Magesterium to keep on on the straight and narrow with TRUTH.👍
 
I think we already decided “Bible” is not in Bible. Let’s find out more about this Heresy.

Church Fathers and Church history have been around for over 2,000 years. It never fails to amaze me to what lenghts people will go to come up with new ideas that twist history so they don’t have to believe in the truth of the Catholic Church. “New Ideas” started right after the death of Jesus with early heresies, and continue today. Good thing we have our Catholic Christian Magesterium to keep on on the straight and narrow with TRUTH.👍
So what do you think of the Scriptures? Is there anything in the catholic church that is inspired-inerrant as they are? If so, what are they?
 
So what do you think of the Scriptures? Is there anything in the catholic church that is inspired-inerrant as they are? If so, what are they?
Don’t fall for this trolling, qui est ce. ja4 is not asking for information so that he can learn anything. He is hoping to guide you to the realization that the Catholic Church has been permeated by the doctrines of demons.
I have seen this claim many times about Sacred Tradition and those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not inspired-inerrant.
 
My question was primarily for BrewMax, but thanks for answering. If the Church existed in 35 AD, that’s at least eight years before the first book of the NT was written. Thus, the Church existed before the Bible.
It doesn’t matter that the Church existed before the Bible was written and put together. That’s perfectly fine. What I was referring to is that the history and the happenings spoken of in Scripture happened before the early church and therefore sheds some very important light upon the doctrines and teachings of the church since its first inception.
 
It doesn’t matter that the Church existed before the Bible was written and put together. That’s perfectly fine. What I was referring to is that the history and the happenings spoken of in Scripture happened before the early church and therefore sheds some very important light upon the doctrines and teachings of the church since its first inception.
I must agree. That is how doctrines, dogmas, teachings, etc. of the Church develop and continue to develop. 👍
 
Don’t fall for this trolling, qui est ce. ja4 is not asking for information so that he can learn anything. He is hoping to guide you to the realization that the Catholic Church has been permeated by the doctrines of demons.
I know, I have seen his posts on various threads. They are all the same. No matter that his posts have been answered, he continues on. I enjoyed your debates with him. They helped me in my faith journey. At first I thought he was really seeking truth, because a lot of his questions are valid from a Protesant point of view. But his persistance on re-asking makes me believe he is here to evangelize, not to seek Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top