Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[Isaiah45_9]

Where does Scripture plainly teach that I MUST make an auricular confession before a priest to receive forgiveness of my sins, and yet still be punished for those sins in purgatory (unless I subsequently obtain an indulgence for the same) - that is of course unless I make an act of “perfect contrition” (and even this is only sufficient if I am about to die)?

Where in Scripture does it say that everything must be plainly taught in Scriptures?

And link your sources please.

 

[josie_L]

Protestants have 66 books in their Bible and Catholics have 73. Also, the word “alone” was added to Romans, if I’m not mistaken. So yes, different Bibles and different translations.

p.s. The Bible prior to the Reformation was not lacking 7 books.

 

[dronald]

Protestants have 66 books in their Bible and Catholics have 73. Also, the word “alone” was added to Romans, if I’m not mistaken. So yes, different Bibles and different translations.

p.s. The Bible prior to the Reformation was not lacking 7 books.

Which translation has “alone” in it? None of mine say that.

I’ve heard Luther added or wanted to add that, but Lutherans will be quick to kick my butt if I’m wrong so I don’t make uneducated claims like that.

 

[josie_L]

And please also indicate the bit of the Bible that teaches that the pope has access to the Treasury of Merit and can dispense it on behalf of the church to remit time in Purgatory.

You’re missing chunks of the Bible, moreover, I do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, so we are at an impasse because you deny that Sacred Tradition even exists or rather matters.

p.s. Because there are varying Anglicans within your communion, there is no cohesiveness on what is agreed upon, i.e., your statement about grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone is not a unanimous/universal teaching of your church (I refer to Anglo-Catholics who are part of the Church of England).

 

[Nicea325]

**Where does Scripture plainly teach **that I MUST make an auricular confession before a priest to receive forgiveness of my sins, and yet still be punished for those sins in purgatory (unless I subsequently obtain an indulgence for the same) - that is of course unless I make an act of “perfect contrition” (and even this is only sufficient if I am about to die)?

And where does God teach everything must be plainly taught from the Bible?

That is what must be proven first and then we can move on…

 

[Nicea325]

And please also indicate the bit of the Bible that teaches that the pope has access to the Treasury of Merit and can dispense it on behalf of the church to remit time in Purgatory.

After you show us where mere men were authorized to create their own churches?

 

[Novocastrian]

You’re missing chunks of the Bible, moreover, I do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, so we are at an impasse because you deny that Sacred Tradition even exists or rather matters.

p.s. Because there are varying Anglicans within your communion, there is no cohesiveness on what is agreed upon, i.e., your statement about grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone is not a unanimous/universal teaching of your church (I refer to Anglo-Catholics who are part of the Church of England).

I’d actually disagree with you here. I think you’ll find very, very few Anglo-Catholics who wouldn’t actually agree with the likes of Luther and Cranmer re: sola fide. They might want more nuance and traditional emphasis on fasting, almsgiving and prayer as the expression of faith acting in love, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an Anglican who really denied the basic truth of salvation by faith alone.

 

[Novocastrian]

You’re missing chunks of the Bible

FYI, the canon law of the Church of England requires every single church and chapel to have at least one Bible which includes the Apocrypha, in order to be able to use the lectionary. Just because we don’t base any doctrine on the Apocrypha alone doesn’t mean that we don’t have it or use it. We regularly do.

 

[Novocastrian]

After you show us where mere men were authorized to create their own churches?

Particular or universal?

 

[simpleas]

Why does God call one person to this or that religion? when people search for God would he not call them in the direction of the catholic church? Is it then, not our own minds/wills that feel comfortable in a certain religion?

 

[josie_L]

Which translation has “alone” in it? None of mine say that.

I’ve heard Luther added or wanted to add that, but Lutherans will be quick to kick my butt if I’m wrong so I don’t make uneducated claims like that.

According to what I’ve been reading Luther did add “alone” in his German translation:

1. Luther’s actual reasoning for using “alone” in Romans 3:28 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

This is the sad part about those who use Luther’s Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.ca/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

I could be wrong, as I said earlier “if I’m not mistaken”, but I think he did indeed add to the Bible by writing in “alone”. That your translations of the Bible don’t have “alone” is good, but then again the damage is done, i.e., sola fide exists nevertheless. As Catholics, faith is defined as something “living”, i.e., not just a belief:

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223

 

[Nicea325]

Particular or universal?

Come again? The universal church founded by: Christ

All others: Do not have the time to post them all.

 

[josie_L]

I’d actually disagree with you here. I think you’ll find very, very few Anglo-Catholics who wouldn’t actually agree with the likes of Luther and Cranmer re: sola fide. They might want more nuance and traditional emphasis on fasting, almsgiving and prayer as the expression of faith acting in love, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an Anglican who really denied the basic truth of salvation by faith alone.

I would think that their understanding of what faith was was closer to our understanding than how “indifferently” is I believe defining it, i.e., faith working in love as opposed to just faith alone. There are two ways in which the Bible defines faith: in James, he is referring to faith that is just a belief, i.e., accepted as truth but dead because he is not living out his faith. The faith which Paul writes of in Romans is referring to the faith that we Catholics define as “working in love/charity”, i.e., a living faith. I’ll quote St. Augustine:

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”).

 

[Stilldreamn]

Josie, Lutherans understand that you cannot separate faith and works. Works are the living out of our faith. I believe the subtle difference is that we believe that works are an outflowing of the Holy Spirit and not the result of any righteousness on our part.

But in the end, we are doing the same works of mercy, are we not? We just don’t take credit for ours

 

[dronald]

According to what I’ve been reading Luther did add “alone” in his German translation:

I could be wrong, as I said earlier “if I’m not mistaken”, but I think he did indeed add to the Bible by writing in “alone”. That your translations of the Bible don’t have “alone” is good, but then again the damage is done, i.e., sola fide exists nevertheless. As Catholics faith is defined as something which is living, i.e., not just a belief:

Yes, I think I have read this before. I would need a Lutherans response to be fair. I’m not really sure which Bible translations have “alone” in them. I’m not sure if any Lutheran Bible’s do or don’t.

Any Evangelical Catholics like to address this?

 

[Stilldreamn]

Yes, I think I have read this before. I would need a Lutherans response to be fair. I’m not really sure which Bible translations have “alone” in them. I’m not sure if any Lutheran Bible’s do or don’t.

Any Evangelical Catholics like to address this?

The ESV translation is the preferred version for the LC-MS.

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."Romans 3:28

To me, Faith is the engine on the Works train.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Protestants have 66 books in their Bible and Catholics have 73. Also, the word “alone” was added to Romans, if I’m not mistaken. So yes, different Bibles and different translations.

p.s. The Bible prior to the Reformation was not lacking 7 books.

You know that is weird. I picked up my bible, King James, and I have 73 books. So I researched and looked and did not find the word “alone” in Romans.

 

[josie_L]

Josie, Lutherans understand that you cannot separate faith and works. Works are the living out of our faith. I believe the subtle difference is that we believe that works are an outflowing of the Holy Spirit and not the result of any righteousness on our part.

But in the end, we are doing the same works of mercy, are we not? We just don’t take credit for ours

Then Luther shouldn’t have messed with the translation/interpretation, i.e., there was no need to define “sola fide” if in fact we were both referring to faith as a living faith, i.e., faith working in love. And we too believe that all good deeds are due to the graces which we receive and ultimately cooperate with. I don’t believe that the Church defines it “as any righteousness on our part” as that sounds somewhat like Pelagianism.

p.s. I believe the whole point of St. James the Apostle’s epistle was to warn us that indeed Christians do/can separate faith from works, and so he is warning them of the fact that faith is not just a belief, but a faith working in charity. St. Paul makes it understood that he is not referring to this kind of faith in Romans.

 

[josie_L]

You know that is weird. I picked up my bible, King James, and I have 73 books. So I researched and looked and did not find the word “alone” in Romans.

Since I was referring to “indifferently” in my post to Isaiah, let’s ask him what Bible he uses?

p.s. Are the seven books which I referred to as missing considered “apochrypha” or “deuterocanonical”? There is a big difference.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well, since I was referring to “indifferently” in my post to Isaiah, let’s ask him what Bible he uses?

p.s. Are the seven books which I referred to as missing considered “apochrypha” or “deuterocanonical”? There is a big difference.

Nope you referred that post to my but no worries.

Apocrypha