T
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Alix 1912,
In the late 19th Century a Methodist dentist became so conviced about the evils of alcohol that he conviced his local church to adopt un-fermented wine (grape juice). Eventually, he convinced others and some other churches adopted this novel idea as part of the Prohibition Movement. Welchās Grape Juice Company stands as a modern day marker of his accomplishment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bramwell_Welch in industry and in changing church teaching. Passover was and is celebrated with actual wine. And, while this is can be seen as a Methodist innovation, if a Lutheran pastor had such an idea - what would happen?
From the earliest Biblical records, homosexual acts have been condemned. Today we find several denominations advancing the homosexual agenda to establish āsame sex marriageā as just one more expression of a diverse population. Many religions claiming to be Christian have endorsed this practice and there have been many documented āweddingsā performed by pastors. If a Lutheran pastor wanted to perform such a āceremonyā - what would happen?
Ultimately, SS has some very serious limitations - in fact St. John tells that Scripture does not contain everything. Claiming it is the āhighest referenceā still puts one in the position of reading difficult material that does not self-explain ā¦ and that means there needs to be an interpreter - or Magisterium, if you will. Since there are different Lutheran groups - and no one head - there will be different interpretations of what was said. While only natural given the differences in the way all of us think - the challenge comes when groups divide over differing interpretations, if ONLY Scripture is the authority. Of course, books can not have āauthorityā - only people can. So, with SS as the guide - how is this resolved?
I am looking forward to your responses.
God bless
This is an interesting concept Alix 1912 and maybe it can be used to throw some additional light on SS.
Where does this teaching authority for your pastor come from? Seriously. In my view, the authority to teach Godās Word must come from God - or else, how would you know that the Word is being taught correctly. Here are two examples and each with a question.
In the late 19th Century a Methodist dentist became so conviced about the evils of alcohol that he conviced his local church to adopt un-fermented wine (grape juice). Eventually, he convinced others and some other churches adopted this novel idea as part of the Prohibition Movement. Welchās Grape Juice Company stands as a modern day marker of his accomplishment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bramwell_Welch in industry and in changing church teaching. Passover was and is celebrated with actual wine. And, while this is can be seen as a Methodist innovation, if a Lutheran pastor had such an idea - what would happen?
From the earliest Biblical records, homosexual acts have been condemned. Today we find several denominations advancing the homosexual agenda to establish āsame sex marriageā as just one more expression of a diverse population. Many religions claiming to be Christian have endorsed this practice and there have been many documented āweddingsā performed by pastors. If a Lutheran pastor wanted to perform such a āceremonyā - what would happen?
Ultimately, SS has some very serious limitations - in fact St. John tells that Scripture does not contain everything. Claiming it is the āhighest referenceā still puts one in the position of reading difficult material that does not self-explain ā¦ and that means there needs to be an interpreter - or Magisterium, if you will. Since there are different Lutheran groups - and no one head - there will be different interpretations of what was said. While only natural given the differences in the way all of us think - the challenge comes when groups divide over differing interpretations, if ONLY Scripture is the authority. Of course, books can not have āauthorityā - only people can. So, with SS as the guide - how is this resolved?
I am looking forward to your responses.
God bless
T
Tomster
Guest
Now that you are off your soapbox, could you respond to the contradictions of Protestantism that I outlined for you?
T
Tomster
Guest
Well then, Iāll try and soften it up a bit so it will be a bit more digestible for all concerned.
It is an interesting phenomenon of religious history that the heresy of Luther, taking its rise in a proud rebellion against the teaching AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, issued in a pessimistic theology which, exaggerating the effects of original sin, presented human nature as intrinsically corrupt and that the human will, bereft of freedom, was radically incapable of pursuing the good and that human reason was powerless to know truth. As manās broken will must submit passively to the grace of God, so must his mind now, darkened by sin, allow itself to be led by an occult and irresistible force, a blind and unreasoning faith.
From all such attempts to disparage the powers of the human reason the Catholic Church has remained ever aloof. On the āplayfieldā of searching for the Truth is it any wonder that when confronted with their own inherent contradictions all that many non-Catholic Christians can reply with are āsoapboxā tirades?
Kumbaya!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Alix1912,
Letās take a moment and look at just one itemā¦
Ultimately, error is the enemy of all Truth - and we really have an obligation to promote, encouage and spread the Truth to the best of our ability - and, that means both in and out of season, to paraphrase St. Paul.
Christ was quite clear about false teachers luring away - even those who it would appear have a solid footing in the Faith. False teaching is not only āout thereā but, it can be in our hearts, too. if we allow false teaching or error to spread because we do not like the way someone who is correct is presenting their ideas - then we are no friend of Truth!
None of us opperate in a vacuum - we are constatntly influcing others ā¦ for good or evil! People thinking they understand your position will be scandalized to think you would not defend Truth - no matter who is personally trying to make their truthful but not politically correct point.
Yes, I know ā¦ we should all honor the question of Rodney āWhy canāt we all get along?ā King. Well, Truth and error can not occupy the same space at the same time. Either you believe certain things or you donāt. It really is truly amazing just how few yes or no - with NO MAYBES - responses there really are. Well, letās see -how about the Nicea Creed (325AD)? Read it and there are some items that are not in Scripture!
The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
If you waiver on the Truth because of your apparent over-riding sense of political correctness, then you fold Please notice that John the Bapitist and Christ were not politically in their recorded interactions with the Pharisees. Peter attempted to be politcally correct when he rebuked Christ for talking about His upcoming Passion and Death (Matt 16). Either you move with Christ through the Church He founded or you will move with someone else in the church that they founded. All the evidence is there and right now we have the time to look and learn - even from the harshest teachers.
Donāt lose heart.
God bless
Letās take a moment and look at just one itemā¦
Your decision to combat error where you find it is commendable - and a reflection of a strong moral direction. But, in reading threads such as this - where people, however they may phrase the material, are expressing their view of the Truth, has you discouraged - then maybe it is time to step back and look at just what is going on.
Ultimately, error is the enemy of all Truth - and we really have an obligation to promote, encouage and spread the Truth to the best of our ability - and, that means both in and out of season, to paraphrase St. Paul.
Christ was quite clear about false teachers luring away - even those who it would appear have a solid footing in the Faith. False teaching is not only āout thereā but, it can be in our hearts, too. if we allow false teaching or error to spread because we do not like the way someone who is correct is presenting their ideas - then we are no friend of Truth!
None of us opperate in a vacuum - we are constatntly influcing others ā¦ for good or evil! People thinking they understand your position will be scandalized to think you would not defend Truth - no matter who is personally trying to make their truthful but not politically correct point.Yes, I know ā¦ we should all honor the question of Rodney āWhy canāt we all get along?ā King. Well, Truth and error can not occupy the same space at the same time. Either you believe certain things or you donāt. It really is truly amazing just how few yes or no - with NO MAYBES - responses there really are. Well, letās see -how about the Nicea Creed (325AD)? Read it and there are some items that are not in Scripture!
The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
If you waiver on the Truth because of your apparent over-riding sense of political correctness, then you fold Please notice that John the Bapitist and Christ were not politically in their recorded interactions with the Pharisees. Peter attempted to be politcally correct when he rebuked Christ for talking about His upcoming Passion and Death (Matt 16). Either you move with Christ through the Church He founded or you will move with someone else in the church that they founded. All the evidence is there and right now we have the time to look and learn - even from the harshest teachers.
Donāt lose heart.
God bless
T
TobyLue
Guest
TimothyH
POPE OUSTS BISHOP OVER ORDINATION VIEW - AP.
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI has fired an outspoken Australian bishop who had called on the church to consider ordaining women and married men.
The Vatican said in a statement Monday that the pope has āremoved from pastoral careā Bishop William Morris of the Toowoomba diocese, west of Brisbane.
That move was strong by the standards of the Vatican, which usually stops short of saying outright that it has ousted a church leader.
There was a bit more but this tells it like it is.
You are so right on this statement and not only a priest. Case in point. In todayās newspaper was this article ā
POPE OUSTS BISHOP OVER ORDINATION VIEW - AP.
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI has fired an outspoken Australian bishop who had called on the church to consider ordaining women and married men.
The Vatican said in a statement Monday that the pope has āremoved from pastoral careā Bishop William Morris of the Toowoomba diocese, west of Brisbane.
That move was strong by the standards of the Vatican, which usually stops short of saying outright that it has ousted a church leader.
There was a bit more but this tells it like it is.
P
Philthy
Guest
Yes, but the word ātraditionā appears several times in the NT and the faithful are told to āhold fast to itā. Nowhere do we find the ideas regarding tradition that you promote and so we wonder where a sola scriptura adherent gets their notions regarding tradition if it is not from Scripture.
Three things:
- there is no āHoly Spiritās stamp of infallibilityā, and the Scriptures that you have given the stamp of approval to were not āstampedā except by the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in declaring them Scriptureā¦and you reject that.
- there is no āguaranteeā of any of the books in the NT and, in fact, there is no Scriptural basis for including any of the texts we have in the NT.
- Not all of the books we have in the NT are from āthose who saw Christās gloryā. Luke is one example, and he authored a gospel account and Acts. In addition, the authors of many NT books are anonymous.
I find neither conclusion in the verses you provide. That is because it simply isnāt there.
How about something simple like Peter saying: Hey, beloved, you know how as Jews we followed the sacred Scriptures? Well I, Paul, John, Luke etc etc am going to write some new Scriptures that will stand alone as the source of truth for the Christian faith.
Not a single author in the NT ever claims to be doing what you claim they did, so where did you get the idea? I submit you get it from Tradition because it is not contained in Scripture.
Since Scripture is not limited to those who saw Christās glory (it is not all apostolic) your point has already been refuted.
Yes - and Sola Scriptura is one of them!
I donāt see what you see at all. I see a huge silence in Scripture and a huge silence in history regarding what should be a very fundamental, very transparent, very obvious doctrine of the Church. Many well - intentioned Christians simply ignore- or are ignorant of - the fact that it took decades for our current Scriptures to be penned and CENTURIES to finally arrive at a canon of Scripture as distinct from the hundreds of documents claiming inspiration. When is it ever declared that the ācanon of Scripture is closedā and we are now shifting to āsola scriptura modeā? The answer, from Scripture and from history - is never, and the reason is simple: it never happened!
Blessings!
T
tqualey
Guest
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Muze,
I ādebatedā a hardcore Calvinist on another thread (I am not suggesting you are a Calvinist - I mention it only so that you can see where I am coming from with my position) regarding the Bible itself.
As an adherent to āsola scripturaā, the vast majority of protestants will always āelevateā scripture to a level above all else. But in doing so (and I assume you do as well), would you please answer the following questions (and I ask them sincerely and without intending any offense):
I start with the premise that you accept the KJV of the bible as sacred scripture - no more, no less. If my premise is correct, then please answer the following:
P.S. Catholics all agree that God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired all sacred scripture. So for the sake of the questions below, you may accept as a āgivenā that God is the originator of all that is holy in the bible. When I ask questions such as āwhoā, I am talking about human beings.
Questions about the Bible itself
With no disrespect intended, I find Philemon to be one of the ādriestā and āleast inspiringā books in the entire bible. But as I look to the Catholic Church for the determining authority on the canon, I do not have to worry about reading Philemon and wondering if it is or is not inspired. I want you to explain your āprocessā to me in determining inspiration, and then apply it specifically to Philemon.
Authority Exercised on behalf of God on Earth
Muze, as a protestant, you obviously deny the authority of the Catholic Church to teach authoritatively about all-things religious. If Christ did not install Peter as the first head of a visible Church on earth that was to continue after Christās death and even after Peterās death, I again ask you to please answer the following:
A. Doesnāt it seem odd to you that Christ would begin a visible church on earth as a means of spreading his word to all peoples, and yet fail to āinstallā someone as head of that church?
B. Without a āchurch headā or āleaderā, how is Godās word supposed to be taught to people around the world, in a uniform manner so that different doctrines/teachings do not arise during the churchās evangelization of people?
C. If you acknowledge that Christ DID establish a visible church on earth, do you also acknowledge that it made perfect sense to ensure that the leader(s) of that church would be āprotectedā from teaching false doctrine to people of the world while it evangelized Godās word? Catholics call that protection āinfallibilityā. I am simply curious as to how you view the matter.
D. How do you explain the existence of tens of thousands of different protestant denominations in the US alone, all of which arose because of disagreements - some minor, some major - about interpretation of certain parts of the bible?
E. Donāt you think it odd that God would allow so many different erroneous teachings of his doctrines to exist, and yet not also provide for a ābaseā to which everyone could turn if they wanted to learn the truth about his teachings?
F. Prior to the Protestant Revolt in the Middle Ages (and a short time before that), how was man supposed to learn about Godās word and how was man supposed to be sure that what he was hearing, was, in fact, the correct teaching of that word?
If you respond, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to do so.
I ādebatedā a hardcore Calvinist on another thread (I am not suggesting you are a Calvinist - I mention it only so that you can see where I am coming from with my position) regarding the Bible itself.
As an adherent to āsola scripturaā, the vast majority of protestants will always āelevateā scripture to a level above all else. But in doing so (and I assume you do as well), would you please answer the following questions (and I ask them sincerely and without intending any offense):
I start with the premise that you accept the KJV of the bible as sacred scripture - no more, no less. If my premise is correct, then please answer the following:
P.S. Catholics all agree that God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired all sacred scripture. So for the sake of the questions below, you may accept as a āgivenā that God is the originator of all that is holy in the bible. When I ask questions such as āwhoā, I am talking about human beings.
Questions about the Bible itself
- Who determined the books that should be part of the OT canon?
- When was the OT canon closed?
- By what authority did the person or persons you named in response to No. 1 above, act in recognizing the books that you consider to be the OT canon? When I say āby what authorityā, I am, quite frankly, asking: āwho put him or them in charge?ā
- Who determined the books that should be part of the NT canon?
- When was the NT canon closed?
- By what authority (same caveats as in No. 3 above) did the person or persons you named in response to No. 4 above, act in recognizing the books that you consider to be the NT canon?
- Other than Revelation, no other book in the entire bible has the author stating that he was inspired by God or the Holy Spirit while authoring a particular book. How do you know that a particular book in your bible is the inspired word of God?
- Being familiar with the protestant argument that the bible is āself authenticatingā based on a certain formula that every reader should ask when trying to determine if a particular book is inspired or not, please tell me what about the book of Philemon stands out that suggests it is inspired?
With no disrespect intended, I find Philemon to be one of the ādriestā and āleast inspiringā books in the entire bible. But as I look to the Catholic Church for the determining authority on the canon, I do not have to worry about reading Philemon and wondering if it is or is not inspired. I want you to explain your āprocessā to me in determining inspiration, and then apply it specifically to Philemon.
Authority Exercised on behalf of God on Earth
Muze, as a protestant, you obviously deny the authority of the Catholic Church to teach authoritatively about all-things religious. If Christ did not install Peter as the first head of a visible Church on earth that was to continue after Christās death and even after Peterās death, I again ask you to please answer the following:
A. Doesnāt it seem odd to you that Christ would begin a visible church on earth as a means of spreading his word to all peoples, and yet fail to āinstallā someone as head of that church?
B. Without a āchurch headā or āleaderā, how is Godās word supposed to be taught to people around the world, in a uniform manner so that different doctrines/teachings do not arise during the churchās evangelization of people?
C. If you acknowledge that Christ DID establish a visible church on earth, do you also acknowledge that it made perfect sense to ensure that the leader(s) of that church would be āprotectedā from teaching false doctrine to people of the world while it evangelized Godās word? Catholics call that protection āinfallibilityā. I am simply curious as to how you view the matter.
D. How do you explain the existence of tens of thousands of different protestant denominations in the US alone, all of which arose because of disagreements - some minor, some major - about interpretation of certain parts of the bible?
E. Donāt you think it odd that God would allow so many different erroneous teachings of his doctrines to exist, and yet not also provide for a ābaseā to which everyone could turn if they wanted to learn the truth about his teachings?
F. Prior to the Protestant Revolt in the Middle Ages (and a short time before that), how was man supposed to learn about Godās word and how was man supposed to be sure that what he was hearing, was, in fact, the correct teaching of that word?
If you respond, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to do so.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Salvatore123,
This is a truly remarkable post. I am really interested in seeing the response you get from Muze. You know, he specializes in one-liner responsesā¦
God bless
This is a truly remarkable post. I am really interested in seeing the response you get from Muze. You know, he specializes in one-liner responsesā¦
God bless
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hello Alix 1912 (and anyone else interested),
I suggested earlier in the thread that you consider some Kimberly Hahn audios.
It will only be available for several days so Iād consider downloading and listening to it NOW.
Iām going to download and listen to it as well. Kimberly Hahn will almost certainly touch upon some of the sola Scriptura issues weāve been discussing here (but Iāll know for sure upon listening to it) in this thread.
God bless.
I suggested earlier in the thread that you consider some Kimberly Hahn audios.
I couldnāt believe it! I just checked St. Joseph Communications Podcasts and they are giving a FREE download of Kimberly Hahnās at saintjoepodcast.com/! (I have no affiliation with SJC or this download being available with this timing.) God bless St. Joseph Communications.
It will only be available for several days so Iād consider downloading and listening to it NOW.
Iām going to download and listen to it as well. Kimberly Hahn will almost certainly touch upon some of the sola Scriptura issues weāve been discussing here (but Iāll know for sure upon listening to it) in this thread.
God bless.
C
Cinette
Guest
*I appreciate your post very much. It is simple and clear. I have often asked the question why would Jesus found a Church without ensuring that it did not teach error. It is so clear that he would.
Also do Protestants not ask themselves where is the authority that allows men to āplantā new churches?
God bless all
Cinette
*
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Cinette,
I am probably not the one to answer this question ā¦ but, from the various responses I recall from Protestants, it would seem that their view would be private interpretation of Scripture is the root cause.
The spirit has guided them to separate from a particular group or to join a particular group and that is what they do. A lot may have to do with most Protestant ministers are really part time employees - during the week they work to make a living and Sunday is the day they take care of their congregation.
God bless
I am probably not the one to answer this question ā¦ but, from the various responses I recall from Protestants, it would seem that their view would be private interpretation of Scripture is the root cause.
The spirit has guided them to separate from a particular group or to join a particular group and that is what they do. A lot may have to do with most Protestant ministers are really part time employees - during the week they work to make a living and Sunday is the day they take care of their congregation.
God bless
*I appreciate your post very much. It is simple and clear. I have often asked the question why would Jesus found a Church without ensuring that it did not teach error. It is so clear that he would.
Also do Protestants not ask themselves where is the authority that allows men to āplantā new churches?
God bless all
Cinette
J
jphilapy
Guest
Umm Like it or not translations and copies of scripture do not carry any promise of infallibility and are man made.
Can you refute that argument?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Jphilapy,
Great insight!
Let me encourage you in your learning activities about the Catholic Faith ā¦
Ah, but when it comes to getting a response ā¦ I am afraid you will have to just take a number! He has not yet responded to Post #49 yet! Chances are there is some intense research being done involving one-liner responses ā¦
God bless
Great insight!
Let me encourage you in your learning activities about the Catholic Faith ā¦
Ah, but when it comes to getting a response ā¦ I am afraid you will have to just take a number! He has not yet responded to Post #49 yet! Chances are there is some intense research being done involving one-liner responses ā¦
God bless
S
Salvatore123
Guest
jphilapy,
Actually, the āLatin Vulgateā DID carry such a promise.
You said: āUmm Like it or not translations and copies of scripture do not carry any promise of infallibility and are man made. Can you refute that argument?ā
First, ALL translations we have in existence today are copies of the original manuscripts of the books of the bible - unless someone is sitting on the greatest archaeological find of all time and has the original manuscripts of the books of the bible.
Second, at the Council of Trent, after naming every book that should be considered part of the OT and NT canons, the Council proclaimed:
"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
āMoreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,āconsidering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,āordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.ā
Caveats:
Bishop Challoner sought to revise the DR to rid it of the old, archaic english spellings and grammar that made it so difficult to understand to readers and writers of modern english (unlike Latin, english continues to change each year because it is used every day of every year). But Challoner made so many changes that his revision turned out to be a new translation. Thus, the overwhelming majority of DR bibles people buy today are properly called the āDouay Rheims - Challoner Revisionā.
Actually, the āLatin Vulgateā DID carry such a promise.
You said: āUmm Like it or not translations and copies of scripture do not carry any promise of infallibility and are man made. Can you refute that argument?ā
First, ALL translations we have in existence today are copies of the original manuscripts of the books of the bible - unless someone is sitting on the greatest archaeological find of all time and has the original manuscripts of the books of the bible.
Second, at the Council of Trent, after naming every book that should be considered part of the OT and NT canons, the Council proclaimed:
"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
āMoreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,āconsidering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,āordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.ā
Caveats:
- The above is as close as the Church has ever come to proclaiming a particular version/translation as infallible (that is, without error).
- Even though Trent issued such a proclaimation, I donāt know if a Council or Pope sitting ex cathedra can proclaim a bible translation to be infallible. Pope St. Pius V issued a similar declaration in his encyclical Quo Primum, trying to bind all future popes and bishops by stating that only the Mass of Pius V could be used in the future. Of course, Pius overstepped his bounds in doing so, as no pope or council can bind a future pope or council on matters of discipline - and the manner of saying Mass is a discipline. If Pius Vās encyclical was binding on all future popes and councils, then the current crop of sedevacantists would be correct in their argument that St. Peterās chair has been vacant since Pius XII (most sedevacantists claim that all popes since and including John XXIII were not valid).
- The primary reason why I question the authority of Trent to state that the āold Latin Vulgate editionā is without error is simple: the Latin Vulgate published by St. Jerome, by the time of Trent, had long since been lost through errors of translation by monks. Remember that before the printing press, all bibles were produced by monk scribes hand-writing every verse of every book of every bible. The very nature of such a undertaking necessarily allows for innocent āerror creepā, especially when conducted over 1000 years. Thus, this is, to me, a huge stumbling block for Trent to have declared as āerror freeā a bible (St. Jeromeās Latin Vulgate) that was no longer in existence.
Father Martin, et al. did not translate Jeromeās Latin Vulgate into english when he published the Douay Rheims - he published an english translation of the latin bibles in existence at the time he undertook his translation at Douay and Rheims. - As St. Jeromeās Latin Vulgate was no longer in existence at the time of Trent, and Popes Sixtus and Clement knew this, Sixtus commissioned a new Latin translation of the bible, and after he died, Clement saw the project through to the end. The result was known as the Clementine Vulgata, and served as the āofficial bibleā of the Catholic Church until its replacement by the *Nova Vulgata *in 1979 with a revision in 1986, both under JPII.
- Finally (and a shame, quite frankly), no one has produced an approved english translation of the Nova Vulgata since its original publication 32 years ago. Although the Navarre Bible prints the Nova Vulgata on the same page as its english part of its bible/commentary, the english is a translation of the RSV - NOT the Nova Vulgata.
Bishop Challoner sought to revise the DR to rid it of the old, archaic english spellings and grammar that made it so difficult to understand to readers and writers of modern english (unlike Latin, english continues to change each year because it is used every day of every year). But Challoner made so many changes that his revision turned out to be a new translation. Thus, the overwhelming majority of DR bibles people buy today are properly called the āDouay Rheims - Challoner Revisionā.
Hi Tom,
Hope you are well. If I may, just some comments.
To that end, the very first section of the Book of Concord is, in fact, the three ancient creeds. Lutherans accept the first 6 councils, and essentally the 7th, as rigth reflections of scripture.
*āThis is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passagesā¦ We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.ā *
None of these are later changes in Lutheran teaching, but all have their source from the reformers.
Jon
Hope you are well. If I may, just some comments.
While making no comments about those who come from Calvin or Zwingli roots (they can speak for themselves), you make a good point about Lutherans, as our confessions quite appropriately support sempre virgo, and properly so from a Christ-centered POV.
Actually, from a Lutheran view, its not. The Formula of Concord makes clear the importance of creeds and councils, though in a way secondary to scripture as the final norm for all teachers and teachings.
To that end, the very first section of the Book of Concord is, in fact, the three ancient creeds. Lutherans accept the first 6 councils, and essentally the 7th, as rigth reflections of scripture.
For a Lutheran, none of these, except the part about perpetual sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin which is adiaphora, all of the others we do accept. These things - historic doctrines of the Church, and not subject to individual interpretation. Individual interpretation is, in fact, discouraged by Lutheran reformers as Martin Chemnitz states,
*āThis is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passagesā¦ We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.ā *
None of these are later changes in Lutheran teaching, but all have their source from the reformers.
Not if they are true to the Lutheran Confessions.
Then you must, by your own statement, exclude Lutherans, as we have not, not even close, diverged from āevery article of faith held by the Catholic Churchā.
Jon
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Muze,
I was hoping you would have responded by now to the questions I posed in Post No. 49.
I still would to hear your response to them, but I wanted to also address two other points you stated:
I. You said: āThe Church was Arian from 351 to 381.ā
Not true.
To deal with the heresy propogated by Arius, the Catholic Church called two councils: First Council of Nicea in 325 (from which we have the Nicene Creed) and the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Although the Arian heresy was widespread, this heresy was a testament to the infallibility Christ promised to St. Peter and his successors. If not for that promise, Arianism might have triumphed. But thanks to that promise, only three bishops out of approximately 300 who attended the First Nicean Council did not sign the Nicean Creed. I consider that pretty strong evidence of just how ābindingā the Catholic Church had become, especially considering that council ruled contrary to initial beliefs of the Emperors Constantius II and Valens.
It seems to me that one opposing the Catholic Church would never cite Arianism in favor of their opposition, as the Catholic Church - through two of its councils - did what was expected of it: it stamped out heresy (and a very serious one). The Catholic Church was never in better form than at these two Councils regarding this heresy.
And these are not just āCatholic claimsā. Catholic and non-Catholic historians accept what I just stated above. So this is not just some Catholic ābabbleā.
II. You said regarding the Catholic Churchās dogma that God gave the Church the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals: āUnfortunately, I have no basis to believe this. Itās just a claim the RCC makes.ā
You say you have no basis to believe the protection of infallibility, but how can you explain the Holy Scriptures themselves, when Christ told St. Peter in Matt. 16:19: āAnd I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.ā
You must certainly acknowledge that God is an omnipotent being, and as such, cannot commit or subscribe to error of any kind.
With that acknowledgment, logic (as well as common sense) dictates that God would never permit himself to be ābound and loosedā by someone on earth (St. Peter) unless God ensured that whatever St. Peter bound and loosed on earth COULD be sustainable as āerror freeā by God in heaven - in other words, infallibility.
The following logical construct explains infallibility perfectly:
A. Christ gives St. Peter the authority/power to bind and loose on earth.
B. Christ tells St. Peter that when St. Peter exercises his power to bind and loose in earth, that which St. Peter binds and looses on earth will be considered bound and loosed in heaven.
C. God, as an omnipotent being, could never err or subscribe to error.
As: (A) St. Peter was given the power to bind and loose on earth, (B) whatever St. Peter binds and looses on earth is considered bound and loosed in heaven, (C) God cannot be held to a binding and loosening that was performed on earth by St. Peter in error, then:
(D) God must prevent St. Peter from erroneously binding and loosening.
Thus, the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals.
I was hoping you would have responded by now to the questions I posed in Post No. 49.
I still would to hear your response to them, but I wanted to also address two other points you stated:
I. You said: āThe Church was Arian from 351 to 381.ā
Not true.
To deal with the heresy propogated by Arius, the Catholic Church called two councils: First Council of Nicea in 325 (from which we have the Nicene Creed) and the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Although the Arian heresy was widespread, this heresy was a testament to the infallibility Christ promised to St. Peter and his successors. If not for that promise, Arianism might have triumphed. But thanks to that promise, only three bishops out of approximately 300 who attended the First Nicean Council did not sign the Nicean Creed. I consider that pretty strong evidence of just how ābindingā the Catholic Church had become, especially considering that council ruled contrary to initial beliefs of the Emperors Constantius II and Valens.
It seems to me that one opposing the Catholic Church would never cite Arianism in favor of their opposition, as the Catholic Church - through two of its councils - did what was expected of it: it stamped out heresy (and a very serious one). The Catholic Church was never in better form than at these two Councils regarding this heresy.
And these are not just āCatholic claimsā. Catholic and non-Catholic historians accept what I just stated above. So this is not just some Catholic ābabbleā.
II. You said regarding the Catholic Churchās dogma that God gave the Church the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals: āUnfortunately, I have no basis to believe this. Itās just a claim the RCC makes.ā
You say you have no basis to believe the protection of infallibility, but how can you explain the Holy Scriptures themselves, when Christ told St. Peter in Matt. 16:19: āAnd I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.ā
You must certainly acknowledge that God is an omnipotent being, and as such, cannot commit or subscribe to error of any kind.
With that acknowledgment, logic (as well as common sense) dictates that God would never permit himself to be ābound and loosedā by someone on earth (St. Peter) unless God ensured that whatever St. Peter bound and loosed on earth COULD be sustainable as āerror freeā by God in heaven - in other words, infallibility.
The following logical construct explains infallibility perfectly:
A. Christ gives St. Peter the authority/power to bind and loose on earth.
B. Christ tells St. Peter that when St. Peter exercises his power to bind and loose in earth, that which St. Peter binds and looses on earth will be considered bound and loosed in heaven.
C. God, as an omnipotent being, could never err or subscribe to error.
As: (A) St. Peter was given the power to bind and loose on earth, (B) whatever St. Peter binds and looses on earth is considered bound and loosed in heaven, (C) God cannot be held to a binding and loosening that was performed on earth by St. Peter in error, then:
(D) God must prevent St. Peter from erroneously binding and loosening.
Thus, the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JonNC,
Nice to hear from youā¦ And, I certinly hope that you are well.
I only want to address two of your comments.
Concerning Scripture, after reading your response, it would appear that creeds and councils are a distant second - nice but non-essential when confronted with Scripture which would ācarry the argumentā by itself. Maybe I have over-stated what you intended but nothing appears to be equal to Scripture.
The problem, as I appreciate the matter, is that any variation of SS still relies on someone doing the work of determining the meaning of what was written. We know that private interpretation of Scripture is not approved (2Pet 1:20) so there is issue when it comes to how a passage is to be understood. As you know, the Apostles, the First Bishops of the Catholic Church were told that Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth (John 16:13) and that error can not be taught in pronouncing matters of Faith and Morals.
None of those who lead the Protestant Revolt took the Holy Spirit away from the role identified by Christ. Simply stated, interpreting Scripture away from what the Pope and Magisterium have identified leads to error. The proof of that statement is that ther are 30,000
God bless
Nice to hear from youā¦
And, I certinly hope that you are well.I only want to address two of your comments.
Besides the obvious non-recognition as the Pope being the Vicar of Christ on earth - and that the Pope is the head of the Church founded by Christ on Peter, as identified in Matt 16:18, tell me how Father Luther went from believing what the Catholic Church teaches that there are Seven Sacraments to only two.
Concerning Scripture, after reading your response, it would appear that creeds and councils are a distant second - nice but non-essential when confronted with Scripture which would ācarry the argumentā by itself. Maybe I have over-stated what you intended but nothing appears to be equal to Scripture.
The problem, as I appreciate the matter, is that any variation of SS still relies on someone doing the work of determining the meaning of what was written. We know that private interpretation of Scripture is not approved (2Pet 1:20) so there is issue when it comes to how a passage is to be understood. As you know, the Apostles, the First Bishops of the Catholic Church were told that Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth (John 16:13) and that error can not be taught in pronouncing matters of Faith and Morals.
None of those who lead the Protestant Revolt took the Holy Spirit away from the role identified by Christ. Simply stated, interpreting Scripture away from what the Pope and Magisterium have identified leads to error. The proof of that statement is that ther are 30,000
- groups all claiming SS and this is how they interpret the Bible. While they may disagree on everything else - they are unified in their belief that the Catholic Church is wrong.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
- Status