If that is so, then how come many Protestant scholars and theologians agree with the Catholics? Also ask the same of the Orthodox Church, which is not connected to the Catholic Church. And I do study and know my sources before I make any statement.You seem to ignore the fact that your sources are Catholics!
Might help to actually study your sources before you cut and paste!
Let me guess - it’s “invisible,” and it has absolutely no authority, right?
Yep. Starting with Judas.
It would be physically impossible to make use of the Sacraments, without being obedient to God, or without having a personal relationship with God. It actually can’t get any more personal than the Sacrament of Holy Communion, when His flesh joins with our flesh - and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is also a very intimate experience of God, as well.
If so, they will be forgiven sexual offenders who have been literally sanctified in the literal Blood of the Lamb - with nothing “invisible” about it.
So, when Pope Innocent I infallibly declared the Canon of the New Testament in 405 AD and promulgated it to the Churches, he was just expressing a personal opinion? They were not required to obey him? (And yet, they did …
)They rebuked him because they knew that his commandment was from God, and that he himself was not free to break it, even though it came originally from him. It was not a denial of his authority that caused St. Paul to rebuke him - it was recognition of his authority, and that his every commandment is the Law of God for us, the Church - including himself!!
Perhaps, but I didn’t quote any popes, and 405 would be LONG, LONG after the issue was largely settled and decided. Every 4 years, the US Congress declares who won the election for president. Yup, that IS the official declaration, it comes some days after the Electorial College meets, votes and the vote is announced - which in turn comes some time after the election for those electorial delegates. Point: Typically, does the US Congress ELECT the president? Nope, it just declares the election. Apples and oranges.So, when Pope Innocent I infallibly declared the Canon of the New Testament in 405 AD and promulgated it to the Churches, he was just expressing a personal opinion? They were not required to obey him? (And yet, they did …
Actually, they were individuals acting on behalf of the Church, in the three Councils that studied these issues during the 20-year period before Pope Innocent made the final, infallible declaration.
There is ZERO evidence for that.
Moot. Read posts 556 and 558. By the time ANY DENOMINATION DID ANYTHING (including The Catholic Church), the issue was largely settled, and to the degree that it was not, those meetings contributed nothing. Read the history.
Are you reading with your eyes closed, or what?
The Council of Carthage took place in 397 AD - that’s only eight years before the Pope made the final declaration, and given the speed of communications back then, it’s not an unreasonable delay.Moot.
Red posts 556 and 558. I quoted NO ONE at that Council, since anyone that late would be pretty moot to the question of this thread.
I did. St. Athanasius was a Catholic Bishop, and he is actually more famous for his defense of the Papacy than for the fact that, in his local Diocese, he used the same 27-book canon that was decided at the Council of Carthage (they had four to choose from; his was one of them - if one of the other three had been chosen, you would be lauding one of those other three Bishops as “knowing beforehand” what the final canon of the New Testament was going to be).
It’s not “moot” at all - they were the ones who examined the four most likely possible canons, and picked the one that Pope Innocent I subsequently promulgated infallibly to the whole Church in 405 AD.
Wow, where do you get your understanding of history from? May I really suggest in all seriousness that you obtain the book **European History for Dummies ** by Sean Lang to help you get somewhat educated? Don’t ever bring your talking points up to anyone at a party; you’ll get laughed at and humiliated in a second, which might be the only way you can learn. You can purchase the book from Amazon for $13.59 - not a bad price to pay for some common sense.
***CUTE, but duh !!! ***
Read posts 556 and 558.
Been there, done that.
Actually, it’s a very sketchy outline of the history.
Right.
Just the Bishops (employees) of the Catholic Church, while working together (ie: doing what they were employed to do), to answer the question put by Pope Damasus, “Which are the books that can be read out at Mass, that belong to the canon of the New Testament of Jesus Christ?”Wow What a great post,do you have any more***CUTE, but duh !!! ***
Fact:* Christ founded only One Church that we know today as His Catholic Church, now some 2000 consecutive years old. *!
Fact That same Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church for more than 1,000 years!
**Fact: ** The Bible was completely written by the end of the First Century!
**Fact: ** The entire OT was compiled and collected by early fathers of this ONLY Christian Church.
Fact: The entire NT was written by men known today to have been the First Catholics.
Therefore the Fact is and remains, that the Bible is a Catholic Book. NOONE can in TRUTH proove otherwise.
Fact: ***If somehow you derive pleasure from others pain, others sins, I’ll ask God to forgive you.
It was Not as you wish to put it…“thee Chruch” that wrought the sex scandal, it was very sinful men within the Church, pretending to be Catholics [NOT THE CHURCH HERSELF!] ***! Further studies have shown that as a percent to the total Catholic priest population, mirrors very closely the same percentage of those particular and wicked sinners for the total US population, and the population of other religious sects.
SHAME of you for posturing such a redicilous notion!
If the Bible is not a Catholic book as you claim, one supposes you know more and know better and can provide evidence that supports you’re claim. The Eight Commandment friend is “thou shalt not bear false whittness against you’re neighbor.” Slander, even when based on sinful truth is a serious sin!
A Church cannot sin, but the people within the church can and do
Love and prayers,
Pat
I’ve had fundies tell me that it started with the Council of Nicea and Constantine. Everything before that was the pure true church - as pure as the wind-driven snow.:whacky:
Yup, they did that at Hippo at the very earliest. Of course, by then - it was pretty much a “done deal.” As my Catholic teacher taught us, “The Church AFFIRMED the canon of books, it didn’t form it.” But then most denominations have officially affirmed the list of books in some official way: yours did it at Trent, Italy in the 16th century, mine did it at St. Louis, MO in the 19th. But to affirm something is not to create or give or form it. Apples and oranges.
It became a “done deal” when Pope Innocent I made the infallible declaration and promulgated it in 405 AD. Up until that moment, anyone could have disagreed with it, and still been in full communion with the Church. After that point, it was known to be a dogmatic Truth, which means that it was no longer arguable.
Right - it was God who formed it. The Pope was simply making known to the Church what God had already done, same as he always does.
They didn’t exactly have a choice in the matter, did they?
Are those the same ones who say that Pope Boniface the III (which, being translated, means, “the third person to hold the office of Pope who happened to be named Boniface”) was the first Pope, or is that a different bunch?
You’re right. You are definitely “NotTooSmart”