H
Huguenot
Guest
So keep in mind that I am European !!!
- Status
H
Huguenot
Guest
But I still sin sometimes !! It depends on what they ( “your” Fundamentalists ) mean by that : I don’t want to live in “sin” anymore, and thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus, God can see me as “pure” although in myself I’m not pure …
maybe that’s what they mean, I don’t know …
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
LOLSo keep in mind that I am European !!!
will do
H
Huguenot
Guest
Thanks !!! :bounce:LOL
will do
C
Contarini
Guest
Why did no one tell St. John of Damascus this? Why were Catholic scholars still questioning the matter on the eve of the Reformation?
I’m sorry that I expressed myself confusingly. I was not asserting that the Roman Communion had messed up bigtime with regards to the canon. I was expressing my confidence (not just with regard to this issue but as a general principle) that the early Church did *not *mess up big time. In other words, I accept the consensus of the early Church (unless I see extremely pressing reason not to do so and can defend my position by an appeal to other principles upheld by the early Church) with regards to matters on which early Christians were relatively united and which they regarded as important matters of doctrine. A purely symbolic understanding of the sacraments, for instance, is ruled out by the consensus of the early Church IMHO. So is a forensic doctrine of sola fide as the principle on which the Church stands or falls (such a doctrine might still be a good interpretation of the Church’s teaching, but it can’t possibly have the importance classical Protestants place on it). But the OT canon simply did not have that kind of unanimity behind it. I think one can say with confidence that the deuterocanonicals can’t simply be ruled out as irrelevant for Christians or on the same level with other literature. But it is not at all clear from the consensus of the early Church that these books should be regarded as sufficient to prove doctrine.
Back to the “messing up” business. I do not have the same confidence in the Fathers of Trent that I do in the consensus of the Fathers, or even, for that matter, in the medieval Church. The patristic and medieval traditions are part of my own tradition. Trent and post-Tridentine “Roman” Catholicism are not, although I pay respectful attention to them in the spirit of ecumenism. Hence, I am quite open to the possibility that Trent might define as true something that was false. I don’t think the canon is an example of this–I think putting all the books on the same level was a mistake, but hardly a huge one. I’m much more disturbed by the language of “equal veneration” for Scripture and Tradition; by the use of “merit” in the context of justification; and on the disciplinary level by the restrictive policies with regard to vernacular reading of Scripture, communion in both kinds, vernacular liturgy, etc., enacted by the Tridentine Church. Even these matters are not necessarily insuperable barriers to ecumenism. The disciplinary matters can be rejected, and most of them have been in recent decades. And the doctrines are worded in such a way that they can be interpreted in an acceptable manner. But their wording is still highly unfortunate at best. That’s the worst I’d say of Trent.
Sorry for the digression. But you understood a statement *limiting *my respect for Trent as an expression of lack of respect. I wasn’t claiming Trent messed up so much as disclaiming any obligation to think that it didn’t.
I
IanS
Guest
The account by John of Jerusalem of St. John of Damascus was written some two hundred years after his death and contains a mix of different legends. So it is not easy to say where truth ends and fiction begins.
People have been arguing over the canon of the Bible for over 1600 years. So are you saying that because a small few had doubts, we should place no faith in anything?
Thank you for sharing your own personal opinion with me.
H
Huguenot
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## “Judgemental” ? How is calling someone a “false prophet” “judgemental” ? Now, if Protestants do it…
Is the number of denominations:
- 28,800
- 30,000
- 35,000
- 40,000
- 60,000
- or some other number ? It can hardly be all of them. ##
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
viktor aleksndr:
If it is the true church instiuted by Christ and the only place for truth, why rely on attacks on Luther to convince people of that? Attacks on Luther are no different than the trashy little ‘tracts’ made by chick publications that attack Catholicism.
What Catholics need to realise is that they cannot discredit Protestantism by attacking Luther. What they must do is go after Protestantism on issues of theology and biblical interpretation. Explain to protestants how you interpret the scriptures, why you interpret them the way you do, and argue the apologetics of your catholic faith. This is how you convert people.
If it is the true church instiuted by Christ and the only place for truth, why rely on attacks on Luther to convince people of that? Attacks on Luther are no different than the trashy little ‘tracts’ made by chick publications that attack Catholicism.
I
IanS
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## “Judgemental” ? How is calling someone a “false prophet” “judgemental” ? Now, if Protestants do it…
Is the number of denominations:
- 28,800
- 30,000
- 35,000
- 40,000
- 60,000
- or some other number ? It can hardly be all of them. ##
More denominations the merrier. Merrier for who? Think about it.
M
MatsMom
Guest
I would be very interested in the program you have planned. I’ve been thinking about approaching my pastor about starting something similar.
I would like to read some of Martin Luther’s teaching? If I knew a reliable source. But to be honest I dont believe this man was under the insperation of the Lord and his motives were not to better the christian faith.
MM
G
GKC
Guest
I’d like to see a source for these bits of etymological lore. I always enjoy learning things.The words “demon”, “diabolical”, “demonic” and “denominate”, all originate from the Greek term daio, which means to divide, separate, or break away from.
More denominations the merrier. Merrier for who? Think about it.
GKC
I
IanS
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Thanks. Though I knew most of what is posted there, it’s a good little summary, for the subject matter.
What I think you are going to have trouble doing is linking daio and “denominate”. I’ll be interested in seeing what you find.
GKC
I
IanS
Guest
Actually, my research needs to go no farther than “Webster’s”:
**de·nom·i·na·tor ** ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nm-ntr)
n.
The expression written below the line in a common fraction (aka universal Catholic Church) that indicates the number of parts into which one whole is divided (aka protestants). Daio does mean to divide, correct?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Mat(name removed by moderator):
I agree on the Luther issue.
My program is still in the planning phase. I am acquiring loads of apologetic resources.I would be very interested in the program you have planned. I’ve been thinking about approaching my pastor about starting something similar.
I would like to read some of Martin Luther’s teaching? If I knew a reliable source. But to be honest I dont believe this man was under the insperation of the Lord and his motives were not to better the christian faith.
MM
I agree on the Luther issue.
H
Huguenot
Guest
Chris LaRock:
And anyway Protestants do not think Luther or any other Reformer was “infallible”, the fact that we are Protestants does not “oblige” us to agree with everything Luther wrote or did : the basis of our faith is the Bible, not Luther’s books …he and other Reformers helped us to rediscover the Bible …
I agree with you…
And anyway Protestants do not think Luther or any other Reformer was “infallible”, the fact that we are Protestants does not “oblige” us to agree with everything Luther wrote or did : the basis of our faith is the Bible, not Luther’s books …he and other Reformers helped us to rediscover the Bible …
H
Huguenot
Guest
I was joking …waow, I think French Catholics have more humour than you over there …The words “demon”, “diabolical”, “demonic” and “denominate”, all originate from the Greek term daio, which means to divide, separate, or break away from.
More denominations the merrier. Merrier for who? Think about it.
And what you say about denominations is OK for your country, in French we use other words …
So it doesn’t matter where the word “denomination” comes from, since we don’t use it …
G
GKC
Guest
That’s creative, but the problem is getting from daios to “denominate”.
“a naming,” from L. denominationem (nom. denominatio) “a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy,” from denominare “to name,” from de- “completely” + nominare “to name.” Monetary sense is 1660; meaning “religious sect” is 1716." (On-line Etymological Dictionary),
etymonline.com/index.php?l=d&p=5
Can you find an etymological link?
GKC
I
IanS
Guest
I don’t disagree with you here. Once the whole has been broken apart it must be labeled, designated (denominated) or given a value. For instance, let’s say that the whole of all currency in the United States has the value 100,000,000,000. Once that whole has been broken apart (divided) each part must be given a denomination or value, $100, $50, $20, $5, $1.
de•nom•i•nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nm-nt)
tr.v. de•nom•i•nat•ed, de•nom•i•nat•ing, de•nom•i•nates
1.To issue or express in terms of a given monetary unit: securities that are denominated in dollars or yen.
2.To give a name to; designate.
You are going to have a hard time convincing me that there is no correlation between daio, denominator, denominate, and denomination.
I think we are getting way off subject here. So I’ll let you have the last word on this if you want.
C
Contarini
Guest
Sorry, but John of Damascus’s views on the canon come from his treatise On the Orthodox Faith. No one I know of disputes its authenticity. John of Damascus is one of the great champions of orthodox Christianity. He was a very important source for Thomas Aquinas. His opinions count for something. If the matter were really settled, John would have known about it. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that he’s listing the Jewish rather than the Christian canon. But that doesn’t help, since he doesn’t show any awareness that there is a Christian OT canon different from that used by the Jews. The fact seems to be that the 73-book canon was a Western idea until relatively late.
All I’m arguing for is a bit of flexibility. I can’t see that the deuterocanonicals are worth fighting over one way or the other. Let’s include them in the canon but not put too much weight on them for dogmatic purposes. My main target is the idea held by many on both sides that there must be some utterly clear, unquestionably reliable standard for determining these things or else all will collapse into chaos. The early Church worked in a much less rigid manner.
Edwin
- Status