The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Seems you just put massive doubt then, that scripture could be infallible?

I have not put massive doubt on infallibility of scripture. That could only be possible if one believed the church/ council to be as unconditionally infallible, an equal to, God breathed written Word .

"God breathed written word" didn’t come from God with that notation on it. There WAS no infallible index of scriptural books. If one eliminates the means FOR determining what is and isn’t God breathed, then one also eliminates the works we now call scripture. There is no guarantee then, for determining scripture that we now call scripture.

AND

What did Paul call "The pillar and foundation of truth"?,

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If fallible men to you, cant determine what is and what isn’t infallible scripture,

Never said that. Not black and white, either or.

I believe God inspires men to put down His word infallibly, meeting the conditions by grace.

I believe we receieve , understand , protect, copy, translate His Wordas we yield by grace to same God for such but the yielding is not unconditionally infallible as the once done original writing.

Being fallible does not mean we can not be inspired correctly on the matter.

Received from who?

The writers of the NT were already in the ONE and only Church Jesus established. That is the Catholic Church. That same Church put the canons of the OT and NT together.

A new book on the market, great Christmas gift The Original “Bible Christians” The Bible is a Catholic Book | Catholic Answers

 

[mcq72]

If one eliminates the means FOR determining what is and isn’t God breathed,

Again , no one eliminates discernment of what is and what isn’t scripture. Last I heard all churches have an index in their bibles, with only two or three relatively"slight" variations in OT.

There is no guarantee then, for determining scripture that we now call scripture.

Was there a "guarantee’’ for the pillar of truth and light of the world in OT (Judaism) for such ? Your guarantee is then the means to justify a church as infallible, as much as God’s written word is.

What did Paul call "The pillar and foundation of truth" ?,

and what , not to beware of what is built upon it? They both go hand in hand, apostles and Christ as foundation, and what is built upon it. To say the latter is unconditionally as the former is a self serving error, and God’s followers have done that before, in OT.

 

[mcq72]

Received from who?

Well, yes men, Jews, Catholics. Yes Catholics received, understood, protected, copied, translated the Word . And? You want to say they are/were infallible ?

Peter cited “men” as i did , as to whom God inspired to write His words and prophecies. Did Peter say Jews, or zealots or Pharisees, or any other label /sect of Judaism? What would it serve ? He said ,“holy men”.

 

[mcq72]

A new book on the market, great Christmas gift https://www.catholic.com/news/new-book-by-catholic-answers-press-the-bible-is-a-catholic-book

Ok…hope it brings Catholics closer to the Written Word

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If one eliminates the means FOR determining what is and isn’t God breathed,

Again , no one eliminates discernment of what is and what isn’t scripture. Last I heard all churches have an index in their bibles, with only two or three relatively"slight" variations in OT.

They have an index because the bible came from the Catholic Church, ergo so did the index.

Jews don’t have the same index of OT books… WHY?

Protestants removed on their own, 7 OT books. WHY? No ONE gave them that authority.

There is no guarantee then, for determining scripture that we now call scripture.

mcq72:

Was there a "guarantee’’ for the pillar of truth and light of the world in OT (Judaism) for such ? Your guarantee is then the means to justify a church as infallible, as much as God’s written word is.

Nothing like that in the OT

AND

Judaism doesn’t have the same OT canon.

Only one Church is considered the pillar and foundation of truth. The only one Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter.

AND

HIS Church got all His promises.

What did Paul call "The pillar and foundation of truth" ?,

mcq72:

and what , not to beware of what is built upon it? They both go hand in hand, apostles and Christ as foundation, and what is built upon it. To say the latter is unconditionally as the former is a self serving error, …

AND

it could be said

anyone who argues Jesus promises to His Church are conditional, and that He won’t fulfill His promises to His Church, till the end of time, is a self serving error by those who try to justify their division from His Church.

mcq72:

and God’s followers have done that before, in OT.

AND

40,000 + NT heresies, schisms, sects, as in divisions of all kinds, etc from His Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Received from who?

Well, yes men, Jews, Catholics. Yes Catholics received, understood, protected, copied, translated the Word . And? You want to say they are/were infallible ?

For short but interesting read

Re: scripture being

infallible:

HERE

inerrant:

HERE

mcq72:

Peter cited “men” as i did , as to whom God inspired to write His words and prophecies. Did Peter say Jews, or zealots or Pharisees, or any other label /sect of Judaism? What would it serve ? He said ,“holy men”.

At best, those in the OT were dealing with types and shadows, pointing to the NT fulfillment, that they had no clue about.

AND

When it came to deciding on their canon of scripture, who was their authority? Who spoke for all Jews? Did the Jews of that day settle the issue about the canon? NO

AND

They still are looking for the messiah.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

A new book on the market, great Christmas gift https://www.catholic.com/news/new-book-by-catholic-answers-press-the-bible-is-a-catholic-book

Ok…hope it brings Catholics closer to the Written Word

May I quote the father of Protestantism, on that issue.

I usually don’t quote heretics, but in this case I’ll make an exception

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”

By 1537, the excommunicated heretic Luther, father of the Protestant revolt, having written that quote, had already demoted 7 OT scriptural books to non scripture status, in his bible, on his own authority. And all of Protestantism to this day followed him.

I’m wondering what concede meant to him?

He knows everything NOW

 

[mcq72]

They have an index because the bible came from the Catholic Church, ergo so did the index.

As I said, we did not eliminate the means of determination, discernment, of what is scripture.

Jews don’t have the same index of OT books… WHY?

I would not deny them the authority and means of determining, discerning, what is their own
scripture. Nor would I deny them the right to not formally declare such an " index", beyond consensus and freedom of interpretation.

They are the plant we are grafted into.

Yes they dropped the ball on recognizing the Messiah but they also delivered Him to the world.

Protestants removed on their own, 7 OT books. WHY? No ONE gave them that authority.

Well, certainly they did not use Catholic authority. Yet they had at their disposal much of what Jerome and early Catholic “indexers” had to make such determination.

Perhaps what goes around comes around. The CC did not listen to, rejected, original holders of scripture (name removed by moderator)ut on the disputed books ( the Hebrews). So not surprisingly later reformers did not listen to, rejected, CC (name removed by moderator)ut on said books.( Actually they did listen to some early Catholics as Jerome’s (name removed by moderator)ut and concerns, and didnt overide them as CC heirarchy did).

Anyways, one book has a few historical errors and several certainly do not read as “scriptural”.

 

[mcq72]

Nothing like that in the OT

Precisely…they knew they had authoritative scripture from God, that no one else had in the world…they did not feel the need to put a type of rubber stamp approval from a central authority on said books.

Only one Church is considered the pillar and foundation of truth. The only one Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter.

AND

HIS Church got all His promises.

Precisely again why perhaps Judaism did not excercise authority to index a bible…to avoid denying freedom of their people to discern for themselves without being told, not fearing any diversity, but seeing it as a stronger force.

In my opinion, the Church of Jesus is not strenghtened but weakened by one church decrying any other church’s authority to discern the matter.

As evidence, the church grew just fine before any formal indexing, as it does afterwards.

 

[mcq72]

anyone who argues Jesus promises to His Church are conditional, and that He won’t fulfill His promises to His Church

Well, the former is right but you wrongly inject the latter into my proposition…making it easy to then reject it all.

And this from you who make salvation so conditional, do not place such conditions on corporate well being.

You are against eternal security of a believer but not for an office or heirarchy of one church.

40,000 + NT heresies, schisms, sects, as in divisions of all kinds, etc from His Church.

Propoganda, with some sad truth in it. Yet history does not cover any glass house. Indeed we would be more unified today had there not been any choking dust seen in the church 500 years ago…in my opinion.

At best, those in the OT were dealing with types and shadows, pointing to the NT fulfillment, that they had no clue about.

No clue at all ? Clueless even though our same Holy Spirit was with them, sometimes infilling them, sometimes empowering them, always guiding them?

Did the Jews of that day settle the issue about the canon? NO

They didnt need to…they were not confused.

They still are looking for the messiah.

Yes unfortunately for now they are.

But we have been warned, that just as they were cut off to allow our grafting, we are promised that we can also get cut off if we also get proud and haughty, and have our particular lampstand removed…and given to another, Christ keeping His promises.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

They have an index because the bible came from the Catholic Church, ergo so did the index.

we did not eliminate the means of determination, discernment, of what is scripture.

then

why did ALL of Protestantism reject 7 OT books of scripture

Jews don’t have the same index of OT books… WHY?

mcq72:

***I would not deny them the authority and means of determining, discerning, what is their own ***
scripture. Nor would I deny them the right to not formally declare such an " index", beyond consensus and freedom of interpretation.

But they don’t agree what is scripture . Point being, where is THEIR authority?

since no one speaks for them

Jesus gave this command to His apostles.

Mt 10:5-…

Why were HIS people lost? Is it because They completely denied Jesus the messiah standing in front of them?

SO

Jesus didn’t give up. He gave them (through His apostles the beginning of the Church) , again, the first right of refusal, before the world is included in the gospel.

mcq72:

Yes they dropped the ball on recognizing the Messiah but they also delivered Him to the world.

ONE of them, Mary, delivered the Messiah Jesus to the world.

AND

Since the apostles were all Jewish, and only Jews in the beginning were to be evangelized, and the beginning of the Catholic Church was 100% Jewish, that dynamic got expanded quickly, because the Jews wouldn’t budge.

BUT

Jesus knowing everything in advance, still gave them the Jews, 1st right of refusal, knowing full well what would and will happen till the end of time.

Protestants removed on their own, 7 OT books. WHY? No ONE gave them that authority.

mcq72:

they did not use Catholic authority. Yet they had at their disposal much of what Jerome and early Catholic “indexers” had to make such determination.

That is a bankrupt argument. Jerome was outvoted. So in extension, were any/all of those who disagreed with the Church on this issue.

Obviously that goers for all those outside the Church as well.

mcq72:

Perhaps what goes around comes around. The CC did not listen to, rejected, original holders of scripture (name removed by moderator)ut on the disputed books ( the Hebrews). So not surprisingly later reformers did not listen to, rejected, CC (name removed by moderator)ut on said books.

reformers revolters

AND

The Hebrew of Hebrews, Jesus, who knows everything from beginning to end, before the creation of anything that is came to be, created His Church, and hierarchy behind Peter, and gave all His promises to His Church for ALL time.

The Church revolters chose to be outside of .

mcq72:

Anyways, one book has a few historical errors and several certainly do not read as “scriptural”.

A phrase from the movie Gladiator

What we do in life, echoes in eternity

 

[steve-b]

Nothing like that in the OT

mcq72:

Precisely…they knew they had authoritative scripture from God, that no one else had in the world…they did not feel the need to put a type of rubber stamp approval from a central authority on said books.

So why in Jesus day, did they the Jews in Judea, not have a unified canon? Jews in the Diaspora, way more in numbers than those in Judea, had a different canon written in Greek.

Only one Church is considered the pillar and foundation of truth. The only one Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter.

AND

HIS Church got all His promises.

mcq72:

Precisely again why perhaps Judaism did not excercise authority to index a bible…to avoid denying freedom of their people to discern for themselves without being told, not fearing any diversity, but seeing it as a stronger force.

Yet

What is one of the arguments Protestants use today to defend their error in having removed those 7 books? The Jews in Jerusalem, (the ones who missed the messiah standing in front of them), don’t have those 7 books in their canon.

mcq72:

In my opinion, the Church of Jesus is not strenghtened but weakened by one church decrying any other church’s authority to discern the matter.

It’s your opinion.

however,

It has been answered as follows

Relativism/latitudianarianism
Following From Pius IX

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. –
   Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

These error are all heresies.

Every error can be seen described in scripture.

mcq72:

As evidence, the church grew just fine before any formal indexing, as it does afterwards.

OTC, the Church has had 21 Ecumenical councils and innumerable local councils…for good reasons.

 

[lanman87]

why did ALL of Protestantism reject 7 OT books of scripture

There was no OT canon before the Council of Trent or New Testament Canon (as identified by a Ecumenical Council) for that matter. The New Testament was canon because all of Christianity were united in the belief that the NT books were God Breathed Scripture. Not because of a council said they were Scripture. The Deutero books had always been disputed both in the early church and in the medieval church. You can’t say Protestants removed the books from the Canon and you can’t say Catholic added books to the Canon because there was no “offical” canon.

The canon that included the Deutero books did become official canon (to Catholics) until the council of Trent. The Reformers didn’t recognize the Deutero books as Canonical because, well, they aren’t scripture. Never have been and never will be. The Catholic church at the Council of Trent made a mistake.

A few early local councils were under the influence of Augustine and put the Deutero books in their list of books but they were wrong because Augustine was wrong.

 

[steve-b]

anyone who argues Jesus promises to His Church are conditional, and that He won’t fulfill His promises to His Church…

mcq72:

Well, the former is right but you wrongly inject the latter into my proposition…making it easy to then reject it all.

And this from you who make salvation so conditional, do not place such conditions on corporate well being.

You are against eternal security of a believer but not for an office or heirarchy of one church.

in 2000 yrs,

Popes can be sinful. And some were galactic sinners. Did that negate the office? No. Is the office of pope still here? Yes

Are all the sacraments still here? Yes. Is the Catholic Church still here? Yes

What’s your point?

Look at just the

40,000 + NT heresies, schisms, sects, as in divisions of all kinds, etc from His Church.

mcq72:

Propoganda, with some sad truth in it. Yet history does not cover any glass house. Indeed we would be more unified today had there not been any choking dust seen in the church 500 years ago…in my opinion.

Protestantism is 500 yrs old. How many different divisions are there in Protestantism?

At best, those in the OT were dealing with types and shadows, pointing to the NT fulfillment, that they had no clue about.

mcq72:

No clue at all ? Clueless even though our same Holy Spirit was with them, sometimes infilling them, sometimes empowering them, always guiding them?

The HS is never behind division from the Church Jesus established.

Did the Jews of that day settle the issue about the canon? NO

mcq72:

They didnt need to…they were not confused.

Really? They missed the messiah standing right in front of them

mcq72:

But we have been warned, that just as they were cut off to allow our grafting, we are promised that we can also get cut off if we also get proud and haughty, and have our particular lampstand removed…and given to another, Christ keeping His promises.

Warnings abound.

Those divided from Our Lord’s Church in this life, will be divided forever from Him in the next life.

Gal 5:19-21

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

why did ALL of Protestantism reject 7 OT books of scripture

There was no OT canon before the Council of Trent or New Testament Canon (as identified by a Ecumenical Council) for that matter.

Before Protestantism,

there was the ecumenical council of Florence who listed the 73 book canon of scripture

The council of Florence Session 11 1442 approx 7 paragraphs into the session, that BTW, took place in time, before Luther was even a thought, was ALSO. like Trent, an ecumenical council. Luther as a Catholic priest, learned from that canon. Trent merely took Luther’s argument about those books, and refuted Luther’s argument thereby closing the argument. That’s what councils also do. Trent didn’t define something new, that the Church wasn’t already teaching about that canon for the last 1100 years.

lanman87:

The New Testament was canon because all of Christianity were united in the belief that the NT books were God Breathed Scripture. Not because of a council said they were Scripture. The Deutero books had always been disputed both in the early church and in the medieval church. You can’t say Protestants removed the books from the Canon and you can’t say Catholic added books to the Canon because there was no “offical” canon.

Looking at the above link, Now you see differently as afar as ecumenical councils go and the OT

Local councils going back to 382, had the canon we have today.

 

[mcq72]

But they don’t agree what is scripture .

Well consensus does not mean unanimous. How many different bibles index wise do Jews use today, many more than Christians (3) ?

since no one speaks for them…why were HIS people lost?

Certainly not for lack of leaders, or teachers or high priests, or the Sanhedrin, the chair of Moses, etc., etc.

Please, they had their authority (s).

We are not saved by a better authority system.

Why were HIS people lost? Is it because They completely denied Jesus the messiah standing in front of them?

Well, no they were lost before Jesus arrived. They were not “found”, spiritually healthy before Jesus, and then unhealthy after rejecting Him. Those that rejected Him were lost by default already. Their blindness, their sin, was thinking they were righteous by their religion, by being “Jewish”.

Just like today, many " in Christendom" think they are righteous by church affiliation, or having done some ceremony, like baptism or a quick prayer. In reality many are quite blind, quite lost, despite the Savior being right in front of them. Nothing new here, a truth for Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants.

Jesus stressed worshipping Him in truth and spirit, because it can be supposed to be done otherwise.

That is a bankrupt argument. Jerome was outvoted.

Outvoted, like a democracy? Of course not. He was outbrassed if I may say so. Not sure he was out scholarshipped. Actually in all due respect, all I know is he was told to include them, and I would think that came from pope’s “office”, or those who commissioned Jerome in the first place.

revolters

No comment…lol

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

But they don’t agree what is scripture .

mcq72:

Well consensus does not mean unanimous. How many different bibles index wise do Jews use today, many more than Christians (3) ?

Actually

consensus is synonymous with unanimity,

since no one speaks for them…why were HIS people lost?

mcq72:

Certainly not for lack of leaders, or teachers or high priests, or the Sanhedrin, the chair of Moses, etc., etc.

Please, they had their authority (s).

We are not saved by a better authority system.

Sounds like indifferentism

Why were HIS people lost? Is it because They completely denied Jesus the messiah standing in front of them?

mcq72:

Well, no they were lost before Jesus arrived. They were not “found”, spiritually healthy before Jesus, and then unhealthy after rejecting Him. Those that rejected Him were lost by default already. Their blindness, their sin, was thinking they were righteous by their religion, by being “Jewish”.

And

They didn’t help themselves

mcq72:

Just like today, many " in Christendom" think they are righteous by church affiliation, or having done some ceremony, like baptism or a quick prayer. In reality many are quite blind, quite lost, despite the Savior being right in front of them. Nothing new here, a truth for Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants.

Jesus stressed worshipping Him in truth and spirit, because it can be supposed to be done otherwise.

There is an obstinency among many who are divided

That is a bankrupt argument. Jerome was outvoted.

Outvoted, like a democracy? Of course not. He was outbrassed if I may say so. Not sure he was out scholarshipped. Actually in all due respect, all I know is he was told to include them, and I would think that came from pope’s “office”, or those who commissioned Jerome in the first place.

Bottom line, Jerome wasn’t pope. As hierarchy goes, Jerome followed orders. As it turns out, pope Damasus was right, Jerome was wrong on those books. So, Jerome, ultimately accepted those books.

revolters

mcq72:

No comment…lol

 

[lanman87]

The council of Florence Session 11 1442 approx 7 paragraphs into the session, that BTW, took place in time, before Luther was even a thought, was ALSO. like Trent, an ecumenical council. Luther as a Catholic priest, learned from that canon.

Well, if that is the case then the council of Florence got it wrong as well.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The council of Florence Session 11 1442 approx 7 paragraphs into the session, that BTW, took place in time, before Luther was even a thought, was ALSO. like Trent, an ecumenical council. Luther as a Catholic priest, learned from that canon.

Well, if that is the case then the council of Florence got it wrong as well.

I didn’t see where you opened the link.

I’m just showing you that your point you were making, was wrong, historically.

Now show me what authority the 16th century Protestant invention & revolt has /had in the matter.