We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rinnie said:
But here is something you need to remember. The very first council was a synod. Which was a local council in rome.

Now the courncil of Carthage and Hippo RE-AFFIRMED the findings of synoid around 393-396.

St Jerome being the most famous disagreement. Now you have to remember before trent is was universally accepted. Thats when the Tent was declared its binding.

But the point is it was universally accepted so it did not have to be considered binding. Noone felt they had any reason to bind it. But the teaching is still the same. Its just now considered binding. But personally for me, it would not matter. I would not need it to be considered officially binding. If it was the teaching of the church, and I believed that my Church had apostolic teachings I would not even consider to question it. BUt you have to remember the re-formation was why it was needed.
Click to expand...
Right you are…I could understand the consternation if the Church had said they (the DC) were included, and then said at another time no, they not included. But from what I understand the Chruch down thru the centuries re-affirmed time after time that the DC were sacred Scripture. If that were all the damage Luther did he would have been little more that a foot note in Christian history.
 
greggy53 said:
Right you are…I could understand the consternation if the Church had said they (the DC) were included, and then said at another time no, they not included. But from what I understand the Chruch down thru the centuries re-affirmed time after time that the DC were sacred Scripture. If that were all the damage Luther did he would have been little more that a foot note in Christian history.
Click to expand...
See thats what is not being understood. BY him doing that he delegated then to a lesser Status. And by doing that eventually the protestants took heat and let go of them all together.

Now back to the point, where did he have that authority to do it at all?
 
rinnie said:
But here is something you need to remember. The very first council was a synod. Which was a local council in rome.

Now the courncil of Carthage and Hippo RE-AFFIRMED the findings of synoid around 393-396.

St Jerome being the most famous disagreement. Now you have to remember before trent is was universally accepted. Thats when the Tent was declared its binding.

But the point is it was universally accepted so it did not have to be considered binding. Noone felt they had any reason to bind it. But the teaching is still the same. Its just now considered binding. But personally for me, it would not matter. I would not need it to be considered officially binding. If it was the teaching of the church, and I believed that my Church had apostolic teachings I would not even consider to question it. BUt you have to remember the re-formation was why it was needed.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by “universally accepted”. Luther and Jerome were not the only ones to question the dc books, which, prior to Trent, they were permitted by the Church to do. But the charge here was that Luther “removed them”. This he did not do.
=posted by greggy53] They are separated in a place of the their own. Many protestants I’ve talked to have a hard time believing me when I tell them that. They act incredulous when I tell them that the Catholics decided what was to be included in the scriptures back in the 4th century! They must think the bible fell out of the sky and hit Martin Luther on the head or something.
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s what hit him during that thunderstorm. 😃
My only point is that Luther did not remove them.

Jon
 
rinnie said:
Now back to the point, where did he have that authority to do it at all?
Click to expand...
He didn’t have the authority, nor the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Look at how fragmented the Churches of the so-called Reformation have become as a result of Luther’s rebellion.
 
Which goes back to the teaching’s of the Blessed Mother. It never was questioned before. Even Luther acknowledged her. But it never had to become official until it was questioned. Its kinda like the same thing. Always universally accepted from the beginning until it got questioned. BUt in the early teaching’s of the Church you trusted it to be Apostolic Teaching;s. Which we must do today also. If not where would we be. If I could not trust my Church 100% to lead me, and had to rely on myself. I would not go at all, It all or none for me. My Church must have it all. And does:D
 
JonNC said:
Depends on what you mean by “universally accepted”. Luther and Jerome were not the only ones to question the dc books, which, prior to Trent, they were permitted by the Church to do. But the charge here was that Luther “removed them”. This he did not do.

Maybe that’s what hit him during that thunderstorm. 😃
My only point is that Luther did not remove them.

Jon
Click to expand...
Well, he did remove them from the prominance of being considered an equal part of the Cannon did he not? Otherwise, why set them apart?

St Jerome may have questioned them, but he accepted the lawful authority of the Pope as being the final word on the subject. At least thats what I have read about it.
 
greggy53 said:
Well, he did remove them from the prominance of being considered an equal part of the Cannon did he not? Otherwise, why set them apart?

St Jerome may have questioned them, but he accepted the lawful authority of the Pope as being the final word on the subject. At least thats what I have read about it.
Click to expand...
Thats spot on. He questioned but when push came to shove he did the right thing and bowed down to Church authority. Which if I am a RC I must also do. You either believe your Church has the fullness of the truth or you don’t!🤷
 
rinnie said:
See thats what is not being understood. BY him doing that he delegated then to a lesser Status. And by doing that eventually the protestants took heat and let go of them all together.

Now back to the point, where did he have that authority to do it at all?
Click to expand...
By him doing what, rinnie? Participating in the centuries long debate on the canonicity of the dc books? If you blame Luther for what the Protestants did, you might as well blame St. Jerome, too.
Before Trent, he had the authority of the Church. After Trent, he was dead. If you are going to question Luther on the scripture, you must question his authority to translate. From Rome? No. But by then he was already excommunicated.
Posted by greggy53 If that were all the damage Luther did he would have been little more that a foot note in Christian history.
Click to expand...
If the pope had listened to him about the abuses of the mass and indugences instead of worrying about duckets for St. Peter’s Luther would have been a footnote in history.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
If the pope had listened to him about the abuses of the mass and indugences instead of worrying about duckets for St. Peter’s Luther would have been a footnote in history.

Jon
Click to expand...
Indulgences to help fund St Peter’s Basilica? I heard Luther had a problem with that…What abuses of the Mass? Luther did away with the Mass, and the Holy Eucharist didn’t he?
 
This whole thing about Luther and the Deutero-canonicals is way overblown. It’s mostly polemical ballyhoo.

The charge that he removed the books is exaggerated, because he in fact did not. As for authority, he did not need it.

How many of us have a ‘New Testament and Psalms’ in the house? Did the publisher “remove” the whole Old Testament except for the Psalms? No!

Does a publisher need “authority” to release a book of merely psalms, of just the New Testament, or just the Old Testament? No, he need only get the agreement of the copyright holder (if it is not in the public domain).

I don’t care for the DC isolated into a separate section myself, but the decision to include them in that fashion is not a decision to remove them from scripture. He did, after all, translate them and make them available.

I think you can thank later people for that, particularly Calvinists. That is why the NIV does not include them, the translating committee decided to not even translate the DC, assuring that there would never at all be for that version.
 
greggy53 said:
Indulgences to help fund St Peter’s Basilica?
Click to expand...
Yes, the papacy was broke.
greggy53 said:
What abuses of the Mass? Luther did away with the Mass, and the Holy Eucharist didn’t he?
Click to expand...
One would have to read the story of Luther’s life to get a good idea about the abuses.

Northern European priests were routinely scandalized when visiting Rome and witnessing how Masses were said in the Eternal City. It was a cesspool.

Father Martin did not ‘do away’ with the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. He believed in the Real Presence and had a personal devotion to Mary.
 
JonNC said:
By him doing what, rinnie? Participating in the centuries long debate on the canonicity of the dc books? If you blame Luther for what the Protestants did, you might as well blame St. Jerome, too.
Click to expand...
And saint Augustine.
JonNC said:
If the pope had listened to him about the abuses of the mass and indulgences instead of worrying about duckets for St. Peter’s Luther would have been a footnote in history.
Click to expand...
This last point cannot be emphasized enough.

Father Martin Luther would be almost forgotten today if the church had done the right thing up front instead of waiting fifty years (literally two or three generations).
 
rinnie said:
Just like as a Catholic today, if I am in grave sin, I cannot receive the sacrament of Communion. I must go and confess my sins to a priest and get absolution. Now I understand that other Church’s disagree with that. But that’s what it has been from the start and will always be. I may not like it, or even agree with it all the time. But guess what, its not up for me to like or agree with. Its for me to obey. .
Click to expand...
i agree…

but what is there not to like about confession? i love confession… True, there is that one thing… When you commit a terrible sin… or a bit # of not-so-terrible sins :eek:(and all sin is terrible to God)… you don’t want to tell your priest about it… the one who knows you…

which is pride, which is another sin… which is one most probably don’t confess… which is why so few go to confession these days… but anyhow…

i somewhat digress…

Just meant to say that that’ s the only bad thing about confession but you can avoid that… by going to a priest you don’t know… 😃 Yes, i know that is probably pride-ful… or something but… well, i just figured (i finally figured it out) that the best way around this problem is to just not commit terrible sins in the first place. … 😃

aren’t we Catholics fortunate??? 🙂
 
JonNC said:
By him doing what, rinnie? Participating in the centuries long debate on the canonicity of the dc books? If you blame Luther for what the Protestants did, you might as well blame St. Jerome, too.
Before Trent, he had the authority of the Church. After Trent, he was dead. If you are going to question Luther on the scripture, you must question his authority to translate. From Rome? No. But by then he was already excommunicated.

If the pope had listened to him about the abuses of the mass and indugences instead of worrying about duckets for St. Peter’s Luther would have been a footnote in history.

Jon
Click to expand...
You cannot compare St Jerome to Luther. Because St Jerome did submit to Church Authority. Luther did not. While I agree that he may not have just taken the books out completely he did all he could to prove HIS point. He did not go out of his way to express Church authority which is early teaching’s of the Church. So by doing what he did, he tried to trump Church teaching’s and early Father teaching’s of the Church.

But that would be like me telling you I would have loved to have kicked in the door, but I didn’t. Now why not just kick in the door if thats what I wanted to do, Because now rather I did kick in the door or not, You know what my opinion is. What he did was delegate them to a lesser status do you not agree with that. So bottom line was he still made his point not the teaching’s of the Church.

Now here is where we are left. Do I agree with his Point or the Church? Now do you deny that it was his point that caused the protestants to take them out. Or are you going to blame it on the Church? Or are you going to say its all on the protestants. Come on now. He knew what he was doing, and he knew how to do it. Or it would have never happend in the first place. He knew the position of the Church. Thats the bottom line, and he disobeyed the Church.
 
JonNC said:
By

If the pope had listened to him about the abuses of the mass and indugences instead of worrying about duckets for St. Peter’s Luther would have been a footnote in history.

Jon
Click to expand...
i’m not sure the pope was concerned about such things… i doubt it… he lives in the Presence of Christ… Yes, there have been evil popes… but not many and anyway, what difference does it make? There are always evil pepole in authoritative places… look at our political situation in this country…

Why, there’s more evil in our govenrment system than…

than even in the Roman Catholic Church… 😃

but anyway… you should probably read the book The Facts About Luther… His own words show that he was… well, how should i say it???

i think you should read the book and see for yourself… you aren’t going to take my word for it…

I’m Catholic… 😃
 
No one ever questioned his ability to translate, it was when he tried to make it fit into his own personal beliefs. It was his personal beliefs that got him thrown out of the Church. He had no authority to do that. God did not leave us Luther to lead us it was the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top