S
santaro75
Guest
Who gives praise to the Pope?
- Status
P
Peter_Wright
Guest
CONDUCT RULES
*]Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
*]Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
*]Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
*]Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
*]Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
*]Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
*]Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
F
Fidelis
Guest
That explains a lot. Before you do something so foolish as to become a JW, do yourself a favor and visit this page:
catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Aside from the obvious fact that quoting a person doesn’t mean you are praising him, it is ludicrous to thing that God is against giving praise to another human being:
Just as a loving father is pleased when his child recieves praise, so it is pleasing to God when honor and praise is given among his children. If the JW God is so small and jealous that he wants no one to have praise but him, he is too mean and petty for me.
T
tommy4321
Guest
Please note that is was not my vote that went to the Wittnesses for bringing the Bible to us.
T
tommy4321
Guest
Peter Wright said:
Hi: I want to check to see if my posts or ok in terms of size, content and politeness because I don’t want to run the risk of suspension. I have two responses I want to make to At His Feet and the new kid Prom that will have lots of responses to quotes. But I want permission before posting if this might be directed to me. Thanks for the priviledge of posting on your site. Sincerely, Tom
P
Prometheus1974
Guest
Woohoo! I’m young again!
C
catsrus
Guest
Noted. Thanks for the clarification tommy. I did wonder.
T
tommy4321
Guest
Born in 1974? It’s good to be young and you seem young, but not foolish?Woohoo! I’m young again!
P
Prometheus1974
Guest
I hope not.
C
Contarini
Guest
Well no. As I believe you pointed out, Protestants do not accept the traditional canon for the OT, at least not completely (though admittedly this wasn’t decided with complete certainty until centuries later). So obviously we don’t think the Pope is infallible. We think he was right in the 4th century about the NT canon (not that he had much to do with the decision, actually), but wrong in the 15-16th century about the Old (wrong at least in putting the deuteros on the same level as the undisputed books).
Your premise is wrong. Christians do disagree about the limits of the OT canon, while still accepting that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It’s not as either/or as you claim. Facts are against you here.
I don’t know for certain (and again, it wasn’t really “he”; the Pope played a very minor role in the process). I don’t need to. The desire to have absolute certainty is a desire that will lead you either to delusion or to tormenting uncertainty. My faith does not stand or fall on whether James or II John or even the Apocalypse is in fact inspired. My faith stands or falls on Jesus Christ crucified and risen.
However, you’re raising a phantom problem here. In the absence of some actual reason to doubt the Church’s decision, you’re constructing an artificial issue, which makes your whole position seem rather artificial. One can have firm confidence in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church without believing that any particular mechanism is infallible.
Also, I should distinguish between infallibility before the fact and after the fact. What I deny (what it seems to me all Christians not in communion with Rome deny–some Orthodox will say otherwise but a good Catholic apologist can easily reduce their position to inconsistency) is that we can know beforehand that if the Church goes through a certain process or if a certain office of the Church speaks, then the Church will not be mistaken. That doesn’t mean that we can’t know *after the fact *that the Church was correct. It’s fine to call this infallibility–it seems to me that this is what the Orthodox actually mean by infallibility. But you can’t argue from infalibility after the fact to infallibility before the fact. You can’t argue that because I accept a decision assented to by the Pope in the past I must accept all decisions made by him in the future. There is absolutley no logic to such a claim.
When the whole Church definitively agrees on something as absolutely central to the Christian Faith, then the Church will not err. But such moments are rare, and I do not need to provide a theory explaining how I can know when they occur. The definition of the Trinity was one such moment; the process of accepting the central books of the canon (the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, the Four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles) was another. The NT canon as a whole is perhaps one step down, since as I said our faith would not be much changed if III John were to turn out not to be inspired. But in practice it’s hardly imaginable that such evidence could possibly turn up and be sufficiently persuasive to counter the historic belief of the Church.
C
Contarini
Guest
You’re confusing being infallible with being right. And granted our usage about Scripture makes this particularly confusing (many Catholics try to preserve the distinction by calling Scripture “inerrant”; but many Protestants make a distinction between “inerrancy” which is a more fundamentalist belief that the Bible is absolutely correct in every minute historical/scientific detail with “infallibility” which is the belief that Scripture is without error as regards the Faith). We agree that the Holy Spirit not only can protect people from error but has done so. The question is whether the Holy Spirit has promised to protect any particular office or mouthpiece or institutional embodiment of the Church from error as long as certain conditions are met. That’s what I question, and that is very different from saying that Scripture, or even past conciliar definitions, were preserved from error by the Spirit.
I don’t know how you would know that. For one thing there were many editions of the “Septuagint”–it wasn’t one unified translation, contrary to later legend. There’s no way of knowing exactly what books were in the copy of the LXX used by a given NT writer. Furthermore, the NT writers don’t always use the LXX–they sometimes seem to be translating directly from the Hebrew, at other times citing the LXX very loosely, at other times it’s hard to know exactly how they get the readings they do.
I don’t think there are any direct, indisputable references (to the DCs, that is). There are a number of possible, even probable references (I’m impressed by the similarities between Wisdom and the early chapters of Romans, for instance, and I recently came across the claim that the Sadducees in Matt. 23 may have been parodying the II Maccabees story of the seven brothers in their attack on the Resurrection). But given the fact that NT writers definitely refer to non-canonical texts, you really wouldn’t prove much even if you could show direct quotation. The only thing that would prove your point would be if you could show such a quotation with some such introduction as “Scripture says” or “The Lord says.” There is no such passage. So the NT can’t really prove anything one way or the other.
I have read various sources on this subject already. I’m not going to go out and do more research now, because frankly life is too short, and it’s rather impertinent to make unsubstantiated claims and tell people vaguely to go do research to prove you wrong. It’s your business to provide evidence, or at least the name of your source.
In spite of your exhortation, I can tell you with great confidence that you are wrong, and that even Catholic scholars would tell you as much. The Catholic claim is usually that there was a “Palestinian Canon” (which Jamnia basically followed) and an “Alexandrian Canon.” I don’t think any serious scholar thinks that all Jews before Jamnia accepted the “Alexandrian Canon.” Some Protestant scholars would argue that there was no Alexandrian Canon at all, only various books that were found in some manuscripts of the LXX. The fact that many Jews before Jamnia accepted the shorter canon is not in serious dispute. For one thing, the “Alexandrian Canon” includes many books for which no Hebrew text has been found. If no such text existed, then many Jews wouldn’t have been able to read the books at all (that isn’t certain, of course–there might have been and in some cases probably were Hebrew originals now lost).
But you certainly have no evidence that the Bible Jesus used included the DCs. I have read a number of accounts of this matter from both sides, and I have never encountered this claim made by a reputable scholar.
C
Contarini
Guest
On the other hand, it seems clear that Jews used all sorts of books, and that the line between what was canonical and noncanonical wasn’t as clearcut as many Protestants would like to think (and of course this remained the case for Christians for centuries, and to some extent still is, especially among the more isolated Eastern Churches such as the Copts and Ethiopians). As you probably know, the consensus view is that the Sadducees probably accepted only the five books of the Torah. The NT writers frequently refer to the “Law and the Prophets” (though they count Daniel as a prophet, which the post-Jamnia Hebrew canon didn’t) and also cite the Psalms as Scripture. It doesn’t seem to have been an either/or–there were degrees of canonicity. The Torah was at the center, then the Prophets and the Psalms, and there were a lot of other books floating around on the edges. Some of them wound up in the Jewish canon, some of them made it into the Christian canon though with a question mark (which Protestants later turned into outright rejection), and others didn’t make it into any canon ever.
gehall5859:
gehall5859:
C. The pre-Reformation Church, the post-Tridentine Catholic Church, and the various Protestant churches (as long as they maintained faith in Christ) were all parts of Christ’s Church on earth. Not perfect parts. Not enjoying the unity and holiness for which our Lord called us together. But on a journey. A rough, tough, confusing journey, in which the pilgrims fight each other and hurt each other more often than not. But a journey with the goal of complete unity and holiness in the Kingdom.
This isn’t an excuse for us to stop seeking unity and holiness now. Quite the contrary. But the Catholic claim is that the unity of the Church is not a goal–it exists in all its perfection within the Christian body united to the See of Rome. That is what we Protestants question.
In Christ,
Edwin
He also wanted all its members to be holy as His Father is holy. Are we? Are you? Why do you expect that unity is any less a goal to be striven for rather than something that has always been a present possession of the Church?
Sorry, but those are not the only two options. How about
C. The pre-Reformation Church, the post-Tridentine Catholic Church, and the various Protestant churches (as long as they maintained faith in Christ) were all parts of Christ’s Church on earth. Not perfect parts. Not enjoying the unity and holiness for which our Lord called us together. But on a journey. A rough, tough, confusing journey, in which the pilgrims fight each other and hurt each other more often than not. But a journey with the goal of complete unity and holiness in the Kingdom.
This isn’t an excuse for us to stop seeking unity and holiness now. Quite the contrary. But the Catholic claim is that the unity of the Church is not a goal–it exists in all its perfection within the Christian body united to the See of Rome. That is what we Protestants question.
In Christ,
Edwin
P
Prometheus1974
Guest
Poll question “Under which Church’s gave was the bible born?” doesn’t make sense. I answered it as “Through which Church did we receive the Bible?”
The answer is not debateable. It is recorded history:
(From a CA article):
It is wrong to imply an either/or to the Catholic position. There is not a single Catholic poster here (correct me if I am wrong!) who would argue anything besides divine inspiration for the Scriptures.
However, with the exception of the Ten Commandments (written directly by God on the tablets), every single word of the Bible was written by human authors with human hands. This is historical fact. No Biblical author has claimed for himself divine impetus for any of their writings with the sole exception of St. John in Revelations 1:10. This is easily verifiable by anyone who owns a Bible.
If you do believe that any of these writers was divinely inspired or that the Bible comes from God than either
NonDenom:
tommy4321:
tommy4321:
NonDenom:
NonDenom:
tommy4321:
The Bible (along with all of creation) originates with God. It came to us from Him through the Church. Both, not either.
tommy4321:
God Bless
The answer is not debateable. It is recorded history:
(From a CA article):
This Church had a Pope and Councils of Bishops. This was and is the Catholic Church.
It is wrong to imply an either/or to the Catholic position. There is not a single Catholic poster here (correct me if I am wrong!) who would argue anything besides divine inspiration for the Scriptures.
However, with the exception of the Ten Commandments (written directly by God on the tablets), every single word of the Bible was written by human authors with human hands. This is historical fact. No Biblical author has claimed for himself divine impetus for any of their writings with the sole exception of St. John in Revelations 1:10. This is easily verifiable by anyone who owns a Bible.
If you do believe that any of these writers was divinely inspired or that the Bible comes from God than either
- You are taking the Catholic Church’s word for it,
- God appeared to you, in person and put the Bible directly in your hands,
- It’s your own invented idea, or
- You are taking the word of someone else who subscribes to 1, 2, or 3.
Based on the question, your answer implies that God is a Church. Which one?
Unfortunately Tommy, you are answering a different question. The poll did not ask “Who should we give credit, thanks and praise to for the Bible”. The poll asked which church it came from. Historical records are irrefutable. Prior to the above mentioned Councils, there was no Bible. Scriptures, Gospels, and Epistles existed, yes, but not the Bible.
Then you must be identifying him with the 4th century Catholic Church, since history records that is where the Bible was defined and from where it was given to the world. Or do you refuse to accept historical fact?
I wonder if believing one has the personal authority to interpret Scripture as one likes has anything to do with being proud…
Incorrect. You are actually limiting God’s ability by implying that He could not choose to work through the Church. We are merely stating what He did, historically. What He could have done is another matter entirely; He is, after all, omnipotent.
Why do you continually misrepresent the positions expressed by Catholics and others on this forum. Are you unable to answer what we are actually saying?
The Bible (along with all of creation) originates with God. It came to us from Him through the Church. Both, not either.
This is a quote. Are you saying that a quote = praise? I notice you have been quoting us in your posts. Does that mean you have been giving praise to us who are men and women? For shame!
God Bless
E
Eden
Guest
I’ll pretend like you didn’t say that. Unless, of course, you want to lose complete credibility with me. I think your objection is less that I have quoted the Pope and more that “THE CHURCH IS ALIVE!”
T
tommy4321
Guest
My faith in Jehovah God is strong. I am saddened that religion has lost his name that we read only twice in the King James Version of the Bible and completely lost in others. Zeal Jehovah’s name! Please don’t worry about me being foolish, I am not new to the Bible and have read from it for years if you read earlier remarks in this thread and have been with the Wittnesses for almost five years. I feel they are in the Truth in my opinion.
Praise should only be given only to the Lord our God in a religious sense… It is OK to respect and give non religious praise that does not belong to God to children and so forth. Praise to the pope or a man hurts our jealous God who is deserving of this praise as our Creator.
There is only One true God, not three. It could be said that there is two gods, the true God, the Almighty One, the God of Isreal and the god satan the devil that can appear to have powers that are godlike. There is not a JW God and this is a made up word. The Wittnesses follow the true God, Jehovah, yes the same name you read in the King James Verion Exodus 6:3 that many don’t pay much attention too.
Lastly, the small things (lesser) are important to God. Same when it comes to who receives praise in a religious sense. Look at how the smaller thing of Eve eating the Apple of the friut of knowledge in the Garden of Eden was really a big thing to Jehovah God. Same as the praise to a religious man is hurtful to our jealous God. I know it is done in religion and please accept my apology for quoting your reference to the pope as it seemed appropriate for the post. P.S., what about the question on praying directly to Mary as I have always wondered the Catholic opinion on this? Thanks for your kindness and caring.
Here is some Scripute quotes to back this. “God will not transfer to another the honor due Himself” Isaiah 42:8 “our Father in the Heaven, let your name be sanctified”" Matthew 6:9
Peace, tommy
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
The Catholic Church gave us the Sacred Tradition (the Sacred Scriptures being the written part of this Holy Tradition). Christ did not write a book, He gave us a Church which St. Peter led.
E
Eden
Guest
Jealous God?
Also, quoting the Pope takes nothing from the Lord, especially the quote that I used. The Pope was declaring that the Church that the Lord has created is alive. I’m sure it pleases the Lord to hear it proclaimed with such joy!
The Pope was chosen as the successor of Peter. He holds a position created by Christ Himself. As a Catholic, I can tell you that Pope Benedict XVI was chosen by the Holy Spirit to carry on the ministry of Peter - the fisher of men.
I want to point out, too, that quoting a saint would not be objectionable either. The Lord does not object to our admiring His work in other people. Saints are what they are because they have fully accepted Christ into their being and their works are to His glory. Just as an artist does not object to someone admiring his paintings, the Lord does not object to our admiring His work in others.
Finally, the Blessed Virgin is a wonderful ally and friend to ask to pray for you. She has a special relationship with her Son that no other human being has experienced. Jesus Christ loves His Mother and Her requests are taken by Her Son with special tenderness. Catholics are not required to ask Mary for her prayers or intercession on our behalf. But it takes nothing from her Son to do so. She always points to Her Son and desires us to grow closer to Him. In fact, if you poll Catholics you will find that those who have asked her for her intercession have been helped by her in deepening their relationship with Christ.
T
tommy4321
Guest
Here is the Scriptures on our “Jealous God” taken from the 1990 New Jerusalem Bible:
Exodus 34:14 “for you will worship no other God since Yahweh’s name is a jealous One: he is a Jealous God”.
Number 11:29 “Moses relpied, are you jealous on my account?” If only all of Yahweh’s people were prophets, and Yahweh had given them his spirits".
Zecharian 1:14 "The angel who was talking to me then said to me, “make this proclamation: Yahweh sabaoth says this: I am burning with Jealousy for Jerusalem and Zion”.
Romans 10:19 Well, another question, then: is it possible that Isreal did not understand? In the first place Moses said: I will rouse you to jealousy with a non-people, I shall exasperate you with a stupid nation",
Also 1Co10:22, Numbers 5:14, Ec 9:6, Ese 8:3 and 1Co 3:3 discusses how jealous our Jealous God is. He is a jealous God in how we praise Him alone.
It’s the small things.
D
Desert_Father
Guest
You mean YHWH of course. From your studies of Hebrew, you will recall that “Jehova” is a delibret mispointing of the tetragamanon, to prevent the inadvertent reading aloud of the forbiden name of God. It is a gibberish word with no meaning, that the translaters of the King James neglected to correct. As to Holy writ: the bible is a written account of a small, but critical part of the revelation given to the Apostles under Peter and passed down by the laying on of hands to his successors. In their hands only it is infalable. In any other hands, inturpretations are subject to grave error, as we see in the seperated breatheren and indeed with the precistant coining of “Jehova”. The Bible is a creature of the Roman Catholic Church which brought it forth from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, to which it belongs, and which alone has the ability to inturpret and teach it as part of and in light of the greater revelation. The Church is not a creature of the Bible. That was Luther’s error: he reversed the proper order in a search for safe assurance without the need for cooperation with Grace, which he felt himself incapable of. I should know. Before I swam the Tiber (impelled by my studies), I was a Luther Scholar, and still lecture at the University level on both Scripture and Luther.
C
Coder
Guest
Wow! That previous post is excellent.
- Status