Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[CMatt25]

The seven books that Protestants normally omit would certainly be lost. And over time, as the liberal left deletes more and more of the words of Christ, and more and more of the Old Testament, dismissing it as mythological and/or “not relevant to our times” I would expect that, if not lost, the Bible would be out of use within two to three generations, other than by just a few very right-wing fanatical groups.

I suppose if all the publishing cos with existing Bibles containing those 7 books could no longer print them. But don’t you have faith in the followers of Christ to think the Bible would be out of use in 2 or 3 generations.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From this site (Catholic Answers), the Library, on “AntiCatholic Whoppers”, regarding the charge that Catholics were 'forbidden to read the Bible."

Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229."

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.

 

[jmcrae]

I suppose if all the publishing cos with existing Bibles containing those 7 books could no longer print them. But don’t you have faith in the followers of Christ to think the Bible would be out of use in 2 or 3 generations.

I have seen what has happened to the United Church of Canada in less than one hundred years, since they stopped allowing themselves to be influenced by the Church.

The same thing would happen to the rest of Protestantism, if they no longer had the Catholic Church around to react to.

 

[tweetymom]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Tweety, I am surprised (well, maybe not surprised). When do you THINK the Catholic Church ‘came about’? (and even if you say, Constantine --a theory that is not held by any reputable scholars–surprise! The canon of the Bible took place 50 years after Constantine’s death so guess what --it WAS the Catholic Church!) And as for the "catholics were forbidden to read because they weren’t smart enough’ - that is absolute bologna. In the 13th century some FAKE Bibles were circulating in a region in France and because of the fake Bibles being around, people were cautioned not to read the FAKES. And since the Church has had an indulgence in place for READING SCRIPTURE for over a hundred years and more, that kind of shoots down your theory that they weren’t ‘smart’ enough, doesn’t it?

honestly, dear, where do you GET these things? You spout off unsupported assertions as though they were Holy Writ. I’ll be GLAD to give you some proof for my statements. WHERE’S YOUR ‘proof’ for the authenticity of YOURS?

Honestly my dear the Bible was written by men of God with the inspirition of the Holy Spirit. My proof if in the Bible. If as you say it was written by whom you say, why didn’t God inspirie someone to say so in the Bible. I can give you plenty of references, my dear I am not stupid I do have probably more knoowlrdge on the Bible than most my dear. Thank you i do not need your proof because I already know it and if you believe it,my dear my hats off to you and may God Bless you in what you believe.

 

[CMatt25]

The reason the original Bible is called the Vulgate is because it is a Latin translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into the common (vulgar) language of the people. So the the common people would be able to read it.

That’s an interesting comment considering there are those today who would love to see the Mass returned to the uncommon language of Latin.

 

[jmcrae]

Honestly my dear the Bible was written by men of God with the inspirition of the Holy Spirit.

Those “men of God” were Catholic Bishops.

If as you say it was written by whom you say, why didn’t God inspirie someone to say so in the Bible.

Read Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You see, it never ceases to amaze (and sadden me) that people will just latch onto some ‘statement’ (case in point, “Catholics were forbidden to read the Bible”) and then will assume all sorts of things about it. So you’ll get one person claiming that they were forbidden to read, and another will go one further and say it was because they were too ‘stupid’, and yet another to say that it was because if they did, they’d see the Catholic Church was lying (which of course directly contradicts the other position --if the people were really too stupid, how could they ‘see’ the church was supposedly’ lying?")

The thing is, the statement is so easily proven to be false in the first place.

It’s like falling for an urban legend. Google it and you’ll send literally dozens of refutations. . .but still people will unhesitatingly claim that the ‘legend’ is gospel true. They WANT it to be true. . .so. . .they’ll keep cranking out the ‘legend’ no matter how often it’s shown to be untrue. . .

 

[Dancelittleewok]

That’s an interesting comment considering there are those today who would love to see the Mass returned to the uncommon language of Latin.

In Latin Masses, there is a side-by-side translation in the missal or handouts to the common vernacular depending on the region.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s an interesting comment considering there are those today who would love to see the Mass returned to the uncommon language of Latin.

Actually, Latin is very easy to learn, and it’s good to have the Mass in the same language all over the world, one that everyone can learn easily, so that when you travel, no matter where you go, you can always go to a Mass that you can understand.

If I were to go to Japan, I would prefer to go to the Mass in Latin, rather than in Japanese, for example.

 

[tweetymom]

Those “men of God” were Catholic Bishops.

Read Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19.

Look my dear I do not agree with you and I have read the scripture and I see Catholic nowhere, period. It was Peters faith and all scripture is for believers feed my sheep is for all.

 

[CMatt25]

No, Matt. Truth is truth and it stays truth whether or not you, or I believe. If you think that something only ‘becomes true’ because of belief, you’re quite mistaken.

Of course truth is truth. The difference is believing we know all truth or admitting it is what we believe. You do understand people have different beliefs or even non belief, don’t you? But if you can absolutely prove everything without using faith or interpretation then more power to you and God bless you on your walk.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If you believe something is true then that’s what you believe. But it’s only considered true because of your belief.

So, you are saying that God is only True because we believe? if we dont believe, He doesnt exist?

 

[jmcrae]

Look my dear I do not agree with you and I have read the scripture and I see Catholic nowhere, period.

You see Peter being made leader of the Church, and you see Jesus telling to Peter, “What you forbid on earth is forbidden in Heaven, and what you permit on earth is permitted in Heaven.” You see Peter being appointed Shepherd of the Church. “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” Peter is in charge of Christ’s “flock” - that’s the Church, and he has the power to make the rules.

Peter’s successor today is Pope Benedict XVI; that means (using logic - if this, then that) that the Church Jesus founded in Matthew 16:18-19 is the Catholic Church.

 

[tweetymom]

You see Peter being made leader of the Church, and you see Jesus telling to Peter, “What you forbid on earth is forbidden in Heaven, and what you permit on earth is permitted in Heaven.” You see Peter being appointed Shepherd of the Church. “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” Peter is in charge of Christ’s “flock” - that’s the Church, and he has the power to make the rules.

Peter’s successor today is Pope Benedict XVI; that means (using logic - if this, then that) that the Church Jesus founded in Matthew 16:18-19 is the Catholic Church.

As i have said before if it is what you believe God Bless you on you journey with our Savior. I am sure when we see Jesus it will all be answered.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That’s an interesting comment considering there are those today who would love to see the Mass returned to the uncommon language of Latin.

I am not sure what your point is? Do you agree the Vulgate was the common language at the time this edition was put out?

Latin is still the common language of the Roman Rite Catholic Church. Latin started dying out in the 60’s. My Lutheran grandfather was fluent in it. It was mandatory in Catholic high schools through the '70’s.

We still have Latin mass parts (Kyrie eleison, Agnus Dei) and beautiful chants and songs, Adoramus te, Pannis Angelicus, etc.

We also have several heavily attended Latin mass only parishes here in St. Louis. (yay Burke)

It’s a shame we lost such a beautiful language, but yes, it looks like it’s coming back!

BTW, the Bible readings are always in the native language. We therefore have Spanish, Viet Namese, German, etc. “personal” parishes established here in St. Louis

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Look my dear I do not agree with you and I have read the scripture and I see Catholic nowhere, period.

OK, then who WERE they? If they weren’t Catholic, my dear Tweety, then you must be able to provide proof that they weren’t. . .and proof that “Catholic” came about ‘later.’ Where’s your proof? Statements that ‘you don’t see X’ are not considered authentic and authoritative proof.

Actually, the Greek “catholikos” for ‘universal’ is indeed in Scripture.

And for sure, those first followers weren’t Lutheran, or Methodist.

Either Jesus set up a Church and the Christians there came (at some point, very early on) to be known as Catholic. . .or you can show that "Catholics’ are a whole different ‘kettle of fish’.

Suppose you have a group of people meeting in a town. The first 20 years, they don’t have a name, then they decide to call themselves the Park City Rangers.

So, in the first 20 years, the ONLY thing that was different was that the Rangers weren’t CALLED the Rangers. But everything about the Rangers now is the same as it was before they got a name. And since they are in Park City (and were 20 years ago), and since they ‘range’ about the town, they were informally known as ‘Park City Rangers’ before they filled out a formal charter!

 

[CMatt25]

So, you are saying that God is only True because we believe? if we dont believe, He doesnt exist?

Wisdom, you have heard of atheists haven’t you who don’t believe? God is not true for them because they don’t believe. Of course I am not saying that. I believe in God so for me he is true but my belief is based on a belief in a Creator and faith.

 

[CMatt25]

As i have said before if it is what you believe God Bless you on you journey with our Savior. I am sure when we see Jesus it will all be answered.

 

[qui_est_ce]

OK, then who WERE they? If they weren’t Catholic, my dear Tweety, then you must be able to provide proof that they weren’t. . .and proof that “Catholic” came about ‘later.’ Where’s your proof? Statements that ‘you don’t see X’ are not considered authentic and authoritative proof.

Well, I would ask “Who were they” and not necessarily add “If they weren’t Catholic.” We already know the “Way” and “Catholic” were in use since the very early church.

I’m not looking for proof here. I would like to see what Tweety believes. It’s always interesting to me to learn about other people’s faith traditions.

 

[jmcrae]

Wisdom, you have heard of atheists haven’t you who don’t believe? God is not true for them because they don’t believe.

God is still “true for them,” even though they don’t believe. That they don’t believe it, doesn’t cause God to stop existing, or to stop sustaining them in their lives. The fact that they can choose not to believe in Him is actually proof of His love for them (which would not exist, if He did not exist) in that He gives them free will.