Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco, then you cannot accept Scripture. I wasn’t making those words up, I was simply relating what is found in Scripture. If you can’t accept that…

But the point was, God loved Israel and the New Covenant Church the same. As you correctly noted, God is the same God. But the child has grown into an adult, and thus the same parent treats the same person (Israel - New Israel) in different ways.

Yes, we as adults treat our children differently from how we treat our partners.
We subject our children to discipline, using main force where necessary.
Our partners, we allow their free will, even allowing them to desert us, as we love them too much to force them to go against their will.
Yes, G_d guides the Church, but does not compel the Church to follow the Divine Guidance.
For G_d knows that all will come out right in the end on the Last Day.

 

[guanophore]

The root of protestantism is an excess of zeal by the Magisterium in defining what Catholicity is/was.

This is true, I believe, and this is also the very purpose and duty of the Magesterium. Recently I have been listening to the Book of Romans daily on the CD. It gives on a great overview. It is quite clear that the Rule (Law) is what makes sin manifest.

Our Lord permitted degrees of doubt on subjects he did not consider to be vital, the Magisterium did not. That was, and to some extent is the root cause of protestantism.

If Catholicity wants protestantism to return to the fold, then the Magisterium needs to relax more the permission to doubt.
It has gone a long way down that path, but there is much further to go. I for one would love to return, but my doubts as yet cannot be overcome.

I have not finished reading the thread, so please pardon me if this is already been asked and answered, but what do you think requires “permission go doubt”? Your statement indicates that there are matters that are not “vital” that should be permitted to be rejected?

Also, I am curious about the statemetn “my doubts as yet cannot be overcome”. What is the process by which this happens?

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, we as adults treat our children differently from how we treat our partners.
We subject our children to discipline, using main force where necessary.
Our partners, we allow their free will, even allowing them to desert us, as we love them too much to force them to go against their will.
Yes, G_d guides the Church, but does not compel the Church to follow the Divine Guidance.
For G_d knows that all will come out right in the end on the Last Day.

So, the Bride WILL remain true, according to the promises of Jesus, although members of the Body may stray.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This is true, I believe, and this is also the very purpose and duty of the Magesterium. Recently I have been listening to the Book of Romans daily on the CD. It gives on a great overview. It is quite clear that the Rule (Law) is what makes sin manifest.

I have not finished reading the thread, so please pardon me if this is already been asked and answered, but what do you think requires “permission go doubt”? Your statement indicates that there are matters that are not “vital” that should be permitted to be rejected?

No, I do not ask permission to reject.
I only ask that it is not demanded of me that I assert as true, that of which I am not convinced.
I accept that these things, in the most part might be true.
There are some things which I find contrary to science. These things I cannot accept, and will explain why.

Also, I am curious about the statemetn “my doubts as yet cannot be overcome”. What is the process by which this happens?

Perhaps by enlightenment.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Yes, we as adults treat our children differently from how we treat our partners.
We subject our children to discipline, using main force where necessary.
Our partners, we allow their free will, even allowing them to desert us, as we love them too much to force them to go against their will.
Yes, G_d guides the Church, but does not compel the Church to follow the Divine Guidance.
For G_d knows that all will come out right in the end on the Last Day.[/sign]
So, the Bride WILL remain true, according to the promises of Jesus, although members of the Body may stray.

No, I did not say or support that view.
I said only that all would come out right on the Last Day.
In the mean time, the Bride may wander, but like the prodigal son, will in the end, return home.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 12: 31, 32:
Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

OK. I am totally lost on this. How does this passage indicate that the standards of the Magesterium should be relaxed? Are you saying that more sins should be considered forgiveable? If you don’t believe what the Magesterium states is required then the Church should “look the other way”?

I am not asking that the teachings be abandoned, just that the detail, which is not immediately essential, be left to be doubted, so long as it is not denied.

There are provisions for this in Catholicism.

For instance, many protestants are deeply troubled by the status of Our Lady, as Mother of G_d. Indeed, it troubles me. I am happy with ‘Mother of Christ’, but then, that is a Nestorian profession, and I can sympathise with some Nestorian concepts. Indeed, Nestorius was only condemned when he was tricked into making claims which could be seen as gnostic.

This answers one of my questions above. I will throw in here, since we are vastly off topic already, that I don’t think it is possible to overcome the troubles with Mary without a relationship to her. I had to pray that Jesus would form in me a right attitude toward His Mother, and to help me get past misgivings. I also asked the same HS who overshadowed her to illuminate me about HIs relationship with His spouse. In short, I think this requires some divine intervention.

But indeed, All this to-do was of the ilk of which Our Lord defined as forgivable in the quote given.

On what basis do you decide that?

How are you more authorized to decide what is necessary that the people that believe to be fully Christian that the Apostolic Successors.

What Our Lord demanded of us was that we love one-another, as he loved/loves us.
That is central.
All else is peripheral.

One cannot fully love when one is not fully embracing of the Truth. To the extent we are not united with the Truth, we are lacking in Love.

 

[guanophore]

Nestorius was convinced in the rectitude of his argument.
This then is ‘invincible ignorance’ if indeed he was in error.
He did not go willfully into schism, but was cast out under the pretense of gnosticism.

It is true that everyone must act in accordance with one’s own conscience. However, a well formed conscience is one that is in unity with the teachings of Jesus. It is the duty of the church to preserve and promulgate these. A person who knows these teachings yet chooses to reject them cannot be said to have invincible ignorance. Most do not willfully go into schism or heresy. Most wish to keep those beliefs which they hold, and still be fully accepted. however, this is not what Jesus taught the Apostles. In fact, the entire pattern set forth in the OT makes it clear that God wants His people distinguished clearly from the culture by way of their beliefs and practice, and that those refusing to follow the Way are to be put away from the community.

That though is water under the bridge.
He did though teach, having been cast out, his heretical teachings.
This is not what I am talking about.

Well, it seems like that is the point. That is the behaviroa that was condemned.

.

I am not asking that Mother Church goes easy on heretics, that is, those who teach heresy.
What I ask is that She permits doubt, and does not demand assertions that cannot be honestly given.
For instance, though I accept that BVM is the Mother of Christ, I cannot honestly assert that she is Mother of G_d, though I will not, and cannot deny that she might be.

Then the proper attitude to take is “I believe, help my unbelief!” One chooses to accept the Teaching, and makes the assertion, then grows into the reality of it.

Personally, I think it is impossible for human beings to cognitively grasp the incarnation. How is it possible that the Creator of the universe can “empty Himself”? In such cases, as in the case of the Real Presence, it is prudent to accept that some of the Teachings of Jesus are mysteries, and beyond our puny ability to grasp.

Blessings upon you, an your journey of faith.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Matthew 12: 31, 32:
Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.[/sign]
OK. I am totally lost on this. How does this passage indicate that the standards of the Magesterium should be relaxed? Are you saying that more sins should be considered forgiveable? If you don’t believe what the Magesterium states is required then the Church should “look the other way”?

Our Lord here makes a clear distiction between first and second division sins. Mortal and Venial if you like. He is clearly classing personal insults as understandable misunderstandings, not to be taken seriously, but insults against the HS, he considers to be of the utmost seriousness.

[sign]I am not asking that the teachings be abandoned, just that the detail, which is not immediately essential, be left to be doubted, so long as it is not denied.[/sign]
There are provisions for this in Catholicism.

Then there is maybe hope for me?

[sign]For instance, many protestants are deeply troubled by the status of Our Lady, as Mother of G_d. Indeed, it troubles me. I am happy with ‘Mother of Christ’, but then, that is a Nestorian profession, and I can sympathise with some Nestorian concepts. Indeed, Nestorius was only condemned when he was tricked into making claims which could be seen as gnostic.[/sign]
This answers one of my questions above. I will throw in here, since we are vastly off topic already, that I don’t think it is possible to overcome the troubles with Mary without a relationship to her. I had to pray that Jesus would form in me a right attitude toward His Mother, and to help me get past misgivings. I also asked the same HS who overshadowed her to illuminate me about HIs relationship with His spouse. In short, I think this requires some divine intervention.

Yes, I agree.

[sign]But indeed, All this to-do was of the ilk of which Our Lord defined as forgivable in the quote given.[/sign]
On what basis do you decide that?
How are you more authorized to decide what is necessary that the people that believe to be fully Christian that the Apostolic Successors.

It seems to me that all of this argument was about the status of the Son of Man, not the HS, so was not a serious matter.

[sign]What Our Lord demanded of us was that we love one-another, as he loved/loves us.
That is central.
All else is peripheral.[/sign]
One cannot fully love when one is not fully embracing of the Truth. To the extent we are not united with the Truth, we are lacking in Love.

I do not follow that. My wife does not understand particle physics, and the truth of the quantum theory is utterly beyond her.
How does that stop me from loving her &vv.
If the point in question is not relevant to the moment, it can surely be safely left for the moment.

 

[NotWorthy]

In the mean time, the Bride may wander, but like the prodigal son, will in the end, return home.

Define “Wander” in the context of the Bride, please.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, Voco, you’re talking apples and oranges, here.
"guanophore:

One cannot fully love when one is not fully embracing of the Truth. To the extent we are not united with the Truth, we are lacking in Love.

I do not follow that. My wife does not understand particle physics, and the truth of the quantum theory is utterly beyond her.
How does that stop me from loving her &vv.
If the point in question is not relevant to the moment, it can surely be safely left for the moment.

Guanophore is talking about not understanding all about the Church and Truth, and yet we still embrace it.

Your wife may not understand quantum physics, but does she reject it outright? I don’t understand gravity, but I do accept that its there and I don’t reject it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

OK, Voco, you’re talking apples and oranges, here.Guanophore is talking about not understanding all about the Church and Truth, and yet we still embrace it.

Your wife may not understand quantum physics, but does she reject it outright? I don’t understand gravity, but I do accept that its there and I don’t reject it.

I agree.
I am not seeking to deny, I only seek not to assert.
Actually, I am quite happy with mysteries and paradoxes.
My only objection is when someone tries to foist an explanation onto me which does not hold water.
Let the mystery be a mystery.
The explanation only make matters worse.
Like gravity.
We all know an apple will fall.
We are moderately happy with Newton’s approximation to its rules.
As for explanations coming from General Relativity, there is still a huge question mark there, so I will not teach it, only say that it is a mystery, and that some people think this or that.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree.
I am not seeking to deny, I only seek not to assert.
Actually, I am quite happy with mysteries and paradoxes.
My only objection is when someone tries to foist an explanation onto me which does not hold water.
Let the mystery be a mystery.
The explanation only make matters worse.
Like gravity.
We all know an apple will fall.
We are moderately happy with Newton’s approximation to its rules.
As for explanations coming from General Relativity, there is still a huge question mark there, so I will not teach it, only say that it is a mystery, and that some people think this or that.

Ah, but that’s the rub. Just because you don’t understand what somebody is saying regarding a mystery, doesn’t mean they don’t - even if not completely. They only have to understand the part they are trying to explain (which is why so little is said to explain Purgatory, other than the fact that it exists).

 

[sterryfamily]

The question is, were these mysteries taught by the apostles? It appears so, given the evidence one can inspect from the early Christians. What is the evidence you can show from early Christian belief which supports your contrarian ideas?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Define “Wander” in the context of the Bride, please.

Suffer confusion of loyalty, perhaps thereby misplace loyalty.

 

[NotWorthy]

Suffer confusion of loyalty, perhaps thereby misplace loyalty.

So you are saying that the bride will not remain loyal or pure to Her Husband, the Bridegroom?

Doesn’t this contradict what Paul says of the Church in Corinthians, when He is talking of marriage?

This is exactly why God called Old Israel a Harlot, because of her “wanderings”. I thought the New Covenant Church would fix this error, according to the Promises of Jesus and through the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

BTW, you are not suggesting that some Catholics might be loyal to the Church or the Pope instead of to Christ, are you?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Suffer confusion of loyalty, perhaps thereby misplace loyalty.[/sign]
So you are saying that the bride will not remain loyal or pure to Her Husband, the Bridegroom?

Not quite. I am saying that the possibility may exist.

Doesn’t this contradict what Paul says of the Church in Corinthians, when He is talking of marriage?

No, in a perfect world it might, but we all know of marriages which have foundered upon the rocks, or gone through hard times, even suffered from infidelity, though, through repentance and forgiveness, survived.

This is exactly why God called Old Israel a Harlot, because of her “wanderings”. I thought the New Covenant Church would fix this error, according to the Promises of Jesus and through the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No, that is not the claim, or offer by Our Lord.
He promised to be there for us, to give guidance.
Not to force that guidance upon us, or indeed, upon His Church.

BTW, you are not suggesting that some Catholics might be loyal to the Church or the Pope instead of to Christ, are you?

No, Not that this has happened, or is happening, but that it is possible for this to happen.

 

[NotWorthy]

"Notworthy:

		 				BTW, you are not suggesting that some Catholics might be loyal to the Church or the Pope instead of to Christ, are you?

No, Not that this has happened, or is happening, but that it is possible for this to happen.

This seems to be something that other Christians often mistake of Catholics, but to a Catholic this is a paradox.

You see, you CAN’T be loyal to the Pope and the Church without being loyal to Christ. In marriage, the Church and the Bridegroom have become one, so we are loyal to the Church out of obedience to and love for Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

"Notworthy:

So you are saying that the bride will not remain loyal or pure to Her Husband, the Bridegroom? Not quite. I am saying that the possibility may exist.
Quote:
Doesn’t this contradict what Paul says of the Ch

No, in a perfect world it might, but we all know of marriages which have foundered upon the rocks, or gone through hard times, even suffered from infidelity, though, through repentance and forgiveness, survived.

But, in a world where God can simply say something, and it comes to be, this can’t happen. God said the Bride will remain pure. Members of the bride will falter, but the Bride Herself will not. The Church can’t teach on faith and morals in error.

No, that is not the claim, or offer by Our Lord.
He promised to be there for us, to give guidance.
Not to force that guidance upon us, or indeed, upon His Church.

“What you Bind on Earth is Bound in Heaven” is a heavy authority. But “The Gates of Hell will not Prevail” is a promise that this authority will never allow Satan to let a false teaching lead others astray.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But, in a world where God can simply say something, and it comes to be, this can’t happen. God said the Bride will remain pure. Members of the bride will falter, but the Bride Herself will not. The Church can’t teach on faith and morals in error.

I thought I had answered this post, but I cannot find my answer.
Maybe I did not press before logging out, or my answer was deemed to be offensive.
However I have not received a notification or warning.
I accept that my answers to your points will be at difference with what you, and indeed the Church, considers to be points of faith.
My argument against this first paragraph is that the Church comprises the sum of her Members.
Any or ALL of her members, being human, are capable of error.
Therefore by definition, the Church is capable of error.
However, I accept that since the number of members is large, and that a significant majority of her Senior members would need to err in like manner, then the probability of the Church erring is exceedingly small, but nevertheless, it is not a zero probability.
This is the principle behind triplex control in vital flight systems.

“What you Bind on Earth is Bound in Heaven” is a heavy authority. But “The Gates of Hell will not Prevail” is a promise that this authority will never allow Satan to let a false teaching lead others astray.

This paragraph hinges on the word ‘prevail’
In Britain, the weather is controlled by a prevailing south-westerly wind.
That does not mean that the wind never blows from any other direction, just that it does so for significantly more times than it does not.
Using the normal reading then of this word, I find that this paragraph does not disagree with my statement concerning Our Lord’s promise.
That is:
There might rarely be errors, but everything will work out ok in the end.

 

[NotWorthy]

My argument against this first paragraph is that the Church comprises the sum of her Members.
Any or ALL of her members, being human, are capable of error.
Therefore by definition, the Church is capable of error.

Except that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into All Truth.

However, I accept that since the number of members is large, and that a significant majority of her Senior members would need to err in like manner, then the probability of the Church erring is exceedingly small, but nevertheless, it is not a zero probability.

Except that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into All Truth.

This is the principle behind triplex control in vital flight systems.

Except that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into All Truth.

This paragraph hinges on the word ‘prevail’
In Britain, the weather is controlled by a prevailing south-westerly wind.
That does not mean that the wind never blows from any other direction, just that it does so for significantly more times than it does not.
Using the normal reading then of this word, I find that this paragraph does not disagree with my statement concerning Our Lord’s promise.

If Jesus were talking of winds, then you’d be spot on! But He’s not.
Prevail means to be or prove superior in strength, power, or influence in the context of the sentence.

That is:
There might rarely be errors, but everything will work out ok in the end.

Except that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into All Truth.