Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[NotWorthy]

I understand your point, but a wise teacher learns from his students.
I am not asking for core teaching to be ‘watered-down’
I did specify that only peripheral teachings should be open to various opinion.

Voco, I don’t have much time at the moment, but while driving down the road, I heard something said that reminded me of this topic. I wanted to pass this on while I could, so I pulled into a wireless hot-spot to share it with you.

Cardinal John Henry Neumann:
“1000 questions. But no doubts”.

That’s what a good Christian should have for their Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

That which you quoted is, I accept the Church’s position on Her perception of the divinity of Christ.
It is though only a perception.
The reality is utterly ineffable.
It can be claimed that any perception which works is a valid perception.
Only a perception that does not work is invalid, and it does not work if it denies or devalues teachins which are central and vital.
Our Lord clearly states that argument about the nature of the Son of Man are of secondary importance.

The belief that Jesus’ human nature was what died, may not be of an immediate importance, but the heresies that spring from this belief are what can be catastrophic to one’s belief.

But I’d like to know where Jesus clearly says that the nature of the Son of Man are of secondary importance

 

[NotWorthy]

I have his entire audio on a compact disc [MP3? - I can listen on my computer but not the car] received from CAF I think some 4 or 5 years ago…

You can get it for free here and burn it to CD’s.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand your point, but a wise teacher learns from his students.
I am not asking for core teaching to be ‘watered-down’
I did specify that only peripheral teachings should be open to various opinion.
There have been too many cases of so-called wise fathers arguing over how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.
These are futile arguments.

If one is truly wanting to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then yes it is a futile argument.

If one is truly trying to understand the nature and function of angels, then it is germane to the issue.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco, I don’t have much time at the moment, but while driving down the road, I heard something said that reminded me of this topic. I wanted to pass this on while I could, so I pulled into a wireless hot-spot to share it with you.

Cardinal John Henry Neumann:
“1000 questions. But no doubts”.

That’s what a good Christian should have for their Church.

Dear NotWorthy,
How I envy your doubtlessness.
Life would be so much easier without doubt.
Unfortunately, the road upon which I have been set out is riddled with doubts. I believe, deliberately so, so that like Thomas, by working out these doubts, my belief will be the more sure.

I am not complaining. Everything I have needed has been provided when I was ready for it, and though I did not understand at the time, every turning on the way has been marked, even though often it seemed to be wrong. So now, I expect the unexpected.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The belief that Jesus’ human nature was what died, may not be of an immediate importance, but the heresies that spring from this belief are what can be catastrophic to one’s belief.

As you say, it was not the strange perception that did the damage, but rather the over zealous condemnation of that perception. Once people start shouting, it is difficult to get them to engage in quiet fruitful discussion. It is after all, only about perception.

But I’d like to know where Jesus clearly says that the nature of the Son of Man are of secondary importance

I gave the Matthew reference in posting #241.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

If one is truly wanting to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then yes it is a futile argument.

If one is truly trying to understand the nature and function of angels, then it is germane to the issue.

If we are trying to say that this was as close as they could get to explaining how little, or how much 3D space a hyperdimensional being could occupy, then that is fine, but again, it is only a matter of perception.

What reality is like is entirely another story.
Our Lord was remarkably woolly in describing what the Kingdom was like.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear NotWorthy,
How I envy your doubtlessness.
Life would be so much easier without doubt.
Unfortunately, the road upon which I have been set out is riddled with doubts. I believe, deliberately so, so that like Thomas, by working out these doubts, my belief will be the more sure.

I am not complaining. Everything I have needed has been provided when I was ready for it, and though I did not understand at the time, every turning on the way has been marked, even though often it seemed to be wrong. So now, I expect the unexpected.

Thanks for the kind words, Voco.

I’ve been blessed with never having doubts about Mother Church. I suffered through lack of conviction and ambivalence for the longest of times, but never doubts!

And I applaud anyone who feels akin to Thomas. I admire Thomas for his strength. Notice, in his doubting Thomas scene, that Thomas is **NOT **hiding in the upper room “for fear of the Jews”. He’s out and about. So does this mean he was simply hiding elsewhere? Well, Scripture doesn’t tell us, but It does hint at it. In John’s (or is it Marks?) Gospel, when Jesus says that he must now head to Jerusalem to be handed over to the Jews and be Crucified, it is Thomas that says, “Well, we might as well go and die with him”. (Paraphrasing).

I admire Thomas for his strength of character, in any event.

Keep up your search, Voco. You’ll find you answer.

 

[NotWorthy]

As you say, it was not the strange perception that did the damage, but rather the over zealous condemnation of that perception. Once people start shouting, it is difficult to get them to engage in quiet fruitful discussion. It is after all, only about perception.
I gave the Matthew reference in posting #241.

But that is not what I said. Or at least, what I was trying to say.

Beliefs that are a little off the mark often lead to beliefs that are way of the mark. Just look at the Protestant Reformation. How many of the off-shoots of the original reformers churches even closely resemble their reformant parents?

It’s like building a house on an uneven foundation (a rather appropriate analogy, wouldn’t you think?). Everything else is weakened the further and further you build.

 

[NotWorthy]

I gave the Matthew reference in posting #241.

Ahhhh, I get your point. But I repeat, what sins are forgiven that are not repented, first? Nestorius, if I recall, did not seek forgiveness while he was teaching in error.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But that is not what I said. Or at least, what I was trying to say.

Beliefs that are a little off the mark often lead to beliefs that are way of the mark. Just look at the Protestant Reformation. How many of the off-shoots of the original reformers churches even closely resemble their reformant parents?

It’s like building a house on an uneven foundation (a rather appropriate analogy, wouldn’t you think?). Everything else is weakened the further and further you build.

Dear NotWorthy,
The Death upon the Cross is a very deep mystery, and not one open to ‘Earthly’ logic, for if G_d died upon the cross, then there would be no G_d, for if the immortal G_d were to die, then how could the immortal G_d be resurrected, there would need to be a higher god. That is gnosticism.
This is surely a greater stumbling block that the perception that it was the humanity of Christ that died upon the Cross, than the Divinity of G_d.
Yes, Nestorius no doubt went too far, but some aspects of his teachings had a grain of truth in them, or at least some of his perceptions were well founded.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear NotWorthy,
The Death upon the Cross is a very deep mystery, and not one open to ‘Earthly’ logic, for if G_d died upon the cross, then there would be no G_d, for if the immortal G_d were to die, then how could the immortal G_d be resurrected, there would need to be a higher god. That is gnosticism.
This is surely a greater stumbling block that the perception that it was the humanity of Christ that died upon the Cross, than the Divinity of G_d.
Yes, Nestorius no doubt went too far, but some aspects of his teachings had a grain of truth in them, or at least some of his perceptions were well founded.

But every Protestant faith has some degree of truth. That doesn’t give them the right to spread heresy, now does it?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But every Protestant faith has some degree of truth. That doesn’t give them the right to spread heresy, now does it?

No, it does not.
But then, which teaching was heretical?
That there is a higher god to raise the immortal G_d from the dead, or that it was the humanity of Jesus that Died upon the Cross, and that G_d did not die, but yet that G_d shared the experience of death with the humanity of Jesus.
As with the protestants, Nestorius tried first to correct what he saw as error in Mother Church’s teaching, but having been cast out as a heretic, unjustly as he consciensiously believed, he went to teach what he saw as the truth.
The bottom line is follow your conscience, is it not?
To a degree, Mother Church has now accepted that at least some of the protestant causes had some justification.
What a pity that this enlightenment had to come after the fatal schisms.
I do not seek to support Henry VIII. Pox was the reason he failed to raise sons. And he murdered, for infidelity, so many wives. Let him without sin!
Let Mother Church learn from her disidents.
Seek the grain of truth among the chaff.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, it does not.
But then, which teaching was heretical?
That there is a higher god to raise the immortal G_d from the dead, or that it was the humanity of Jesus that Died upon the Cross, and that G_d did not die, but yet that G_d shared the experience of death with the humanity of Jesus.
As with the protestants, Nestorius tried first to correct what he saw as error in Mother Church’s teaching, but having been cast out as a heretic, unjustly as he consciensiously believed, he went to teach what he saw as the truth.
The bottom line is follow your conscience, is it not?

No, it is not. Jesus built a Church and entrusted Her, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to teach the truth. One’s conscience should trust this Promise and follow the guidance of the Church.

When one lets their conscience lead them astray, it can still lead to sin. For example, those that have changed their church’s teachings on contraception can often claim that they are following their consciences.

Besides, I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that “Blessed are they that follow their conscience”.

To a degree, Mother Church has now accepted that at least some of the protestant causes had some justification.

Such as? The only justifications I’ve seen have been regarding abuse of power, not error in teaching. And yet every Protestant branch has adopted at least some errors in their teachings. Or else they’d be Catholic!!!

What a pity that this enlightenment had to come after the fatal schisms.
I do not seek to support Henry VIII. Pox was the reason he failed to raise sons. And he murdered, for infidelity, so many wives. Let him without sin!
Let Mother Church learn from her disidents.
Seek the grain of truth among the chaff.

AMEN!!! And embrace the truth. But don’t change your teachings just to accommodate others. That’s a bastardized form of ecumenism.

 

[patrick457]

The bottom line is follow your conscience, is it not?

‘You follow your own conscience in what I believe to be true while I follow mine.’

Following that line of reasoning, I can go out, carry guns and explosives, shoot some people and drop grenades in buildings, then claim that I am ‘following my conscience in what I believe to be right’ as soon as the police comes.
‘People have a potential to do evil and I’m stopping them from becoming criminals, thus lessening the number of potential criminals the World’s got’, I’ll say. ‘Is that not just? Lessening the problems of this World so we can all live in peace?’

The Police may think I’m commiting homicide or something, but that’s what their conscience believes to be right; I’m following what my conscience thinks is right, and that is trying to rid the world of any evildoing, even using extreme means to achieve that goal.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No, it is not. Jesus built a Church and entrusted Her, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to teach the truth. One’s conscience should trust this Promise and follow the guidance of the Church.

Yes, I agree, conscience is a much abused word.
People have even used the word as an excuse for cowardice.

When one lets their conscience lead them astray, it can still lead to sin. For example, those that have changed their church’s teachings on contraception can often claim that they are following their consciences.

Besides, I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that “Blessed are they that follow their conscience”.Such as?

Well maybe not in as many words, but if we act in love, that is, diligence, then we are following his command that we love each-other, as he loved us, then that is surely following our conscience, that is, acting in knowledge, with knowledge, con/cum science, that we are doing Our Lords command.

The only justifications I’ve seen have been regarding abuse of power, not error in teaching. And yet every Protestant branch has adopted at least some errors in their teachings. Or else they’d be Catholic!!!

Abuse of power is error in teaching. We teach by example. If our example is in error, then the teaching is in error.
This is special pleading to back up the fallible claim of infallibility.
Everything in G_d’s Universe is imperfect. If it were not so, it could not exist.

AMEN!!! And embrace the truth. But don’t change your teachings just to accommodate others. That’s a bastardized form of ecumenism.

In a perfect world, your claim might just hold water, but everything is imperfect.
We can reduce the imperfections day by day, but never eliminate them.
Remember, I never called for setting aside the core values, but to allow for excressences to be treated as optional matters.
These are the FUNDAMENTALS. not the rubbish of fundamentalists, but the real truths upon which Christianity is built.
There are probably fewer than a dozen of these real fundamentals.
Most of them begin: 'Jesus said: " . . . . .

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

‘You follow your own conscience in what I believe to be true while I follow mine.’

Following that line of reasoning, I can go out, carry guns and explosives, shoot some people and drop grenades in buildings, then claim that I am ‘following my conscience in what I believe to be right’ as soon as the police comes.
‘People have a potential to do evil and I’m stopping them from becoming criminals, thus lessening the number of potential criminals the World’s got’, I’ll say. ‘Is that not just? Lessening the problems of this World so we can all live in peace?’

The Police may think I’m commiting homicide or something, but that’s what their conscience believes to be right; I’m following what my conscience thinks is right, and that is trying to rid the world of any evildoing, even using extreme means to achieve that goal.

As I said in my reply to NotWorthy,
conscience is a debased word.
I give you a paragraph from something you might recognise:

1. What norms must conscience always follow?

1789

There are three general norms: 1) one may never do evil so that good may result from it; 2) the so-called Golden Rule, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12); 3) charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience, even though this does not mean accepting as good something that is objectively evil.

You will see that all three general norms are built upon love.
Jesus said: “Love one-another, as I have loved you.”
Thus Jesus said: “Follow your conscience.”

 

[unacanta]

Who has the power to bind and loose? Jerome? Or the Catholic Church?

If you place any stock in scripture the believer does…

Mat18:18-19

18"Truly I say to you, (Q)whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

19"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, (R)it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

 

[lanceg]

If you place any stock in scripture the believer does…

Mat18:18-19

18"Truly I say to you, (Q)whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

19"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, (R)it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

WRONG!

It is the CATHOLIC CHURCH! Read the whole context:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

It is true that when 2-3 or three are gathered, Christ is in their midst, and I can agree with you in prayer (see next two verses).

But it is the authority of the Church being spoken of in this passage.

 

[Delphinus85]

I take great solice in the words in Sirach. My understanding is that LUTHER was the one who removed these from the “Lutheran” Bible.
Knowledgable Catholics, please weigh in!

I don’t think it is Luther who removed these. His translations were complete, and he frequently quoted from the removed books of the bible. I don’t htink they were taken out for at least a generation after him.