Why don't Protestants believe in purgatory?

[Abu]

PJM #280 [quoting my #266]

Originally Posted by Abu
There were no “Scriptures” readily available for many for over 1000 years until the printing press, and Jesus did not write a book – He founded His Catholic Church and that Church produced the Sacred Scriptures as part of Her teaching. Of course no one may falsify the Scriptures.

Nicely done Not sure about the 1,000 years though.

Thanks, PJM.

This is where our Protestant friends often are led astray as they do not know the facts of history concerning the Sacred Scriptures, as in much else.

See: catholicbridge.com/catholic/d…le_reading.php
This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue, CC and Mark Bonocore.
“The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a “Bible”. Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the “extra” books as they are called in Evangelical circles.

“So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it’s hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email and websites…

“After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610."

 

[Abu]

Wannano #282
What I am not clear on is the need for the Church to make the Apocrypha canonical in 1546? The answer is probably staring me in the face.

In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the book was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther’s Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments. To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defence, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testaments "with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition".
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

MichaelP3 #286
but what evidence do we have Peter ever even was in Rome. So if I believe the verse like CC, still no evidence Rome can claim him.

As Dr Warren H Carroll in *A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies:
The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

 

[PJM]

I can add this just to see where we come from

pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-the-apocrypha-scripture/

I’ll paste the conclusion if you don’t go through the effort in reading it, maybe just as a taster.

Conclusion

The above seven reasons build a compelling case that the Apocrypha should not be regarded as Scripture. All of this becomes very problematic for the Roman Catholic Church which has made a supposedly infallible declaration regarding the canonicity of the Apocrypha, a declaration which cannot be retracted. But what happens when the facts of history undermine the dogmatic position taken by Rome? And what is left of her infallibility if one of her “infallible” declarations is shown to be false?

To summarize: the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) did not accept the Apocrypha. Neither did Jesus or the writers of the New Testament. Neither did Jerome, major theologians, and even Roman Catholic scholars up until the time of the Reformation. It wasn’t until 1546 at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was officially and infallibly declared to be Scripture, as even admitted to by Roman Catholic sources. The Apocrypha cannot pass the test of propheticity and certain books even contain doctrinal and historical errors. This, of course, is not to say the Apocrypha is not useful. It certainly is. But it is not Scripture. And Protestants are in good standing with the historical evidence and historic position of the Church when they refuse to acknowledge the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.

And HERE my friend is what you and your “expert” source are mssing; by error or by intent:shrug:

For your position to be correct you have to choose form the following

[1] the bible is in factual error

[2] God lied

[3] Or the Church guided by the HOLY Spirit does not UNDERSTAND what the bible is saying.

So which is it my friend:shrug:

2nd Tim. 3:16-17
[16] All scripture, [IS] inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Matthew 4:4
Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God

Mt 16: 18-19
"[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,** and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it**. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Mt 28: 18-20
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

John 17:17-20
[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18]** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.** [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; Jesus who is God; cannot deny Himself

So my friend, help us out here.

Do you choose option #1, #2 or #3:shrug: Or perhaps there is another explanation that I’m missing

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

No problem interrupting, Pat, so do you disagree with Cardinal Cayetan (see post 269)?

Originally Posted by Abu View Post [POST #269]
There were no “Scriptures” readily available for many for over 1000 years until the printing press, and Jesus did not write a book – He founded His Catholic Church and that Church produced the Sacred Scriptures as part of Her teaching. Of course no one may falsify the Scriptures.
**
The problem of “Biblical Differences” arises from the loss of the reality that Christ did not give us the Bible but His Church,** and She authorised and gave us the Sacred Scriptures and no one has any authority to remove or add any book"

NO, friend that is a wrong articulation of the FACTS

The Bible is the INSPIRED WORDS of God: Amen!

Matthew 4:4
Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

2nd. Tim. 3:16-17
[16] All scripture, [IS] inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work

If the Bible is ANYTHING Less than the inspired WORDS of God; how does one explain Martyrdom? How does one explain a 2,000 YEAR OLD CC?**

If the Bible is NOT the Inspired WORD of God it us worthless; a sham, a fraud and so is god and faith.

TRUE the Bible IS a Catholic book
By which is meant that the CC “birthed the bible” all-the-while being GUIDED by the Holy Spirit; who did NOT dictate it; RATHER made proof-positive that ALL that GOD desired in teachings WAS included in it.

The CC selected under Divine Inspiration the OT books to be included; AND it was men known TODAY to have been among the 1st Catholics who AUTHORED the ENTIRE NT:thumbsup:

So YES it was the CC that gives to the World the Bible; BUT doing so GUIDED by the HS; God Himself

So to claim that Christ [ie. GOD] did NOT give us the Bible is a GROSS and mistaken notion. Of COURSE the Bible is Christ WORK. Amen

Patrick

 

[PJM]

No problem interrupting, Pat, so do you disagree with Cardinal Cayetan (see post 269)?

PLEASE SEE POST #300:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Refer to post 269 again.it is the third paragraph from the bottom with quotation marks with a quote by the Cardinal.

Also take the time to read post 270 the link to “please convince me”
It is so interesting.

Do I agree with this Cardinal [a precursor to today’s “Kasperites”]. **NO I do NOT to either of them.

NEITHER IS EMPOWERED TO SPEAK WITH PAPAL AUTHORITY; THERE OPINIONS WERE AND ARE THERE-OWN NO BINDING AUTHORITY AT ALL**

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage”

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cardinal_Cajetan … A NON-CATHOLIC SOURCE BTW

Cajetan was Master General of the Dominican order, a Cardinal, and the trusted adviser of Pope Clement VII. Extremely intelligent and highly educated, his primary concern was to uphold the Roman Catholic church and the status of the Pope. He defended the doctrine of papal infallibility against the Council of Pisa and at the Fifth Lateran Council. His works included commentaries on Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and onAristotle, and several treatises directed against Martin Luther. He sought intelligent solutions to some of the questions raised by Catholic doctrines,** often startling conservatives with his independence of judgment.** Recognizing that a deeper knowledge of the Scriptures was necessary in order to fight the Reformers, during the latter part of his life he produced a translation, with commentaries, of the greater part of the Old and the New Testaments.

He is not to be confused with his contemporary, Saint Cajetan, the founder of the Theatines.end quote]

Amen!

God Bless you, nice try though

 

[PJM]

PJM #280 [quoting my #266]

Thanks, PJM.

This is where our Protestant friends often are led astray as they do not know the facts of history concerning the Sacred Scriptures, as in much else.

See: catholicbridge.com/catholic/d…le_reading.php
This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue, CC and Mark Bonocore.
“The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a “Bible”. Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the “extra” books as they are called in Evangelical circles.

“So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it’s hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email and websites…

“After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610."

GREAT POST!

Thanks!

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[MichaelP3]

My friend, just a necessary clarification to your comments.

NOT ALL Catholic teaching LACKS Infallibility

Each of the following is Jesus specific; precise and exclusive to His Catholic Church through His Apostles [Mt 10:1-8 compared to Mt 28:19-20]

Mt 16:18-19
" 18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever** thou shalt loose** upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Jn 17: 17-20
[17] Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. [19] And for THEM do I sanctify myself, thatTHEY also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not **for them **only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;" [Amen!]

Dear friend this is Jesus / God and He cannot Deny Himself:thumbsup:

Mt 28: 19-20
"[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Bible affirms and confirms that GOD; ist page to last page always and without exception taught:

One True God

Just One Set of faith beliefs [which GOD could not have waited for Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin or anyone else . more than a thousand years after the TEACHINGS were identified, defined and guided by the Holy Spirit, lived and practiced:shrug:

And Just One “Chosen People” Exo. 6:7 ; which Jesus termed “MY CHURCH” [above in Mt 16:18]

Infallibility is sadly not rightfully understood.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Okay so I changed my emails notifications to once a week not to be tempted, but I will have a look once in a while. I will work from the top as I see many new posts. Please let me know if I miss anything. I am not dodging.

So to the post

Wait hang on? "NOT ALL Catholic teaching LACKS Infallibility ". What do you mean by this? So not all lack to be true. So some are? I talked about Luther being Fallible, forgive me but htis statement seems the other way around.

I have addressed Matthew and you would need to clarify on John to state what I should have to read into it. No God/Jesus can not. I’m not seeing the problem.

On Mt 28: 19-20
"[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I think I am seeing the problem. I see the verse. I agree with it. But you are assuming I agree that Apostles = Catholic Church. So I say YOU does not equal “Catholic Church” This is not an obvious assumption and maybe we need to address that first before that verse can just be used as a proof? Seriously no offence but it seems like we are running into this the whole time? Is this a new argument? As history led me to believe otherwise. I grew up thinking the Catholic Church was there all along. But I didn’t know much then. I am challenging that concept now knowing better.

“Just One Set of faith beliefs [which GOD could not have waited for Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin or anyone else . more than a thousand years after the TEACHINGS were identified, defined and guided by the Holy Spirit, lived and practiced:shrug:” [/COLOR]

Not that this is my point. But we know very well from the old Testament that God tends to wait and take His time as He pleases. But this would be me assuming Catholics aren’t Christians. Not to offend, just a thought. God waiting is not an argument. Fact is, it happened. Who are we going to blame? (Please don’t say the devil)

Infallibility is sadly not rightfully understood.

This is a topic I would seriously like to get into. As I think that’s where most of our problems are.

Regards
Michael

 

[Abu]

MichaelP3 #304
On Mt 28: 19-20
"[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I think I am seeing the problem. I see the verse. I agree with it. But you are assuming I agree that Apostles = Catholic Church. So I say YOU does not equal “Catholic Church” This is not an obvious assumption and maybe we need to address that first before that verse can just be used as a proof?

The error here is that although the Apostles are obviously in Christ’s’ (“MY”) Church and the head is obviously Peter, the realisation that the Catholic Church is THIS SAME Church is lacking.

But this is a matter of history:
Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

“Infallibility is sadly not rightfully understood.”
This is a topic I would seriously like to get into. As I think that’s where most of our problems are.

That’s where your problem lies.

How could the Christ not mean that His OWN Church could NOT teach error when having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

The reason for the dogma on infallibility came with the culmination in Gallicanism of contrary stances. When a truth in the Church is challenged, She may deem it necessary to define it as dogma or doctrine.

 

[MichaelP3]

The error here is that although the Apostles are obviously in Christ’s’ (“MY”) Church and the head is obviously Peter, the realisation that the Catholic Church is THIS SAME Church is lacking.

This is of some concern? Explain to me Peter? Biblical it doesn’t make sense. And historical even less. Just saying “Obviously” is not doing it. You are assuming. Convince me then. Tell me something I haven’t heard/read before?

I just asked my Fiancee, “When you were Catholic, did you assume all Protestants agree with this claim? She told me " well that’s a good question. I mean it seemed so obvious and everyone said so” Well my dear friend. That is where we are still sitting. I challenge you to convince me. This history and Bible does not agree to this. Or at the very least affirm this. Thus a non-issue. Forgive me but every “proof” I receive, requires an assumption. And forgive me, but my line of work, assumptions result in death. We rather not go that route.

But this is a matter of history:
Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

We all know catholic means Universal and Catholic means the Roman Church. This is a non-issue. Nothing new here.

That’s where your problem lies.

How could the Christ not mean that His OWN Church could NOT teach error when having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

I think we are still struggling, maybe choose another topic that corresponds with history?

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

The reason for the dogma on infallibility came with the culmination in Gallicanism of contrary stances. When a truth in the Church is challenged, She may deem it necessary to define it as dogma or doctrine.

Yeah this is a good topic. One I would still want to get into. But then the questions on the other should end. Papal Infallibility is one of my most favourite research topics. Keep a note, will get to it sometime. I just think it will be a lengthy one.

Regards dear Abu
Michael

Oh dear. My answers are in the quote. Sorry

 

[MichaelP3]

Are you sure it was post 269? I REREAD it and could not find * why you alluded too.

This quote is from that POST by Michael

IT’s NOT unless you speak of some verbiage changes?

Use this FREE site to check out the

Latin Vulgate [Jerome’s Bible] & the Douay Rheims English Translation of the EARLY 16th Century; about 50 years before the KJB

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/*

The ANSWER to you precise question though is the KING James 63 BOOK Bible with its revisions, 7-book-deletions and alterations.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

I suspect a typo.

You are 71? Okay sorry. If we had a face to face conversation I would probably have a different tone. My dad didn’t even make it to 60. Although I maybe missed some of your parts. Will get back to you.

I’ll have a look at the site.

Michael

 

[Abu]

MichaelP3 #306
This is of some concern? Explain to me Peter? Biblical it doesn’t make sense. And historical even less. Just saying “Obviously” is not doing it. You are assuming. Convince me then. Tell me something I haven’t heard/read before?

If you choose to disregard the Sacred Scriptures with the emphatic establishment of Christ’s own Church historically, while providing no reasonable rebuttal except “it doesn’t make sense” – that’s a problem you have created for yourself.

Christ warned all who would not listen to Him.

Where do you see Christ failing?

 

[MichaelP3]

Continued from above

Why indeed?

There are multiple teachings found in Matthew not found anywhere else. BUT note please NONE of this is disputed ANYWHERE else in the Bible…

I have a document that I can send you on PETER FIRST that list some 50 different cases that prove Peters position was [1] God’s intent [2] Understood and accepted by ALL of the other 11 Apostles. Send me a private message if you want it?

James was the 1st BISHOP of Jerusalem; While Peter was [IS] the LEADER we now call a “Pope.”

Please read carefully:
Isa. 22:15-25
Heb. 8: 7-10
Acts 1: 15-25

Havent heard this one in awhile.

He and PAUL BOTH died in Rome

Go to www.newadvent.org
Select “P”
Go to Peter and read about it; then if doubtful GOOGLE:

WHERE DID ST PETER DIE

It’s even secular history:shrug:

Blessings,

Patrick

I remembered this post. Had to search again. Seems like only being active in 2 threads are a lot.

Okay so please send me that document. I would like to have a look.

I know James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Who had a very authoritative stance here. While Peter was present. I do get the understanding. Maybe not the message?

Isaiah 22:15-25King James Version (KJV)

15 Thus saith the Lord God of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, and say,

16 What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?

17 Behold, the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house.

19 And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it.

Hebrews 8:7-10King James Version (KJV)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Acts 1:15-25King James Version (KJV)

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

I pasted the parts here. Please direct me to what I need to see. As I don’t.

I will have a look at that website about St Peter

Regards
Michael

 

[MichaelP3]

If you choose to disregard the Sacred Scriptures with the emphatic establishment of Christ’s own Church historically, while providing no reasonable rebuttal except “it doesn’t make sense” – that’s a problem you have created for yourself.

Christ warned all who would not listen to Him.

Where do you see Christ failing?

I believe I addressed a Catholic Sacred Scripture understanding on this. How I understand it, is for you to reply to that. Then we can go forward. Currently I have not much to reply to regarding that?

I would If I have something.

Michael

 

[MichaelP3]

PJM #280 [quoting my #266]

Thanks, PJM.

This is where our Protestant friends often are led astray as they do not know the facts of history concerning the Sacred Scriptures, as in much else.

See: catholicbridge.com/catholic/d…le_reading.php
This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue, CC and Mark Bonocore.
“The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a “Bible”. Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the “extra” books as they are called in Evangelical circles.

“So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it’s hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email and websites…

“After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610."

Well that’s my whole point. I was talking about the historical facts of Sacred Scripture. And that is where I was challenging you. So let us see

So firstly this means we assume the “Bible” is a literal book, binded and so forth? A parchment doesn’t count? Or maybe I’m understanding wrong but then the first part of the quote doesn’t count.

Stained glassed windows, also why Luther got the Hymns into circulation. So many more people can know. Still not a point…

I am not sure if this was this thread, but haven’t we covered why they could have been in the Bible? Just like Jerome said? And let me sound Catholic just for a taste (What authority did Gutenberg have)? I was actually next to his statue in Vienna. Beautiful city.

Of the vernacular paragraph, I don’t see a quotation mark. So I’m not sure if you are underestimating may understanding of the word, or it’s part of the quote? Point is, I know this. Dont see the point? (Though, I wonder about the number 20, and Condemning them.? You mean there were other people unhappy?)

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610."

Interesting point. I never really looked into the Douay-Rheims Translation. Will do so. (But I’m leaning towards that we still won’t find any doctrinal differences)

Regards

Maybe I should sleep. It’s 3:19 AM

 

[Abu]

MichaelP3 #311
So firstly this means we assume the “Bible” is a literal book, binded and so forth? A parchment doesn’t count? Or maybe I’m understanding wrong but then the first part of the quote doesn’t count.

Few had a “Bible” even into the Middle Ages as each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate.

Fact: which means there were relatively few copies of the complete Sacred Scriptures.

The word Bible is NOT in the Bible which is a collection of the writings deemed the Sacred Scriptures and authorised only by the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not write the Sacred Scriptures but gave us His Catholic Church which with His authority declared which of the writings were the inspired Word of God and comprise the Sacred Scriptures. The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were authorized by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament – clearly showing the authority of Christ’s Church, and culminating in the defined Canon of the Council of Trent.

I am not sure if this was this thread, but haven’t we covered why they could have been in the Bible? Just like Jerome said?

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Sept 17, 2010 (EWTN):
“The first Bible translated from Hebrew & Greek by St. Jerome in 400 AD had all 46 OT + 27 NT as did the Latin Guttenburg Bible of the 15th c. Only Protestant Bibles from 16th c. to today are missing the 7 books. But 2/3 of the world’s Jews at that time (3rd c. BC, from 250-100 BC) lived outside the Holy Land and were more literate in Greek than Hebrew. Christians from the time of the Apostles and during Jesus’ time knew and accepted these 7 books, hence their presence in St. Jerome’s Bible and every other Bible until Luther. IRONICALLY these 7 books were in the ORIGINAL King James Bible but Parliament removed them in subsequent editions.”

Nearly all of the errors of Protestants arise from fallen human nature not assenting to the fact that the Christ established His Catholic Church on St Peter, that She unerringly gave us and authorised the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and that no one can decide against the teaching of Christ’s Church without denying those facts.

 

[guanophore]

Our “Perfection” is the business of our Shepherd if we trust in HIM. Ps23 says " The Lord is my shepherd, there is nothing I shall want". We shall not be left wanting for perfection. 1Cor.1:8 says “Who shall confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Jude 24 and Phil.1:6 also confirm this. This is what the weight of scripture is saying.

Yes, of course. It is He that is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure. At the end of this life, His love cleanses us from all that is left in us that falls short of His purity, because nothing unclean can enter heaven. We are purged from all attachment to sin, and all that yet is carnal in us.

 

[MichaelP3]

Few had a “Bible” even into the Middle Ages as each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate.

Not sure what I should take from this, rather that many couldn’t read and just had to believe what they were told. And later on more started to read and have a Bible available and BAM, Reformation.

Fact: which means there were relatively few copies of the complete Sacred Scriptures. OK, sure I just covered that

The word Bible is NOT in the Bible which is a collection of the writings deemed the Sacred Scriptures and authorised only by the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not write the Sacred Scriptures but gave us His Catholic Church which with His authority declared which of the writings were the inspired Word of God and comprise the Sacred Scriptures. The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were authorized by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament – clearly showing the authority of Christ’s Church, and culminating in the defined Canon of the Council of Trent.
Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Sept 17, 2010 (EWTN):
“The first Bible translated from Hebrew & Greek by St. Jerome in 400 AD had all 46 OT + 27 NT as did the Latin Guttenburg Bible of the 15th c. Only Protestant Bibles from 16th c. to today are missing the 7 books. But 2/3 of the world’s Jews at that time (3rd c. BC, from 250-100 BC) lived outside the Holy Land and were more literate in Greek than Hebrew. Christians from the time of the Apostles and during Jesus’ time knew and accepted these 7 books, hence their presence in St. Jerome’s Bible and every other Bible until Luther. IRONICALLY these 7 books were in the ORIGINAL King James Bible but Parliament removed them in subsequent editions.”

Hey friend. We covered Jerome. Rather go and read that convince me website I posted previously. The link. Or read what I said about Jerome through the thread. I addressed these point. Simply asking them again will only make me copy and paste my previous response.

Ironically Anglicanism Developed parallel with with Lutheranism and using that KJV part that is should mean anything to this context, it just proves my point. As soon as they could think for themselves without fear of Romes wrath, they too realised later on they were misled. Thanks for the pointer.

An argument saying the word Bible is not in the Bible is really not a good one and you know it. I’m not the one arguing the word purgatory isn’t in there and just by that very fact it doesn’t exist.

All the text in Bold I would say are my problems with the statement. Firstly I am still not convinced of this authority thing. By just saying it was so does not make it so. Come with evidence that makes sense. You are saying the same thing over and over.

And another Catholic argued when I used Carthage that it was regional and therefore not accepted by the “universal” church. And now we must use Carthage. And have a look at Rome, Barely anyone eve attended because they had more important things to do in Constantinople and this proves the Bishop of Romes Authority??? You should understand it is not doing it for me then.

Nearly all of the errors of Protestants arise from fallen human nature not assenting to the fact that the Christ established His Catholic Church on St Peter, that She unerringly gave us and authorised the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and that no one can decide against the teaching of Christ’s Church without denying those facts.

That opinion doesn’t state anything except assumptions and perceptions. I can also start a sentence "Nearly all of the errors of Catholicism arise from … but it would also not say much. So I rather not go with that route. Maybe you should too

 

[Abu]

MichaelP3 #314
I am still not convinced of this authority thing. By just saying it was so does not make it so. Come with evidence that makes sense. You are saying the same thing over and over.

Because you know nothing of Christ and His Church, and because nearly all of the errors arise from fallen human nature not assenting to the fact that the Christ established His Catholic Church on St Peter, that She unerringly gave us and authorised the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and that no one can decide against the teaching of Christ’s Church without denying those facts.

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus we see that Jesus very specifically formed His Church, and no other, on Peter the leader of the twelve Apostles. Further, the Sacred Scriptures emphasise:
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1). St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

Jesus, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Such are the facts of history as so many have denied because of their erroneous fantasies.

 

[MichaelP3]

Because you know nothing of Christ and His Church, and because nearly all of the errors arise from fallen human nature not assenting to the fact that the Christ established His Catholic Church on St Peter, that She unerringly gave us and authorised the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and that no one can decide against the teaching of Christ’s Church without denying those facts.

Didn’t you just say this, except for the bold part?

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

Didn’t I already address this?

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Again, assuming He was speaking solely to Catholics

Thus we see that Jesus very specifically formed His Church, and no other, on Peter the leader of the twelve Apostles. Further, the Sacred Scriptures emphasise:
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

Couldn’t agree more, except for the assuming part as in bold

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1). St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

I could quote this passage to you, but I thought it would seem rude

Jesus, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Can only interpret this as you do by making the assumption in Bold

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Again, this will be assuming if you want to use it against me

Such are the facts of history as so many have denied because of their erroneous fantasies.

My friend. You seem pretty heated? And why not reply to the entire message. Or was the fact that I don’t understand Christ the reply? If such, I think you should stand back and let me talk to the people whom we actually “talk” and not just get out like that. And maybe take some time to cool and come back in a more “proper” way.

You are welcome to read my messages though. But our messages to each other are rather fruitless.

Regards