Why so much emphasis on Catholicism specifically?

[ERose]

Dear Quenched;

I would like to start off with what we can agree upon. I do agree with you that even though I am Catholic and you are Anglican and we also have brothers and sisters in Christ from other communities that we should work together making this world a better place by bringing Christ into this world by teaching and works of charity. We as Christians should work diligently to follow in the footsteps of our savior everyday. For anywhere we can find unity amongst ourselves it needs to be emphasized.

But concerning apologetics this is a different matter all together. The goal of each Christian personally is to learn as much about our God as we possibly can. Our goal should be the Truth.

The Truth is what Jesus taught his Apostles. The Truth is what the Apostles taught the early Christians. The True Church teaches what it learned from the Apostles who learned it from Jesus. So the Truth illuminates the true Church and the true path of salvation. Christ taught that the Truth will set you free.

I guess the best way to explain it is through this analogy: If you had a dozen people given maps for somewhere. The map for the first person has a line drawn that correctly shows how to get to the destination. The next person’s map has a similar line drawn but during the drawing of the line the ink was smeared or the line followed a different path. The next person’s map was marred even worse and so on to the last map.

In your opinion who has the best chance of finding the destination and who has the worst chance. The first person has the best chance for he/she has the true map. The last person has the worst chance for he/she has the map with the greater amount of mistakes. Now in this analogy, I am not saying that only the first person can find the destination, he/she has the best map.

What I am saying is that the truer your knowledge of the teaching of Christ the better chance you have in following the path he taught. Start taking out some of this teaching or corrupting it then the path becomes harder to see.

That is why we Catholics, who believe we are members of the True Church and can back this by Historical proof, believe that these christian communites provide a disservice to the Christians that are members of them for they do not teach the whole truth.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is a very accurate statement!!! The Church had preached Catholic Doctrine for 100’s of years, and then made the Scriptures official in accordance with those teachings.

So, OS, what are you missing there, buddy?

***I’m sure glad we agree here. Actually the New Testament, as we know it, was already received by all the Catholic churches by 150 A.D. (Don’t misinterpret what I mean by Catholic Church here. I mean the Universal Church of God. Certainly not the Roman Catholic Church because it didn’t exist then.)

All the churches had the writings already and the 27 books were being preached in all the churches. There is no record of any other books being preached prior to 150 A.D., even though we know other books existed. Only the heretics used them.

The methodology for selecting the books for the canon was as follows:

1. Prophetic nature and apostolicity comprises canonicity.
2. The body of Christ a\ recognizes the books as canon.
3. God alone determines what the canon was to be.

Many people believe that the Septuagint included the Apocrypha books but we don’t know that. The oldest copy of the Septuagint dates back to only 400 A.D. and we don’t have the original. We actually have 3 copies and they don’t agree. All 3 copies are different. They did not agree on the books even then, as inclusion in the Septuagint.

Philo was one who never quoted from the Apocrypha, and none of the apostles did either. Melito, Bishop of Sardis had the oldest copy of the text, 170 A.D., and to be sure it was correct, he went to Jerusalem, the center of Christianity, in order to find out if the 27 books were correct. He only had the proto-canonical books.

Even the RCC called the Apocryphal books deutero-canonical until the Council of Trent and most scholars believe the only reason they were accepted then was to prove some of the doctrines already adopted by the Roman Church.

Incidentally the reason the Roman Catholics did not want to accept 2 Peter was that it did not agree with their doctrine. Eventually, as we all know, they accepted it anyhow.

I wish all Catholics today would do more reading of the early church fathers’ writings and see that what they wrote did not include many of the doctrines and dogmas the Roman Catholic Church teaches and uses today. Those doctrines and dogmas came after Rome took over the Christian Church. That is what Martin Luther wanted to combat.

After the Roman Catholic Church locked away the Bible from the average person, they forbade anyone to read it and it was that way for hundreds of years. Eventually, by pressure from so many, they relented but even today they do not recommend individuals reading it.

If we could eliminate all those things that are not scriptural, then the Roman Catholic Church would be THE Church and we would all belong. But it is hard to accept the concept of the Papacy, Marioltry, purgatory, Assumption and perpetual virginity of Mary and the other doctrines and dogmas Protestants say are not scriptural. I keep challenging Catholics to prove those things are scriptural but I get no takers.

We are not all so far apart as most people think.

And I would like to comment on sola scriptura***, most Catholics have the wrong impression. Certainly we believe tradition is important to our faith but when tradition contradicts or ignores scripture, then we believe it is false. Even the early church fathers believed that and it is still true today.

Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is the only infallible word of God we have. Nothing that cannot be proved by Scripture is false. Protestants use tradition to prove Scripture. We do not ignore it.

If more Catholics would simply read scripture, we would all have a much easier time with each other.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m sure glad we agree here. Actually the New Testament, as we know it, was already received by all the Catholic churches by 150 A.D. (Don’t misinterpret what I mean by Catholic Church here. I mean the Universal Church of God. Certainly not the Roman Catholic Church because it didn’t exist then.)

You are kidding me? What do you thing Popes Clement and Victor were doing?***

All the churches had the writings already and the 27 books were being preached in all the churches. There is no record of any other books being preached prior to 150 A.D., even though we know other books existed.

*****This is blatantly false. The Church in Corinth was reading from St. Clement’s letters as if it were Scripture. The Shepherd of Hermes was thought to be Scriptural and was being read.

Note, don’t ignore the fact that the 46 OT books were being read in the Liturgy as well (not 39, OS!).

Also, The Lettter to the Hebrews was being used in the Eastern Church but it was not accepted in the Western Church for some 100-150 years later.**

Only the heretics used them.

You’ll have to be more specific. Which heretics?***

The methodology for selecting the books for the canon was as follows:

1. Prophetic nature and apostolicity comprises canonicity.

1. The body of Christ a\ recognizes the books as canon.

1. God alone determines what the canon was to be.

*****No, OS, as with most other things, God worked through humans to do this. God was divinely guiding His Church, as he has for nearly 2000 years.

BTW, how long has your Church been around?!? Have you celebrated your 50th anniversary yet?!?*****

Many people believe that the Septuagint included the Apocrypha books but we don’t know that. The oldest copy of the Septuagint dates back to only 400 A.D. and we don’t have the original. We actually have 3 copies and they don’t agree. All 3 copies are different. They did not agree on the books even then, as inclusion in the Septuagint.

T****his statement is so full of it, it’s not even worth commenting on.

Philo was one who never quoted from the Apocrypha, and none of the apostles did either. Melito, Bishop of Sardis had the oldest copy of the text, 170 A.D., and to be sure it was correct, he went to Jerusalem, the center of Christianity, in order to find out if the 27 books were correct. He only had the proto-canonical books.

*****Philo and Melito do not make up the Church Magisterium.

That’s Catholic-speak for, “And your point is…?”*****

Even the RCC called the Apocryphal books deutero-canonical until the Council of Trent and most scholars believe the only reason they were accepted then was to prove some of the doctrines already adopted by the Roman Church.

They are still called Deuterocanonical, even to this day by the Catholic Church. Where are you getting this bit of mis-information from anyway? The fact that they are deuterocanonical still means they are Canonical.

Incidentally the reason the Roman Catholics did not want to accept 2 Peter was that it did not agree with their doctrine. Eventually, as we all know, they accepted it anyhow.

*****And why is that?!? Because it agreed with their Roman Catholic Doctrine.

Let’s look at two bits of conflicting information that you have tried to pass on, OS.

A) The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 5th or 6th century.

B) The Roman Catholic Church (in the 390’s - hence the 4th century) decreed that 2nd Peter was canonical even though She had trouble reconciling it with Her doctrine.

A) and B) can not both be true, OS, because your time-lines are off. If you’re going to belittle the Roman Catholic Church, please be consistent in your dates, my friend.*****

Continued…***

 

[NotWorthy]

… Continued

---

I wish all Catholics today would do more reading of the early church fathers’ writings and see that what they wrote did not include many of the doctrines and dogmas the Roman Catholic Church teaches and uses today. Those doctrines and dogmas came after Rome took over the Christian Church. That is what Martin Luther wanted to combat.

Start and new thread and let the Truth come out!!!

---

**After the Roman Catholic Church locked away the Bible from the average person, they forbade anyone to read it and it was that way for hundreds of years. **

You really need to cancel your subscription to "Jack Chick Monthly". :tsktsk: You’re really wasting your money. I think you’ll find more accurate information if you subscribe to “UFO Conspiracy Theories”.

The Average person could not read!!! The average “lettered” person could read Latin first, and only then maybe the Vernacular, which changed as much as the weather or the next invasion, whichever came first. Hence, by keeping the Bible in Latin, a vast majority of lettered people were able to read the Bible. The Church opened up the Bible to the widest amount of people possible.But even with that said, did you ever wonder the real reason the Church kept the Bible in Latin - I’ll give you a hint, it doesn’t involve any Jesuit Conspiracies.

Eventually, by pressure from so many, they relented but even today they do not recommend individuals reading it.

The only time the Church recommended individuals from reading the Bible was when individuals were mis-interpreting it. If the Bible is so easy to read and interpret, my friend, how come there are so many religions that are all based solely on the Bible.***

If we could eliminate all those things that are not scriptural, then the Roman Catholic Church would be THE Church and we would all belong. But it is hard to accept the concept of the Papacy, Marioltry, purgatory, Assumption and perpetual virginity of Mary and the other doctrines and dogmas Protestants say are not scriptural. I keep challenging Catholics to prove those things are scriptural but I get no takers.

Please start a new thread on each topic individually. PM me when you do. I’ll gladly take you on. While we’re at it, we’ll discuss the Scriptural Basis for Church Authority - something you Protestants seem to have ignored.

We are not all so far apart as most people think.

Congratulations. That’s the first true statement I’ve found in your post. We actually are closer than most people realize. It will happen someday. All the lost sheep will return home to Rome. This I pray every day.

And I would like to comment on sola scriptura

***, most Catholics have the wrong impression. Certainly we believe tradition is important to our faith but when tradition contradicts or ignores scripture, then we believe it is false. Even the early church fathers believed that and it is still true today.**I believe this to be true. But you mistake the role of the Church Fathers. They accurately portray Apostolic Doctrine.

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it ends up to be “Sola Verse-ura”. Someone locks onto one verse taken out of context, and developes a whole new theology based on it. Take those that believe in “Double Pre-destination” and use Ephesians to justify it. Those that do have no clue what the context is of Paul’s Epistle to the Church’s in Ephesus.*****

Sola Scriptura

---

simply means that Scripture is the only infallible word of God we have. Nothing that cannot be proved by Scripture is false. Protestants use tradition to prove Scripture. We do not ignore it.

That’s totally incorrect as you’ve proved by your previous posts on the subject of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Ireneaus.***

If more Catholics would simply read scripture, we would all have a much easier time with each other.

***Yeah, just think of the numerous new religious sects we’d have if more Catholics ignored Church Tradition and adhered to Sola Scriptura. If you Protestants can come up with 100’s or 1000’s, we Catholics would be able to produce about 10 times those numbers. No thanks, OS.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You are kidding me? What do you thing Popes Clement and Victor were doing?***

Just give me a written quote from the first or second century calling Clement a pope.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My question is this: why does Catholic Answers spend so much of its energies addressing/refuting Protestant Christianity?

Your question reminds me of a sign in a zoo, “This animal is vicious. When attacked, it defends itself.”

We get a lot of attacks here from Protestants, and we refute them – what should we do, agree with them?

 

[Old_Scholar]

NotWorthy

***Regarding the edict to not allow the average person to read the Bible, read this from the Synod of Toulouse:

Synod of Toulouse: “Canon 14: Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.” (A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (Rev. Edward Landon. M.A., 1909, Edinburgh, v2, pp. 171-2)

Are you telling me this is not true? It was almost 12 centuries this was forbidden.***

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your question reminds me of a sign in a zoo, “This animal is vicious. When attacked, it defends itself.”

We get a lot of attacks here from Protestants, and we refute them – what should we do, agree with them?

***You must remember this is a forum to defend the Catholic faith and to do so, it must be discussed. Questions must be asked and answered and more questions. There are many who are not very knowledgeable reading these forums, and maybe their faith will be strengthened, or corrected—whatever the case may be.

Don’t forget as well, many may take a “devil’s advocate” approach in order to get certain subjects discussed.***

 

[vern_humphrey]

***You must remember this is a forum to defend the Catholic faith and to do so, it must be discussed. Questions must be asked and answered and more questions. There are many who are not very knowledgeable reading these forums, and maybe their faith will be strengthened, or corrected—whatever the case may be.

Don’t forget as well, many may take a “devil’s advocate” approach in order to get certain subjects discussed.***

But that requires a true scholar – someone who relies on primary sources, not large colored type.

 

[lak611]

NotWorthy

***Regarding the edict to not allow the average person to read the Bible, read this from the Synod of Toulouse:

Synod of Toulouse: “Canon 14: Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.” (A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (Rev. Edward Landon. M.A., 1909, Edinburgh, v2, pp. 171-2)

Are you telling me this is not true? It was almost 12 centuries this was forbidden.***

This is bunk. Only one particular heretical translation of the Bible was banned, not all translations. From this source:

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.

 

[epostle]

NotWorthy

***Regarding the edict to not allow the average person to read the Bible, read this from the Synod of Toulouse:

Synod of Toulouse: “Canon 14: Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.” (A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (Rev. Edward Landon. M.A., 1909, Edinburgh, v2, pp. 171-2)

Are you telling me this is not true? It was almost 12 centuries this was forbidden.***

Old Scholar, I beg of you to stop bearing false witness against us with such brutal sadism, scourging us with out-of-context quotes.

Yes, literally, those few lines are true but not in your myopic view. Toulouse was a single diocese where the Christian faith was threatened by the Abigensians and the Manicheans who were promoting their heresies by using Bibles in the “vulgar tongue”, meaning vernacular translations. Serious problems demanded serious measures. Latin, the universal language, was the preferred translation of the Bible, but vernacular translations were not forbidden, but considered vulgar in the sense that the LatinVulgate was and still is, the closest to the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Typically, anti-Catholic bigots have no use for the facts of history, let alone proper context of anything Catholic.

This particular assault on real Catholic teaching is not that popular among hate cultists, so it surprises me there are only 2 or 3 links where your quote is found. You must spend an enormous amount of energy looking for ways to discredit the Church.

Anti-Catholicism has always seemed to have at its heart anger, pride and fear: Anger stemming perhaps from a futile search for humanly graspable (apart from grace) evidence of God’s authority among men, too much pride to admit there could be anything or anyone greater than ones self and an ill-founded fear that authority means domination, so great energy is expended on denial. In the end, its lack of coherence and charity bears witness that whatever anti-Catholicism is, it is not conducive to improving the lot of mankind or even of the individual who embraces it.

Old Scholar, I challenge you to examine what the Church’s position on individual Bible reading with a modicum of honesty. To further rebut your hateful charge, I will restrict myself up to the 12th century.

Furthermore, I urge you to stop reading spiritual pornography published by hate cultists, its an addiction and destructive to the soul.

 

[epostle]

St. John Chrysostom (344/354 -407 AD)
Doctor of the Church.

“To become adult Christians you must learn familiarity with the scriptures”
[On the Letter to the Ephesians - Education of Children.]

“But what is the answer to these charges? ‘I am not,’ you will say, ‘one of the monks, but I have both a wife and children, and the care of a household.’ This is what has ruined everything, your thinking that the reading of scripture is for monks only, when you need it more than they do. Those who are placed in the world, and who receive wounds every day have the most need of medicine. So, far worse even than not reading the scriptures is the idea that they are superfluous. Such things were invented by the devil.”
[St. John’s Second Homily on Matthew section 10 (which is sometimes labeled as section 5.) ]

Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD)
“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.”
[Letters, 5, 46. (EnchBibl 31)]

St. Isidore (560-636 AD)
Bishop and Doctor of the Church

“Prayer purifies us, reading instructs us… If a man wants to be always in God’s company, he must pray regularly and read regularly. When we pray, we talk to God; when we read, God talks to us.

“All spiritual growth comes from reading and reflection. By reading we learn what we did not know; by reflection we retain what we have learned.
**
“Reading the holy Scriptures (the Bible) confers two benefits. It trains the mind to understand them; it turns man’s attention from the follies of the world and leads him to the love of God. **

“Two kinds of study are called for here. We must first learn how the Scriptures are to be understood, and then see how to expound them with profit and in a manner worthy of them. **A man must first be eager to understand what he is reading before he is fit to proclaim what he has learned. **
“The conscientious reader will be more concerned to carry out what he has read than merely to acquire knowledge of it… Learning unsupported by grace may get into our ears; it never reaches the heart. It makes a great noise outside but serves no inner purpose. But when God’s grace touches our innermost minds to bring understanding, his word which has been received by the ear sinks deep into the heart.”
[Office of Readings, April 4…(Lib.3,8-10: PL 83,679-682)]

St. Venerable Bede (died 735 AD)
He is the first person known to translate the Gospel into Old English (Anglo-Saxon.)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD)
Doctor and Father of the Church.
**“The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.” **[Commentary on the Song of Songs, Sermon 23:3.]

St. Bonaventure (1221-1274 AD)
In his day, there where no public schools and only the wealthy could afford private tutors. Therefore, most people could not read or write. St. Bonaventure had composed a copy of “Biblia Pauperum” which means the “Bible of the poor.” It contained a collection of pictures illustrating the important events of the Old Testament. It also contained parallel scenes in the New Testament and it showed how the Old Testament prefigured and was fulfilled in the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. This helped the people to learn God’s Word by showing them the important stories of both the Old and New Testament. He was canonized a Saint by Pope Sixtus IV in1482 AD. He was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Sixtus V in 1588 AD.

members.aol.com/johnprh/reading.html

Luther’s Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

 

[Old_Scholar]

From the Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books

IV

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html

 

[Old_Scholar]

In an attempt to combat the swiftly rising tide of Protestantism, the Catholic Church began maintaining lists of the prohibited books which were to be confiscated. Here is an example from England:

Memorandum of a proclamation made at Paul’s Cross on the first Sunday in Advent, 1531, against the buying, selling or reading of the following books:

The disputation between father and the son.
The supplication of beggars.
The revelation of AntiChrist.
Liber qui de veteri et novicio Deo inscribitur.
Precaciones.
Economica christiana.
The burying of the mass, in English rhyme.
An exposition into the VII chapter of the Corinthians.
The matrimony of Tyndal.
A B C against the clergy.
Ortulus animae, in English.
A book against Saint Thomas of Canterbury.
A book made by Friar Reye against the seven sacraments.
An answer of Tyndal to Sir Thomas More’s dialogue, in English.
A disputation of purgatory, made by John Frythe.
The first book of Moses, called Genesis.
A prologue in the second book of Moses, called Exodus.
A prologue in the third book of Moses, called Leviticus.
A prologue in the fourth book of Moses, called Numeri.
A prologue in the fifth book of Moses, called Deuteronomy.
The practice of prelates.
The New Testament in English, with an introduction to the epistle to the Romans.
The parable of the wicked Mammon.
The obedience of a Christian man.
The book of Thorpe or of John Oldecastell.
The sum of scripture.
The primer in English.
The psalter in English.
A dialogue between the gentlemen and the plowman.
Jonas in English.

Calendar of State Papers V, 18.

Source: The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand, copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row, Inc., Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-15480, page 473.

 

[EphelDuath]

Old Scholar, I don’t get it. We’ve refuted all of the propaganda you’ve posted, yet instead of admitting that maybe the source you’re using is perhaps a little inaccurate, you simply shrug, roll back and post some more.

 

[episcogirl]

Um…because this site is about defending the Catholic faith.

(Couldn’t resist)

Methinks this poster has hit the nail on the head…and that’s saying something considering the source

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy

***Regarding the edict to not allow the average person to read the Bible, read this from the Synod of Toulouse:

Synod of Toulouse: “Canon 14: Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.” (A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (Rev. Edward Landon. M.A., 1909, Edinburgh, v2, pp. 171-2)

Are you telling me this is not true? It was almost 12 centuries this was forbidden.***

I don’t recall saying that was not true. But OS, do you have a clue why the Council of Toulouse made this decision?

Are you familiar with the Albigensian heresies? They were mis-translating the Latin version into the vernacular and writing new doctrines into it. These were the ones that reincarnated some the gnostic heresies. Now, at this time in France, more literates were able to read Latin then whatever dialect of the region (I don’t know if it was Norman, Frank, or whatever). Also, they couldn’t bloody well write these bibles in Latin, because the “re-writes” would have been glaring.

So, our friends the Albigensians wrote them in the Vulgar language, mis-translated them, bending the words to uphold their heresies.

Now, what would you, the upholder of the Scriptures do at this point? Would you allow your flock to be reading these doctrines that were untrue, or would you do your best to insure that the Gospel stayed as pure as possible?

You wouldn’t be siding with the Albigensians, now, would you?

 

[epostle]

in the Roman Catholic Church, list of publications forbidden to be read, called Index librorum prohibitorum [list of forbidden books]. This censorship was exercised by the Holy See. ** Catholics are forbidden, as a natural part of ethics, to read anything they know may endanger their faith or moral life; the Index was a partial guide to such literature.** Since it was made up only from decisions referred for judgment on specific works, there was no consistency of inclusion; the failure of a book to appear in it implied nothing. The last edition of the Index was published in 1948. In 1966 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly, the Holy Office) announced that the Index and its related penalties of excommunication would no longer have the force of law in the church.

questia.com/library/encyclopedia/index-in-the-roman-catholic-church.jsp?l=I&p=1

This encyclopedia, based on the list of its own books on the tiopic of the Catholic Church at the bottome of the page, is biased against her, but the explanation of the “forbidden books” is well explained. The truth should be upheld no matter where it is found, but not everything found is the truth.

The bold explains what I mean by spiritual pornography. This list of forbidden books was a response to the propaganda machinery resutling from the so-called reformation , whose tactics were copied by Joseph Geobbels, Minister of Propaganda of Hitler’s Third Reich, which made antisemitism and anti-Catholicism acceptable to the public…

 

[NotWorthy]

Just give me a written quote from the first or second century calling Clement a pope.

Sure, it’s right there with the word Trinity, and yet you still buy into that word, don’t you?

You know the word “Pope” didn’t come about til later, but the position was still there.

Now, for the fifth time, what do you think Pope Clement (1st century) and Pope Victor (2nd century, maybe 3rd) were doing, if they were not exercising Papal authority?

 

[NotWorthy]

**This is blatantly false. The Church in Corinth was reading from St. Clement’s letters as if it were Scripture. The Shepherd of Hermes was thought to be Scriptural and was being read.

I’m sure you can prove this statement…Also, be sure you show it was an apostle that did it.**

**I never said an Apostle said it. No Apostles ever made a determination of the Canon of Scripture, so this is a false argument.

On St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians**:

This Epistle was held in very great esteem by the early Church. The account given of it by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16) is as follows: “There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” The Epistle before us thus appears to have been read in numerous churches, as being almost on a level with the canonical writings. And its place in the Alexandrian ms., immediately after the inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned it in the primitive Church. There does indeed appear a great difference between it and 3 the inspired writings in many respects, such as the fanciful use sometimes made of Old-Testament statements, the fabulous stories which are accepted by its author, and the general diffuseness and feebleness of style by which it is distinguished. But the high tone of evangelical truth which pervades it, the simple and earnest appeals which it makes to the heart and conscience, and the anxiety which its writer so constantly shows to promote the best interests of the Church of Christ, still impart an undying charm to this precious relic of later apostolic times.

On the Shepherd of Hermes:

Shepherd of Hermas (middle of 2nd century CE)

** The Shepherd of Hermas** was one of the most popular books produced in the early Church, and for a time it was frequently quoted and regarded as inspired. The book is a picturesque religious allegory, in most of which a rugged figure dressed like a shepherd is Hermas’ guide. From this the book took its name, ‘The Shepherd’. Comprising a rambling mélange of 5 Visions, 12 Mandates, and 10 Similitudes, the book is characterized by strong moral earnestness. It is primarily a call to repentance and adherence to a life of strict morality, addressed to Christians among whom the memory of persecution is still fresh., and over whom now hangs the shadow of another great tribulation.

ON Hebrews:

The Letter to the Hebrews was accepted as part of the canon—as Holy Spirit inspired Scripture—by the Eastern Church from the earliest years of the Church. In the early 100s Pantaenus of Alexandria, Egypt attributed the letter to St. Paul and accepted it as decidedly canonical. Clement of Alexandria, president the Christian school of theology in Alexandria and his successor the great Biblical scholar Origen believed the vocabulary differences occurred because Paul had written the letter in Hebrew which was later translated by someone else into Greek but Origen went even further. He suggested the ideas were Paul’s but that the letter was written by a disciple of Paul and then finally admitted only God could identify the inspired writer. Both Christian scholars, however, accepted the text as Holy Spirit inspired. The earliest surviving Greek manuscript of the Eastern Church containing St. Paul’s 14 letters is a papyrus document which dates to 200AD. In that collection the Letter to the Hebrews follows Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which indicates the letters perceived importance and authority in the East. However, in the earliest surviving list of canonical New Testament books in the West, a document known as the Muratorian canon [circa 155AD], the Letter to the Hebrews is missing from the list of this Latin document of the early Church.