Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

[Isa_Almisry]

It is not the Catholics. It is in the Bible. Are their not verses against schism? Does not Christ give authority to the Pope in the Bible? Yes, very clearly. Just because one ignores the parts of the Bible they do not like doesn’t make it untrue. Is not the authority of the Pope clearly demonstrated by the early Church? Yes it is as we have clear documentation.

St. Irenaus “The presiding church in the place of the land of the Romans”
St. Cyprian “one church and one see founded by the Lord; voice of Peter. No other alter can be setup, no new priesthood be made, except the one altar and one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters…one church founded by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason unity.
Opatatus of Milevis statement to Donatist “How can you pretend to have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, who sacrilegiously fight against the see of Peter by your presumption and impudence.
St. Ambrose “Roman Church is the head of the whole world.”

St. Irenaus was in the year 107. Several decades after Christ’s death we have clear documentation that Rome and the Pope had authority. If the Pope did not have authority why did not St. Peter’s power not tranfer to John as he was still alive in Ephasus. It is because the Pope was given authority by Christ.

Their have been heresies from the beginning of the Church. We have had the Gnostics, Arian schism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, schism of Cerularius, heresies of Albigensians and now the Reformation. All the schisms listed thought they understood the word of the Lord better than the Church. They all splintered and divided into nothingness just as the Protestant religions are doing now. They bicker amongst themselves fight over homosexual marriage and abortion. They slowly get less morality and stray farther and farther from the truth. We have Catholics within our Church that do the same; however, as the rest of the world folds to contraceptives and homosexaul marriages the true Church will hold fast because Christ gave us this promise. The gates of hell will not prevaill against you. It doesn’t say the gates of hell will not prevail against the 30,000 individually divided churches doing their own thing. There is just one Church with the total truth

Had to bring Cerularius (i.e. the Orthodox into it)? He only insisted that the pope of Rome stick to the original Creed, as his predecessors had for centuries, when some local king in Spain thought he knews the Lord’s word better (“Who proceeds from the Father” is what the Lord says in John, not “and the Son”) than the Church. No, the Orthodox didn’t splinter and divide into nothingness. We’re not your Protestant brothers. We are very much one church, the One Church.

As for homosexual marriage, let me illustrate: a few years ago an Orthodox priest did perform a homosexual “marrige” (as many of your priests do). The bishop and patriarch’s response? They defrocked the priest and bulldozed the Church. The “couple” was already taken as excommunicated. So much for less morality and “further from the Truth” (the Vatican’s take on contraception is not supported from the Fahers, which is why Humane Vitae, great and priescent document that it is, has little in the way of patritics in it: it does quote Aquinas, but with his “quickening” ideas, he’s not much help).

Btw it’s St. Ignatius, not Iranaeus. His successor, Ignatius IV sits on St. Peter’s Elder Chair in Antioch. And the phrase is translated “the Church that presides in the Land of the Romans,” at the time meaning exclusively the City of Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How is it heresy to believe that the Messiah has come in the Person of Jesus Christ and that His Kingdom IS “God’s chosen people?” Viewing the DNA of Jews (absent the tribes that got scrambled and gentilized in the Northern Kingdom and exiles) as a guarantee of “nationhood” and the sole recipient of the promise of Abraham is contrary to the mission of the Messiah to fulfill the “blessing” of Abraham to all nations.

“God is ablefrom these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Mt. 3:9

“It is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” Gal 3:7

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” Romans 9:6

Written by a rabbinic Jew.

 

[RobHom]

That’s because you have a paper idol.

SIA… I have to say that I tend to agree with Isa Almisry… It does seem that y’all do place more credence in the “book” than in God’s Word… Now I realize that you may think that an oxymoron of sorts, but if you think about it for a minute or two you will possibly see what I am getting at…

 

[PBP]

Everyone of its books (with the possible exception of one) was written by a Jew.

:yawn:

 

[RobHom]

You are left defenseless. You cannot refute my polemic so you attack me. Classic.

Your “polemic” lacks substantiation, and you appear to ba an adherent of “historical revisionism”. Not good. Your response is “classic”…and sad. Obfuscation…

 

[RobHom]

And the bible is a Jewish book that is my point.

Your point is in error. Only the OT is Jewish…as it was the Holy Book of the Hebrew people (Jews). The NT was written by followers of Christ, also known as “Christians”, therefore your assumption or claim is erroneous. Its really that “simple”.

 

[PerryJ]

Had to bring Cerularius (i.e. the Orthodox into it)? He only insisted that the pope of Rome stick to the original Creed, as his predecessors had for centuries, when some local king in Spain thought he knews the Lord’s word better (“Who proceeds from the Father” is what the Lord says in John, not “and the Son”) than the Church. No, the Orthodox didn’t splinter and divide into nothingness. We’re not your Protestant brothers. We are very much one church, the One Church.

As for homosexual marriage, let me illustrate: a few years ago an Orthodox priest did perform a homosexual “marrige” (as many of your priests do). The bishop and patriarch’s response? They defrocked the priest and bulldozed the Church. The “couple” was already taken as excommunicated. So much for less morality and “further from the Truth” (the Vatican’s take on contraception is not supported from the Fahers, which is why Humane Vitae, great and priescent document that it is, has little in the way of patritics in it: it does quote Aquinas, but with his “quickening” ideas, he’s not much help).

Btw it’s St. Ignatius, not Iranaeus. His successor, Ignatius IV sits on St. Peter’s Elder Chair in Antioch. And the phrase is translated “the Church that presides in the Land of the Romans,” at the time meaning exclusively the City of Rome.

I did type the wrong name in the post. Thank you for correcting.

I have to admit what I know of this Schism is from a higher level. Please help me to understand it better. Did not Celarius plot to overthrow the Emperor and was banished for his actions? My understanding is that after banishment he was forced to become a monk. Is this not true? As he climbed the hierarchy for the Church and became patriarch it is my understanding that the two Churches were in a period of peace as the Normans were invading. Celarius at that time decided to split with the Church even further and started this action by sending a letter to the Pope challenging fasting on Saturday and the use of unleavened bread. He then closed all of the Latin Churches in the East and had one of his men trample the Eucharist. I have also read that he planned to kill the Pope’s messengers that were sent to discuss these issues with him. He then took control of the government and assumed the role of Emperor. He enacted laws etc. When the acting Emperor went against his wishes he attempted to kill him. The emperor found out and had him banished. He died on the journey. If you have better information than this please tell me where to find it as I like to read about the Church and its history.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Your point is in error. Only the OT is Jewish…as it was the Holy Book of the Hebrew people (Jews). The NT was written by followers of Christ, also known as “Christians”, therefore your assumption or claim is erroneous. Its really that “simple”.

Actually not quite. The writers except one were Hebrew Christians. As Abraham saw Christ’s day and was glad, and Moses and the prophets wrote of Christ, the authors of the OT were all Hebrew Christians. So the OT is not Jewish.

Rabbinic Jews compiled the Masoretic Tanakh, and wrote the Talmud.

(btw, part of my ancestors were rabbinic Jews, it just took us longer to catch up with the other Hebrew Christians).

 

[Lampo]

No, he didn’t. All editions of Luther’s translation contain the deuterocanonicals (including Luther’s original).

Did Luther consider them inspired? If no, by what authority did he declare them not inspired?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I did type the wrong name in the post. Thank you for correcting.

I have to admit what I know of this Schism is from a higher level. Please help me to understand it better. Did not Celarius plot to overthrow the Emperor and was banished for his actions? My understanding is that after banishment he was forced to become a monk. Is this not true? As he climbed the hierarchy for the Church and became patriarch it is my understanding that the two Churches were in a period of peace as the Normans were invading. Celarius at that time decided to split with the Church even further and started this action by sending a letter to the Pope challenging fasting on Saturday and the use of unleavened bread. He then closed all of the Latin Churches in the East and had one of his men trample the Eucharist. I have also read that he planned to kill the Pope’s messengers that were sent to discuss these issues with him. He then took control of the government and assumed the role of Emperor. He enacted laws etc. When the acting Emperor went against his wishes he attempted to kill him. The emperor found out and had him banished. He died on the journey. If you have better information than this please tell me where to find it as I like to read about the Church and its history.

More or less true. There is some exculpatory facts about Celarius, and his opponents from the Vatican, Humbert and he who would go onto become Pope Stepan IV had a similar history, but airing the dirty laundry isn’t why I brought it up.

The issue about peace however is wrong: the German emperor had forced the pope of Rome to insert the filioque (they had resisted and condemned it unitl then, e.g. the condemnation of Pope Leo III of the council of Frankfurt and his posting of the original Creed on St. Peter’s door in Greek and Latin without filioque), and the pope was then struck from the diptychs. The Normans were forcing the Greek Orthodox in Southern Italy and Sicily (southern Italy had been heavily Greek for over a millenium: it was called Magna Graecia “Greater Greece” since before Augustus) to adopt the Latin rite, and suppressing the rite of Constantinople. Celarius retaliated and the rest is history.

Celarius and the legates were ill chosen to make peace. btw the tramplng the Eucharist story I’ve heard, and it makes me shudder.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Did Luther consider them inspired? If no, by what authority did he declare them not inspired?

Jerome didn’t consider them inspired either. Start with him first.

 

[Lampo]

And the bible is a Jewish book that is my point.

So if I go into a Jewish family’s house, I will find the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament), which they read and base their beliefs on?

 

[Lampo]

Jerome didn’t consider them inspired either. Start with him first.

Saint Jerome submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church and accepted them as inspired, thus including them in his translations. I’d say God gave him the grace and virtue of humility during that time.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Saint Jerome submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church and accepted them as inspired, thus including them in his translations. I’d say God gave him the grace and virtue of humility during that time.

Yes, but he got the ball rollliing. Luther only finished (or actually furthered, because included them in his translation too. The Puritans and "Evangelicals had to finish the job) what Jerome started, despite St. Augustine’s warning on the subject.

 

[jmcrae]

Jerome didn’t consider them inspired either. Start with him first.

At first, he didn’t. But the official Church edition of his Bible contains 73 books, in the same order that we now find them today in most Catholic Bibles. He recanted his doubts and accepted the Church’s authority.

 

[mercygate]

Marian devotion is 4 centuries older than the bible…I have read a bit about it, and in the second century she was declared the Theotokis…I never can understand why protestants are so insulting about her. I doubt that it pleases God who created her to be the spotless vessel to carry our Lord to hear people sneer about her

The earliest known Marian prayer is “sub tuum praesidium” dating from an Egyptian liturgy in 250 A.D. Theotokos – Mother of God – was declared in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus.

ALL mainline Protestant denominations affirm the doctrine that Mary is “Mother of God.” This is not a point on which Protestants and Catholics divide – except for the johnny-come-latelies who think Christianity began with the printing of the New Testament they now hold in their hands.

 

[Lampo]

If he wanted to “try” he would have succeeded since he translated it into German while alone in a castle. Both Luther’s German translation and the KJV in English included the deuterocanon well into the 20th century.

Again… A translation is not a transliteration. The wording in any translation will be different than the original text. Luther was not the only commentator on Scripture to interpret Rom. 3:28 as “faith alone.” “Justified by faith apart from works of the law” as it appears in most English translations can be enumerated any number of ways from the original Greek.

Okay, did Luther translate Rom. 3:28 to fit his personal theology that we are saved by faith alone and that Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church were unnecessary? If so, by what authority did he do this?

 

[mercygate]

John rebuked in Revelations 6of the 7 churches.BTW 7 churches not ONE.
There was a falling out very quickly from The Way.

Those seven churches in Revelation were “particular” churches, ALL were part of the ONE Church and all in communion with one another.

 

[Lampo]

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
St. Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

 

[RobHom]

At first, he didn’t. But the official Church edition of his Bible contains 73 books, in the same order that we now find them today in most Catholic Bibles. He recanted his doubts and accepted the Church’s authority.

Jerome “opined”, Luther again “opined”…Jerome saw the wisdom of the Church and kept them in place. Further, when King James commissioned the KJV…it was at His (King James) insistence that the “Apocrypha” books be included…under threat of dire punishment.

Luther did what his opinions dictated…I guess in some aspect its what you could expect. Catholicism was not to bend to his will or ideas, thus he was forced to go his own way. His opinions vis a vis the Apocrypha and James are a result of that opining.

Here is some relevant information from a secular source regarding the “Apocrypha”…newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apocrypha