Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by GonzoII
Your article posted above sounds like nothing more than holier-than-thou Protestant bashing. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ himself is the head of my Church ~ and I come to the Father through no one but Him!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“Protestants typically deny that the Catholic church — particularly since the Protestant reformation —...”
And before? Or did the Church not exist before the soi disant “Protestant reformation”?
BTW, when was the soi disant “Protestant reformation”?
Why? We are Soldiers of Christ. That is why.
Spamming the tthread with huge cut and pastes is not an argument for your side. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it’s against the rules.
On the basis of the Septuagint, Catholics advocate what is known as the "larger" canon of the Jews in Alexandria; Protestants, on the other hand, deny the existence of an independent canon in Alexandria in view of the "smaller" canon of the Jews in Palestine The actual difference between the Catholic and Protestant Old Testaments is a matter of 7 complete books and portions of two others: namely, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther (Esth 10:4-16:24) and to Daniel (Dan 3:24-90; Three; Sus verse 13 and Bel verse 14). These Protestants reject as apocryphal because there is no sufficient evidence that they were ever reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere. The fact that the present Septuagint includes them is far from conclusive that the original Septuagint did, for the following reasons:
(1) The design of the Septuagint was purely literary; Ptolemy and the Alexandrians were interested in building up a library. (2) All the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint are of Christian not Jewish origin. Between the actual translation of the Septuagint (circa 250-150 BC) and the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint extant (circa 350 AD) there is a chasm of fully 500 years, during which it is highly possible that the so-called Apocryphal books crept in. (3) In the various extant manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Apocryphal books vary in number and name. For example, the great Vatican MS, which is probably "the truest representative which remains of the Alexandrian Bible," and which comes down to us from the 4 th century AD, contains no Book of Maccabees whatever, but does include 1 Esdras, which Jerome and Catholics generally treat as apocryphal. On the other hand, the Alexandrian MS, another of the great manuscripts of the Septuagint, dating from the 5 th century AD, contains not only the extra-canonical book of 1 Esdras, but 3 and 4 Maccabees, and in the New Testament the 1 st and 2 nd Epistles of Clement, none of which, however, is considered canonical by Rome. Likewise the great Sinaiticus MS, hardly less important than the Vatican as a witness to the Septuagint and like it dating from the 4 th century AD, omits Baruch (which Catholics consider canonical), but includes 4 Macc, and in the New Testament the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; all of which are excluded from the canon by Catholics. In other MSS, 3 Maccabees, 3 Esdras and Pr Man are occasionally included. The problem as to how many books the original Septuagint version actually included is a very complicated one. The probability is that it included no one of these variants.
(4) Still another reason for thinking that there never existed in Egypt a separate or "larger" canon is the fact that during the 2 nd century AD, the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila's Greek version of the Old Testament in lieu of their own, and it is known that Aquila's text excluded all Apocryphal books. Add to all this the fact that Philo, who lived in Alexandria from circa 20 BC till 50 AD, never quotes from One of these Apocryphal books though he often does from the canonical, and that Origen, who also resided in Alexandria (circa 200 AD), never set his imprimatur upon them, and it becomes reasonably convincing that there was no "larger" canon in Alexandria. The value of the evidence derived from the Septuagint, accordingly, is largely negative. It only indicates that when the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was made in Alexandria, the process of canonization was still incomplete. For had it been actually complete, it is reasonable to suppose that the work of translation would have proceeded according to some well-defined plan, and would have been executed with greater accuracy. As it is, the translators seem to have taken all sorts of liberties with the text, adding to the books of Esth and Dan and omitting fully one-eighth of the text of Jer. Such work also indicates that they were not executing a public or ecclesiastical trust, but rather a private enterprise. Our necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the work of canonization was probably going on in Palestine while the work of translation was proceeding in Alexandria.
According to the traditions preserved in the Mishna, two councils of Jewish rabbis were held (90 and 118 AD respectively) at Jabne, or Jamnia, not far South of Joppa, on the Mediterranean coast, at which the books of the Old Testament, notably Ecclesiastes and Canticles, were discussed and their canonicity ratified. Rabbi Gamaliel II probably presided. Rabbi Akiba was the chief spirit of the council. What was actually determined by these synods has not been preserved to us accurately, but by many authorities it is thought that the great controversy which had been going on for over a century between the rival Jewish schools of Hillel and Shammai was now brought to a close, and that the canon was formally restricted to our 39 books. Perhaps it is within reason to say that at Jamnia the limits of the Hebrew canon were officially and finally determined by Jewish authority. Not that official sanction created public opinion, however, but rather confirmed it.
“The Catholic Church depends upon signs, wonders, and traditions of the Church along with the supposed infallible wisdom from the Pope for the salvation of their members.”
Wrong. A bald faced false to fact ignorant claim.
An excerpt from the Catechism:
... the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.
Next time you spread the falsehood above, it will be a knowing lie, a sin against God.
Very slender evidence in a mammoth, unsourced cut and pastes. Provides no "damning charge," just empty bloviating.
Great post.
Even if one disagrees in the object of their faith by such practice, it is an outstanding reminder that true faithful Catholics would be sure to broadcast loudly, to make sure their brethren don’t slide into blasphemous behavior or thinking when introduced to Catholic traditions.
The absence of such warnings within the Catholic denomination speaks volumes, making them known by their fruits.
Posted from a hate site. Ugly nasty halftruthes designed to draw people away from God. And you praise this?
No it isn't. It's spam. Unsourced, and empty of argument.
Please pm me with a link. Thank you.
If I was on the fence of whether or not choosing to be Catholic that exchange on an open public forum would definitely turn me off.
Why?
Say what you will about spamming and bloviating, but, just the list of historical changes makes an interesting commentary to claims or assumptions regarding the unchanging nature of the Church
Right Constantine, Roman Emperor. Got it! What happened from the day of Penecost and when Constantine sanctioned it? 300 years right?
Great! Thank you for that! But you have already made your anti-Catholicism quite clear in previous posts.
The Catholic Church is about Christ, not somebody's childish assessment of an anonymous internet exchange.
Dissenting opinions aren’t allowed on this thread, it appears, even though it’s about Protestants, OneVike. Mine was deleted and it was simply a statement of opinion about the article posted and Who is the head of my Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.