Skip to comments.Pope Francis on 10 Reasons Why People Reject the Church
Posted on 08/17/2013 2:06:44 AM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Colt, stop shooting at JCBreckenridge please!
I find it amusing how often I need to chide Protestants to actually BE Protestant. The idea of the sins hanging over you is more Catholic than it is Protestant!
You’re right, that’s wrong to ignore, and the Lord Himself is the one who tells Protestants that they should care about their Roman Catholic brethren. And vice versa! Arrogance, thy name is human.
I don’t know what you’ve seen - but have a look at the Vulgate. The bible didn’t originate with the protestants. The Vulgate is much older and we have other manuscripts that are even older still.
If someone took a book they didn’t make, a book that had been around for a long long time, changed it and took stuff out, and claimed that it was theirs, what would you think of it?
“Matthew states that the Church was founded on St. Peter.
Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah, for it was revealed to you not by me, but by the Father in heaven.
And yet the brief quote you provided does not say the Church was founded on Peter. It says his understanding that Christ is Messiah, Son of the Living God, was revealed to Peter by God the Father.
What else do you have?
We Christians at FR show the flaws in your 'faith' on a daily basis...
I don’t know about the “changed it and took stuff out.” We make sincere effort to capture the witness as it had been penned. And we’ve managed to frame that in pretty tight. The witness just WORKS, no matter what you guys complain. Can’t put the Holy Spirit in your earthly box. We’re brothers and sisters whether or not you like it :-)
Like I said, take a look at the Vulgate and compare it with what you have in front of you. Unfortunately the lists aren’t the same.
“Were brothers and sisters whether or not you like it”
If we didn’t care, we wouldn’t be so concerned about your welfare before God. :)
I think we have the same sort of problem here that leads some “very well intentioned” Protestants to insanely defend the King James bible. This problem is the idea that we have to have some artifact on earth that is perfect in order to get tuned in to a perfect God who offers a perfect faith but which we execute imperfectly on earth. It takes firm, strong spiritual trust in Jesus Christ to get past this kind of apparent impasse.
Remove the idea that we have an earthly institution that has a perfect representation of the faith... and accept that it’s taught on the fly by the Lord using the resources He provides as they are needed... and that completion of salvation which will yield a perfect execution of the faith is not finished until “the day of Christ Jesus” and voila. He’s the author... He’s the perfecter. The “church” is not the perfecter. To say it is, detracts from His glory... it does not add to His glory....
You’re going down the same road that some Protestants do with the King James, and the answer is the same... see my previous post
“If someone took a book they didnt make, a book that had been around for a long long time, changed it and took stuff out, and claimed that it was theirs, what would you think of it?”
Are you claiming that the translator of the Vulgate, Jerome, who declared the apocrypha out of the canon, actually wrote the Old and New Testament scriptures?
Then why is the canon at Trent *exactly* identical to the Vulgate? Coincidence?
This borders on insolence. Not only would this not equate to an infallible indisputable decree on the canon, for as you have already been shown with substantiation, doubts and debate regarding apocryphal books continued right into Trent, nor would a general consensus reflected in the Vulgate containing them equate to an infallible decree, but like as i stated the last time you tried this, the Vulgate had various editions, and not all matched the canon Trent affirmed, or upheld all the apocryphal books as Scripture proper (the Vulgate Codex Amiatinus contains the pesky "Prologus Galeatus" of Jerome to the Books of the Kings and other prefaces which reminds us of the distinction between Scripture and the apocryphal books.)
Trent did not even settle the question as to which version of the varying Vulgate editions it affirmed, though it would have to have the same books it affirmed, thus requiring a thorough revision, as there was no single authoritative edition at that time, and resulting in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate .
But here this is simply a diversion away from the fact that there was no infallible, and thus indisputable decree on the canon until Trent. If you want to deny that go ahead, but it make a mockery of what an infallible, and thus indisputable decree effects.
There’s a confusion here too, I believe.
The scripture says that the faith was given once for all to the saints.
That I believe.
What I disagree with our Catholic brethren about, is what stores the perfect faith thus given. They say their earthly books and earthly church and earthly offices. I say, on biblical argument, the Holy Spirit, which lives in the heart of all believers. God won’t give His glory to another. At best He carries others along in His own glory. God is too jealous of His glory to cede the tail to wag the dog. The Holy Spirit stores the perfect faith.
You got ahold of some misinformation in my opinion. Care to source that? Did it come from a website, a tract?
That Rome has been sending the signal that the she is NOT the one true church for much much longer than 50 years is, as i assumed would be obvious, a judgment, and which came from a former weekly attending RC (me) who prayerfully left 6 years after becoming manifestly born again (and then went to an evangelical church), who sees both the doctrinal and empirical data as testifying to that.
You said it, not me. Keep it honest, my post is there and it doesn't say that. I find it laughable for catholics to give a rip because God's WORD is not their final authority. He didn't mutilate man made teachings - so what is your beef? LOL!!
But you must be surprised how Luther had such great power with your accusation of him to 'mulitate a book in the bible'!! Meanwhile catholics bow at the altar of 'man made teachings' which OPPOSE God's Word! How hypocritical!
I have Daniel in my bible - you have bad teaching and the darts thrown at Luther is hysterical!! Meanwhile he's walking on streets of gold! Reaping the reward for his obedience to the will of The Father in spite of Rome wanting to kill him. I 'high five' Luther. Pagans killed Stephan, Peter, Paul - something about speaking TRUTH makes the pagans wild!
Trouble is - catholics are STILL unteachable. Fortunately, there are former catholics. The rest can stay put - they have no use for Truth anyway with their bowing to 'man' and their teachings! What's wrong, afraid Rome will hunt you down like they did Luther?
“Are you claiming that the translator of the Vulgate, Jerome, who declared the apocrypha out of the canon, actually wrote the Old and New Testament scriptures?”
Let’s follow up then.
1. “Someone took a book they didn’t make”.
This is referring to Luther. The bible existed before Luther, so he didn’t make it.
2. “A book that had been around for a long, long time”,
This is referring to extant evidence for the existence of a full bible back to the 4th century, some 11k years prior to Luther.
3. “changed it and took stuff out”. Look at Luther’s list and the prior Vulgate list. They are not the same.
4. “claimed it was theres”. Again Luther.
I made four claims here - 3 which apply to Luther and one of which applies to the Vulgate.
“I find it laughable for catholics to give a rip because God’s WORD is not their final authority”
Is this what the catechism of the Catholic church teaches? The catechism is very clear. Scripture AND Tradition.
“He didn’t mutilate man made teachings”
Oh. So you’re saying, in effect, the Book of Daniel is full of ‘man made teachings’, that a good Christian is not bound to follow. Is this true?
“I have Daniel in my bible”
Do you have all of it? If not, why not? Which parts do you have?
“What’s wrong, afraid Rome will hunt you down like they did Luther?”
A spectacularly terrible argument.
If I was not afraid of Luther’s persecution of anabaptists, why would I be afraid of the Roman Catholic Church?
“This is referring to Luther. The bible existed before Luther, so he didnt make it.”
You started out talking about the Vulgate as the oldest and most reliable, and then started talking about people taking a book they didn’t make and doing what they want with it. When, in reality, Luther made the same pronouncements as Jerome did with the apocrypha who actually translated the Vulgate, and didn’t actually remove them. He just put them in their own section as Catholics had done in their own versions of the Latin Vulgate for centuries up to before Trent.
Furthermore, I don’t see why you would even make a statement like this, since not all Bible translations are based on the Latin Vulgate. There is no copyright on the vulgate or a ban on them, but even if there was, we still wouldn’t lose access to the scripture, which wasn’t written in Latin anyway. So unless you are trying to claim that Jerome wrote the Old and New Testament, or that the Apostles did not really write the New Testament, then your post is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Human, I think what JCB is getting at here is the idea that the Vulgate is authoritative. It’s the King James debate, in the Roman Catholic flavor, except the Roman Catholics have a more impressive looking framework for it. How many Protestants have you come across who complain that what you just read from the NIV or NASB “doesn’t match the King James”? Same fundamental issue here.
An appeal to the Vulgate is silly though, since it actually doesn’t have tremendously different readings from translations today, save perhaps in a few instances, but a lot better than the Greek LXX which removes important Messianic prophecies. Thus I could still find “ye are saved by grace, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast,” in Latin just as easily as I would in English or Spanish, and the Catholics would still hate us for saying it.
Eph 2:8 gratia enim estis salvati per fidem et hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est
To the extent they put their trust in the church model rather than the Holy Spirit, yes.
The Holy Spirit has me in a humongous squeeze right now. I'm seeing miracles, I'm praising the Lord, and yet I'm not in a looney bin. And I am loving Christians both in the Roman Catholic and Protestant (and Orthodox) earthly segments of the church... and seeking to make peace... under the impetus of the Holy Spirit... to me God has proven it. Remember that song "They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love"? I say to it, Amen. One would have to multiply spiritual conspiracy theories to say I'm under the devil's dominion here. And what got this going was I simply trusted that God was bigger than Satan and gave Him glory for it... well, I lie. It was the Holy Spirit that got it going. That's how I reacted.
Well, I attempt to avoid pejoratives with overtones towards people... that’s an important lesson the Lord has taught me. The less blaming (which is a synonym for blasphemy) the better the Lord will shine through. Try it, it works! Our enemy is not flesh and blood, it is Satan. And let our conversation be seasoned with grace. Grace. Not just unmerited favor, but the content of that favor. Also the warning that we shouldn’t be making railing accusations at Satan (and if not at Satan, then how much the more so the ‘puny’ humans). Basically the Lord takes care of damning. We might rebuke, we might even tell someone to get hence, but we don’t damn, we always hope for someone’s salvation till it’s too late. We are on one heavy duty salvation mission. Shine the light from God. It is more powerful than our military’s meanest laser weapons (to put it in modern terms).
Verbal sleight of hand going on here. We’re anchored in the early church through its witness which is blessed by God to be a conduit of the Holy Spirit. It’s a time tunneling thang, if we can say it in light hearted terms.
Verbal sleight of hand going on here... I mean in the argument referenced at the link of course.
Don’t feel too bad, nothing personal to the one who did it (they are forgiven) — the longing for earthly artifacts is very common and happens across all earthly segments of the Christian church. We do have one we can count on, it’s the Word of God, done robustly enough to withstand some dings and dents and still carry on. (The other is the entire creation.)
“If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.”
If you are a Christian, salvation was purposed in the counsels of God before time began.
“I thought you were a Catholic to begin with. Come home.
Coming Home Network”
Not only did I come home to Christ, but, Peter let me borrow his barque to cross the Tiber and find salvation in Christ alone - as Peter himself did. For that I’m eternally grateful.
LOl! Little fibs get you nowhere.
Luther, persecuting the Anabaptists the Catholics would have killed.
Admittedly Peter had no barque or seat and no one swims he Tiber to Rome.
But I was blind and now I see. I was lost but now am found. And where I ended up, seated in the heavenlies with Christ via His death, is certainly somewhere.
Don’t defiled JESUS with saying HE has ANY PART in those who OPPOSE HIS WORD - Catholicism. And Catholicism didn’t exist then - they were known as heathens.
Jesus founded His Church which is based on Who He is and on HIS Word ALONE and He used Paul to write over half of the OT while he never knew Jesus in the flesh - he only knew HIM in the Spirit.
I agree with you on #11. And I too am a practicing Catholic.
There are still, to this day, some who have never been brought to justice for what they did i.e. moving pedophiles/covering for them.
And over half of them were innocent of charges. In my own realm of acquaintances I know of three priests that were innocent. Jurors talked. In one case a juror was quoted saying one of the fellow jurors said something like “well, he’s a Catholic priest; now let’s prove he is guilty.”
Fortunately the priest worked for the state at the boys reform school and had dates to verifiy his presence there. On one charge, he was even there; on another charge he had already left the position according to state records and on the third charge, it was another priest who took a boy somewhere.
Many of them are manufactured lies; true some were guilty, but not all of them.
Scripture that they twist. Like 'remembrance' as just ONE example.
GOD'S WORD is The FINAL authority.
No, that’s not what I am saying. Please read my note again. Many of these men were innocent. It was ambulance chasing attorneys that dug up supposed victims, and as I cited, in this one case the supposed victims were frauds. Three attorneys from local parishes attended the hearing and chased down jurors. They finally found one that talked.
If you want to fin d out about Cardinal Mahony read the first book about Mother Angelica by Raymond Arroyo. It’s all there.
he wasn’t even there
Says it all doesn’t it. Killing folks for heresy isn’t wrong when your side does it.
“GOD’S WORD is The FINAL authority.”
Except for Daniel. Then it’s ok to cut parts out.
We Christians at FR show the flaws in your 'faith' on a daily basis...No disrespect meant, but I would believe Mother Teresa of Calcutta over your statement in a heartbeat!
“Human, I think what JCB is getting at here is the idea that the Vulgate is authoritative”
The Vulgate is authoritative because of the authority of the magisterium. The magisterium decided which books should be in scripture, and the list they came up with is the same list used in the Vulgate in the 4th century, and the same list at Trent.
So it’s not the same argument as the King James, as it stems from the argument that the magisterium of the church has the ultimate authority.
It’s not liable to the same critique as the King James version either, which rests on inspiration.
Look, I don't want to get into some heated argument about it.
I love my faith, but, IMO, they failed miserably in responding to this horrendous scandal, and they have been paying the price ever since.
Maybe it's just better to say that there are some things that are never going to be right- Some wounds that will never heal. Best to let them scar over and move on, I suppose.
**So your saying the abuses didn’t happen? The charges were phony?**
In the cases I know the details about.
In the three cases I mentioned, the priests were innocent.
“Luther made the same pronouncements as Jerome did”
So you’re admitting then that Luther took a book that was very old and chose to rewrite it to his preferences, removing books that he did not like?
How is this any different from what the Witnesses do and what the Mormons do?
If Luther didn’t remove them from the Bible - why do you remove them from yours?
“since not all Bible translations are based on the Latin Vulgate”
Not all bible translations are good translations.
“There is no copyright on the vulgate”
Again, not a good argument. The Vulgate has been in existence over a millenium before the first protestant. Protestants have as much authority over the text as Mormons do.
“we still wouldnt lose access to the scripture, which wasnt written in Latin anyway.”
Which book was the one Luther used? The Vulgate. Did Luther appropriate it for himself and his purposes? Yes. That’s the point here. Despite the fact that he had absolutely nothing to do with the book, he went around and took stuff out and said that the stuff he was taking out was stuff that wasn’t important anyways.
This is a far cry from the Word of God. Or Christ saying, “not the least stroke of the pen”. But I guess he meant, “Not the least stroke of the pen, until the time of Luther”.
“then your post is nonsensical and irrelevant.”
I suggest you address the four claims that I did make. Luther and all protestants have exactly zero authority to make changes to scripture, just as Mormons have zero authority to do the same.
The only ones lying are those who claim Jesus said he founded his church on Peter...
“The only ones lying are those who claim Jesus said he founded his church on Peter”
Given that Matthew says just that, you’re calling the Gospel author a liar.
Don't you know your own history??? Christ founded the Catholic Church on ONE apostle, Peter...