Posted on 01/23/2014 9:29:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ourcatholicfaith.org ...
“I know history,’
Papists, by definition, do not know history, and do not read it, and they do not know scripture either. They only say they do, and thus, we see chest beating but no substance, as in your reply.
The third “gospel” version I have heard today...now the beatitudes are the reason Christ came in the flesh?
If you care to stop playing games and make a sensible connection between your post and the argument at hand, let me know. Otherwise.... I’ve better things to do with my time than play games with you.
Believing a messiah is coming is NOT the same as having faith in Jesus. Are you sure you don’t believe in “invincible ignorance”? It almost sounds like you do as you want to apply it to these people from OT times.
“I’ve better things to do with my time than play games with you.”
Go ahead then.
“Like the Catholic church does when it mistranslates the word *repent* to *do penance* to support its doctrine of works?”
There was no mistranslation by the Church. The translation is from Latin (Jerome’s). That is the proper translation from the Latin. How Jerome translated it from the Greek may be another matter, but the Church didn’t make Jerome’s translation and he might have used a ms. for which that was the proper translation.
Now, here are two things posted by Catholics who looked into this. Enjoy:
First post:
When the tax collector Zacchaeus had his change of heart (repented), he did penance, saying, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.” (Luke 19:8)
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1430) explains,
Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sack-cloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.
It’s not repentance vs penance but repentance and penance together.
Second post:
1) The translation of “metanoeo” as “paenitentiam agite”
The Greek verb “metanoeo” comes from two other Greek words: meta (change) & noos (mind). The most accurate rendering into English of the meaning of this word would be “to repent.” The implication was that at some point in time someone would change their mind about a past action and regret having done it. There was no simple Latin equivalent of this Greek term and so the Vulgate used the phrase “paenitentiam agite”which in Latin means “do penance.” The idea of “penance” in Latin carried the connotation of regret and sorrow for past actions but went further in that it also implied the performing of acts of reparation and mortification. By having Jesus say that his followers had to “do penance and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15) it implied that they needed to perform acts of mortification (fasting, self-denial, wearing a hair shirt, self flagellation) or reparation (restoring loss goods, compensating victims) , as conditions for the forgiveness of sins.
The prots in the 16th Century claimed that the word metanoeo carried no such implication and that all that was needed was a genuine sense of sorrow for sin. Certain radicals — typified today by some Dispensationalists — even stated that sorrow for sin was not needed. They claimed that repentance merely meant that you intellectually changed the way you thought from that moment forwards without any reference to past actions. Those were “covered over” by Christ and hence forgotten by God.
Technically, the prots were right. The words “metaneo” and “paenitentiam agite”are not exact equivalents. But they forgot that the NT uses Greek words in a distinctly Hebrew way and that they must be understood in the context of a Hebrew idiom. The word for “repent” in OT Hebrew was “nacham” which has the following connotations according to Strong’s Concordance:
Nacham - to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a) (Niphal)
1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b) (Piel) to comfort, console
c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d) (Hithpael)
1) to be sorry, have compassion
2) to rue, repent of
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to ease oneself
As you can see, the OT concept included sorrow, grief , compassion, and acts to comfort others and be comforted oneself. Repentance was not merely a passive act of regret nor merely a change of mind. As such, St. Jerome’s choice of “do penance”had the wider context of the OT meaning in mind and we need to appreciate that.
In later rabbinical theology, the term “teshuvah” (turning) would be used for repentance. It would be defined by the Talmud as a turning towards God and a turning away from one’s sins. It also meant a turning towards one’s sins as something to contemplate and regret: the opposite of moral denial. St. Thomas Aquinas was aware of this rabbinical teaching and in his Summa Theologiae he has the turnings towards God and towards/away from sin as two of the four results of the grace of justification. (The other two were the forgiveness of sin and the infusion of the new life of grace.)
The Rabbis were not heavily into acts of mortification. many of these practices were unique to Christians who wished to imitate their Lord in his suffering for mankind on the cross. Nevertheless, repentance in “sack cloth and ashes” was a Jewish practice advocated in both Testaments(e.g., Daniel 9:3, Matthew 11:21Matt 11:21 they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. , Luke 10:13).
Most all Protestants acknowlege this one that repenance is not enough in the following situtiation: If one steals from someone, or damages another’s property willfully or neglectfully, is it enough to have true sorrow and resolve not to do it again? Or is something more required such as restitution!
In summary, the issue here was whether Greek grammar or the Biblical idiom should guide the translation. The prots opted for the former while St. Jerome and the Catholic Tradition opted for the latter.
End paste
By the way, it seems that anyone reading the following would have known to repent and DO PENANCE:
Acts 26:20 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
20But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.
Acts 26:20 (King James Version)
20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
DO WORKS MEET FOR REPENTANCE??? How Protestant is that?
By the way, ask yourself why DRV has “repent” rather than “do penance” in Mark 1:15, Luke 17:4, Acts 3:19, even though the same Latin root word is translated there that is elsewhere is translated as “do penance”.
My own comments:
“Or mistranslating the pronoun *he* to *she* in Genesis 3:15 to give Mary credit that is due Jesus?”
Again, no mistranslation by the Church. Jerome is not the Church.
http://jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315
You might want to read St Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis: Translated with an Introduction and Commentary by C.T.R. Hayward, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995. Reprinted in 2001.
But isn't grace an unwarranted gift? Faith leading to grace...wouldn't that mean you somehow earned grace or purchased grace with faith?
First, you have to learn what God's grace (not Mary's) is...Then you have to find out why it is...
Grace does not save anyone...Grace is graciousness, favor, (unmerited favor)...Grace allows us to be saved without giving something in return...
We are saved because of faith as opposed to being saved because of works...That's what the grace is...
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Because of God's graciousness (grace), Jesus gives us the free gift of salvation when we have faith (trust) in him...
Really it is God Who saves by Grace through faith. Been like that since the beginning. First clear example is Noah, which is what Peter was explaining in 1 Peter 3.
But I know what you were saying. It is called the Gospel of Grace for a reason. What Christ Jesus did for us was the greatest act of love.
Romans 5:8-11 KJV
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
“Papists, by definition, do not know history, and do not read it, and they do not know scripture either.”
I’m a Catholic. I know history. I have read it. I know scripture. Protestants, however, are - by-and-large - grossly ignorant about history. They also rarely know much about scripture. These things are shown here by Protestants every day.
“They only say they do, and thus, we see chest beating but no substance, as in your reply.”
No, I simply addressed your question: “Is it history that you pretend to know?” I think your claims of “chest beating” and “no substance” simply apply to your own posts.
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
Yes, it is. it's having faith in the messiah, whom Jesus is/was.
Just because they did not know his name yet,. doesn't mean they didn't know the Messiah was coming.
“Really it is God Who saves by Grace through faith.”
God saves us through Himself. God sent His Divine Son, Jesus, to die on a cross so that we could be saved. Thus, God, in the Person of Christ, gave up everything, bleeding out His last drop of blood, and even His very life so that we could have everlasting life with Him in Heaven.
This applies to holiness itself. Holiness is not an abstract thing. Holiness for men is a participation in the very life of God.
A translation of a translation.
Bogus. What a sure fire way for error to creep in, as it did.
Bully for Scott Hahn. I repeat my question:
Do you accept that sincere, intellectually curious and honest people can arrive at a different conclusion?
Do you believe that anyone who leaves the Roman Catholic Church after careful consideration, much prayer, intense study of Scripture and history can also be "sincere", "intellectually curious" and "honest"? I can give you a list of intellectuals, theologians and others who did just that - left Catholicism and became Evangelical Protestants - if you are interested in reading their stories.
You can’t have the gospel without the Church
It's not polite to make stuff up...Plus, it makes God angry...
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
The church is the result of preaching the gospel...The church receives grace...The church can not give grace...
“Salvation comes from Christ. Christ uses the Church to give grace to us. You can’t have the gospel without the Church, and you can’t have the Church without the gospel. They always go together.”
I am sure that is firmly rooted in the catechism, but not the Holy Scriptures. Please point out where in the doctrines of the NT (for example Romans) it is asserted the church is a vehicle for giving grace to believers.
No doubt the mission of the church and all its members is to proclaim and preach the gospel. That is our Great Commission.
Exactly! Psalm 110: 1 — “The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
I would be happy to read any of the converts you speak of that have as much between their ears as Scott Hahn. Since he was a protestant theologian who became a Catholic theologian, and has basically memorized the Old and New Testaments and speaks fluent Latin and Greek.
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.