Posted on 01/29/2014 4:53:38 PM PST by NKP_Vet
This little book about the Bible grew out of lectures which the writer delivered on the subject to mixed audiences. The lectures were afterwards expanded, and appeared in a series of articles in the Catholic press 1908-9, and are now with slight alterations reprinted. Their origin will sufficiently account for the colloquial style employed throughout. There is, therefore, no pretense either of profound scholarship or of eloquent language; all that is attempted is a popular and, as far as possible, accurate exposition along familiar lines of the Catholic claim historically in regard to the Bible. It is candidly controversial without, however, let us hope, being uncharitable or unfair. Friends had more than once suggested the reissue of the articles; and it appeared to the writer that at last the proper moment for it had come when the Protestant world is jubilating over the Tercentenary of the Authorized Version. Amidst the flood of literature on the subject of the Bible, it seemed but right that some statement, however plain and simple, should be set forth from the Catholic side, with the object of bringing home to the average mind the debt that Britain, in common with the rest of Christendom, owes to the Catholic Church in this connection. Probably the motive of the present publication will be best understood by a perusal of the following letter from the writer which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, 18th of March, 1911:
(Excerpt) Read more at tanbooks.com ...
I see your point; you see me as destined for Hell. Well then, what church of the 30,000 plus denominations, all preaching certain degrees of heresy, should I attend?
No, you didn’t. You provided examples of others you believe do things that can’t be found taught by the apostles.
>>And how do you know that the apostles never taught about the Assumption of Mary?<<
Paul clearly stated that if someone came teaching something they didn’t it was to be considered “another gospel” and therefore “accursed”. I can find no evidence from their writings that they taught the assumption of Mary which is a large part of Catholic belief. It must therefore be considered “another gospel” and “accursed”.
“Anti-Catholics lie.”
So do Catholics. And Catholics do not like to admit that the Apocrypha was not considered useful for doctrine by many leading Catholic theologians until Trent, and technically even Trent didn’t answer that question.
Since Protestants believe “All [notice ALL] Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...”, we reject the idea that scripture can be useless for doctrine.
The Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures was at the 4th Session of Trent in 1546. Twenty years passed before the term “Deuterocanonical” was invented and replaced “Apocrypha” in Roman Catholic usage. Why?
“After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible...
...The Sixtine edition was soon replaced by Clement VIII (1592–1605)...
The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.
The Psalter of the Clementine Vulgate, like that of almost all earlier printed editions, is the Gallicanum, omitting Psalm 151. It follows the Greek numbering of the Psalms, which differs from that in versions translated directly from the Hebrew.
The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Clementine_Vulgate
Notice: Done in response to the Council of Trent, 4th session, 1546, the Clementine Vulgate “removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.”
So what word would distinguish the “Apocrypha”, used for 1000 years, from the list Trent approved? Thus the word “Deuterocanonical” was invented to describe those passages that were listed by Trent, in contrast to the Apocrypha that had been accepted by the Catholic church for edification, at least, for many centuries.
And in rejecting the Apocrypha and/or Deuterocanonical books as being authoritative for doctrine, we are merely doing what many in the Catholic Church did from the time of Jerome, and which the Catholic Church still allows - although the Catholic Church believes a canonical book can be one that is good for edification, but not doctrine...a stance the Apostles would have been confused by.
“So do Catholics.”
No. I have never once seen a Catholic lie here. I have seen Catholics make mistakes, post erroneous information, etc. I have only seen anti-Catholics lie. One or two have even admitted that they lied when pressed to do so.
“And Catholics do not like to admit that the Apocrypha was not considered useful for doctrine by many leading Catholic theologians until Trent, and technically even Trent didn’t answer that question.”
There was no question to answer.
“… we reject the idea that scripture can be useless for doctrine.”
So do we.
“The Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures was at the 4th Session of Trent in 1546. Twenty years passed before the term “Deuterocanonical” was invented and replaced “Apocrypha” in Roman Catholic usage. Why?”
No other term was needed previously because Protestantism, the new heresy, was challenging what had not been challenged in hundreds of years.
“Notice: Done in response to the Council of Trent, 4th session, 1546, the Clementine Vulgate “removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.”
And?
“So what word would distinguish the “Apocrypha”, used for 1000 years, from the list Trent approved? Thus the word “Deuterocanonical” was invented to describe those passages that were listed by Trent, in contrast to the Apocrypha that had been accepted by the Catholic church for edification, at least, for many centuries.”
And? Previously the books were simply referred to by their names. And?
“And in rejecting the Apocrypha and/or Deuterocanonical books as being authoritative for doctrine, we are merely doing what many in the Catholic Church did from the time of Jerome, and which the Catholic Church still allows - although the Catholic Church believes a canonical book can be one that is good for edification, but not doctrine...a stance the Apostles would have been confused by.”
Your assertion is false.
I got as far as this:
“No. I have never once seen a Catholic lie here. I have seen Catholics make mistakes, post erroneous information, etc. I have only seen anti-Catholics lie.”
And decided not to bother reading the rest of your response. Your sense of reality doesn’t match what I’ve seen here, and I suspect many Catholics would agree with me. The religion forum, unfortunately, is the least honest and most vitriolic part of FreeRepublic.
“You mean like ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’?”
I suspect you do not understand what ola scriptura even means.
While you think about that, please find sola ecclesia anywhere...
Then it is right after Paul instructs Timothy to "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[c] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."
And to avoid those who have swerved from the truth.
Sola scriptura concerns the authority of scripture, not Gospel.
Sola fide has many verses of it own. Eph 2:8-10 for eg.
Necessity of belief in the assumption of Mary for salvation is another Gospel
What a complete laugh!
We got the Bible from the Hebrew Cohenim, obviously.
Ah come on now. You know right before the 12 apostles were sent out to evangelise Jesus gave them all a little Gideon Bible.
>> “Yet there is one group that brags just like the arrogant rooster, thinking it wasn’t God at all.” <<
.
For a truth, if THAT particular group had anything to do with it, then it certainly couldn’t have been God.
Fortunately they had no part in it, but to gather and hide the writings that they hated.
Actually, all you did was translate. You did not demonstrate that you know what is meant by the term.
The Church is meant to hold and support up the truth. It is not the truth. God’s Word is truth.
Do they grasp inferior and provably erroneous works as from God because they have been convinced by their extraordinary attributes or because their leaders have deemed them so and they dare not reject it? I almost believe they cling to these books solely because they NEED them to be connected to the word of God just as they are and by which they can claim ALL of sacred Scripture is only as authoritative as their religion deems them so. Instead of the church being governed by God's infallible word, they turn it around and make God's word submit to their governance. I do NOT imagine God is pleased.
How do the definitions of ‘scripture alone’ and ‘faith alone’ differ from a Protestant perspective? At face value it seems pretty cut and dried. Don’t most Protestants believe that all you need is the Bible and your faith to make it to heaven? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You and I only have opinions; we weren't there and neither of us will change our opinion!
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.