Posted on 01/31/2016 4:18:23 PM PST by ebb tide
There never is one.
Have YOU read the 95 Thesis?
Which ones do you disagree with and why?
All the ecumenical councils contain the truth.
Which one represents the OTC Catholic church?
OTC?
OTC = One True Church.
Sola Scriptura! Are you kidding?
Which flavor do you want:
King James Version (KJV)
New International Version (NIV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
New King James Version (NKJV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
New Century Version (NCV)
What is The Voice translation of the Bible?
New English Bible (NEB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Good News Bible (GNB) / Today’s English Version (TEV)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Today’s New International Version (TNIV)
New English Translation (NET)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
God’s Word Translation (GW)
Common English Bible (CEB)
What is the Recovery Version of the Bible?
New International Readers Version (NIrV)
Easy-To-Read Version (ERV)
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Bible in Basic English (BBE)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
What is the Modern King James Version (MKJV)?
What is the Modern English Version (MEV)?
World English Bible (WEB)
Revised English Bible (REB)
Jerusalem Bible (JB)
New American Bible (NAB)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Message (MSG)
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
The Bishops’ Bible
Douay-Rheims Version (DRV)
Tyndale Bible
Geneva Bible
Because you aren't interested in an answer, you're hoping for a blurb, without context or fullness (which sums up how Protestant doctrine comes about, btw). You don't really care about incredulity vs. apostasy vs. schism vs. heresy, either formal or material. You don't care about the balance between obedience and the need to rebuke. You don't care about the weight of Doctrine and the role of Sacred Tradition.
If I'm mistaken and you really do care, feel free to study up.
Sounds just like some people who say that the Bible contains truth.
Well, fine, something can contain truth, but there's a difference between containing the truth and BEING the Truth.
V2 changed a lot that sedevacantists and traditionalists reject. So who's correct?
And what about the schism between the Orthodox and the Roman rite? Each claim to be the church that Christ started in its purest form with the other being in schism.
Who's right and why? What truth standard is used for making that determination?
Oh boy, what can I say...I'll just thank you for providing a double dose of irony and Protestant contradiction, and leave it at that.
The dispute was about heresy, not corruption.
And how is a slight difference in words used equate to difference in meaning?
And why do you object to updated versions of Scripture to keep up with the changes in English language usage?
Or should we all still be speaking King James English?
If you look here (Bible Hub http://biblehub.com/) at any one particular verse, what you will note is the consistency between various translations with the sole exception of the Duoay-Rheims version, the official Catholic version. If there’s going to be a difference in actual translation. or outright error in translation, it’s almost without fail, going to show up there.
It’s funny that a Catholic would criticize different translations when the Catholic church can’t even put out a decent translation of the Bible that Catholics claim their church WROTE.
In what way is your comment related to why Luther posted the Theses in Latin?
Looks like a red herring to me.
Slight differences?
How about complete removal of books?
Again, a cop out.
The question remains unanswered as usual.
I find it interesting that Catholics won’t/can’t answer whether the Holy Spirit led the College of Cardinals in their selection of the pope.
I have answer. It’s in this very article that I posted. Trying reading it before you jump into the protestant mosh pit.
No council has ever claimed to contain all the truth but what they taught is without error. They do so with the same authority as the Council of Jerusalem that was recorded in Acts.
V2 changed a lot that sedevacantists and traditionalists reject. So who's correct?
Vatican II did not change any doctrines of the Church.
And what about the schism between the Orthodox and the Roman rite? Each claim to be the church that Christ started in its purest form with the other being in schism.
Who's right and why? What truth standard is used for making that determination?
The historical record shows that the undivided church acknowledged the role of the pope. It is they that have departed from what was the accepted teaching of the Church.
It has never been Church teaching that the selection of the pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Nobody removed anything.
Luther translated everything, even the books that WEREN’T recognized as CANON at the time by the Catholic church itself.
He included them in a separate section.
From a Catholic source...
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=438095
“In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.”
But don’t let the facts get in the way of an agenda if you don’t want to believe it but would rather attempt to slander Luther to the world.
Baloney. Try that on someone who doesn't know anything about Catholicism.
The whole issue of whether someone can be saved outside of the Catholic church is probably the best known one.
Only an apostate/heretic would disregard St. Teresa of Avila and embrace Luther.
So the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the selection of the pope?
Well, then on what basis is the decision made? If the Holy spirit doesn't do the leading, then who does?
Why then do Catholics think the pope represents Christ on earth?
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.