Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Argentine Evangelicals Say Bergoglio as Pope Francis Is 'Answer to Our Prayers'
Christianity Today ^ | 3/14/13 | Jeremy Weber

Posted on 03/18/2013 9:17:42 AM PDT by marshmallow

First Latin American pope offers opportunity to 'rethink differences' and 'join hands in mission.'

Argentina's evangelical leaders were just as surprised as anyone when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, former archbishop of Buenos Aires, was revealed Wednesday as the new Pope Francis. But they were not surprised when his first words broke from papal tradition.

In a move that Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano called "unprecedented and shocking," before Francis offered the world the traditional papal blessing, he asked those watching to first pray for him.

Such a request is one of Bergoglio's trademarks, said Juan Pablo Bongarrá, president of the Argentine Bible Society.

"Whenever you talk to him, the conversation ends with a request: 'Pastor, pray for me," said Bongarrá. He recalls when Bergoglio once attended a weekly worship meeting organized by Buenos Aires's charismatic pastors. "He mounted the platform and called for pastors to pray for him," said Bongarrá. "He knelt in front of nearly 6,000 people, and [Protestant leaders] laid hands and prayed."

Prayer came up frequently as several of Argentina's leading evangelicals, known for their unity efforts in Buenos Aires, described their thoughts on the new pope.

"His election has been an answer to our prayers," said Norberto Saracco, rector of Buenos Aires's FIET seminary and co-leader of the capital city's Council of Pastors. "Bergoglio is a man of God. He is passionate for the unity of the Church—but not just at the institutional level. His priority is unity at the level of the people."

Relations between evangelicals and Catholics are much better in Argentina than in other Latin American nations, said Saracco. Bergoglio has played a central role in Argentina's CRECES (Renewal Communion of Catholics and Evangelicals in the Holy Spirit) movement over the past 10 years, and has strongly supported the Bible society. "He has very good and.....

(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: catholic; evangelicals; popefrancis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 03/18/2013 9:17:42 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

A sign that this new Pope will help to bring about greater unity among Christians.


2 posted on 03/18/2013 9:21:08 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

PRAYERS!!!!


3 posted on 03/18/2013 9:24:42 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).


4 posted on 03/18/2013 9:57:58 AM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl; RnMomof7; HarleyD; fish hawk; Alex Murphy; wmfights; boatbums
"A sign that this new Pope will help to bring about greater unity among Christians."

If you define "unity" as captitulation by those who do not understand the Gospel, then perhaps you are correct. For those who see the thousand-mile-wide chasm between Rome and the Scriptures, the "unity" will occur only when Rome recants its enormous volume of errant doctrines. We stand waiting with open arms.

5 posted on 03/18/2013 10:02:14 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Amen.


6 posted on 03/18/2013 10:04:16 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

“He (Pope Francis) called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate [creating by the Catholic Church to accommodate alienated Anglicans] was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans.”

Here’s another example showing this Pope may have little intention of converting people to Catholicism.


7 posted on 03/18/2013 10:06:42 AM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

What errors?

Maybe it is a sign that Chrisians are getting away from fighting each other for a change and are embracing more of what is in common, say for example of having a common Christian baptism.


8 posted on 03/18/2013 10:26:13 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

A larger discussion of the errors is taking place here...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2997236/posts

“...common Christian baptism” means something far different to the Catholic than it does to the Bible oriented believer. Please read Paul’s letter to the believing Jews (commonly called Hebrews) to notice how much significance he placed on the real meaning of things such as this.


9 posted on 03/18/2013 10:34:36 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

If conservatives play their cards right, they could leverage the new pope to bring in Latino Catholics. This is an opportunity of a lifetime.


10 posted on 03/18/2013 11:01:56 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Got a problem? Nothing a drone strike can't fix.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

“We stand waiting with open arms.”

While you stand there waiting, other Protestants and Catholics are opening their hearts and finding we are all brothers in Christ. Changes in the Anglecan church, evangellicals in Argentina, and reproachment with our Eastern orthodox friends - and Rome is flexable and in effect saying, “it’s ok if your path is a little different if it leads you to Christ.” Pretty historic stuff given the last 496 years. At least your arms are open, if less so for your heart. We pray for you.


11 posted on 03/18/2013 11:12:01 AM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Owl558
"Rome is flexable and in effect saying, “it’s ok if your path is a little different if it leads you to Christ.”"

Really? Here is Boniface VIII... "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctum 1302AD.

Sounds a little more serious than you have claimed. And, Boniface is a major contributor to Catholic Law, my FRiend.

But, if you wish to head this direction, into the light of Jesus alone, then swim the Tiber the other direction and leave the Roman traditions, rituals, ceremonies and errant doctrines and we stand ready to welcome you...if Jesus permits. We are praying for you folks.

12 posted on 03/18/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
"If conservatives play their cards right, they could leverage the new pope to bring in Latino Catholics. This is an opportunity of a lifetime."

If the issues covered just this lifetime, your idea might have value.

13 posted on 03/18/2013 12:03:45 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

I think it does. Divest ourselves from the RINOS and reach out to Catholic Latinos.

Funny thing is, all those illegals the Rats want to give amnesty to, a good chunk of them would go with Pope Francis.

Unintended consequences.


14 posted on 03/18/2013 12:09:26 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Got a problem? Nothing a drone strike can't fix.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88; Owl558

The Catholic belief is that all salvation comes through the Catholic church. This may include graces obtained by Protestants and others through the working of the Catholic church, despite their separation from the Catholic church.

The valid reception of the sacraments, including sincere and penitential reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (”confession”) preceding the Sacrament of the Eucharist (”communion”) is the ordinary means by which a soul may know it is in the state of grace. Orthodox churches likely possess valid sacraments, despite the state of schism, so that their communicants are saved through those sacraments; Protestant churches do not possess valid sacraments. Nonetheless, a Protestant may be saved through a sacrament of desire. That is, though the Protestant offering of bread and wine is not transubstantiated into the body of Christ, the person who genuinely and sincerely desires to receive the body of Christ has hope of doing so. (The Baptism of Desire is the means, for instance, of the salvation of St. Dismas, the good thief on the cross with Jesus.)

Some people detect a contradiction between the Council of Trent, which anathematizes all Protestants, and the Second Vatican Council, which hopes for their salvation through the extraordinary means mentioned above. There is, however, no contradiction. As used in the Council of Trent, “Protestant” referred to people who had been baptized, catechized (educated), and raised as Catholics and yet rejected the Catholic faith to take cause with those who sought the abolition of the Catholic church. Today, “Protestants” may include those who were raised by parents seeking God, have become “invinceably ignorant” by the reception of false doctrines, and who honor their mother and father by persisting in the Christian faith as they know it.


15 posted on 03/18/2013 12:42:29 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
"I think it does."

My point was that embracing "pope" Francis has ramifications beyond this lifetime. Thus, it is not an "opportunity of a lifetime" to make nicey. Rather, it would be an (incorrect) opportunity to encourage Francis' errant doctrines. This has eternal consequences. It is no longer the case that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend".

16 posted on 03/18/2013 12:45:23 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dangus

The Bible-believing “separated brethren” offer this alternative...read the Book the organization claims to have provided and find out what the Apostles thought about the way things really are. The nonsense peddled by Rome is not there.

John, “The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself.” “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”

John is sadly(?) absent the information Rome claims is necessary to find salvation. I think I’ll stick with John.


17 posted on 03/18/2013 12:54:55 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Don’t pretend that Catholics ignore John.

Many anti-Christians believe that there was a historical person named Jesus, but what is that they believe about him? Did you not notice John wrote such things as, “Yea, verily I tell you this: unless you eat of my body and drink of my flesh, you shall not have life within you?” Or, “He who believes in me will do the things the Father has commanded him?”

Do you believe that the Epistle of St. James is the bible or not? Because St. James wrote, “Even demons believe that God is One, and they shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” And so he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Luther had no come-back for that, and so he proclaimed that the Epistle of James was evil, and was not Christian. He also was forced to deny the authenticity of Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse of St. John (”Revelation”). Only by tradition did it remain in the Protestant canon, for the Calvinists had no reply to it, either.


18 posted on 03/18/2013 1:15:49 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dangus
No, Luther did not proclaim the book of James as evil. He called it “A stawry epistle” in that it can lead someone to try to live a life of works and not of faith. Luther said you need to love God, and that will drive you to do His will.

Luther had no love of James, but he did not call it evil.

As for Hebrews, he said that it was not written by Paul. In other words he tended to agree with the scholars of his time. Because of that, his commentary on Hebrews hints that Luther was very cautious in saying to much about it.

I will be honest in that I don't know much about 2 and 3rd John, other than he tended to view their authorship the same way many of his period did. I will look into it if I get a chance.

Revelation is an interesting on for you to bring up. Most churches (and that includes the Catholic and Orthodox) don't do much with Revelation. It isn't in the lexinairy that much, and you don't see much commentary on it. Luther also didn't write much on it, because he viewed it as a book that many will take flights of fancy with and run all sorts of directions that make no sense (Left Behind).

A very similar view that many Catholic scholars took of the Apocalypse of St. John.

19 posted on 03/18/2013 1:27:44 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Don’t whitewash Martin Luther. He hated the seven books he removed from the New Testament as un-Christian forgeries which led souls to Satan.

Not sure where you get the notion that Catholics don’t read Revelation much. They don’t read it like futurism, but they do read it as explaining the mass and the persecution of the Church.


20 posted on 03/18/2013 1:53:23 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Catholic Hispanics will never become as conservative and pro-life as Protestant Hispanics, but every little bit helps.


21 posted on 03/18/2013 2:07:42 PM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasn’t for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus; Forest Keeper; Gamecock; RnMomof7; HarleyD; fish hawk; Alex Murphy; wmfights; boatbums
I am not certain what you mean by a "come back" as if you have proven something. Luther got a lot wrong. After all, he was marinated in Catholicism for so many years it is a wonder he got anything right. Bible believing Christians understand that if there is not some evidence that a life has been changed by Christ, whatever the person pretends to have "believed" is worthless. But, notice faith must still preceed the works for the works to be useful. Thank you, James.

But, the real question is, "Where does real faith come from if the fake stuff is no good?" Here, Paul can help.

"For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one hop up and down and say 'See the RCC has got it right, you do have to work to be saved!'" Okay, part of that is a paraphrase.

But, don't try the old dead gender argument. Clearly, Paul is simply saying everything about salvation is a gift from God, not from some kind of transaction. The RCC has made it a transaction. Read Rom. 9 very carefully, my FRiend. Paul knows the claims of those who like to say they control their (and others) destiny.

22 posted on 03/18/2013 2:23:11 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Define “Catholic Hispanics” and “Protestant Hispanics.”

If you mean those who immigrated from anti-clerical Latin-American nations, regardless of religious affinity compared to those who are enculturated into and remain enculturated into Southern-style, white-led evangelical Christianity, you are correct.

If you mean those who were significantly catechized and participate routinely in the sacraments, compared to those who reject the authority of the Catholic church based on Protestant rationales, you are wrong.

Much of Latin America is very poorly catechized: Priest-to-Congregant ratios are less than one-fifth the European model, and frequently less than one-tenth. The nations are called “Catholic” because they were simply officially declared so, and the peoples baptized without true conversion or even evangelization. US-funded anti-clerical regimes typically placed great difficulties on providing adequate priests; the US-backed Mexican Revolution led to the deaths of 20,000 Mexican priests, nuns and Catechists. Those who emigrate to the United States often represent the poorest catechized, and those from the weakest family backgrounds (otherwise they wouldn’t leave their families and communities behind to break our laws).

Many non-Christian churches have had great success among the poorly catechized of Brazil and other cultures. These churches are typically called “Protestant,” “Evangelical” or “Pentecostalist” by triumphantist Protestants, evangelicals or Pentacostalist, but frequently involve paganism, worshipping of demons, or anti-Christ-like cult leaders. In many cases, the adherents quit Catholicism precisely because during the Post-Vatican evangelization of Latin America, the church leaders finally had the personnel to impose a rejection of syncretic and superstitious faiths.

(Many Protestants characterize such superstitions as if they were part of teh Catholic Church. In fact, they are pre-Christian traditions which persisted because the Catholic Church lacked the missionaries to convert people away from them.)

For these reasons, I’d been posting here and on other fora not to be surprised if the recent elections did not result in a South-American priest; the pool of candidates to be pope (that is, priests) is much smaller (26%) than the overall population (58%).


23 posted on 03/18/2013 2:24:24 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Catholic Hispanics will never become as conservative and pro-life as Protestant Hispanics, but every little bit helps.

Pro-lifers may never win the Catholic vote again as it is so supportive of the democrat party, but it is possible that it could happen once or twice more.


24 posted on 03/18/2013 2:47:17 PM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasn’t for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dangus; Dutchboy88
As used in the Council of Trent, “Protestant” referred to people who had been baptized, catechized (educated), and raised as Catholics and yet rejected the Catholic faith to take cause with those who sought the abolition of the Catholic church.

Guess you're talking about me, then. I was baptized as an infant into the Roman Catholic Church and had first holy communion and confirmation, even went to Catholic grade school a number of years. I rejected the false doctrines of the Catholic Church when I heard the Gospel as spoken of in John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." I don't seek the abolition of the Catholic Church, just the salvation of all those who diligently seek to know Christ.

Just reading those few verses convinced me that I was in the wrong church (the Holy Spirit opened my eyes). I received the gift of eternal life which was given to me by the grace of God through faith in Christ. So, according to the Catholic dogma, I'm a lost cause unless I repent and return to Catholicism before I die. But according to God, I am his born-again child of faith. Do you need to guess which one really matters to me? Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, NOT through the Catholic Church. The church cannot save anyone, but the TRUE church is made up of all believers in Christ and He knows His sheep and they know Him.

25 posted on 03/18/2013 3:21:56 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dangus

LOL!

Friend, I have COMMENTARIES WRITTEN BY LUTHER ON THOSE BOOKS!

I suggest you walk out of the echo chamber and read what he wrote. I don’t expect you to agree, but you would look less like a fool.


26 posted on 03/18/2013 3:51:05 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"Just reading those few verses convinced me that I was in the wrong church (the Holy Spirit opened my eyes). I received the gift of eternal life which was given to me by the grace of God through faith in Christ. So, according to the Catholic dogma, I'm a lost cause unless I repent and return to Catholicism before I die. But according to God, I am his born-again child of faith. Do you need to guess which one really matters to me? Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, NOT through the Catholic Church. The church cannot save anyone, but the TRUE church is made up of all believers in Christ and He knows His sheep and they know Him."

Nothing could be added to, or taken away from, this very straightforward, and truthful expression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank you, my FRiend.

27 posted on 03/18/2013 4:32:11 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Amen, Sister!

Catholic dogma vs God’s word? The Catholic Church vs HIS church of believers?

God IS prevailing as testaments like yours continually demonstrate.

Joshua 24:14-24

Choose You This Day Whom Ye Will Serve,
But As For Me And My House We Will Serve The Lord


28 posted on 03/18/2013 5:47:15 PM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Oh my goodness! You have a commentary! Well, I guess that settles that.

Luther: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

Catholic Church: Right there. Hebrews. Maccabees. Revelation. 2 Peter. James. Wisdom.

Luther: Oh, not THOSE books. Those books don’t count.


29 posted on 03/18/2013 7:07:24 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“Did you not notice John wrote such things as, “Yea, verily I tell you this: unless you eat of my body and drink of my flesh, you shall not have life within you?” “


And, apparently, you’re unfamiliar with Christ’s explanation:

Joh 6:61-63 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

“Or, “He who believes in me will do the things the Father has commanded him?””


So why must it be Roman works, instead of the ones that all Christians do as a result of their regeneration?

The idea that carnal Roman rituals can actually have an effect on the spirit, when salvation is by the direct hand of God, is simply absurd.

“Do you believe that the Epistle of St. James is the bible or not? Because St. James wrote, “Even demons believe that God is One, and they shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” And so he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.””


So what is the fulfillment of the law, according to James?

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.

It certainly is not Popery. No grand commandments to knee before the Priest, or take the wafer, or go to confession, or pray the hail Mary, for to save your soul. And does James really contradict Paul, who says that we are saved by grace, and not by the works of the law?

Here is what Paul says:

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Again, using the same example of James:

Rom 4:2-5 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

And here is James:

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Would James utterly contradict Paul? God forbid, for the scripture cannot be broken. James is speaking to Christians, regarding proper Christian conduct. His issue is not with faith, but with Saving Faith and mere sentiments of religion. Those who are born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, show their faith by their works:

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Thus, saving faith is faith which leads to good works, but the works themselves do not save. Otherwise, the thief on the cross would be damned. Cornelius, who was not a Christian previously and had not even been baptized, was filled and baptized by the Holy Ghost:

Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Salvation, itself, has nothing to do with the human will at all. It is the work of God, who draws us, and makes us who we are.

Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

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,

Not according to our works, but according to HIS purpose, given to us before the world began. This is not something won through Roman obedience to dead rituals, but is the gift of God:

Rom 8:29-33 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (32) He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (33) Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

Note that all who are predesinated, God calls. All who are called, God justifies. Whom God justifies, He glorifies.

Rom 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Key phrase, not of him that WILLETH, or even he who runneth, but God who sheweth mercy.

Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


30 posted on 03/18/2013 8:00:35 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“Catholic Church: Right there. Hebrews. Maccabees. Revelation. 2 Peter. James. Wisdom.

Luther: Oh, not THOSE books. Those books don’t count.”


Maccabees is not in the canon of scripture. According to Pope Gregory the First:

“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.

Same thing for Wisdom, according to Jerome:

“But you must know that there are other books, which are not canonical, but were called by the ancients ecclesiastical, that is to say, the book of Wisdom, which is said to be Solomon’s, and the other Wisdom, which is said to be the son of Sirach’s, which book is called by the Latins by the general name of Ecclesiasticus, by which name not the author of the book, but the nature of the writing is declared. Of the same class is the book of Tobit, and Judith, and the books of Maccabees. And in the New Testament the book of the Shepherd, or Hermes, which is called the two roads, or the judgment of Peter, all of which they have thought fit to be read in the churches, but not to be brought forward for the confirmation of the faith. — Symbol of Ruffinus, vol. 9, p. 186.

“Whatsoever is without these, is to be placed among the Apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” — Preface to the Book of Kings, vol. 3, book 24.

And Athanasius:

“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and in cluded in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zacha- riah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.” — Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures. (Paris, 1627.)

Those other books are fine. And none of them are a Papist’s friend.


31 posted on 03/18/2013 8:04:06 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Yes, I have what he said about those books (which he admitted to not liking as much as others), as opposed to the various black legends floating around.


32 posted on 03/19/2013 4:20:22 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Pope Gregory was not condemning the Book of Maccabees.

Saint Jerome was describing the beliefs of the Jews. He called those who accused him of holding those beliefs personally, “fools and slanderers.” If, as Protestants argue without evidence, he insisted he was misinterpreted only for fear of being considered a heretic by the Catholic church, that only all the more establishes that the Catholic church permitted no dissent on the books of the canon.

Athanasius included among his list of books not to be read, the Book of Esther, but includes as canonical the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. His canon is not the Catholic canon, but is neither the Protestant canon.

The truth is that for hundreds of years, the canon of the Old Testament was volatile. But for more than 1000 years, the first and second Book of Maccabees was published in every bible, and every Church, Roman or Orthodox, or Oriental, or Coptic, or Thomistic included them.

The only grain of truth to the notion that the Catholic Church “added” books to the bible at the Council of Trent is this:

Certain churches used the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (in Greek, a single book called Esdras.) Others used a shortened version of Esdras, redacted in Greek, which became known as Greek Esdras. The Council of Trent found that there was nothing doctrinal to be found in the Greek Esdras that was not found in Ezra and Nehemiah, so did not include Greek Esdras separately as a book which must be defended as a source of doctrine.


33 posted on 03/19/2013 9:59:51 AM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Pope Gregory said Maccabees is not canonical. Saint Jerome said they are not canonical, and said that the CHURCH did not use them for the confirmation of the faith. No mention of the jews. Your quote of Jerome applied to an abuse in a statement of his preface in Daniel. My quotes are two separate ones. That Athanasius did not share the Catholic canon, and was more protestant than Catholic, was the point.

Fact is, there was never any question of Maccabees, insomuch that it itself tells us it is not an inspired work. Why not take it at its word? Same for Wisdom, which contradicts the scripture no one doubts. Josephus said that only 22 books made up the canon, and all the others are not due to the failure of the succession of prophets. Those who study it for themselves are of a greater value than a thousand dead Roman assertions.


34 posted on 03/19/2013 10:44:21 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

You can repeat yourself all you want about St. Jerome and Pope St. Gregory. Doesn’t make it true.

As for Athanasius being Protestant: LOL!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OK, his canon was wrong, but it wasn’t the Protestant canon, either. Have you ever read Athanasius?

He’s perhaps most noted for promulgating the Council of Nicea, promoting monasticism, founding a rule of bishops, etc. The notion that he might be a Protestant just means you’ve never read a single thing he’s ever written, or anything about him, or his culture.


35 posted on 03/19/2013 12:33:15 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Oh, and your little tidbit about the Book of Daniel? The problem is that Jerome specifically mentions the portions of the Book of Daniel that are rejected by Protestants. Here’s the full quote:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us

Also:

Also, he writes: “Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’” Not according to you; that’s Sirach he’s not only calling scripture, but using to base a doctrinal assertion on.

He also calls Baruch a prophet: “I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] And those of Baruch ,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] And many other proclamations made by the trumpet of such prophets.”

In fact, dozens of times, Jerome cites as scripture — and bases theological arguments on — the deuterocanonical books. So why refer solely to the portions of Daniel than Luther left on the cutting room floor? Because those were specifically the ones he was charged with considering non-canonical.

None of this however, justifies Luther’s rejection of the other books I’ve mentioned, but serves only as a distraction from the larger point.


36 posted on 03/19/2013 12:47:48 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Jerome's introduction to the Book of Judith is explicit that the Jews reject it, but the Council of Nicea accepted it. HIs reluctance to translate it is not due to the notion that it is non-canonical, but due to the fact that the only version he had of it was Chaldean. (His belief that it was written in Chaldean was proven wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls.):
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work, translating according to sense rather than verbatim.
So when Protestants cite his preface to Wisdom as if he regards it as nonscriptural, how can they ignore that he just defended, in the very same work, Judith as scriptural?
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."
Simple: he's already explained that "among the canonical Scriptures" refers to the books that the JEWS consider canonical. When he says, "not to give authority to doctrines of the Church," he's referring to arguing with Jews: No point telling the Jews, "See? Your scriptures affirm Christianity" when the Jews don't recognize such scripture!

Now, it's true that, out of context of the introduction to Judith, you could read what he says as suggesting that the Church considers them non-scriptural. That's why Jerome had to address accusations made against him that he considered them non-scriptural. But consider the bitterness with which he denies the accusation ("fools and slanderers") as your hint of how firmly the Church rejected any dissent.

37 posted on 03/19/2013 12:58:40 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Must you trouble me with irrelevant and nonsensical comments? Jerome’s words I provided are not from Daniel, nor do they touch on them. This is the second time you attributed my quotes as from Daniel, when the references on the canon are from two different works. Why you accuse me of an argument I have not provided, I suppose, is the only way you can get out of it. And, aye, I need not repeat them; their words stand on their own. Evidently, you project your repititious nature on me. As for the silly comment on Athanasius, I said his canon was more protestant than catholic. Do take the time to read my posts before barking.


38 posted on 03/19/2013 1:06:12 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dangus

A spurious and wishful argument in the third post. It says the church does not read them as canonical, and the church themselves does not put them forward as a confirmation of the faith, though they do use them for edification. My quotes are from the Symbol and the preface for Kings. What would something in the preface of Judith matter? The Jews have nothing whatever to do with his statements therein, and you have to ignore the actual wording to do it. As for Baruch, many church fathers quote all sorts of works. It does not change that he called them noncanonical.


39 posted on 03/19/2013 1:20:38 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“The Catholic belief is that all salvation comes through the Catholic church. “

No; the Catholic belief has always been more specific, i.e., “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”.


40 posted on 03/22/2013 7:04:48 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Actually, the saying you are quoting is “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus.” There’s no mention of the word, “Catholic.” Even at the time the Council of Trent wrote that, there were churches other than Catholic which were not anathematized. Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian and other Oriental churches were recognized to have effective sacraments, and, although in schism, are part of the same Body of Christ.

Unlike these churches, the Protestant churches of “substantially defective,” meaning they are cut off (”defaced”) from the “substance” of the Church; they lack proper sacraments. Therefore no Protestant may be assured of his salvation, regardless of whether he has sincerely participated in his church’s worship. However, a succession of popes has reiterated that as distorted as their view of Christ may be, because Protestants in fact worship Christ, they potentially may be saved through extra-ordinary (as in, “beyond the normal”) means.


41 posted on 03/22/2013 8:00:33 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dangus; ebb tide

Clarification: At the time of the Nestorian schism, the Catholic Church understood certain Eastern churches to follow Nestorius in a doctrine thought to represent a denial of the trinity, and therefore did not recognize the efficacy of baptism. Later, Oriental churches recognized that such churches were not denying the trinity; the Catholic Church, at the time of the Council of Trent, was not, to my knowledge, aware of the status of the churches accused of Nestorianism.


42 posted on 03/22/2013 8:07:08 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

>> It says the church does not read them as canonical <<

As Jerome himself indicated, he did not mean that they were not part of the Catholic Holy Scriptures, but rather that they were not part of the canon of the Jews.

>> and the church themselves does not put them forward as a confirmation of the faith <<

He did not state that they do not contain necessary doctrine, but rather that they do not provide proof, in themselves, the Christian faith to the Jews, simply because the Jews do not recognize them as the Word of God.

>> My quotes are from the Symbol and the preface for Kings. What would something in the preface of Judith matter? <<

Nothing, if they were written by two different people capable of holding two different opinions. But since they were written by the same person as part of the same work, any interpretation must reconcile both portions.

As for the preface to the Book of Kings, Jerome quite plainly, in this instance, is describing the contents of the JEWISH canon, and even emphasizing that the various groups of Jews don’t even agree.

>> As for Baruch, many church fathers quote all sorts of works. It does not change that he called them noncanonical. <<

Jerome doesn’t just QUOTE the deuterocanonicals; he QUOTES them AND CALLS THEM HOLY SCRIPTURE. It does not change that he calls them non-canonical, since the canon he refers to is THAT OF THE JEWS.


43 posted on 03/22/2013 8:22:13 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“However, a succession of popes has reiterated that as distorted as their view of Christ may be, because Protestants in fact worship Christ, they potentially may be saved through extra-ordinary (as in, “beyond the normal”) means.”

Is that why both Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, were so ticked-off with Pope Benedict’s “Anglican Ordinariate”?

P.S. How far back does your “succession of popes” go? Does it go past 1957 A.D.?


44 posted on 03/22/2013 8:42:53 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“As Jerome himself indicated, he did not mean that they were not part of the Catholic Holy Scriptures, but rather that they were not part of the canon of the Jews.”


Except that the quotes you keep bringing are on a topic totally separated from the ones I supplied. They are from the Symbol and the preface to Kings. Not Daniel or Judith. And from the two sources of mine, there is no mention of Jews, or anything else. And the quotes themselves immediately say “the church does not” such and such. Not Jews.

You keep making this point, over and over again, but it seems to me you are talking to someone else.

“He did not state that they do not contain necessary doctrine,”


He says they are not canonical. And if not canonical, they do not contain necessary doctrine. For how does one get doctrine from a book, for example, that teaches magic?

Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”

Or that one can be forgiven of sins by giving alms?

Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”

The scripture is clear, it is the blood of Christ which purges away all sin.

Or what doctrine can Judith hold, when it falsely claims that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians?

Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”

Or what of Baruch, which incorrectly states that the Babylonian exile was for seven generations, and not 70 years as is correct?

Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

For good cause, therefore, does Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril of Jerusalem reject many, if not all, of these books as canon.

“any interpretation must reconcile both portions.”


No random interpretation can reconcile the clear words “The Church” and “not canon” in two separate quotes, speaking of the Church’s view, and not the Jewish view. Albeit, the Jewish view is worthwhile too, since the oracles of God were originally given to them, and for good reason they rejected these books. They were all written during the period wherein no Prophets had risen up. There was no one inspired who could have written them at all. And for that reason you have so much funky dogma and false teaching and historical facts.

You’re convoluting reality is quite tiresome.

” QUOTES them AND CALLS THEM HOLY SCRIPTURE.”


Jerome did not call Baruch scripture. He quoted from it, but he did not say “The Prophet Baruch, who doesn’t know that the Jews only spent 70 years in Babylon, and not 7 generations, said such and such.” It was simply a quote from Baruch, which Jerome never denied was useful for edification, but not part of the scripture.


45 posted on 03/22/2013 8:57:40 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; All

Oops, how did a discussion on the apocrypha from another thread get responded to in this one? I just replied to my ping. Wrong thread altogether.


46 posted on 03/22/2013 9:01:49 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“Protestant churches yesterday reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/11/catholicism.religion


47 posted on 03/22/2013 9:07:53 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Oh, so you’re a sedevacantist, are you? Even Lefebvre signed on to Vatican II, so, yes, it’s interpretation of the Council of Trent is authoritative.

Kasper disliked the Anglican Ordinariate because the Anglicans disliked it, and he was trying to negotiate with them as a whole. What relevance that has to our debate utterly escapes me.


48 posted on 03/22/2013 9:23:41 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“The valid reception of the sacraments, including sincere and penitential reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (”confession”) preceding the Sacrament of the Eucharist (”communion”) is the ordinary means by which a soul may know it is in the state of grace. Orthodox churches likely possess valid sacraments, despite the state of schism, so that their communicants are saved through those sacraments; Protestant churches do not possess valid sacraments. Nonetheless, a Protestant may be saved through a sacrament of desire.


It’s a good thing that we are saved by grace, and not through any dead sacrament from the Romans, who think salvation can be bought with a gesture, a properly timed bow, a chant to a dead Christian, and, finally, with their very own stomachs.

I assure you, there is no hope for Catholics who believe that such things really do save them. It is the will of God, unmoved by man, which brings a person to Christ.

Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Rom 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

“The Baptism of Desire is the means, for instance, of the salvation of St. Dismas, the good thief on the cross with Jesus.”


LOL, you make the Thief on the cross a saint? What did the scripture say of him?

Luk 23:39-43 And one of the MALEFACTORS which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. (40) But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? (41) And we indeed justly; for we receive the DUE REWARD of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. (42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

And how can one desire Roman sacraments that had yet didn’t even exist for him to even know about? He was saved not by a desire for baptism or sacraments, but by faith that Christ is LORD, a truth revealed to him not by flesh and blood (man), but by our Father in heaven who draws His elect.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

One wonders, then, what desire saved Cornelius and his family, who were baptized by the Holy Spirit, and thus justified in every way by God, before water baptism which he received afterwards?

Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

It is the work of God which saves, and not by the works of the man.


49 posted on 03/22/2013 9:26:46 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

The Commentary on the Book of Kings IS THE SAME WORK as the Commentary on the Book of Baruch.

As for the Symbol of Rufinus, I’ll admit I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The only references I can find anywhere to any writing of St. Jerome called the Symbol of Rufinus are two Protestant polemicists who cite only exactly what you cited, with no further context, except they refer to a “Ruffinus.” They apparently refer to the same source, since they both have that misspelling (and are both so wholly unfamiliar with Latin as to believe that “Ruffinus” is a plausible Latin name.), and both refer to a page numbering certainly alien to any original work of Jerome’s.

Jerome wrote four letters to three different people named Rufinus; I can find nothing refering to any of these letters as “The Symbol of Rufinus,” and no content in them matching your assertions. I can find 30 Google matches to “Symbol of Rufinus,” but none appear to be related in any way to any work of St. Jerome’s. Most refer to an early version of the Creed. I’m thinking you really ought to check primary sources.


50 posted on 03/22/2013 10:01:22 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson