Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Yeah; the world is FULL of them!!!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Sums it up quite well.
Jesus, actually standing in front of His disciples, holding as chunk of bread, saying "This is my body" does kinda make a fella's brain do mental flip-flops.
The converse is equally true.
“Trent only reaffirmed the Canon that had been established in 381 AD in response to the Reformation.”
You’re speaking of the First council of Constantinople? What canon, in respect to books of the Bible, did they establish? I’m going to need a link on this claim, because your Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t even try to claim such a thing. The Vulgate hadn’t even begun to be translated yet at that time!
I'm sorry, but there is a fundamental deficiency in your apparent understanding of "the Word". I suspect it is a result of the limitations of English. What has been translated into English as "Word" is really the Greek word "Logos". It means a complete system of order, logic and knowledge; the active, material, and rational principle of creation.
Catholics worship God, we do not worship a book.
You mean "here WAS." Regardless how often TRCs (traditional RCs) invoke a 104 year old teaching by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (in the same period Prot. fundamentalism/evangelicalism arose as a distinct movement to combat liberal revisionists), the fact is that the RCC is not the same yesterday, today and forever, and as an lengthy article at http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4679&CFID=47744606&CFTOKEN=14006738 states,
By the time of the Second Vatican Council many members of the hierarchy were expressing the desire that the PBC be reformed [due its increasing . It was, in fact, restructured by Pope Paul VI in 1971 to the effect that it became no longer an organ of the teaching Church, but rather "a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office."6 The PBC now tends to be composed mainly, if not exclusively, of historical critics.
Your church sanctioned notes in your own official Bible make it clear that the liberal view is what predominates.
You are not the first to feel that way.
"The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” - John 6:52-58
Peace be with you
“all the other sects, (There is but One Church) have as their founders, sinful men”
Nonsense. There were many congregations founded by the Apostles who, holding the same doctrines from their founding, were suddenly declared heretics because they would not confess new doctrines that had become popular. The Catholic church has a long habit of doing that. It’s quite easy to claim there is universal agreement in the Body on your peculiar doctrines, when you routinely chop off the limbs that don’t agree.
You replied: There's an oxymoron for you!
On the link were different translations of the King James Bible. On the bottom of the page were translations of other Bibles. There are different "versions" of the KJV of the bible due to translation. I suppose you are telling my that because the Catholics have only one version that all other translations are invalid. That is a conclusion that I do not share. But on the other hand, I am not nor will I be Catholic. And it is not because of theology, but because of dictates made by men of your church.
Since I have an FR account, He asked me to post this...
Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?
I do.
Signed,
I AM Who AM.
5.56mm
“After all,so much of it is simply poetic stories and can’t be taken at face value.”
Yes, it’s pretty ironic that those who would set themselves up as the divinely appointed interpreters of Scripture try to interpret so much of Scripture to be of no consequence.
“That way, whenever anyone notices that a RC teaching is contradicted by Scripture, they can say that whatever the Church teaches is the truth and you just have to take their word for it because they are THE church.”
Call me a cynic, but it is my experience that the guy who has to say “Trust me!” is usually the LAST person you want to trust.
No, I am referring to the Council of Rome, called in 381 and concluded in 382. Pope Damasus did not attend the First Council of Constantinople making its standing dubious for another 70 years.
Peace be with you
Well, my copy may have come via Barnes & Knobles, but I don’t need to ask them how to interpet it :)
” your last pope taught that “over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else..,””
Well, Benedict was always a much sharper theologian than most of the RC apologists around here!
The first 11 chapters of Genesis come to mind.
I asked, “exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?” What you posted in no way answered that question.
2 Pe 3:15-16 in no way verifies that Paul wrote Timothy one letter let alone two. Nor does it mention that 2 Timothy is inspired.
So, I’ll ask AGAIN, “exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?”
Wikipedia sez:
“According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or “Gelasian Decretal” and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal, sometimes referred to as the damasine list. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747–1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.
Arevalo’s conclusions were widely accepted until the early 20th century, but further studies led by Ernst von Dobschütz showed this decretal to be a forgery, probably from a scholar of the 6th century.[1]”
So, you’re now using a known forgery to continue to falsely accuse Luther? If I were you, I’d stop digging this hole already.
I am not accusing Luther of anything. I am only providing the background to the Canon.
However, you should reconsider establishing any firm theological or historical position based only on the Wikipedia or Ernst von Dobschütz.
In 1912 Dobschütz gave his historical rationale for doubting that Damasus made a decree on the canon at Rome in 382 by pointing out that in the Gelasian decree is a quotation from St. Augustine dating from 416. He therefore declares that no other part of the decree could have originally been from Damasus in 382 concludes that the entirety of Damasus' decree has "no historical value." We see, of course, that this is specious reasoning.
In reality Pope Damasus declared a canonical list in 382, and Gelasius in the 5th/6th century added to that a quote from Augustine when he added a list of prohibited books. That would not invalidate Damasus' original declaration.
What you are not addressing is that St. Jerome produced his Vulgate in 405, matching the Canon declared in Rome the same Canon was affirmed in the at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
Peace be with you.
G*D
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.