Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The saint who opposed Luther
Catholic Herald ^ | August 7, 2012

Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 last
To: vladimir998

As I think your responses over, Vladimir, I think I see the crux of the issue. You don’t think the church (and you think the RC church is the only true church) can sin. Therefore, when confronted with instances of horrible sin by the church, you have to deny, or belittle, or justify it, rather than admitting that it erred.

There are many ways to illustrate the fact that the church can and does sin. Not to put too fine a point on it; the church is made of individuals, of course. Yet Jesus says the church sins, and the most pithy example I can think of is in Revelation 2:

“To the angel of the church of Ephesus write,

‘These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary. Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”’

“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,

‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”’

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 1Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.”

I could go on, seven churches are addressed in all, but the point is, churches, real churches so identified by Jesus, do indeed sin. When they do, they must repent, not deny it.

Were our founding fathers evil for supporting/indulging in slavery? Yes. Does that mean all they were was evil? No, but that part of their thoughts and actions was evil. Why deny it? Who does that help? Is God fooled?

Was the RC church sinning when it, officially (I don’t speak of individual acts by un-sanctioned Catholics, that would not be fair) - but by its popes, officebearers, edicts, bulls, councils, and delegated powers, including instructed civil authorities - persecuted, tortured and murdered people for translating and distributing Bibles, or preaching from the same? Yes, it was. The solution is to repent (as a church), not deny it.

I am aware of the fact that Protestants have killed Protestants, too, for perceived errors in doctrine. I deny it and abhor and and call it a sin. I would never defend it.


181 posted on 08/12/2012 4:30:50 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

quib·ble (kwbl)
intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles
1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.
n.
1. A petty distinction or an irrelevant objection.
2. Archaic A pun.


182 posted on 08/12/2012 9:54:50 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Back at ya:)!


183 posted on 08/13/2012 8:56:43 AM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
" We didn't distort anything...We only posted the words as they are written..."

Really? The Council of Trent issued its canons and decrees in modern English?

What you published were modern "Protestant friendly" editorials. There were 25 declarations, three Bulls and a closing oration, all issued in Latin. No one has sought to identify the document cited or give the original Latin for reference. That, my FRiend, is distortion.

Peace be with you

184 posted on 08/13/2012 2:10:22 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Iscool; Persevero; BlueDragon
What you published were modern "Protestant friendly" editorials. There were 25 declarations, three Bulls and a closing oration, all issued in Latin. No one has sought to identify the document cited or give the original Latin for reference. That, my FRiend, is distortion.

Explain why Fordham University would publish "Protestant friendly" editorials or translations of the Trent documents. While you're at it, explain why the documents from Trent read the same even at http://guides.lib.cua.edu/content.php?pid=199298&sid=1666818, which includes the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up By The Fathers Chosen By The Council Of Trent And Approved By Pope Pius[1] http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM. The Rule IV under discussion, is translated here as:

    Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

The underlined sentence, if you notice, is worded the same in the EWTN.COM link as the Fordham University link stated by Iscool, BlueDragon and myself. The wording Persevero used, though not verbatim, expressed nothing different than what is translated here ('that book' vs. 'them') and the "book" his quote spoke of most certainly DOES include the Bible (Sacred Books) in the mention of "unapproved" vernacular translations. The statement was not distorted but this rebuke DOES fall into the realm of "quibbling" and smacks of hypersensitivity to anything that can possibly shine a negative light on Roman Catholicism even 500 years ago.

185 posted on 08/13/2012 7:54:44 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Iscool
The canons and decrees of the council have been published very often and in many languages (for a large list consult British Museum Catalogue, under "Trent, Council of")

But you say;

The original Latin, for reference...which you didn't bother to bring either...Riiigghht.
that would be all too fall down rolling on the floor hysterically funny for it's ridiculousness, if the claim apparently str-ree-ched for wasn't so PATHETIC.

As to issue of "original Latin" there can also be found this;

"The original acts and debates of the council, as prepared by its general secretary, Bishop Angelo Massarelli, in six large folio volumes, are deposited in the Vatican Library and remained there unpublished for more than 300 years and were brought to light, though only in part, by Augustin Theiner, priest of the oratory (d. 1874), in Acta genuina sancti et oecumenici Concilii Tridentini nunc primum integre edita (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874)."

If you wish to dispute the information provided in this thread, bring something more than innuendo and baseless arguments by assertion.

Matthew 5:25-26

186 posted on 08/13/2012 8:56:29 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Yes. exactly. I wrote up and discarded such direct comparisons previous, even while also considering re-posting the exact sentences used, side by side.

It does boil down to "that book" & "them", for that is the variance, that is being put forth as some sort of nefarious deed.

187 posted on 08/13/2012 9:14:04 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Yes. exactly. I wrote up and discarded such direct comparisons previous, even while also considering re-posting the exact sentences used, side by side. It does boil down to "that book" & "them", for that is the variance, that is being put forth as some sort of nefarious deed.

Yes, I agree. We both posted nearly identical proofs and still we see no retractions, apologies or further explanation - though I fail to see what more can be said in defense of the RCC. It is no falsehood at all that for many centuries, the "laity" was discouraged, shall we say, if not outright prohibited from reading the Bible on his/her own. Sure we get the excuse that everyone but the "nobility" was illiterate and couldn't read it even if they wanted to, but this omits several salient points. Many people COULD read and many learned by reading...the Bible. Many heard the Scriptures as they were taught directly from the Bible. Another point seldom acknowledged by our FRoman Catholic friends is that when the Bibles started being produced in languages of the common tongues, they sold like hotcakes. Now, how could that happen if few people could read? Did they only want a Bible for their coffee tables?

I was raised a Catholic and I attended Catholic elementary school as well as middle school but I have NO memory at all of ever reading the Bible in class. We did not have one at home nor were there copies in the pews at church. Granted, there has been a lifting of restrictions on Bible reading by the non-clergy, but it is STILL somewhat restricted to "Approved" translations as well as prohibitions against "interpreting" what one reads in a way contrary to Church doctrine. When I read John 10:27-30 for myself - and I think this may have been the first time I picked up a Bible - I understood immediately that what I had been taught all my life about going to heaven was not true.

I read:

    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.

A light went on in my soul and I understood that Jesus GIVES me eternal life through faith in Him and I shall NEVER perish. Now, if I had read that and gone to the Catholic priest to explain what Jesus meant, I don't doubt he would have either said, "Wow, it really DOES say that!" or "Well, this is a mystery. Jesus opened the gates of heaven for us but we must still be good and earn our way there. We must "participate" with God's grace in order to merit going to heaven....". And I would have said, "But, Jesus didn't SAY that." and I probably would have been rebuked. But, thank the Lord, I understood what Scripture said and I have never stopped reading and studying and learning it.

I honestly think that was the reason all along why people were discouraged from reading the Bible. There was a fear that we would see a different gospel than what we had been told was the gospel, and they wanted to circumvent all that confusion. Yet, all throughout the Old and New Testaments we are told to meditate and study and learn the Scriptures. God never intended the Bible to be taken away from believers. We read the comments here all the time about "private interpretation" being bad and how we need an authority to tell us what it all means - that Scripture isn't plain and clear about many things. I get the impression that we are to view it as some kind of puzzle that only the "clergy" has the key to help us understand. But I read where Jesus talked to people - people that were just plain old common folks - and he told it like it is and THEY understood him. People got saved back then just by hearing the gospel and people get saved today based on that same gospel that is recorded in Scripture. Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and "experts" on the religious law of Moses and he told them:

    "What sorrow awaits you experts in religious law! For you remove the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering." (Luke 11:52)

In the Barnes' Notes on the Bible, there is this about that passage:

    The key of knowledge - A key is made to open a lock or door. By their false interpretation of the Old Testament they had taken away the true key or method of understanding it. They had hindered the people from understanding it aright. "You endeavor to prevent the people also from understanding the Scriptures respecting the Messiah, and those who were coming to "me" ye hindered." If there is any sin of special magnitude, it is that of keeping the people in ignorance; and few people are so guilty as they who by false instructions prevent them from coming to a knowledge of the truth, and embracing it as it is in Jesus.

How much I think some of today's "religious" leaders are that way still. They set themselves up as the teachers of the Scriptures and the only interpreters of it but they have perverted what it says through their traditions so that, not only do they not "make it" to heaven, they hold back others from entering it, too. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary puts it as:

    Key of knowledge-not the key to open knowledge, but knowledge, the only key to open heaven. In Mt 23:13, they are accused of shutting heaven; here of taking away the key, which was worse. A right knowledge of God's Word is eternal life (John 17:3); but this they took away from the people, substituting for it their wretched traditions.

But, just as I have and millions of others, too, the Holy Spirit breaks through and illuminates the gospel to our hearts when we diligently seek to know Him. Thank you for your diligence for the truth here.

188 posted on 08/13/2012 10:25:54 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Like I said, a lotta background noise...


189 posted on 08/14/2012 6:22:23 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Like I said, a lotta background noise...


190 posted on 08/14/2012 6:22:46 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 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