Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
Well we have two people that have made the claim that they were Catholic at one time, let's ask them. Metmom and Boatbums; Have either of you two eve worshiped Mary as God or even god, have you ever believed her to be divine? Simple yes or no will suffice.
Cordially,
No doubt St. Augustine would NOT recognize what calls itself the Roman Catholic church today.
The short answer sounds petty and mean, but it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because they were inconvenient.
So that is the short answer. Of course we all know that reformation was a rather slow process of decay. So here's the long answer:
However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldn’t very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven “apocryphal” books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.The phrase "Luther jettisoned them" by itself might be misunderstood by some five-year-old as if Luther personally went and ripped pages out of Bibles. But literate people tend to read in complete paragraphs and tend to understand phrases in context.Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today don’t even reference the Apocrypha at all.
Funny stuff, you need to get your own show.
As a student of languages you do know that there are at least three meaning for it.
“So it cannot be true that “the early Christian fathers declared them inspiration but not on the same level as scripture”.”
The question was if they should be acceptable for determining doctrine. If not, then they fall short of what the Apostle Paul called scripture. And even the Council of Trent refused to decide if the Apocrypha met that standard:
From Jedin:
“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as “canonical and authentic”, belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as “canonical and ecclesiastical books”, belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet “canonical” from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.
The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
Found here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
So you see, the Roman Catholic Church has never authoritatively said the Apocrypha is acceptable for determining doctrine.
Recognize it, he would be doing backflips over how large it has grown and what a great job that it has done of keeping the Gospel safe. On the other hand he would be terribly saddened by the fact that so many that claim to be Christians are just posser heretics.
No, because believers have the righteousness of Christ credited to their account so when God looks at them, being in Christ, He sees us as righteous as Christ. So the born again believer has no concern about doing works of the Law. They've been done for him and given him as a gift.
So we're judged not on our works but on Christ's perfect works credited to our account.
By their actions and prayers yes.
because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)Observe: the Old Testament "can instruct thee to salvation" so long as it is seen through the eye of faith in Christ. How an adherent of Judaism reads the Holy Scripture and what part of it he likes or dislikes is useless information. Observe also: "all scripture" known to Timothy since his youth. Timothy was a native of Lystra and his father was Greek, a strong indication that his exposure to scripture was through Septuagint and therefore "all" in St. Paul's writing is a reference to the complete Catholic Canon, not to the Protestant redaction.
So that is the relevant part of the Jewish religion: one that lead to the conversion of Paul, Timothy and his parents, and very many others.
What the unconverted Jews did AFTER the rejection and murder of Christ is irrelevant completely; in fact if they did something after Christianity emerged as one true religion, we should probably do the opposite.
You keep saying Catholics don’t give Mary worship due to God. Your statement leaves room to say Catholics due give worship to Mary. Just not what you give to God. In either case it is blasphemy.
The ekklesia that Christ established is in no way shape or form the Catholic Church.
The Holy Spirit indwells individual believers, not an organization.
“If he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
Taken totally out of context. It is not a statement giving blanket authority to the RCC. Or any church organization.
The church is the corporate body of Christ, existing where ever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.
The point is that Jesus didn’t hand out Bibles at Pentecost. The Bible has a history, beginning with the early Church, which wrote, preserved and canonized the Scriptures.
Baloney. Scripture originated with the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic church.
Ironically, “Bible Alone” Christians adhere to Luther’s abridged version of the Scriptures. They trust the canon of Sacred Scripture to him.
Luther's canon was no different than the RCC canon until the Council of Trent, AFTER Luther translated the Bible, changed it.
And that has been posted time without count on this forum and apparently, there are those who are still to blind in their hatred of Luther to admit it.
Yes
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
>>Do Catholics give her worship that is due to God alone?<<
Illiterates, idiots and liars claim that. They are wrong.
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.