Posted on 09/14/2020 1:07:34 PM PDT by Cronos
|
“I hate it when Protestants claim we don’t know scripture and that we’re not “allowed” to have Bibles.”
—
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned”
- Council of Toulouse/Council of Tarragona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Toulouse
This a great breakdown to have for a gentle teaching of naysayers. Thank you.
Understood, though to be fair, the liturgy of Protestant Anglican and Lutheran worship are so similar to this as to have the same effect of washing over the congregation in a tidal wave of Scripture.
That’s because their interpretations of Scripture were Toulouse
“That’s because their interpretations of Scripture were Toulouse”
—
They shouldn’t have tried to read it while on la trek!
“Council of Toulouse/Council of Tarragona”
And?
A regional council trying to suppress the use of vernacular translations by Albigensian and Waldensian heretics is not a general ban on scriptures for all Christians throughout the Church.
When the Calvinists burned Servetus and his books did that means all Protestants weren’t allowed to own Servetus’ books?
When Protestants burned Cluny in the 1560s - one of the greatest monasteries in the world - which was filled with tens of thousands of manuscripts in its library, did that mean all Protestants weren’t allowed to have books?
How about when Protestants burned the monastic library in Utrecht in 1566? When they piled up the art treasures and vestments in the streets and put them to the torch, along with the entire Franciscan library, did that mean Protestants couldn’t have books or vestments?
“When the Calvinists burned Servetus and his books did that means all Protestants weren’t allowed to own Servetus’ books?”
—
Exactly - all denominations have done some pretty awful things, Catholics included. That’s part of being human. No denomination has clean hands.
However regarding the bible and Catholics, there is a history - as noted by the US Catholic Bishops in “Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings”:
“ Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.”
https://www.usccb.org/offices/new-american-bible/changes-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings
But again, the practice of later religious groups - Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, what-have-you - of shoehorning their beliefs into scripture is standard.
Although it’s dishonest on an intellectual level, it’s otherwise harmless.
Though there are exceptions - groups that won’t allow blood transfusions or ones where just going to the doctor is a “sin” can have very negative outcomes.
Beliefs and doctrine about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin harm no one.
“Exactly - all denominations have done some pretty awful things, Catholics included.”
Catholics are not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. It’s not a denomination.
“That’s part of being human. No denomination has clean hands.”
The Church has human beings in it - but Christ is its head.
“However regarding the bible and Catholics, there is a history - as noted by the US Catholic Bishops in “Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings”:”
First of all, this wasn’t “noted” at all by the U.S. Catholic bishops because it was never said by them as a body or even individually. You are citing an article written by ONE PRIEST who used to work for an office in the USCCB. Don’t confuse one with the other.
Secondly, you didn’t even get what he wrote correct in its context:
You quote this:
“ Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.”
But you separated that thought from this:
“Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it [b]for oneself[/b] was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation.”
I’m willing to bet money that Kutys knows nothing about the work of people like Madame Cecilia and the popular Bible studies she wrote decades before 1942.
“But again, the practice of later religious groups - Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, what-have-you - of shoehorning their beliefs into scripture is standard.”
Catholics wrote the New Testament scriptures.
“Although it’s dishonest on an intellectual level, it’s otherwise harmless.”
That comment alone shows you have no idea of what is what.
“Though there are exceptions - groups that won’t allow blood transfusions or ones where just going to the doctor is a “sin” can have very negative outcomes.
Beliefs and doctrine about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin harm no one.”
Throw in the kitchen sink while you’re at it.
“The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.”
—
Jesus never made it to Rome. Certainly not several hundred years after his death/resurrection/ascension.
“It’s not a denomination.”
—
That’s one of those things where a person wishes they had a penny for every group that makes the claim.
“You are citing an article written by ONE PRIEST who used to work for an office in the USCCB.”
—
I suspect the Holy See probably would place a bit of weight on it’s current Moderator of the Curia & Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. You’ll have to argue for your position with the Vatican.
“Catholics wrote the New Testament scriptures.”
—
I’m not much on believing in time travel where people from one era can go back hundreds of years to another and do something to change history. But as I said - it’s not a belief that hurts anyone. So, not a problem anymore than the Mormons’ golden plates also present. If it comforts believers, the belief has done it’s job.
Scripture in the order of the mass Nearly everything we say at mass has its roots in Sacred Scripture. This guide will help you if anyone you know is in doubt about that. Catholics quote scripture all the time, and their actions are deeply scriptural.
And which Watchtower disciples also say of their services. The point being that the number of times a person or entity quotes or recites Scripture simply does not make what they teach to be wholly scriptural. Nor will being mostly scriptural justify salvific errors.
After all, scripture flowed out of the early Church. The Church came first, the New Testament and the canon of scripture second.
Actually scripture preceded the NT church, and which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the church, and writers within it were inspired by the Spirit of Christ to write and expand upon what Christ had taught. God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture as supreme. (Acts 17:11)
And which NT church was not your Catholic org, for distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
A mere assertion of propaganda. Your church simply cannot be the NT church of Scripture, or the one true church, since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
First of all, this wasn’t “noted” at all by the U.S. Catholic bishops because it was never said by them as a body or even individually. You are citing an article written by ONE PRIEST who used to work for an office in the USCCB. Don’t confuse one with the other.
Well, there is more, and it is incontrovertible that the medieval RCC did not favor or foster Biblical literacy by allowing souls in general to read the Scriptures, and hindered it. As Trent stated,
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. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
Thus as the preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible states
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...
In our own country...[was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582; (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)
“When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon. (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)
It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
“There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)
Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)
Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 9, page 296)
This attitude and access changed by the early Middle Ages, and while accusations of censure of Bible reading by Rome are sometimes exaggerated, yet for too much of her history it is evidenced that the church of Rome did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but actually hindered it. However, like as sites such as Politifact do, the typical RC apologetic resorts to refuting an extreme claim, that Rome unconditionally discouraged or forbade all private Bible reading.
Catholics wrote the New Testament scriptures.
Which you can only wish was the reality. Instead, of Catholics wrote the New Testament then they were very negligent, for how hard would it to include just one command to the churches to obey Peter as their supreme infallible elevated head in Rome, and with provision being made for a successor for his chair, or one prayer to created beings in Heaven, and conspicuously looking to Mary elevated in adulation, or one description of a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food, or one clear mention of souls suffering in purgatory awaiting perfect to enter Heaven, etc.
While instead Peter is the street-level leader among brethren with a general pastoral role, and listed 2nd among 3 listed as pillars, but who never commands the other apostles, nor whose sentence settles the matter in Acts 15, and with no manifest provision being made for a successor. And the Lord's supper is nowhere described in Acts thru Rev. as a ceremony with a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food, and is only actually described in one epistle, in which the body of Christ that needs recognizing is the church. Nor is there even one prayer to created beings in Heaven amid the over 200 in Scripture, and holy blessed Mary is not even mentioned after Acts 1 (despite what Caths read into Rv. 12), while believer will be forever with the Lord at death or His return, which ever comes first. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
The author is taking QUITE the liberty here! Putting words in Jesus' mouth is ill advised...just saying.
Perhaps next we could see Mormons showing the use of Scripture in their religion, but the same critique applies that I started above, for the devil himself uses Scripture, but it is the meaning assigned to it that matters. And for Catholics, it means that Scripture only consists of and means what she says it does, if she does say so herself.
Now its time to get some sleep.
I get the impression the originator is bored and itching for a skirmish rather than earning an indulgence. I was going through my "Favorites" list and found quite a few articles I could post if I wanted to do the same back at them. One in particular is "Explaining the Heresy of the Catholic Mass". Maybe I should post a thread on it. What do you think? There's already enough negativity out there, I'm reluctant to intentionally provoke people, though. Others don't seem to worry about that it seems.
On the other hand, we non/former-Catholics are more than willing to give a reason for the hope that is within us and defend why we may disagree with Catholicism. We don't do it to be hateful or anti-Catholic - unlike the motivations of some here I suspect - but to give a defense of our faith with gentleness and respect and, if possible, as much as lieth in us, to live peaceably with all. If they want to presume because they can match words or phrases of Scripture to their own liturgy it somehow proves their church is superior to all others, then I disagree. This isn't the first time this claim has been made on this forum - I doubt it will be the last either.
I noticed you haven’t included a valid link for this article you posted. Of course we know it wasn’t first written in 33 A.D. nor was the author Jesus. Care to give credit where it’s due?
“A mere assertion of propaganda. Your church simply cannot be the NT church of Scripture, or the one true church, since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).”
(sigh) If only you knew how to think. Let’s simply destroy your poor attempt at an argument with one simple rejoinder. You say “distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed” and yet:
1) There are “distinctive” Protestant “teachings” that appear no where in scripture (sola scriptura being one of them). Thus, you have negated your own beliefs with the logic of your own claim.
2) No where in scripture does anyone - including Almighty God Himself - claim that all teachings are found ONLY in scripture. Therefore, your argument’s premise makes no sense.
3) You will utterly fail to refute points 1 or 2 above.
“Jesus never made it to Rome.”
Did that stop Him from being God? Are you honestly limiting God’s ability to act to where He spent His earthly time? You can’t really be that off can you?
“Certainly not several hundred years after his death/resurrection/ascension.”
Again, are you serious? That’s your argument? Jesus never made it to South Africa, therefore there are no Christians there? Jesus never made it to New York so there can’t be Christians there? Really? And are you ignoring Matthew 28:20?
“That’s one of those things where a person wishes they had a penny for every group that makes the claim.”
Rather than wishing for pennies why don’t you simply refute it if you think it is so easily done?
“I suspect the Holy See probably would place a bit of weight on it’s current Moderator of the Curia & Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.”
Actually, no. And that I know for a fact.
“You’ll have to argue for your position with the Vatican.”
No, actually I wouldn’t. Your poor attempt at an argument is bizarre. You use a lousy article written by someone who doesn’t even make the point you apparently think he’s making - hence you don’t include the context - and then you insist my argument is with the Vatican. Hey, buddy, this guy isn’t from the Vatican. Nor is he the USCCB. Stop falsely claiming one guy in the U.S. is the whole USCCB and simultaneously a city-state in Italy. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“I’m not much on believing in time travel where people from one era can go back hundreds of years to another and do something to change history.”
No, apparently you’re more into pure sophistry trying to say one thing is another when it isn’t!!!
“But as I said - it’s not a belief that hurts anyone.”
And you’re still wrong. And you probably don’t even know why.
“So, not a problem anymore than the Mormons’ golden plates also present. If it comforts believers, the belief has done it’s job”
That’s not only intellectually dishonest, it shows you have no understanding of Christianity.
Mixing and matching fragments of Scripture verses, misquoted and misapplied, to English phrases does not equate to Scriptural support for something.
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.