Posted on 06/27/2006 6:10:07 AM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
Er, does this mean that homosexual marriage has always been the norm throughout history until one or two years ago when the big, bad, insensitive, "religious right" brought up the idea of outlawing it for the first time in history? I'm asking in part because the link doesn't take me to the article and I can't read what the guy really said next.
Isn't it interesting that to the Left a dangerous radical isn't someone who starts adovating bizarre, never-before-heard-of ideas, but someone who maintains his original beliefs and doesn't sufficiently keep up with the Hegelian development of history (you know, it's like a budding rose unfolding!).
"The churches in question have....never accepted the Bible as the the final authority in all matters...
The bible is clear on this issue..."
Where in the Bible does it state that the Bible is "the final authority in all matters"?
There wasn't a Bible as we know it (The Latin Vulgate) until 397 AD, so for nearly 400 years of Christianity, what was used as "the final authority in all matters"?
May these wayward priests and ministers find their way back to Christ.
The road is broad, but the gate is narrow.
In a sense, the Bible IS the ultimate source, a written form of God's work in history.
The Catholic Church is attacked because they all know that it has stood straight and tall on these issues for years and years. Likewise against abortion and euthanasia. May God give O'Malley the strength to keep walking the way of Christ.
No, they're all practicing pagans: "...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9]
Where the Orthodox are:
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision announced today that only full equal marriage rights for gay couples—rather than civil unions—would be constitutional, marks yet another in a continuing series of decisions which threaten the moral foundations of this nation. I call upon men and women of all Faiths, especially Orthodox Christians living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to raise their voices in protest of this despicable decision. The time has come for all of us to " boldly speak the word of God's truth."
The time has come to stop trying to be "politically correct and courteous."
The principles upon which this nation was founded have been trampled upon by those who have come out of the closet and into our living rooms. It is sad to note that men and women of faith are expected to remain silent while the Ten Commandments are removed from our courts and other public places while the rights of those who would promote prostitution in our streets are protected. What's next? I urge all faithful Orthodox Christians in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to support those members of the executive and legislative bodies of government who are working to save what is left of the American family.
+ Metropolitan METHODIOS (Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Boston)
I originally responded to this statement:
"The churches in question have....never accepted the Bible as the the final authority in all matters...
The bible is clear on this issue..."
The Catholic Church does not claim the above statement to be true; and "the Bible is" not "clear on this issue".
Er... maybe not.
Thanks for finding this, Metropolitan Methodios has always (it seems to me) enjoyed a very good relationship with the Catholic Bishops.
Seeing that this statement has been made it would seem to be a failure of the Communications teams of both parties that they have not signed a public joint statement.
In Mass there are:
21 LCMS Congregations (including First Lutheran the oldest continuously function Congregation in the U.S. I believe)
3 ELS Congregations
1 ALCA Congregation
2 WELS Congregations
1 Independent Lutheran Congregation
So there are a few, and of course the New England District President is oft published (Touchstone & First Things) and very articulate.
And FYI, 68 ELCA Congregations
But you are right, most people in Mass think a Lutheran is some sort of strange olympic sport....
I crossed the Tiber several years ago because of it.
Really? I will have to look that up. Hadn't heard that.
But you are right, most people in Mass think a Lutheran is some sort of strange olympic sport.... <
LOL! Probably something to do with eating salted fish.
Long before the 'Vulgate' was penned, the scriptures were translated to other languages including Latin...
These scriptures were spread all over that part of the world...
I believe it was in the 600s that the Roman church declared that ALL translations other than the Catholic Vulgate must be destroyed...
So there was at least 400 years of bible distribution going on before the Catholics got involved...That's a lot of years...
After reading your posts I can safely say that anything I write will fall on deaf ears, but I will write this for the edification of others.
These Following Excerpts are from the Book "Our Faith and the Facts" by Reverend C.F. Donovan, MA in 1927.
A transcription may be found here at Traditional Catholic Apologetics
Need of the Bible
So long as the Apostles lived there was no neeed of a written record of the teachings of Jesus Christ. As the end of their natural lives approached, it became expedient that some authoritative, reliable account of our Lord's life and teaching be written by those who knew Him personally, or were at least able to give at first hand uncorrupted information concerning Him. This was all the more necessary, because His enemies were even then circulating false reports and spurious writings concerning Him. (One only need look at the Gnostic Hersey and its emergence today.) St. Luke clearly stated this as his reason for writing. The others wrote for the same reason, one supplying what another omitted, each from his own recollection, and in his own way, yet none claiming to give a complete or perfect account of all that Jesus said and did. St. John says "the whole world could not have contained the books that could be written concerning Him." He admits that only the most important things are recorded. This fact was known when the Gospels were read to the early Christians, not as a systematic plan of His doctrines, but to excite their love and devotion toward Him.
Editions of the Bible Before Luther.
Since Luther claimed to have discovered the Bible stating that the Church kept the Bible from the people, consider the following facts:
Luther's first Protestant Bible appeared in 1520. There were 104 editions published by the Church in Latin before that date; nine were published in German before Luther was born, and 27 before the date of his Bible. In Italy forty editions were published, twenty-five of them in Italian, before Luther's day. There were eighteen translations in France before 1547. The first books ever printed by inventor of printing, Guttenberg, was a Catholic Bible issued in 1456.
The Bible in English.
During the earlier part of the so-called "Dark Ages," the Bible was in the Latin language, because Latin was the universal tongue among those who could read. It was the scholastic language throughout Europe. Those who could not read Latin, could not read at all. And when this condition changed, translations of the Bible were made . Caedmon, a monk in England in 680, and Venerable Bede in 735, translated the Bible into English (or rather the Saxon tongue). Alfred the Great, of England, was translating it when he died, 870. Blessed Thomas More, chancellor of England under Henry VIII, says, in 1535, "the whole Bible, long before Wyclif's day, was by virtuous and well learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good people with devotion well and reverently read." Wyclif lived about 1400, was the head of the Lollard sect, and claimed to have made the first translation of the Bible into English. The Douai Bible in English dates from 1609.
The Protestant Bible
The Church of St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John in the first century, are, we have seen, in harmony with the Church of the Fathers assembled at Carthage in the fourth, at Florence in the fifteenth, and at the Vatican in the nineteenth century. The Church established by Jesus Christ, which made the Bible, can alone tell us the meaning of its passages It is her work: she preserved and guarded it. Yet 1,500 years after Christ, Protestants step in, and declare the Bible to be theirs, and allege that they alone know its meaning. They claim it as the rule of faith, intended by God to be so used. They claim also the right to reject parts of it. They do not take it all. Some of it they throw out, and the rest they mutilate and word to suit their new teaching.
Seven complete books were so rejected, the books of Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, first and second Maccabees, seven chapters of the Book of Esther, and sixty-six verses of the Book of Daniel, chapter cxi. Luther would have rejected St. James, St. Jude and St. John and parts of St. Paul's Epistles also, had he not been prevented. The principle of private judgment, of picking and choosing religious doctrines, is here illustrated. Only that was taken and used by him which harmonized with his ideas of teaching. Yet the reformers were bound to accept from the Church what is embodied in their version of the Bible. They had no other sources of information.
Personal thoughts - Let's not get into that old calumny of the Church chaining up the Bibles. Look at the facts - Bibles were then handwritten taking about ten month to one year to finish. The cost today would be in the hundred of thousands of dollars. It was chained up because it was expensive and also like phone books it was chained up because it was used by many of the faithful and you didn't want it to walk off.
Finally, Bibles were burned because they weren't in Latin (we see above plenty of examples of Bibles in venacular), they were burned because of errors. Wycliff's Bible alone has more than 2,000 translation errors. The Church burned Bibles for the same reason we burn counterfeit money, because they were false.
Episcopal Church and United Methodists Gang Up on Catholics
SPLITTERS!!!!!
"Finally, Bibles weren't burned because they weren't in Latin. . ."
Sorry about the typo.
Once again I apologize about the post highjacking.
So long as the Apostles lived there was no need of a written record of the teachings of Jesus Christ. As the end of their natural lives approached, it became expedient that some authoritative, reliable account of our Lord's life and teaching be written by those who knew Him personally, or were at least able to give at first hand uncorrupted information concerning Him. This was all the more necessary, because His enemies were even then circulating false reports and spurious writings concerning Him. (One only need look at the Gnostic Hersey and its emergence today.)
Problem is, I suspect there is a bit of bias in the Catholic history...So you want us to believe that no one was making copies of the bible as the mystery of the church was unfolding...Sorry to say, even your own Catholic bible disagrees with you...
Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
John was writing as he was preaching...As were the rest of the Apostles...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
2Ti 4:13 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments
Paul had copies of completed books as well as the parchments he was writing during his ministry...And likely he left them so others could make copies...
Sorry, that's the REAL church history...
During the earlier part of the so-called "Dark Ages," the Bible was in the Latin language, because Latin was the universal tongue among those who could read. It was the scholastic language throughout Europe. Those who could not read Latin, could not read at all.
Really...Then why would any one make a translation into another language if the only person that could read it was the translator???
Regardless, there are a couple facts you are leaving out...Although the bible was translated into Latin for the Latin speaking folks, it differed enough from Jerome's translation into the Latin Vulgate, that, who was it, Constantine or Athanasus rejected it because it was such a poor translation...So let's not confuse the Old Latin with the Catholic Church's Latin Vulgate...They are not the same...
And the other fact is although the bible was translated into Latin, it was also translated in it's own original language...
Plus, the bible headed East...I don't think there was much Latin going on in that direction
And, as I said earlier, the Roman Catholic church put out a decree that all bibles other than the Latin Vulgate were to be destroyed...As well as the people holding them if they refused to give the copies up...That's also REAL church history...
The Church of St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John in the first century, are, we have seen, in harmony with the Church of the Fathers assembled at Carthage in the fourth, at Florence in the fifteenth, and at the Vatican in the nineteenth century...
That's another odd statement...The church that Peter started out with had water baptism for salvation...People weren't filled with the Holy Spirit because Jesus hadn't been crucified yet...
People were still living under the 10 Commandments, with the animal sacrifices...Apostles were involved in signs, wonders and miracles...In the middle of Acts, folks were baptized AFTER being filled with the Holy Spirit
By the time the mystery of the church was completely revealed, Paul was responsible for the ministry of the Gentiles...No law...No sacrifices...Salvation by GRACE...Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to water...Adoption of Gentiles into the Body of Christ...No more signs, miracles and wonders...
A transition period from Matthew thru Acts...Started out one way, ended up another...You can't possibly be like the church in Matthew and the one in Ephesians at the same time...Personal thoughts - Let's not get into that old calumny of the Church chaining up the Bibles.
And why not??? It's the truth...Luther revolted because he disagreed with the Catholic bible AND, he wanted to get the bible into the hands of the Christians instead of only the priests, bishops, etc...
That's History...
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.