Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
God cannot act against His nature. He cannot cease to exist because His nature is existence itself. So too, since His nature is truth itself, He cannot deceive. Setting up a theology which is necessary for salvation and then hiding that truth would be deception, which is impossible for God.
I politely differ:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom.
The council of Trent certainly indicated that a license to study the scriptures was required. I will admit that I am not sure that it was still in effect until Vatican II. Since my high school friends told me they needed to have permission from the priest to study the Bible, I simply assumed that the license requirement was still in effect, as Vatican II occurred during that time period. It may have been lifted before that time.
Are you willing to admit that there was a time when the laity needed permission to read the bible on their own?
That is not a valid conclusion.
" How many "pillars of truth" are there? One, or many?"
The truth is unique and singular. That is what's important to recognize. The only real pillars of truth are the evidence and logic.
" How many churches did Christ build? One, or many?"
How many children of God are there? Ponder my last post and my answer below regarding the many churches.
" Did Christ command us to take our disputes to His Church, or any church?"
Respectfully, you do not understand my last post.
"How then could doctrinal disputes be settled in many churches with divergent doctrines?"
Doctrine is by nature axiomatic. It is not based on evidence and logic, and is stamped unchangeable, regardless of any evidence and logic that shows it's wrong.
"Or did Jesus not expect us to take our doctrinal disputes to His Church?"
I covered that in the last post. Also, doctrine can not be disputed regardless of the evidence, because it's axiomatic and relies on non-logical operations to be recognized. Once a claim of doctrine is stamped as such, that is the end of it. Even when it becomes clear that the doctrine is false, it remains. It's impossible to dispute doctrine. Ultimately one must pick and choose between doctrines, or reject the illogical nature of doctrine altogether. That means one must pick and choose between organizations that hold different doctrines.
"In which case, what was His purpose in establishing many churches holding contradictory doctrines?"
God didn't establish any church. He asked men to do that and men created and established the many churches.
I don't think that St. Jerome was known for his proficiency in Greek -I mean, I think he was good enough, but not great, not too mention he was one cranky saint. I find him really hard to like. And, in fact, Paul Johnson's History of Christianity notes that he died with hardly a friend. I believe that the council, in a hit back, which was to be expected, specifically chose Jerome's translation because it so obviously coincided with what they were planning to draw up as the counter-Reformation manifesto.
I have a great quote from a Cardinal in attendance at Trent which perfectly summarizes the Council, at least in its inital stages, and my sentiments towards it. Will post later.
In the meantime, here's a quote that I absolutely love. I know you're not a C.S. Lewis fan, but I hope you appreciate this quote because it touches on Calvinism, and it captures my thinking as well, especially as it regards the loving and indefatigable St. Paul, and predestination.
Originally written to Mrs. Emily Mclay, Aug. 3, 1953:"I take it as a first principle that we must not interpret any one part of Scripture so that it contradicts other parts . . . . The real inter-relation between God's omnipotence and Man's freedom is something we can't find out. Looking at the Sheep & the Goats every man can be quite sure that every kind act he does will be accepted by Christ. Yet, equally, we all do feel sure that all the good in us comes from Grace. We have to leave it at that. I find the best plan is to take the Calvinist view of my own virtues and other people's vices; and the other view of my own vices and other peoples virtues. But tho' there is much to be puzzled about, there is nothing to be worried about. It is plain from Scripture that, in whatever sense the Pauline doctrine is true, it is not true in any sense which excludes its (apparent) opposite. You know what Luther said: 'Do you doubt if you are chosen? Then say your prayers and you may conclude that you are.'"
My boys, Calvin and Luther. ;)
I think your friends were pulling your leg. In fact I know they were, or they were just lying to you.
I think it is more charitable to say that they were messing with youl.....
in a small way, yes. If it were a new translation of the Bible, the Church had to approve it first before the general public could read it. If it was a version of the Bible already approved, the laity was definitely encouraged and exhorted to read it, without having to ask permission.
I had one Catholic grandparent. She read the bible an hour a day at least, and that started long before Vatican 2.
[ It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63 ]
-----------------------------
Exactly.. Argument against scripture -or- tradition flys in the face of the Holy Spirit.. Who is the Holy Spirit?..
Well if you know him, you know him; if you don't, you don't..
I suspect many Roman Catholics and Protestants do not..
I pray that "they" do seek to know "him"..
Rendering the argument mute.. (excellent verses)
"For the entire Christian world to be ignorant of the inexistence of Purgatory for 1500 years is even more incredible."
Purgatory is in the Gospels.
When Jesus refers to the dead being cast into Gehenna (Gehinnom in Hebrew) he is referring to the Jewish concept of Hell. Jewish Hell is not Christian Hell. It is not eternal, except for the very worst sinners. It is, rather, a place of torment and purification. Jesus didn't spend any time DEFINING Gehinnom to his Jewish audience, because they all knew (and know) what it was (and is).
Jewish Hell - Gehinnom - is Catholic Purgatory AND Protestant Hell, all rolled into one. Gehenna is the Aramaic word for it. "Purgatorio" is the Latin word for the same concept. A hell of purification for souls that have died in sin, with most eventually passing on to Gan Eden - Paradise - after purification.
Purgatory is in the Bible. It's just not obvious to a Christian, because "Gehenna", in addition to being a literal place, is also a spiritual concept in Judaism. The Jews Jesus was addressing when he spoke of Gehinnom knew he was talking about the Hell of Purification. Gentiles, later, called that "Purgatory", and distinguished it from Hell. Jews didn't. And don't. And Jesus didn't, because he was talking to Jews, and he didn't correct or amend it.
Purgatory is in the Bible. So is Hell. They're the same place: Gehenna.
Catholics and Protestants both have it wrong, because they do not properly understand Judaism. Jesus did, and he used the Jewish term, and didn't modify it.
"...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..."
LOL. So on the "advice of a pastor or confessor" according to the "judgment of a bishop or inquisitor," the layman may then and only then hear the words of the Bible if those previously mentioned deem it "not harmful" and further, all this must be by "written permission."
And booksellers who sold the Bible on their own not only lost monetarily, but the church refused to grant them forgiveness of sins (as if)!
Ad nauseum...
"Buy the truth and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." -- Proverbs 23:23
Did she seek and obtain permission from the priest to do that? Do you know? I'm sure most priests would grant that without hesitation, but the question remains as to whether or not she needed to obtain the permission?
When was the declaration of Trent overturned?
In addition, any thing that is created, but is not rightly ordered (i.e., lacking), is considered "evil". For someone to contend that Jesus created the Church from the very beginning without completeness (fullness) of Truth, is to assert that Christ created something evil, which is categorically impossible.
Amen.
Good luck with the studying. 8~)
I distincly remember one friend telling me how exicited she was because the Priest had granted her permission to read the bible on her own.
Ok she was just messin' with me.
So do you know when the license requirement was removed from the Council of Trent? Was there a papal Bull on this, or were the Bishops just messin' with you?
She didn't need to ask permission, it was written in the Bible. The older Catholic Bibles have in the front of them the letter from Pope Leo XIII encouraging them to read the Bible, (the letter even granted an indulgence for reading the Bible). The letter from Pope Leo recommends that peole read the Bible at least 15 minutes a day.
Exactly my point. For Luther to suddenly decide, "hey, this Purgatory stuff is bunk," after 1500 years, is ludicrous. The only way to justify this was to remove anything that explicitly spoke to this belief. Since Maccabees was part of the "Apocrypha", it was easier to just say it's canonicity was not only in doubt, but false (incredible chutzpah!), dragging the other books out with it. Let's not forget that Luther also wanted to remove James, but since it was not deuterocanonical, there was no cover for his opposition to a letter that stresses works as an essential partner to faith. Thus, it remained.
Probably about the time that Bibles ceased to be valuable, in a strictly financial sense, as they were printed by the truckload. It was never about restricting the faithful, it was about protecting a valuable.
It can be hard for us in our 21st century mindset to truly appreciate how valuable handwritten Bibles were. And even how precious the first printed books were. Not to mention what it is like to live in a society where the vast majority can read.
again, that is a half-truth. It was not all Bibles, only certain unapproved Bibles. The public was encouraged to read approved Bibles only.
I don't see any "encouragement." I see only bureaucracy and hindrances.
Same old; same old.
Let us also not forget that the Pope and bishops all across Europe were torturing people to death in fire for disagreeing with them, and that virtually all of the High Clergy of the Catholic Church of that time went to Hell and may still be there, because they were sadistic murderers and oppressors.
Luther was not simply reacting to doctrinal issues. If the arguments were just doctrinal, Luther would probably not have been so stubborn and walked out of the Church. They threatened to torture Luther to death. They DID torture thousands of people to death. Luther looked at that, and by that very fact he KNEW that the Catholic Church was being led by the Devil - "You will know them by their fruits", Jesus said.
And Luther was RIGHT.
The murdering, burning, flaying torturing Catholic Church of the Reformation was led by murderous fiends in the service of the Devil. Every Pope that ordered men burnt alive for disagreeing with him or challenging him was in fact a thrall of Satan and NOT a heaven-bound servant of God.
That the Catholic DOCTRINES were right does not save the Catholic Church from the fact that Luther was RIGHT to march out of that Devil-possessed den of torturing sadists.
Catholicism had to be broken in order to save it from the demonic possession that took it over in the form of homicidal use of supreme authority.
Having good doctrine was not enough to save the Catholic Church of 1540 from being a foul, sadistic, demon-led horror.
Luther was wrong.
But Luther was right.
The Pope was right.
But he was also very wrong.
And everyone today who carries on the fights of the 16th Century is wrong.
What matters is fruit.
The holiest Christians of today are the holy martyrs, Catholic and Pentecostal, dying in Chinese camps.
The holiest Christians of the 19th Century were the abolitionist Quakers who spirited people to freedom, which Catholic Europe and Protestant America still enslaved them.
Right doctrines are worth nothing when stacked up against slavery and torture and murder.
You will know them by their fruits supersedes being right on some niggling point of script.
Being a Bible Believing Jesus-praising Christian will not save you if you are sending me to be burned to death.
The Popes of the Reformation, and the Protestant fathers who broke from them but them gleefully took up the stake and the rack for their own authoritative purposes all went to Hell.
Maybe they were purified there and eventually went to heaven.
Maybe not.
In any case, Pope Leo and Luther were both murderers, and foul human beings for that reason, and most of us are their moral superiors and need not pay and never mind to the doctrines they thought were important enough to kill people over. They were both wrong. They were both evil.
The Reformation was both wrong and necessary, because the Catholic Church was both right and evil.
Now we can be right and not evil.
And that is what we should all focus on, making good fruit.
We should all shut up about the doctrinal bickering until we are each morally perfect.
And since that will not come in this life, it means we should just all shut up.
We'll all find out, soon enough.
We'll all, or almost all, go to Hell, be purified, and go to heaven.
And since none of us have committed murder or ordered torture, we're both a damned sight ahead of Pope Leo and Luther.
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.