Posted on 01/05/2009 2:54:13 AM PST by GonzoII
BTW-The Council of Trent came along about 1200 years later and added a whole bunch of new stuff that the early fathers questioned. This is the whole problem with "tradition". There isn't any.
You wrote:
“It wasn’t “papal,” but it was forbidden reading by Bishop Tunstall (still RC at that time) who issued warnings pf heresu to booksellers and had copies burned in public because he was uncomfortable with the idea of the Bible in the vernacular.”
Which was it? Was Tunstall ordering Tyndale’s translation burned because it was heretical or because it was in the vernacular? After all, Benson Bobrick points out in his book Wide as the Waters, that Bishop Tunstall declared that he could find two thousand errors Tyndale translation - and Tunstall was a great scholar of Greek who helped Erasmus compile his famous Greek New Testament.
“As a bit more background, Tyndale was a difficult guy -— attacking Henry VIII (for an “unbiblical” divorce), the Lutherans for breaking away, and the Roman Church for not adopting many of the reforms the Lutherans talked about.”
Absolutely true - and that got him into more hot water than any Biblical translation or act of translating. Those who defied or “dishonored” Henry VIII didn’t last long.
“In other words, Tyndale pretty well PO everyone, but, in hindsight, he had a point (or rather 3 good points).”
About Henry, yes. About some Protestants, yes. About abuses in the Catholic Church, yes. About the Catholic Church’s doctrine, no.
Allright, what Traditions did the Council of Trent Abrogate?
It amazes me that you who are so sure in the orthodoxy of your heresy can not answer a couple of simple questions that should be answered simply if your heresy is indeed orthodoxy.
Harley, you're starting to leak oil..lol.., listen to what you're saying. First, "THEY" are the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I in 382, the council of Hippo in 393, the 1st and 2nd councils of Carthage, 397 and 419 respectively, and the decrees of the latter two councils concerning which books belonged in the Bible were confirmed by the Pope.
Question 1: Where did they get the Authority to do this?
Question 2: If the Popes and Bishops from this synod and these councils had the Authority to do this at that time, why did the Pope and Bishops not have the same authority at Trent?
As far as the Fathers questioning. On issues not yet settled by the Church, the Fathers sometimes did disagree, no problem there.
No problem.
The links go deeper and deeper at her website, unbelievable!
If Tyndale was executed for denying the existence of Purgatory, he was in the right, and the Church was in error.
When Jesus died on the cross, he cried out, “It is finished!” This is what was written on a bill when a debt was paid in full. That’s the GOOD news. In God’s sight those who believe are forgiven for every sin they ever committed or ever will commit. Jesus purchased our pardon with His blood. Read the Epistles. Paul was not writing to the dead when he called the believers, “saints”. “These things I have written to you who believe in the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” I John 5:13
Let me know if I'm wrong.
Because they were not approved by a Church council??
What happens if their sins are not forgiven?
Jn:20:23: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
The Early Church Fathers on
The Early Church Fathers taught that Christ passed on His authority to forgive sins to His priests. The Didache
Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]). The Letter of Barnabas You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). Ignatius of Antioch For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]). For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop (ibid. 8). Irenaeus
[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between two courses (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]). Tertullian [Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]). The Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge and adjudge (ibid. 21). Hippolytus
[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your Royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles. . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]). Origen [A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, "I said, to the Lord, I will accuse myself of my iniquity" (Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian The Apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord "[I Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at: the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]). Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . I beseech you, brethren; let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord (ibid. 28). Sinners may do penance For a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, "Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" [I Cor. 11:27] (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]) John Chrysostom Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed." Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding: but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? "Whose sins you shall forgive," he says, "they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]). Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com
Confession/Reconciliation
“Tunstall declared that he could find two thousand errors Tyndale translation”
Maybe, but I think that is just an excuse for a personality conflict with a really, really difficult priest (Tynsdale) who admittedly directed bucked his bishop -— most people now agree the the Tyndale translation formed the foundation of all the great English translations, including that ultimately used by the Roman Church.
That said, there were about a dozen certain specific word translations that DID CONFLICT with the RCC’s doctrine at the time -— e.g., “overseer” instead of “bishop” -— “congregation” instead of “church” -— key issues that went to the heart of Luther’s movement.
Many thanks.
“It amazes me that you who are so sure in the orthodoxy of your heresy can not answer a couple of simple questions that should be answered simply if your heresy is indeed orthodoxy.”
I’m sorry. I thought you were kidding with your questions.
“What did Christians believe in place sola scriptura prior to the Bible being put together in the fourth century?”
Christians believed what The Church taught them. Sola Scriptura as a method of belief didn’t arise until the 16th century in Middle Europe.
“Why do the Greeks not believe pentecostal/protestant translations of the original greek text, and actually have dogmas almost identical to “Latin” Catholic dogmas?”
I am not sure I understand the first part of your question. I can tell you that Greek speaking Christians use what’s called the Byzantine text which is the nearest thing any of us have to the original Greek text of the NT. It is, of course, in Greek. Arab and Slavic Christians have the NT in Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac and Slavonic, all of which are exact translations of the Greek original. Later Latin and then French, German, English etc. translations are, frankly, just awful. Now, as to why we have some many dogmas with the Latins, that’s because Rome and the particular Churches of the East all were one Church until the Great Schism. Our shared dogmas were established in 7 Ecumenical Councils and accepted by the entire People of God.
“Who compiled the books of the bible?”
The quick, easy answer is groups of old Greek speaking bishops meeting in local councils into the late 4th century. Now that said, those councils weren’t the final word, since Revelations, for example, was not accepted as part of the canon of the NT until the 9th century at the earliest.
“How do we know that each book of the Bible is inspired?”
The ONLY way we “know” that is because The Church has told us that the books of the canon of the NT were inspired by God. The fact of course is that we can’t “know” that at all, though we certainly can, and most members of The Church do, believe that.
“Did an angel drop it in a nicely wrapped package one day in England in the 1600’s?”
Not only did no angel drop that package in England, it wasn’t dropped in Greece either, though clearly Greeks are God’s other favorite and very troublesome kids...just like their spiritual cousins the Jews!
The Church today has lost all distinction between inspired and unispired writings.
You're not answering the basic question. What is the difference between inspired and uninspired writings? The early church had a set criteria in those days; it doesn't any more.
Question 2: If the Popes and Bishops from this synod and these councils had the Authority to do this at that time, why did the Pope and Bishops not have the same authority at Trent?
The Popes and Bishops from the early synod applied very strict rules to determine the inspiration of the scriptures. What changed 1200 years later that invalidated those rules? That is the real question.
Where in the Bible does it say these books are not inspired, is there an inspired table of contents, or must you look at Tradition to determine what is inspired? And if you look at Tradition when did it end? (i.e. why are you following hebraic christian conceptions of canonical authority but not later church councils? Does it say in the bible that these “hebraic” christians were the final word on the determination of inspired works? (of course you can’t and of course this did not happen because Tradition would itself be extra-biblical, but if Tradition exists, then it has never ended-by definition, but how else then?)
If I understand you correctly, you are using a circular argument. Tradition says these books were inspired so they are inspired because tradition says so. This wasn’t the original position of the early Church fathers. They had a very demanding criteria they applied to ensure what books were inspired (it had to be confirmed from other text, etc.). These books happened to coincide with what the Hebrew Christians felt were inspired. So, at least in the early church there was agreement on which particular books was inspired.
Along come Trent 1200 years later in which the Church stated there were additional books. One has to ask the question why did it take the Church 1200 years to recognized these books and why were they accepted them later when they didn’t meet the criteria of the early fathers who relegated them into appendices? To me, if anyone would think about this objectively, it seems pretty logical that tradition doesn’t make books inspired.
So then you agree there is Tradition? not sola scriptura?
There always has been tradition. There always has been sola scriptura. Tradition is built on the scriptures. I hope you will concur.
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.