Posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.
This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).
Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)
Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."
(Excerpt) Read more at cathtruth.com ...
You know the argument has been won when the Catholic quotes Luther to prove a point.
What does it mean when they quote Satan?
The Satanic Case for Catholicism
JAKraig:
Your post is commendable. Very few FR Prots here are as honest and objective as you are about history [many of them I suspect have never taken a history class of any sort in their lives]. Again very good post. I do have some objections. Constantine with his edict in 313 did not take over the Church, nor did he make it the state Religion of the Roman empire. that did not occur till the Emperor Theodosius made Nicene orthodox Christianity the official religion of the empire.
There was a Church of Rome and it did have some primacy in the early Church. Now, did that primacy get exercised or was it understood the way we understand it today. No, but the Church of Rome did have a primacy as St. Ignatius formula in the early 2nd century shows, the Church of Rome which presides in Love and the writings of Saint Irenaeus circa 175-180AD also confirm.
There were indeed particular Churches that had varying understanding of the NT canon and theological formulas in the early Church which would not get resolved until the great 4 Councils [Nicea, Constantinopile, Ephesus and Chalcedon] but those Churches were in Eucharistic Communion with each other.
It means Satan knows who the True Church founded by Christ is. That is the Catholic Church. He doesn’t waste time mocking the Pentecostal dance and screaming services, the Evangelical “pulpit call” or however it is referred to nor any other of protestant scripture reading and music service which you guys call worship.
The quote is from a “Sermon” of Luther on John, not “Commentary” as Some Catholic cite it as. He did say it, although the hard core Lutherans will say Catholics are quoting this out of context, and say something to the effect that what Luther was saying was he learned much from the Church of his day which was Catholic under the Bishop of Rome, of course ones context is usually based on ones ex ante assumptions. They will protest any notion that Luther was conceding any infallibility to Rome with respect to Rome having defined the Canon correctly. Remember, he wanted James out of the NT canon and of course rejected the Deuterocanonicals, which both Rome and Orthodoxy have in their canons [although some Orthodox have more of them then other Orthodox Churches and Rome].
The title matches the one in the article, so it is authentic. Since it is an “open” RF thread you are welcome to dispute it.
It may be a form of "false flag" psychological warfare. It may simply serve to antagonize Catholic beliefs, and possibly to set up/reinforce false ideas about transubstantiation / the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.
Yep could be? But I don’t believe your answer is correct, but could be?
Satan has shown he can quote scripture quite well and I think his minions mock religion that is real. He doesn’t seem to bother mocking Protestant services to much.
“Catholics were not the “Authors” of any scripture”.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were followers of Jesus Christ. Followers of Christ might not have not been called “Christians” when they started following Him, but they were Christians in every sense of the word. Christian/Catholic, one in the same. There was only one type of Christian/Catholic back then. There were no protestants. Sorry to disappoint you.
“Always interesting to read revisionist history and how many people are sucked into garbage like this”
The only revisionist Biblical history comes from PROTESTants.
Those who had been scattered by the persecution
that arose because of Stephen
went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to no one but Jews.
There were some Cypriots and Cyrenians among them, however,
who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks as well,
proclaiming the Lord Jesus.
The hand of the Lord was with them
and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.
The news about them reached the ears of the Church in Jerusalem,
and they sent Barnabas to go to Antioch.
When he arrived and saw the grace of God,
he rejoiced and encouraged them all
to remain faithful to the Lord in firmness of heart,
for he was a good man, filled with the Holy Spirit and faith.
And a large number of people was added to the Lord.
Then he went to Tarsus to look for Saul,
and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch.
For a whole year they met with the Church
and taught a large number of people,
and it was in Antioch that the disciples
were first called Christians.
Nobody is laying any foundation on any men, much less Luther.
I do realize that Catholics are conditioned from birth to follow the human leadership of their church but those of us who are free in Christ, having been born again, follow Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith.
We don’t follow Luther, much as Catholics would like for us to do.
To be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Catholic.
Luther. The man Catholic love to hate.
They are desperate indeed when they resort to quoting someone they so despise.
Newman was one of the greatest theologians of the 19th Century. But some on this boards actually think they know more about Christianity that he did. Amazing.
Luther was a heretic, but he wasn’t a dumb heretic. He knew where the Bible came from, who was responsible for giving the world the Bible. But of course FR is loaded with posters that think they were smarter than Luther, Newman, or any other theologian that ever lived.
Protestantism was born of wrongly interpreted scripture as distorted by Martin Luther. Sola Fida and Sola Scriptura are man made interpretations that were made later by Luther and his cohorts. James 2:17 Faith without works is dead.
All of Catholicism is founded in scripture - each and every doctrine is completely scriptural, and it is a Protestant myth that Catholics neither study or understand the bible.
For example: the first bible to be printed was in 1450’s, before the Reformation, and was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. By the way the so called apocrypha (Deuterocanical books) were in this book because Martin Luther hadn’t been born yet to decide that they were not in the “bible”. Scripture IS Catholic.
St. Jerome was Catholic and spent his entire life translating the bible directly from Hebrew in the 300’s - long before Luther - and Catholics aren’t deep in Scripture? This is ludicrous and contraty to the facts of history.
“As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn’t “interpret” the Bible.”
I was unaware the Vatican issued the New Testament, or authored it. The Apostles who wrote the New Testament had no concept of Purgatory, Priests, Bishops or a Papacy. They didn’t know about Mariology, Indulgences and there is no record of them pushing infant baptism.
Sorry, but Paul would not have been a good Catholic, having publicly rebuked Peter, who didn’t seem to know he was the Vicar of Christ...
Our Lord Himself wrote nothing. He commanded the Apostles not to write but to teach and preach: "Going, therefore, teach all nations" and "preach the Gospel to every creature." Christ's disciples and the Christians were commanded to hear the Church, not to read the still nonexistent or at best incomplete New Testament Scriptures: "He who hears you, hears Me."
Then what is your phoney religion doing with a bible??? It's all hearing and repeating, isn't it???
What tripe but you guys just lap it up...
Well of course Luther didn't cede that Rome had the correct scripture...Luther used manuscripts rejected by Rome to construct his bible...That's because Luther rejected much of the Catholic version of the bible...
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.