Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney
Posted on 03/23/2019 10:34:47 AM PDT by ebb tide
Editor’s Note: In this new article, CFN contributor Stephen Kokx quotes testimony from several sources which demonstrate that a variety of non-Catholics (mostly Protestants) who were invited to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) as “observers” clearly influenced the discussions—and even the documents—of the Council. As one quoted source reveals, “[A]lthough we had no direct ‘voice’ on the council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong arms, the periti.”
A little less than 100 years prior to Vatican II, Pope Pius IX invited non-Catholics to attend the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), albeit for a much different purpose—namely, to abandon their errors and embrace the Catholic Faith. In the forthcoming April 2019 print edition of CFN (subscribe HERE), we are pleased to reprint a classic article by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969), longtime editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1943-1963), entitled, “The Ecumenical Council and Christian Reunion” (first published in AER, July 1959). Therein, Msgr. Fenton provides full English translations of two important letters issued by Pius IX in preparation for Vatican I: Arcano Divinae Providentiae (Sept. 8, 1868), addressed “to all the Bishops of the Churches of Oriental Rite not in communion with the Apostolic See”, and Iam Vos Omnes (Sept. 13, 1868) “to all Protestants and to other non-Catholics.” “Both of these letters,” Msgr. Fenton explains, “aimed at one ultimate objective, the return of the dissidents to whom they were addressed to the one true Church and company of Jesus Christ.”
We look forward to the day when the Barque of Peter is once again guided by such a wise and faithful shepherd, one who fulfills his solemn obligation of “doing the truth in charity” (Eph. 4:15).
*****
Far too many Catholics today think the Church before Vatican II was desperately in need of an update and that a “deep” rediscovery of “the early Church” was sorely needed. If the Church didn’t do this, she would’ve become obsolete and irrelevant in the modern world.
This is flat out wrong. And un-Catholic.
Firstly, the Council of Trent taught that the Church “was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” No updating, in other words, was needed, at least not the aggiornamento sort the liberal periti (theological advisors) had in mind.
Second, the duty of the Church is to please God first and preach the truth in season and out, not to be paranoid about what the world and its anti-Christian leaders think.
Third, according to the late Ralph McInerney, long-time professor at Notre Dame, the pre-conciliar Church wasn’t in need of drastic fixing. “It would be very wrong to imagine that it was something broken and in need of repair,” he wrote in his 1998 book What Went Wrong With Vatican II. Fr. John W. O’Malley S.J. likewise remarked in a 2007 book on the Council, “in 1959 no obvious crisis was troubling the Catholic Church.”
Lastly, Pope Gregory XVI in his 1832 encyclical Mirari Vos said it was “absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for [the Church] as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune” (n. 10). Pius XII also condemned in 1947 what he called an “exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism” (Mediator Dei, n. 64).
Despite the clear wisdom of pre-conciliar popes and the good fruits in the Church before Vatican II, the progressive theologians who attended the Council successfully imposed on the Church their previously censored ideas, ideas which they naively claimed would prevent the Church from becoming irrelevant.
“If we do not take steps to do more about achieving rapprochement between the Church and the modern world, we are in danger of finding ourselves considered unrealistic,” Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger, Archbishop of Montreal, worried in the 1963 propaganda book Twelve Council Fathers.
His liberal fretting was echoed by Canadian Bishop G. Emmett Carter, who, in the same book, said, “Why exacerbate other believers in Christ by insisting upon their removal from us? Why not try and find ground in which we could share a common identity and thereby move a step closer to Christ and to some form of common brotherhood?”
(Maybe because Christ instructed His disciples to teach all nations the Catholic Faith?)
One has to wonder if either of these princes of the Church believed the Gospel they were entrusted to guard and transmit. Christ didn’t fret about or soften His teachings on money, for example, when the rich man seeking eternal life walked away from Him (cf. Mark 10:17-25), or on the Holy Eucharist when many of His followers left Him over His teaching on eating His Flesh (cf. John 6:53-69). It seems Cardinal Léger and Bishop Carter would have wanted Jesus to chase after them and beg, “Wait a second, what I, uh, meant to say, was, uh, let’s talk about it over dinner…”
Far from being inspired by the Holy Spirit, the shenanigans that took place at Vatican II were aimed at pleasing non-Catholics rather than pleasing Almighty God. Proof of this can be found in the way the red carpet was rolled out for the so-called “delegate observers” who attended it.
Paul Blanshard (1892-1980) was perhaps the most well-known American critic of Roman Catholicism in the mid-20th century. In his 1966 book on the Council, he wrote that Methodist observer “bishop” Fred Pierce was “given the exceptional distinction of several private papal audiences.” Blanshard also revealed that, “the private remarks of some Protestant observers undoubtedly had some effect in shaping Council policy.” The “Council’s decree on ecumenism actually made a number of important concessions to Protestantism.”
In Michael Davies’ landmark book Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, it’s related that an Anglican archdeacon claimed that “the fullest courtesies and opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to the observers at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognized in the documents themselves.”
Davies also recounts the testimony of Robert McAfee Brown, a Presbyterian observer who said, “[A]lthough we had no direct ‘voice’ on the council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong arms, the periti.”
Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, admitted in Twelve Council Fathers that this sort of sneaky behavior took place quite regularly. “I envied the help in translation that [the delegate observers] were getting from Father Gustave Weigel….I met many of the delegate observers, and on one occasion I invited twenty of them to dinner.”
Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger confessed in the same book, “The presence of the delegate-observers…was an inspiration for us.” “Their presence reminded us to be sure we rid ourselves of historical and psychological prejudices.”
Question: Are these the sort of antics which Bishops and Cardinals are supposed to engage in? When has this sort of fraternizing with representatives of anathematized sects ever taken place in Church history? Baptist “bishops” being given papal audiences. Anglicans treated with “the fullest courtesies.” And Presbyterians having “an indirect voice” on the Council’s documents. Can it not be said that the entire Council is tainted with syncretism?
Aside from that, one “observer” in particular stands out: George Lindbeck, a prominent Lutheran minister at the time who died just this past year.
In the 2012 book Postliberal Theology and the Church Catholic, Lindbeck lets the cat out of the bag about the influence he and other non-Catholics had on the Council:
“We would be invited to the most extravagant, exalted kinds of receptions, all the observers…one time an eminent Catholic bishop was asking a young Protestant observer for advice on what he should do for his priests….That kind of thing took place all the time. A Connecticut Bishop and I had lunch together once…on what Hans Küng had written.
The highest peak of the ecumenical movement took place at the Second Vatican Council. I say high peak because, just think of it, invited observers, chosen and sent by other churches, were given entrance into the inner circles of the Roman Catholic Church. Their advice was listened to…”
In a 1994 softball interview with neo-conservative luminary George Weigel, Lindbeck spoke about Pope Pius XII’s condemnation in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis of the progressive, “new” theology that was embraced at the Council:
“The Catholic anti-Modernist campaign of the early twentieth century had created a situation in which a very rigid and biased interpretation of Thomas emerged…Humani Generis was intended to say “No” to the sorts of approaches represented by the nouvelle theologie…the real problem with Humani Generis was the way it reinforced the position of the regnant powers in the congregations and the academy, who used the encyclical to make the nouvelle theologie people personae non gratae. Which meant that the encyclical reinforced the anti-Modernist style of dealing with exploratory theology.”
Weigel himself admits in the interview’s introduction to the enormous influence non-Catholics had on the documents. “As Lindbeck has noted on previous occasions, the ecumenical observers…had special access to the Council aula…and were frequently consulted, formally and informally, about the drafts of conciliar texts.”
It’s high time for Catholics to stop thinking Vatican II was a glorious unleashing of the Holy Spirit. A Council that consecrated Russia and condemned Communism and Modernism would have accomplished a great deal of good for the Mystical Body of Christ and the post-war world. Instead, Vatican II decided to remain a “pastoral” gathering that did not invoke the infallibility most every Council in Church history did. As such, it opened itself up to be tempted by human respect and worldly thinking.
At the end of the day, non-Catholics were invited to Vatican II, given the fullest courtesies, and directly and indirectly shaped the text of the Council’s documents, a fact that cannot be said about the non-Catholic observers who attended previous Councils.
It’s now been a half-century since the close of the Council and the Church is suffering from what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called “the fourth great crisis” in Church history. The one Bible passage that perfectly describes the Church in its post-Vatican II years is Isaiah 5:5-6: “And now I will show you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be wasted: I will break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will grow there. I will command the clouds not to rain on it.”
I am thinking that I will read the Trent Catechism and go by that one.
.......................................
The Trent Catechism is the gold standard for the exposition of Catholic doctrine. Follow it “religiously” and you will be practicing the Catholic faith precisely as Christ, the Apostles, and the Doctors of the Church preached it. Every edition of the catechism published thereafter is, to one extent or another, unreliable, and that is especially true regarding that which was published following Satan’s Council.
My guess is that the outsiders were able to see things that centuries of tradition had defined as FACTs weren’t.
..................................
You’ve guessed wrong.
Just the type of fella to tell me if THIS is still effect:
....................................
Actually it has been in effect since the event of the Last Supper and will remain in effect until the end of the world. The purpose of Innocent III’s exegesis of it was simply didactic.
At least I took a stab at it.
What do YOU think the reason is?
Oh!
I’ve run into ANOTHER reader of the scriptures in the source languages.
Pontificate away; Dear Sir.
Now THERE be some REALLY sneaking Prots!!
Detecting those folks whose catechism larnin' just wasn't up to snuff.
And I see why Pete got to be First Pope and not Paul.
Paul kept trying to REASON with folks from the scriptures.
With the OBVIOUS answer being:
Dudes NOT led by Holy Spirit!
Pontificate away; Dear Sir.
.......................
Let me know what point at issue you wish me to pontificate on. Meanwhile, please direct me if you would to where in the Bible there is any mention that the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, or anyone else, should be written down and published in a book. After all, the Luther-devised doctrine of sola scripture alleges that all Christian belief is to be derived ONLY from scripture.
I could; if Rome had not deleted that part.
The best I can do is...
= = = = = = = = =
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney
Ok; but can we trade places after this one?
I wanna be the fella that finds the bear for someone else to skin.
it DOES?
Prove it.
What does Sola Scriptura Mean?The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.
But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).
Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of FaithThis excerpt is taken from John MacArthur’s contribution in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.
What does Sola Scriptura Mean?
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.
But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).
Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
This excerpt is taken from John MacArthur’s contribution in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.
Well, I guess my request was not stated clearly enough. My question is, where in the Bible is there any mention that scriptures from various sources should be compiled in a single book which we call the Bible? Also, where is it mentioned who specifically was to accomplish that task? I don’t see the answers to those questions, nor do I see any guidelines by which that task was to be carried out. For example, where is there any mention concerning which scriptures should be included and why, and the order in which they should appear in the book? Please advise. And by the way, if you know, approximately what was the timespan between the end of the apostolic age and the first edition of the complete Bible containing all the scriptures which are now contained in it?
Well, I guess my request was not stated clearly enough. My question is, where in the Bible is there any mention that scriptures from various sources should be compiled in a single book which we call the Bible? Also, where is it mentioned who specifically was to accomplish that task? I don’t see the answers to those questions, nor do I see any guidelines by which that task was to be carried out. For example, where is there any mention concerning which scriptures should be included and why, and the order in which they should appear in the book? Please advise. And by the way, if you know, approximately what was the timespan between the end of the apostolic age and the first edition of the complete Bible containing all the scriptures which are now contained in it?
I answered the question posed by Elsie, which was my sole intent. You were included because since Elsie’s question was to you, and I was being polite.
So; do you agree with this statement or not?
I want to see something along the lines of...
Sola Scriptura: The CATHOLIC Position on the inadequacy of the Bible.
You can keep asking questions about stuff to yourself, if you are going to be continually moving the goalposts.
Now please excuse me as I have a 5 year old granddaughter that has a list of WHY questions that need answered.
I guess ol' John MacArthur would go BSC if he'd ever read THIS!!
(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)
| 1 | Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces. |
| 2. | I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary. |
| 3. | The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies |
| 4. | It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means. |
| 5. | The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish. |
| 6. | Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life. |
| 7. | Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church. |
| 8. | Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise. |
| 9. | I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. |
| 10. | The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven. |
| 11. | You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary. |
| 12. | All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities. |
| 13. | I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death |
| 14. | All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ. |
| 15. | Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination. |
"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem,
no matter how difficult it is, wheter temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families...that cannot be solved by the Rosary.
There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."
Sister Lucia dos Santos
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.