Posted on 08/03/2019 4:33:25 PM PDT by ebb tide
There's lots, lots more. For scholarly/poetic in some ways I like the Knox Bible, or even the Jerusalem Bible. (One of the translators was J.R.R. Tolkien!)
The Douay-Rheims Bible was the standard for English-speaking Catholics until about the end of the 19th century, but since then the usual answer to "Which Bible is the best?" is "The one youll read."
I wrote a more detailed explanation for I think ealgeone a while back, but the #%$## search engines have been jiggered against conservative sites. I used to be able to google, say
which used to bring up the exact desired spot within the first results. It now produces results that don't even have the keywords in them. Grrr. You can no longer use search-engines to actually search conservative sites.
Unless you know a new, improved way to do it?
"For you may have countless instructors in Christ, but you don't have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
" (1 Cor. 4:15, Christian Standard Bible)
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
For emphasis, Matthew puts those words of Jesus into his gospel twice: Matt. 19:18 AND Matt. 18:18
Just going out on a limb here, but I am guessing you might say your church has no such authority to bind or loose; and I'm guessing I might agree with you.
MDO,
Ive discussed that passage with you in the past, demonstrating that it does not mean what you claim.
So you would be wrong on this.
By the way, the passage is about the millennial kingdom and not about any church...
But though I ain't no canonist, thanks be to God, I know that an infallible dogma has to be intended, not locally or temporarily, but to be binding always, for all.
Plus, it can't flatly contradict what was already (previously) taught as binding, because then you would run afoul not of Church Law but of Natural Law, in fact the principle of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. In which case, I don't know if you'd lose our soul, but you would definitely lose your mind.
A papal pronouncement that one absolutely must be a visible ecclesiastical subject of the See of Rome to be saved, would contradict the canonized saints who lived before there even was a See of Rome. The deacon/martyr St. Stephen, for instance, and the bishop/martyrs James of Jerusalem and Ignatius of Antioch. And many more.
My other guess is that what these popes were legitimately asserting would be the necessity of being within the union of the Church, and the grave sin of intentionally breaking that unity. Anyone who has not personally and willfully cut himself off from the Church, is not guilty of that sin; and anybody who has been baptized, is already "en famille."
That would be an interpretation harmonious with all the Catechisms, from VII to VI to Trent to Nicaea and Athanasius and back to the Didache, I think.
BTW thanks for that Ratzinger Fan Club quote. Admirable for brevity and wit.
That’s your interpretation, and welcome to it: but since your notion is not supported by the text (beinst Jesus was talking to St. Peter and the Apostles with him), your interpretation is not dispositive.
Thats your interpretation, and welcome to it: but since your notion is not supported by the text (beinst Jesus was talking to St. Peter and the Apostles with him), your interpretation is not dispositive.
No, it is what the passage and the context says.
Of course He is speaking to the Apostles. He is speaking about their role in the millennial kingdom.
No interpretation needed, unless you want it to mean something else...
But of course that doesnt change the passage.
Our #1 problem for many centuries has been arrogant, corrupt, self-absorbed leadership that feels it really does not have to listen to lay people
You mean the thousands of shyster pastors like Joel Osteen,
Jimmy Swaggart and their ilk whove gotten filthy rich off lay people sending them their social security checks and life savings so theyll be sure to get to Heaven?
On the other hand, the authority of the Church to settle disputed questions (to bind and loose)--- NOW --- is supported by the text:
"If he refuses to listen even to the Church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17)
and
(James of Jerusalem) "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." --- and in the same context --- "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...(Acts 15:28)
Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of Truth and not the Church. If you are speaking of the universal church it is built on Christ and that is where it it derives its truth. If you are talking about the Roman sect very little of the truth remains in it. That is one of the problems with the catholic church. it keeps trying to build on anything but Christ. (Peter, Mary, and according to your tagline even the church itself are described as what the catholic church is built on. There is only one cornerstone and foundation worthy of building on and that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Your interpretation is not obligated by the text. If it were, I trust you would have pointed it out in bold.
It is. But as a Roman you use the "see and say method," not understanding context, nor the scope of Scripture. But without training and time in the Word, how could you??
On the other hand, the authority of the Church to settle disputed questions (to bind and loose)--- NOW --- is supported by the text:
Entirely different role. Again, you are using a see and say method, and have this bad result.
Words, apart from language, context and hermeneutics have differing meanings.
No, the godly men, who toil away for pennies, teaching the Word and serving people.
Context, Mrs D.....context.
If I can impart nothing else to the Roman Catholic in these conversations, aside from faith in Christ and only Christ, is that context is your key to properly understanding the Bible.
The Council of Jerusalem is particularly troublesome for Rome as they relied upon Scripture for their ruling. They did not introduce anything new.
Of course, we have about sliced and diced the injunction against blood almost every way possible, yet Rome continues to insist otherwise.
The council also doesn't support Peter as being the pope as he was not in charge of the council.
No, the godly men, who toil away for pennies, teaching the Word and serving people.
Thanks for sticking up for 98% of the worlds Catholic priests.
Nah. At least 35% are flat out GAY. The real number is probably 45%.
So your math is a fail FRiend.
Heck, there are a large number of GAYS in the Vatican. They are known and protected.
You jumped from a religion of shysters on TV to a religion of gay child abusers...
Bad call.
at least the ones that dont molest little boys. And the one that dont live like kings in the US and Vatican. I think your 98% is a bit high
Estimates are way higher than the 2% you're suggesting. But thanks for playing.
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.