Posted on 05/17/2021 9:09:54 PM PDT by MurphsLaw
You need to get out from Barron's cassock more often.
Cardinal, bishops, priests ask Pope to stop schism of Catholic Church in Germany
Bishop Schneider: How Catholics in Germany Can Remain Faithful in Face of Schism
As I said last post, Luther decided correctly, as have other believers through the ensuing centuries
I knew I liked him.
You cannot persuade using that kind of argument.
You couldn’t really think anyone to be swayed by such a straw man argument, so I suspect this is what you say to yourself to escape the nagging suspicion that your church is contradicting God. It is, but I am not so naïve to think that I will be the one to convince you.
You might study what “idias epilusews” actually means. It conveys the opposite of what you have imagined and I find it delightfully ironic that it is Peter who actually says this to you.
I mean no disrespect to you, but you will understand that further comment from you about this is a waste of time. I would love to hear however, your thoughts on the vaccine issue or the election steal issue or other threads that you might be following. FReegards!
Great stuff for study.
In addition to scripture, they also contained the Pseudepigrapha, Legislative Documents, and Hymns and Biblical Additions.
In answer to the question, I reiterate: ‘Y’all.’
Or do you prefer: you’se, you’se guys, all of ya’s, YOU, the bunch of ya’s, the lot of you, ‘e.g.d.s.o.o.ya’s’, ad nauseum.
The dirty secret of Biblical history is that there have *always* been books that have been considered strongly canonical and more weakly canonical and disputed.
This is why it’s so important to let Scripture interpret Scripture. You start with the books that you are absolutely certain of, and you use those to interpret and verify the canonical status of texts you aren’t so sure of.
In other words, you do exactly what scholars have done all through the entire history of Scripture.
At least the entire history of Scripture until Catholicism wanted the stick of propaganda to bash the Reformers with.
You’re reminding me of the times we had to learn Greek and Hebrew and had to find special ways to show when we were translating second person plural.
I personally preferred ‘youse guys’ but I think that the people whose natural vocabulary included ‘y’all’ really had the advantage.
Tangent over. Now regarding actual Scriptural translation it’s always really REALLY irritated me that Catholicism insisted on using Latin when Scripture was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.
Switching from Greek to Latin is responsible for one of the worst heresies to ever infect the Church at large, because Mark 1:15 in Greek reads (roughly translated) “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” Whereas in Latin it reads, “Do penance and believe in the Gospel.”
Argh argh argh.
Who is it that you say believes what one thing, and who is it that you believes what second thing that supposedly contradicts the first thing?
Catholics do well to avoid trying to answer vague or ambiguous questions from non-Catholics.
Or from hecklers, Catholic or not.
You’ll understand the wisdom of this policy, I’m sure.
This typical parroted polemic with its premise of a settled canon until Luther came along has (as is typical) been refuted when posted by you before, but you just keep posting the same lies as is typical. For as documented and told you, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther in 1546 (who as a RC had freedom to disagree with it.
In addition, rather than Rome giving us "what you have today," We do not hold to the larger OT canon that Rome finally defined as indisputable, but instead hold to the most ancient OT canon, which is even affirmed within Catholicism: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217) :
Also, doctor Luther expressed that he was only providing his personal judgment which others were free to differ on, and Protestantism did and has, while Luther also translated apocryphal books and placed them separately in his translation. Which is not what the likes of "Catholic Answers" will tell you.
I certainly am not, and already corrected the private interpretation statement, and noted that the very text that Catholics invoke as proscribing private interpretation does not teach that, and thus this use of it by Catholics examples the very thing that they argue against. For that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, but that of the writing of prophecy not being the product of man's own understanding, but to the contrary, that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11) Interpret scripture by scripture.
But which you ignored as is typical. As well as the fact that under your alternative, that of submission to your magisterium, for about 60 years your official Bible for America (NAB/NABRE) has not used render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual and instead renders the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 5:9 ,10,11; 7:2; 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8;17:2,4; 18:3,9; 19:2) - even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
In addition it uses inclusive language more extensively than ever before. And its (required) footnotes show adherence to the discredited JEDP theory and other liberal revisionism.
Which refutation of the Catholic premise of faith in your magisterium rather than subjecting what is taught to examination by Scripture (Acts 17:11) has already been shown you by the grace of God, along - with - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - other - refutations of your profuse polemics for Rome in the short time you have been here on FR, but which are typically followed by more posting of the same prevaricating propaganda and polemics.
Which thus are an argument against being a Catholic as yourself, as such seem to be compelled to keep comforting themselves with lies and defending Rome as if it was God, perhaps under the delusion that doing so will obtain them some "indulgence."
Like THESE??
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
and THIS??
"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?
For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher."Augustine (De bono viduitatis)
Such as??
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.