Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Aka, Anti Christ
The valuable and correct criticisms advanced by schismatics and sedevacantists and semiprivationists have also been made (and in a far superior fashion) by those who maintain those necessary Bonds
I disagree with your analysis which is easily disproved by the New Testament itself when it illustrates a Divinely-Designed Hierarchy with authority not a democratised free-for-all in which each and every individual has been given authority to decide for his own self what Scripture means.
The Bible is necessary but not sufficient and it is not the pillar and ground of truth. The Catholic Church is:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
And I thought MORMONs were arrogant!
The Bible that Mormon's use calls Christ's Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church."
If you take the Bible seriously, the only question is whether the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.
This determination requires only a cursory examination of history.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." --Cardinal Newman
Peace be with you
Please be aware that it was not "Rome" that changed the Old Testament Canon, but the Jews. In the first century there was not just one "Jewish Canon", but at least four. There was the Sadducetic canon which taught that only the Torah, the first five Books, were Scripture, the Pharisaic, the one used in the Protestant Bible, that taught that the entire Hebrew Tanakh was Scripture, the Essene canon and the Hellenistic canon, used my the vast majority of first century Jews, forms the basis of the Catholic canon. There is some evidence that each of the many qahals had a particular derivative canon.
Peace be with you.
“Please be aware that it was not “Rome” that changed the Old Testament Canon, but the Jews. In the first century there was not just one “Jewish Canon”, but at least four.”
I see. So when Protestants don’t keep up with the canon pronounced at Trent, we are accusing of “changing” the canon, but when Rome doesn’t keep up with the most recent canon pronounced by the Jewish authorities, that is “okey-dokey”.
“Taking something and then later refusing to acknowledge authorship and the Catholic contribution? Nicking it is actually a rather kind assessment.”
I don’t refuse to acknowledge authorship. God is the author, as I’ve attested to several times on this thread. I also have acknowledged that Catholics compiled and edited the books. So, where am I refusing to acknowledge something? It can only be if you deny God is the author, which you seem to be unwilling to confirm or deny, when the question is put to you directly.
I’ll answer your question, though.
“Was Luther saved or was he Protestant?”
I don’t know if Luther was saved or not, since only Christ knows for certain who belongs to Him.
I realize by your question you are trying to imply that my either/or is not valid. Why not, then? Does God share a byline? Does He tolerate men who would share His glory, or is He, as the Scripture states, a jealous god who will not share His glory with anyone?
Well, we are all priests of the order of Melchizedeck, by the ordination pronounced by Christ upon us all collectively. So, by that reasoning, I could administer the sacraments. Yet I don’t see that attitude reflected in the Catholic catechism.
It appears we need to add Apostolic Succession to your curriculum. ;o)
Peace be with you
I should have added that, if you were validly baptized (with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) you can validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism in some circumstances.
Peace be to you
What evidence do you have that the Pharisaic Canon is the newest or most recent? ?
If I were to adopt a Sola Scriptura argument I would point to Acts 17:11. The Hellenistic Jews of Berea used the Septuagint. So if it was good enough for St. Paul it is good enough for Catholic Church and me.
Peace be with you.
“What evidence do you have that the Pharisaic Canon is the newest or most recent? ?”
Jews today don’t include the apocrypha. So, obviously their most recent canon doesn’t include it.
“If I were to adopt a Sola Scriptura argument I would point to Acts 17:11. The Hellenistic Jews of Berea used the Septuagint. So if it was good enough for St. Paul it is good enough for Catholic Church and me.”
I have to say, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Catholic cite Acts 17:11, even if it was a bit backhanded. If it’s good enough for you, fine. I don’t mind if the Catholics want to use the apocrypha, just don’t accuse Protestants of some impropriety if they include in the OT only those books that the Jews, both then and now, universally accepted.
I was baptized Catholic, so that should be good enough for you, I think.
Too bad you were so poorly catechized. My hope is that you will use the time on the Religion Forum to learn what the Church really teaches. You may not accept it, but at least you will know what you are rejecting.
Peace be with you
I know Jews today who do not accept anything other than the first five books. The notion that Judaism is a monolithic group is unique only to those who do not know Judaism or a large number of Jews.
Peace be with you
“I know Jews today who do not accept anything other than the first five books.”
That’s hardly the consensus of Jews. Anyway, I don’t really believe that Christians should have to “keep up” with the Jews, but if you say Protestants must “keep up” with changes the Catholics adopt, because the Catholics were the original compilers, then that same logic must be applied by Catholics with regards to the Jews. Be consistent, one way or the other.
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.