Posted on 03/31/2014 5:45:28 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Why do you always use the Catholic Church and never scripture to support your beliefs?
Because I am Catholic
Why are you a cynic?
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Well, unlike the rants about Prots being mostly completely biblically illiterate, having faith in no Christ at all, that statements is based on the premise that what is not written is Rome's nebulous source of unwritten oral tradition, thus God is not stingy. Which the Mormons would agree with, as besides their "scriptures" they have their tradition, which includes their version of a heavenly mother goddess.
You know all the following, but for the record, the premise is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is required to establish which books are inspired of God, and which magisterium Rome is, and thus as some of these writings existed first in oral form then she can find more wheat out of the same ground. And thereby essentially add to Scripture.
However, her foundational premise is fallacious, as an assuredly infallible magisterium is not required nor the basis for the establishment of which books are inspired of God and assurance of truth.
Both men and writings of God were established as being so essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, and before there was a church even in Rome, and the church itself began in dissent from those who were the official magisterium, establishing her Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And the establishment of these writings of God distinguishes between wholly inspired writings and oral tradition that some came from, and that which were not. To hold the two as equal is to keep the wheat with the tares since they both came out of the same ground.
And as is abundantly evidenced that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, then even if something oral is of God to any degree, it is subject to Scripture as being the supreme standard, as is the church which began under Scripture. As it followed an itinerant Preacher who upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Rome has gone even beyond the Scribes and Pharisees in infallibly declaring she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
One does not NEED to be 'literate' to understand The Word of Life!
That's what Catholics want us to believe, or at least each other...The Catholic commentary you call the catechism is the 'go to' source for all things bible...
There are six pages of Bibles with Apocrypha available on Amazon alone, including the KJV, from a variety of publishers, many published quite recently. Furthermore, Anglicans never removed them in the first place. Bibles used in Europe by Lutherans have these books as well.
You made an unsourced assertion that was mistaken.
There ya go!!
1 John 2:14
I write to you, dear children,
because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and the word of God lives in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.
| When I grow | up I want | to make posts | with nice | columns too! |
| And | so | you | shall, | Grasshopper! |
1 Corinthians 14:27
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
So you admit to having doubt; eh?
Well, that's a start.
"Google® is our friend"?
Yes, it’s obvious to me that you worship the Catholic Church rather than the living Christ.
>>Why are you a cynic?<<
Because I have learned not to trust the words of mortal man, especially concerning the words of God in scripture. I no longer fall for the self serving words of organized religion.
You keep using the words “To God be the glory” but I have not seen you giving glory to God but rather glory to the Catholic Church.
Maybe my knowing the magic word “Apocrypha” helped? Us Prots are sneaky that way. /s
Hi Elsie,
I admire your column ability.
However as you must know Latin was not an unknown tongue in the first to fifth centuries of the early Church since it was the ‘lingua franca’ (”The use of lingua francas may be almost as old as language itself. Certainly they have existed since antiquity. Latin and Greek were the lingua francas of the Roman empire” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca )
The use of Latin has continued to be the lingua franca of the Roman Catholic Church for at least 16 centuries since Pope Damascus I in 382 directed St Jerome to translate all the various translations of the Bible into one standard translation which was call the Latin Vulgate.
It was from the original Latin Vulgate that Luther translated his bible into the High and Low Germanic versions he disseminated.
Do you honestly think that Paul was referring to Latin in 1 Corinthians 14? Really? Latin was and unknown tongue to Paul??
PS I like your columns and rows immensely. It is good that you let your columns and rows light shine on the world and not hide it under a bushel.
AMDG
I have heard differently from protestants who said that none of their bibles had the Apocrypha.
So I stand corrected.
AMDG
You can get even a King James Version with Apocrypha if you want one. Why would you think all “Protestants” did anything in lockstep? It’s not as if we’re all under some central authoritarian dictate as you are.
These books were and are regarded as good for edification but not for doctrine as they contain certain errors. This is the same objection that Jerome had in including them in the Latin Vulgate. He was, however, persuaded shall we say. This is the same objection put forth all the way up to Trent including Cardinal Catejan.
So, there, in a nutshell, is the situation with the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanonical books. Some “Protestant” Bibles include them as a matter of course and indeed never removed them. All included them at some point. They are not viewed as being the inspired Word of God due to errors.
This position was held by many early Christians of note and was held by many Catholic figures of note. It is not some sudden invention of “Protestants.”
Me no, I was speaking on behalf of some of the fence sitters.
Just to read it, but the original thought was literacy in general.
“You already got a Freepmail that gave you ten or so. Why not read that one first and get back to us?”
I read them all. None of them shows anti-protestant bigotry.
Not one.
Which is why you guys won’t produce them publicly.
“Oh, my! I do believe you are resorting to anti-Protestant bigotry all by yourself. Another one for your records, Daniel1212.”
You consider *that* to be anti-protestant bigotry?
Thanks for divesting yourself of all credibility among right-thinking people.
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.