Posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.
This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).
Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)
Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."
(Excerpt) Read more at cathtruth.com ...
"...Be not afraid, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
“A true church will be one that teaches what has been believed always, everywhere and by all”
And the only faith that does that is the Catholic Church. It does not bend with the times. The Word of God is eternal.
The Eastern Orthodox beg to differ, and have for going on a thousand years.
Exactly! That is the main reason the Orthodox split from Roman Catholicism - because many of Rome's dogmas were novel and had not been taught by the Apostles. Roman Catholicism tries to add "amendments" to the Bible - they call them "Sacred Tradition". Whereas Scripture says it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17). I doubt God forgot to mention anything important. ;o)
You said:
“The Eastern Orthodox beg to differ, and have for going on a thousand years.
“
___________________________________________________________
The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic were one in the same for nearly 800 years, so add 800 to your 1000 and you will be pretty close.
“The Eastern Orthodox beg to differ, and have for going on a thousand years”
You mean the Eastern Orthodox CATHOLIC Church? I said Catholic. I didn’t say Roman Catholic, which is not the official designation of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church has certain novelties with which the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches have a problem, precisely because they’re not supported by scripture and are not historical. This does not support the claim that your church does not change. It has changed, leading to schism and breaking away outright. Blame for this is not external, it’s internal.
The MAIN reason the church split in 1054 was over the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The other differences take a back seat.
Both churches accept the decisions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. These are:
The Council of Nicea
The First Council of Constantinople
The First Council of Ephesus
The Council of Chalcedon
The Second Council of Constantinople
The Third Council of Constantinople and
The Second Council of Nicaea.
There is therefore doctrinal agreement on:
The divine and human natures of Jesus
Apostolic succession
The threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons
The broad structure of the visible church
The sinless life of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the honour due to her as Theotokos
Invocation of the saints
Acceptance of the seven sacraments
Confession to a priest
Use of images in worship
Solemn celebration of the Eucharist and affirmation of its sacrificial nature as identical with the sacrifice of Christ
The Eucharistic bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ
Neither Church community subscribes to the Protestant teachings expressed in the five solae, especially regarding the teachings of salvation through faith alone (which these two communities understand as requiring no acts of love and charity) or of Sola Scriptura (which they understand as excluding doctrinal teachings passed down through the Church from the apostles in the form of Sacred Tradition).
The deception runs deep if you really believe that.
If they are one and the same, then why differences in leadership and doctrine?
I have more respect towards the Eastern Orthodox than I do for the Roman Catholic simply because the Orthodox split from Rome when they made it an issue of salvation that all must be in submission to the Pope of Rome. As the other differences (not back seat at all) have still not been corrected by Rome - a catch-22 situation if I ever saw one, there will not be a unification this side of heaven.
I also know that the Orthodox do NOT see the "solas" in the same way as you falsely described them. Specifically, sola fide, because the doctrine CAN be proved by Scripture and is NOT "requiring no acts of love and charity" but an understanding that a genuine faith WILL be evident in a changed heart that will be demonstrated by actions that please God. "Faith alone" concerns the doctrine of justification and is, and has been, understood as coming from the grace of God and not human merit. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone". At one time, even the Roman Catholic church held to this view but changed over time especially in reaction to the Reformation. It is a misunderstanding of sola fide to claim a man's works are not important to God. Good works are evidence of genuine faith but it is not the works which justify us.
The doctrine of sola Scriptura as "excluding doctrinal teachings passed down through the Church from the apostles in the form of Sacred Tradition" is also a misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Reformers. Instead, it is the truth that ONLY the Scriptures are divinely-inspired and serve as the rule of faith for Christians. The writings of early church fathers only confirms that this was their view of the sacred Scriptures and they consistently state that all that is presented to be of the faith must be backed up by God's word. Sola Scriptura is the belief in the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. From http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html:
Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, than in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word. From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ’s Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words...Yet this, as I have said, is the difference between the apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures. We therefore teach that faithful ministers are now not permitted to coin any new doctrine, but that they are simply to cleave to that doctrine to which God has subjected all men without exception.
Calvin also states emphatically that the doctrines preached by the Reformers reflected the teaching and practice of the fathers themselves, thereby claiming historical continuity with the early Church. Calvin repudiates the charge that the teaching of sola Scriptura is unhistorical. He writes:
Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side...With a frightful to do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.
Thus, in embracing and teaching sola Scriptura, the Reformers claimed to be restoring to the Church a principle that would find overall patristic consent and, therefore, historical validation. But this is, after all, only a claim. The question is, Can the claim be validated from the writings of the fathers as Calvin affirms? In this section, we will examine what the Church fathers taught about Scripture and tradition. We will find that the Reformers were correct in claiming patristic support for the principle of sola Scriptura and did, in fact, restore the Church to the position which she had universally embraced and practiced for centuries. It is the Roman Catholic teaching on tradition and authority which is unbiblical and unhistorical.
I invite you to further read the article linked.
“I have more respect towards the Eastern Orthodox than I do for the Roman Catholic simply because the Orthodox split from Rome when they made it an issue of salvation that all must be in submission to the Pope of Rome”
Of course you do. Did I expect anything different. Let me end by saying........
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will will build my church”.
The Catholic Church (which Eastern Orthodox are part of) was founded by Christ. Protestants faiths were started by Martin Luther. I belong to the Church started by Christ, that has been around for 2,000 years, not some off-shoot faith started by a disgrunted Catholic priest, who was excommunicated from the church for being a heretic.
The Orthodox Church requires works for salvation. In other words it does not believe in sola scriptura It has the exact same sacraments as the Roman Church and holds Mary in the same high esteem, prays to the dead, and confesses their sins to a priest, and. I think you get my drift.
Prior to the Council at Nicaea there was no “Catholic” Church. The word “Catholic” as I stated earlier simply means universal. Until Nicaea there was no universal church. Each church was independent. While there were several leaders in Rome there was no real central authority and each church taught what it wanted. After the Apostles died off there was a free for all for domination of the Christian doctrines. While all the Christian Churches had Christ in common they had so many differing beliefs about who He was or even what He was that there were horrible disputations between the different churches lead in the different cities.
After the death of the Apostles and then after the death of all that had been taught by them things started going south. Not so much a falling away as disarray. Into this vacuum stepped Constantine. If you think about how much time had passed it will be easier to understand, it would be like going back to the year 1600 or so for us. 300 years is a long time. While Peter may have been the head of the Church for a time that was 250 years ago. Peter never had a chance to install someone else as head of the Church so different Elders or Bishops all vied for the position and whom ever could convince the most people that he was right won. When Constantine stepped in it was a much needed adjustment to the Christian world. While we say now that the Bishop of Rome has an unbroken line to Peter it simply isn't so. Certainly the Bishop of Rome has lead the Church more than any other Bishop. Bishops have lead the Church from Spain, from France, from Turkey but mostly from Rome. The Leaders of the Church or Popes were not always anyone whom had ever met the Previous Pope and could not have been ordained to the position as Peter was. Some were evil men, some had bastard children and many were ridiculously influential.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to undermine the authority of the Pope but I don't think making statements that are not factual help anybody.
Now let me change gears just a little. Much has been said about the authority of the scriptures and a comparison has been made to the US Constitution. The argument being that any believer with the Holy Ghost can interpret the Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Ghost and come up with the true doctrines of the Kingdom. The reason there have been so many schisms in the “Body of Christ” is precisely because so many spirit filled Christians thought they knew better than other Spirit filled Christians what the true doctrine was. It is a wonderful sounding thought but in practice it doesn't work. There has to be an authority where the buck stops. Either someone speaks for God or there are thousands of gods since there are thousands of churches. We cannot have two different answers to a question and both of them be right.
“Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to undermine the authority of the Pope but I don’t think making statements that are not factual help anybody”
I’m not the one making un-factal statements. The Catholic Church started when Christ told Peter he was the “rock”.
But you’re right, the church consisted of all Christians at that time, but all Christians were the same. Peter was the first Pope of Rome. That is why Rome has authority over the Christian Church. Because that’s what Christ wanted and said. The orthodox broke away over the primacy of the successor of Peter as the leader of the Church. But Orthodox have a shared faith with Catholics because of apostolic succession and the sacraments. But once again the Catholic Church didn’t break away from any church.
Protestants on the other hand, unless they have renounce their errors and convert to the one, true Church, they can not be saved. Protestants do NOT have a “shared faith” in Jesus Christ. They reject many of his teachings, the honor due to His Mother, most of His sacraments and His Vicar on earth, just to name a few.
It is a universal body of Christ that Jesus "founded" and it was built upon the faith that Peter stated that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This faith - which is that Jesus is the rock on which our salvation rests and He is the shepherd - is what binds ALL believers to the spiritual house St. Peter described in his letters. Peter NEVER claimed to be what Catholics say he is. That is why neither the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox Church can truthfully claim to be THE church Jesus established. This has been stated repeatedly on this forum and this thread, even, I don't understand why some continue to stubbornly refuse to grasp this truth. Pride, I think is why.
Nobody claims the "Protestant" churches are THE church Jesus founded because they, at least, DO get it that it is the faith that determines who is in the body of Christ. The name of someone's church can no more guarantee one is part of that sacred body than registering as a Republican means one is Conservative. Therefore, I also belong to the SAME church Jesus founded that has been around since He came to earth to sacrifice His life for our salvation. Some Catholics need to get over their spiritual snobbery and get used to the idea that there will be brothers and sisters in Christ rejoicing in heaven for eternity that the grace of God is what saved them and where they went to church will be the furthest thing from their minds!
Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK3Dx29wCZE
When Christ spoke of the Church, He always used the singular — and yet now there are over 40,000 different denominations of Christians in the world, with the number only rising daily. If these Churches hold conflicting views, can all of them be the “True Church”? Can there be such a thing as a “True Church”, and does it still exist? Join host Michael Voris as he answers these questions and shows that the One True Church is the Catholic Church.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Here’s the sentence you need to pay attention to.
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336”
There are some on FR that all they do is talk about the “false doctrine” of the Catholic Church. They refuse to believe in the Real Presence and make fun of Catholics who believe in it. There are some that think you don’t have to walk through the door of a church to make to heaven, just sit in front of the TV and watch a televangelist. There are some on FR that think Christ was joking when he said you had to be baptised to be saved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjqK0-ySYCM
The authentic Christian faith — the Catholic Church — was personally founded by Jesus Christ, yet He Himself wrote nothing down. He sent the Holy Spirit to teach all Truth to His Church, and used the Church Fathers to elucidate the teachings of the early Church. Join host Michael Voris as he explores the role of these early Christian scholars, and asks why — when they purport to reject everything else of Catholicism — so many of the Protestant sects say they set such stock by them.
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.