It's your fault; for ANYTHING from "Catholic Truth" should have been a CAUCUS from the get go.
Why do you post things where you KNOW you'll get your widdle feelings hurt?
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 ...
$0.00
Silly boy; you KNOW you're not posting to ME; an admitted heretic; but to the LURKERS, who are TRYING to get some knowledge from these threads.
Would you be a dear and post your list for THEM?
It's your fault; for ANYTHING from "Catholic Truth" should have been a CAUCUS from the get go.
Why do you post things where you KNOW you'll get your widdle feelings hurt?
Your constant put-downs of any and all things Catholic qualifies as the most empty “verbiage” on this Religion thread or any thread you have ever responded to about Catholicism. Blind hatred is not healthy.
"Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say. I told you yesterday that there was an attack and a retreat at Saddam's airport."
Where is that in the Bible?
Where is this unity in Protestantism?
Why is that logically necessary?
Remember that the Holy Spirit is contending with human frailty. It seems to me that only the final decision of a Church Council or pope would have to be infallible.
And when you read about the Council of Jerusalem, the decision-making process was very turbulent. The Bible doesn't say so explicitly, but it's not unreasonable to believe that the members of the Council were not in complete agreement.
Additionally, Church Teaching has many levels, including the pastoral, which is practical, and contingent upon historical circumstances.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
So; whose big idea was it to SELL them in the first place?
"Listen, this explosion does not frighten us any longer. The cruise missiles do not frighten anyone. We are catching them like fish in a river. I mean here that over the past two days we managed to shoot down 196 missiles before they hit their target."
Red Herring $3.49 a pound
“Silly boy; you KNOW you’re not posting to ME; an admitted heretic; but to the LURKERS, who are TRYING to get some knowledge from these threads.”
“Mind reading” is a form of “making it personal”. Also, I posted directly to you. If Lurkers want some knowledge, then they should spend their time reading good books too. Besides, if they’re Lurkers, then they have seen the same posts and same thread you have seen.
“Would you be a dear and post your list for THEM?”
No. I would much rather simply watch you twist in the wind.
Silly boy; you KNOW I'm not twisting at all.
I leave that up to Catholic 'scholars' who take bits and pieces of bible and some visions and come up with doctrine.
Lurkers; you noted that he REFUSED to add to your knowledge of his chosen religion; preferring in stead to try to provoke me in some inane and vapid manner.
“Silly boy; you KNOW I’m not twisting at all.”
Oh, but you clearly are.
“I leave that up to Catholic ‘scholars’ who take bits and pieces of bible and some visions and come up with doctrine.”
And we leave it to you to make things up out of thin air like what you just wrote above.
“Lurkers; you noted that he REFUSED to add to your knowledge of his chosen religion;”
No, I refused to add to the Lurker’s knowledge about YOUR religion.
“preferring in stead to try to provoke me in some inane and vapid manner.”
Watching an anti-Catholic bigot fall all over herself and twist in the wind is not provocation. It’s just watching the inevitable unfold.
I don't think you have to be 'hard-core' to say it is taken out of context, just honest, because it is.
Let me see....
I get it.
If it's the magisterium, then it's not an issue if they have disagreements, because it's only a matter of human frailty.
But if there's disagreements in Protestantism, it's an indication of the inherent flaw of protestanism with their *30,000* different interpretations of Scripture.
So when it's Catholic, it's good or of no consequence and if it's Protestant, it's bad or damning.
And yet Catholics reject sola Scriptura for exactly what reason again?
Because it's not in the Bible or Sacred Tradition.
It seems to have originated with Luther.
There are several levels of teaching; about seven if I recall correctly.
At the top is dogmatic teaching, such as the dogma of the Trinity or the Assumption, which must be believed by Catholics.
The next level down is teaching that follows with logical necessity from dogmatic teaching.
At the lower levels are "theological speculation" (i.e., Limbo) and "common teaching."
There is a continuum in between. Ludwig Ott does a good job of outlining this in his book, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma."
It just shows Luther’s ignorance of history, since he was obviously dealing with what the RCC told him.
God gave us Scripture. The OT was not given us by the Catholic church but rather through the Jews.
The NT was written as men were moved along by the Holy Spirit as it was God breathed.
The absolute most that the Catholic church might be able to take credit for is compiling it into one handy source, and even that didn’t require any great intellectual feat. It would have happened eventually. Someone would have thought of it and done it.
But that does not give anyone the right to claim that they are responsible for giving the world the word of God.
Well, considering the list of things that Catholics believe that are not mentioned by name in the Bible, that reason does not hold water. That leaves only *Sacred Tradition*, which is simply church opinion.
It seems to have originated with Luther.
*Seems to have*? Are Catholics not sure and just blaming Luther for everything they don't like that disagrees with Catholicism?
Is he just a convenient scapegoat?
Oh, the irony of your post and thread!
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.