Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
True, but the circumstances were all the same: a lousy translation is offered to teach a heresy. Same thing with what-his-name, Tyndale?
In medieval times it was foolish to translate the Bible in Europe, where Latin was universal language developed well enough to express profound and subtle theology. When English developed enough, the Church offered an English translation.
I asked on this thread to show me where the Church contradicts the scripture. Each time I was offered passages that the Protestant reader did not understand in context, or passages that were Catholic teaching all along. Then I showed you (plural-generic, I don't remember who posted what) that the Bible directly contradicts the foundational principles of Protestantism, salvation by faith alone and learning the faith from Bible alone. The Bible contradicts Protestantism systematically and directly.
Then I showed passages in the Bible that lay the foundation of the Catholic Church that we know today: the Church that is one, holy, true to the apostolic tradition, is lead by the Holy Ghost and proposes the rule of faith for your salvation today, which includes sacraments of the Church, veneration of saints abnd distinct riles of priesthood and episcopacy.
The idea that the Holy Scripture somehow teaches Protestantism is a self-congratulating Protestant lie. That is indeed something proven by the Reformation: the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that were not infected by Protestantism teach the same doctrines today, because the Holy Spirit leads them to all truth, and will soon lead them to reunification. In the meanwhile, the Protestant assemblies of faith continue to splinter and lose disciples. Soon the experiment started my Luther will be over, and Luther proven wrong by history.
Ealgeone:>Dude, there are so many other instances of the rcc trying to keep the Bible out of peoples hands it's really sad you're trying to defend this. They didn't want the Bible in English or any other native language. <
They knew, as has been shown by the Reformation, that once people begin reading the Bible for themselves they will see that Rome's teachings are incorrect.
Annalex:True, but the circumstances were all the same: a lousy translation is offered to teach a heresy. Same thing with what-his-name, Tyndale?
In medieval times it was foolish to translate the Bible in Europe, where Latin was universal language developed well enough to express profound and subtle theology. When English developed enough, the Church offered an English translation.
Your grasp of history is shall we say.....lacking. Do some homework on this topic. I'm not going to do it for you.
The RCC was in total opposition to the Bible being translated into other languages. I think in some cases it still is.
Regarding Tyndale:
Tyndale’s translations were condemned in England, where his work was banned and copies burned.[14][15] Catholic officials, prominently Thomas More,[16] charged that he had purposely mistranslated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views,[17] In particular they cited the terms “church”, “priest”, “do penance” and “charity”, which became in the Tyndale translation “congregation”, “senior” (changed to "elder" in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love”, challenging key doctrines of the Roman Church. Betrayed to church officials in 1536, he was defrocked in an elaborate public ceremony and turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake. His last words are said to have been, "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
Immaculate Conception of Mary
Game. Set. Match
Next question please.
Ping to post 5872
Thank you for that fascinating overview of history, which I am sure will be dismissed by some as fabricated.
Parts of it do fit in well, however, with what Daniel1212 posts where church decrees forbid the laity from debating with non-Catholics.
You keep making that absurd claim yet regardless of countless requests to show documented verification have failed to do so. Here are some quotes for you to ponder.
"by the 1st century AD certain neighbourhoods of Rome were known for their bookshops (tabernae librariae), which were found also in Western provincial cities such as Lugdunum (present-day Lyon, France). [Cavallo, "Between Volumen and Codex," p. 71; Marshall, "Library Resources and Creative Writing at Rome," p. 253, citing on the book trade in the provinces Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 9.11.2; Martial, Epigrams 7.88; Horace, Carmina 2.20.13f. and Ars Poetica 345; Ovid, Tristia 4.9.21 and 4.10.128; Pliny the Elder, Natural History 35.2.11; Sidonius, Epistulae 9.7.1.]
"Collectors amassed personal libraries," [Marshall, "Library Resources and Creative Writing at Rome," pp. 252–264]
"An individual benefactor might endow a community with a library: Pliny the Younger gave the city of Comum a library valued at 1 million sesterces, along with another 100,000 to maintain it." [ Pliny, Epistulae 1.8.2; CIL 5.5262 (= ILS 2927); Marshall, "Library Resources and Creative Writing at Rome," p. 255.]
Even in Paul's day he commended the Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily".
All that reading yet no one could read!
Paul said that anyone who taught something they didn’t should be considered accursed yet no Catholic can show where they taught about the assumption of Mary.
That's why the Catholic Church had to go to great lengths to outlaw them and confiscate them all. It amazes me that you seem not to realize how absolutely contradictory some of your comments are.
We can see the evidence of having been well indoctrinated into the Catholic cult.
You have to understand that for a RC even if a particular event to a particular person is not shown to have happened, and even lacks evidence from early tradition, and is only said in Scripture that it will happen at the Lord's return, then it can be a doctrine. For since it happened to someone else in Scripture (or even if it did not) then it can be asserted as binding belief that it happened to someone else.
Thus it could be said of Mary that she parted the Red Sea, made iron to float, and walked on water, etc. if some later tradition among the multitude of tales evolved that said so.
For in reality it is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which the church began, that is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, which Rome has infallibly defined herself as having.
Thus again,
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Immaculate Conception of Mary
Game. Set. Match
Next question please.
Salvation by faith (sometimes we need to define just exactly what faith means) vs salvation by hoping your good works outweigh your bad works. I don't know what most catholics think about this, because my dad was the only catholic I ever heard say this, but he thought if someone died fighting for their country, they would go to Heaven. My dad was a good man, but he had some strange ideas about spirituality.
You are correct sir. 😄 I know, I keep saying that, but sir, you are correct. 😃
That is hardly the whole story. In reality, and in contrast to the earlier years, medieval Rome not only forbid other translations, and locally sometimes basically banned any altogether for a time, but she largely kept her Bible out of the common tongue altogether, asserting that "if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good." (Council of Trent, Session XXV)
Thus starting that in 1564, Rome forbid personal reading of the Bible by the laity except by special permission. Sixtus V reserved this power [of granting permission] to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index [of Prohibited Books].
Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it.
This doubt was not removed by the next three documents:....But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844.
..she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Scripture)
And as per Trent again,
Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism, also condemned the following as being errors:
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)
Thus the Douay–Rheims Bible preface states,
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all,...than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...
In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church... (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)
More by God's grace.
..they were, after all, the ONLY organization on Earth which had the responsibnility to protect Christianity as it was known...
Rather, this hindrance of enabling the laity from searching the scriptures daily, whether those things [preached] were so, (Acts 17:11) which faithful RCs are still not to do in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, was a later development consistent with the progressive deformation of the church of Rome. And which served to protect Rome from being challenged, in which she also unScripturally employed the use of the sword of men to deal with challenges to her, which early Prots had to unlearn.
Thus the idea that Rome simply forbade reading Prot. translations and did not otherwise hinder personal searching of the Scriptures is a fantasy, like as of imagining that Luther was a maverick among Catholics in the 16th century in rejecting some books as as being Scripture proper, and did not include them in his Bible, and dissented from an infallibly defined canon.
Or that the Prot. canon did not have ancient support, or that 1st. c. LXX (or dead sea scrolls) shows the apocrypha was part of Scripture. Or even that the Vulgate was a uniform Bible or that did it not need revision at the time of Trent. Or that papal infallibly decrees or other RC writings are wholly inspired of God. Or that the veracity of RC doctrine is established upon Scripture, and basic Prot refuted. And other wishful thinking parroted by certain papist propagandists.
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." [St, Catherine of Siena, SCS p 201-202, p222 (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Matauc, Book 5, "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1]
That is one scary religion they have.
That is one scary religion they have.
I would be curious as to what the catholics on this board have to say about this. How is this even close to being defensible?
Turtledove Time Machine...
I have ALL their albums!
I don’t defend it. Why should I?
Like Randle McMurphy finally did?
Where, exactly, did you pull this QUOTE from?
Evidently not 'subtle' enough...
No Mary sinlessness...
no Mary assumption...
no canonized Saints...
no yada yada yada ...
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.