How do I answer this one?

[jericho777]

Originally Posted by Abu

jerico777

Our Lord did not give us a book or collection of writings about His teaching, but chose apostles with a leader (St Peter) to whom alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom separately, the charge of binding and loosing, and of confirming his brethren – on whom He built His Church. These apostles taught and then gave us SOME of this teaching in writing, inspired by the Holy Spirit. A successor of Our Lord’s chosen St Peter declared which writings make up the Word of God; so without the authority of His Church we would not even know the teaching of Jesus.

Since you would not even know some of what Christ taught without the Catholic Church and Her Scriptures, now that you know better, you have the opportunity to start to think with the mind of Christ and His Church. Jesus of Nazareth redeemed us. We are saved through co-operation with Him through His Church as St Paul teaches: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience.

We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes. Understanding the meaning of salvation for those nominally outside of Christ’s Church is not the only vitally important fact -- private interpretation of the Scriptures cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning, marriage only between the opposite sex, and many other modern problems - this fact results in uncertainty, confusion and lack of unified Christian action at times.

Christ did not go to the extent of building His Church on St Peter with all of the means for salvation -- in teaching, ruling and sanctifying, for anyone to pay fast and loose with His Body.

She is the only means of salvation provided by Christ and those who come to see this will ensure their assent to Her teaching and join in Her sacrificial worship and Her sacraments for their salvation. Those who don't yet see this may be saved by following their conscience in endeavouring to know and follow the will of God; some will come home, or return, to Christ's Church.

Greetings Abu
I think where we disagree is the defination of terms and what they mean to each of us. Let me give a few examples.
Peter pope/apostle only
Salvation Church/Jesus only
Final authority Pope/Bible

I think this forum is a good place to hash out our differences. Hoprfully in love.

[Abu]

From many years experience of my wife and I, home study groups are of real value only when carefully attentive to the teaching of Christ's Church -- dissenters abound, and they write books and courses that lead many astray.

[Mintaka]

During most of Christian history, including in early Christianity, most people didn't have their own copies of the Bible; but they were expected to know the Scriptures from hearing them read in church and remembering them. (Just as most Jews learned the Scriptures from hearing them read and remembering them.)

For example, St. Monica (St. Augustine's mother) was extremely familiar with the Scriptures, because she attended Mass often. St. Augustine remembered in his autobiography (The Confessions) that his mother would even go to funeral Masses of people she didn't know, in order to hear the readings. Since people back then had better trained memories than we have, this was more than sufficient for non-scholars.

As time went on and languages changed, it became the custom to keep the main Bible translation the same (in Greek, Latin, Old Church Slavonic, etc.) in the readings, but to have the priest or deacon translate the readings as part of his homily. (Most Bibles in churches had glosses running along the lines explaining words, and translating them into the language of the place, as an aid to memory. Some of these glosses were actually translations of the entire Bible, but they aren't usually counted as such by Internet lists.) This is why, when you see a sermon printed, you will see the passage printed out in front of it. Again, if you attended church, you got to hear the whole Bible.

If you did have the money or the time to copy books, there were usually translations around, outside of the churches. But most people only wanted one or two books of the Bible, not the whole thing. The most popular Bible books to own were either one or all of the Gospels (although you probably knew those stories by heart already), or the Psalms and the Song of Solomon. So when people sat down to translate part of the Bible, it was usually one of those parts. People also liked to turn the Bible into poetry, for their own amusement and devotion.

If you owned a breviary or Book of Hours, it would usually include all the Psalms, as well as a lot of other prayers and important Bible passages.

But of course if you were a serious student of the Bible, you'd want to use the Latin, Greek, Old Church Slavonic, etc., that all the rest of the scholars around you were using. And you'd probably have joined a religious order or become a cleric. That would make copies of the Bible a lot easier to get.

Here's a list of Old English Bible translations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Eng...e_translations

The Anglo-Saxon Bible page is very good stuff:
http://wordhord.org/nasb/

I do think it's a bit historically silly to call Judith "Apocrypha" on an Anglo-Saxon Bible page. If you asked a man of England if Judith was a book of the Bible, he'd say that of course it was a book of the Old Testament. Judith was a pretty popular name in England, until the Reformation.

And Middle English Bible translations, because it's not all Wyclif:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_...e_translations

It's very likely that there was more stuff than this in existence at one time, but all the wars and alarums in English lands, and Henry VIII, and Elizabeth, and the Roundheads, took their toll.

Orm of Lincolnshire's name, btw, means "Dragon"; so his translation the "Ormulum" means something like is A Mirror for Dragon.


Maureen

[mmljdkt]

A few years ago I returned to the Catholic Church after more than 50 years of being a Protestant. The answer to your question is to stop listening to reasons for not being a Catholic and to focus on reasons for being a Catholic. Read the letters St Ignatius wrote to the various Churches as he was being led to Rome to be fed to the lions. These letters were written around 100 AD and they clearly demonstrate that the very early Church was not Protestant. If you can listen to the Coming Home Program monday evenings on EWTN you will be able to listen to the reasons many Protestants (especially ministers) come to the Catholic Church.

[Abu]

Greetings Jericho777
Why would you want to deny Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God over giving His authority and Primacy to Peter as His Vicar?

It was Jesus who said to His apostles "he that hears you hears Me" (Lk 10:16)

All four promises to Peter alone:

"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)

"The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32)
"Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17).

Would you deny St John and St Paul Too?
The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16)." St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.

Or do you doubt St Paul again? “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience. We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes.

The foundation of the Catholic Church by Jesus was His complete Way of enabling you and I to attain salvation after His redemption of mankind -- through participating in His sacrifice on the Cross and receiving His Body and Blood in Holy Communion, through His sacraments of Confession and the other six according to our state -- through Her teaching enabling us to live holy lives and repent of transgressions.

[jericho777]

Originally Posted by Abu

Greetings Jericho777
Why would you want to deny Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God over giving His authority and Primacy to Peter as His Vicar?

It was Jesus who said to His apostles "he that hears you hears Me" (Lk 10:16)

All four promises to Peter alone:

"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)

"The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32)
"Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17).

Would you deny St John and St Paul Too?
The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16)." St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.

Or do you doubt St Paul again? “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience. We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes.

The foundation of the Catholic Church by Jesus was His complete Way of enabling you and I to attain salvation after His redemption of mankind -- through participating in His sacrifice on the Cross and receiving His Body and Blood in Holy Communion, through His sacraments of Confession and the other six according to our state -- through Her teaching enabling us to live holy lives and repent of transgressions.

Hello Abu I don't deny Jesus at all He alone is my only hope.
Our differences come from interpretation. When we read scripture we take it as the final authority. We believe the bible in of it self is the revealed word and will of God to His people. We don't accept any tradition that is not revealed in scripture.

We don't see Peter revealed as pope in scripture

We are a priesthood of believers

Binding and loosing is referred to in three places Jn 20:23, Mt 18:18 and mt 16:19 and are not mutually exclusive to Peter but to all believers.


1 Tim 3:15 Is addressed to Timothy and his congregation. The church should show how people "ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." It is talking of all churches it is not establishing the CC. Just read the whole chapter in context please.

It seems every time the word church is mentioned in the bible the CC thinks it is talking specifically about them

Jesus did not found the CC He founded the body of Christ. Salvation is only found in the person of Jesus Christ through His sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

This is not a complete list Hope this helps.

[chessmane4e5]

Originally Posted by jericho777

Hello Abu I don't deny Jesus at all He alone is my only hope.
Our differences come from interpretation. When we read scripture we take it as the final authority. We believe the bible in of it self is the revealed word and will of God to His people. We don't accept any tradition that is not revealed in scripture.

First, it does not make sense to take just the Bible as the final authority. The books of the New Testament were compiled by St Jerome around 380 A.D.

Second, St Paul himself tells the Thessalonians "Stand fast and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by out letter." 2Thess 2:15. Clearly St. Paul does not believe in Scripture Alone.

Thirdly, think about what any of the authors of the books of the New Testament would think, if someone had told them, that their writings would be used as the sole source of Christian faith. Do you think they would have agreed? Or better yet, if someone had asked them to write up something that would be included in the New Testament of Christian faith, do you think they would have written the exact same thing? The logical answer is no, because all the letters in the NT were written to specific people with specific problems. Are those letters extremely useful to us? Absolutely, in fact the Catholic Church does nothing that would contradict scripture. But it is difficult to think they should be used alone, especially when we have Tradition.

Finally, consider what it was that the Apostles taught when they went and founder a Church. They did it in person, not by letter. They preached the Gospel of Jesus orally. Also consider that when they were doing this, they were also training their own disciples. St John trained Polycarp who trained Irenaeus. We have many of the writings of Irenaeus. Now they are not held on the same level as Scripture, but they are considered extremely important.

[chessmane4e5]

Originally Posted by jericho777

Binding and loosing is referred to in three places Jn 20:23, Mt 18:18 and mt 16:19 and are not mutually exclusive to Peter but to all believers.

Jn 20:23 and Mt 16:19 are clearly spoken to the disciples.

Mt 18:18 is also spoken to just the disciples, but the language does appear that it applies to all men. But think about that, and see if it makes sense. Could you explain how this would work for each person? If I hold someone accountable (bound) then God will also hold them accountable?

1 Tim 3:15 Is addressed to Timothy and his congregation. The church should show how people "ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." It is talking of all churches it is not establishing the CC. Just read the whole chapter in context please.

It seems every time the word church is mentioned in the bible the CC thinks it is talking specifically about them

Jesus did not found the CC He founded the body of Christ. Salvation is only found in the person of Jesus Christ through His sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

This is not a complete list Hope this helps.

How many different forms of Christianity existed from 100 A.D. to 1000 A.D. (to use even numbers)?

Answer: ONE.

When the NT talks about a the Church, it is talking about the Universal Church that Christ Founded. The word Catholic means universal. So yes, when the Church is mentioned, we know that it is talking about the One Church that Christ founded.

Look at the state of Christianity today since the Reformation. Can you honestly say that Christianity is better off? I suppose only if you believe that the Catholic Church is wrong. But then who is right? I have already shown that Scripture Alone deprives itself of the Full Faith of Christ. It is only the Catholic Church (East and West) that posses the Traditions of the Church as handed down by the Apostles. The very same Apostles that Christ called. If they all got it wrong, then are you saying that Jesus should have chosen different disciples?

[rep140]

Jn 20:23 and Mt 16:19 are clearly spoken to the disciples.

Mt 18:18 is also spoken to just the disciples, but the language does appear that it applies to all men. But think about that, and see if it makes sense. Could you explain how this would work for each person? If I hold someone accountable (bound) then God will also hold them accountable?

This thread shows to me the importance of balance. Too often quoting Scripture comes down to quoting the 2 or 3 points that prove my point while ignoring those that contradict my point. IMO it is important that you consider revelation as both Scripture and Tradition. Both a Catholic and non Catholic Christian can be vexed by this.

The Catholic supports individual confession to a priest. Yet, I believe in the early Church one confessed to the entire community. How did the Church get to individual private confession?

To the Scripture only idea you have to resolve what the warly Church followed before the canon of the Bible was established, if not Tradition.

[chessmane4e5]

Originally Posted by rep140

IMO it is important that you consider revelation as both Scripture and Tradition.

And your opinion is correct

The Catholic supports individual confession to a priest. Yet, I believe in the early Church one confessed to the entire community. How did the Church get to individual private confession?

To the Scripture only idea you have to resolve what the warly Church followed before the canon of the Bible was established, if not Tradition.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101frs.asp

Some answers here, especially the last 3

[jericho777]

Originally Posted by chessmane4e5

First, it does not make sense to take just the Bible as the final authority. The books of the New Testament were compiled by St Jerome around 380 A.D.

Second, St Paul himself tells the Thessalonians "Stand fast and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by out letter." 2Thess 2:15. Clearly St. Paul does not believe in Scripture Alone.

Thirdly, think about what any of the authors of the books of the New Testament would think, if someone had told them, that their writings would be used as the sole source of Christian faith. Do you think they would have agreed? Or better yet, if someone had asked them to write up something that would be included in the New Testament of Christian faith, do you think they would have written the exact same thing? The logical answer is no, because all the letters in the NT were written to specific people with specific problems. Are those letters extremely useful to us? Absolutely, in fact the Catholic Church does nothing that would contradict scripture. But it is difficult to think they should be used alone, especially when we have Tradition.

Finally, consider what it was that the Apostles taught when they went and founder a Church. They did it in person, not by letter. They preached the Gospel of Jesus orally. Also consider that when they were doing this, they were also training their own disciples. St John trained Polycarp who trained Irenaeus. We have many of the writings of Irenaeus. Now they are not held on the same level as Scripture, but they are considered extremely important.

The books did not just appear in 380. They were widely re/copied and sent to the churches.

Traditions were given past tense implying there are no new ones, Pauls traditions are revealed in the bible. Do you know the traditions Paul has left out of the bible? Is the bible infallible?

God inspired them to write what they wrote. Did the OT authors think they were writing scripture? I don not think so but that was for God to decide.

The apostles built the body of Christ. You are you may have historical documents that are not on the same level as the bible.

[Abu]

Jericho777
You are unaware that Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

As you don’t have the Tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of Christ’s Catholic Church from the beginning, how can you know unless you are shown? As the eunuch said to Phillip: “How can I know unless some man shows me?” (Acts 8:31). Jesus did not leave us orphans; He gave us His Church and She gave us the Bible.

As you are now aware, Christ’s Catholic Church gave us the Bible and selfist interpretations, like your own, have produced many thousands of sects of all shades of belief and unbelief, with no authority to guide anyone. “Scripture alone” denies Christ who gave us His Church with His Vicar on earth.

The square of choices into which you have boxed yourself by choosing to deny Christ’s teaching and action: Peter: pope/apostle only |Salvation: Church/Jesus only |Final authority: Pope/Bible – are incompatible with reality and truth. Only you can choose to return to both.

I pray and trust that you do.

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by jericho777

LOL I don't know what I've been thinking all this time. It just hit me I was 28 when I left the church. I was 24 when I got married Sorry about that.

lol. Even so. It's never too late to come back home to the Church.

Before I left I was involved in church home study groups.

If you like to study, a lot of great Catholic Bible material and Catholic books and other material have come out since them -- of a number and quality unheard of in previous years. In addtion to Catholic Answers, here are a few resources.

The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology
Agape Bible Study
To Tell You The Whole Truth About The Catholic Church And The Bible
Catechism of the Catholic Church
EWTN

Give it a try--you may be surprised.

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by jericho777

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't until some people figured a way around the road block and published the work. Now us plain stupid folks can read it too.

People were killed for reading the word of God. That's something to remember. How can you people defend and justify this haneous action. People in the OT were allowed to read and know sacred scripture. This is the word from God to his people.

There was a time not to long ago that this type of forum would landed you in some religious hot water. I'm surprised they let this thing stay up now. You can not defend the Churches action and still want to use this forum because this forum is exactly what the Church was trying to protect itself from. Remember only clergy have the training and authority from the Church to read and discuss scripture. So you all are banned from this forum from this day forth.

Originally Posted by jericho777

The church had possesion and controlled access to them. I was just on timemagazine.com These are a couple of links but there are a lot more. This was brought about by scholars wanting to do reasearch but were denied access by the church. They have had stories on The History Channel, Learning and Discovery etc Check it out.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958357,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...152413,00.html

Originally Posted by jericho777

Lost again I think you are answering your own question when you post these statements from the CC. There is great backing from the members here for the church's actions. They are making exceses nothing more. The word was never forbidden in the OT and was available to all. Regular people would read scripture in the synagogue. Their claim people were unable to read is non sense. Why did they not teach people to read then they would have no excuse? Only two groups did not, do not want scripture to be read by people communists and the CC. That should tell you something.

Jericho, with respect, you're full of bologna.
And your sources are (w/o respect, because they don't deserve it!) full of three-day-old carp.
Good grief!! It was only in the 19th Century that reading became something anything like common among ordinary folk. One of them was my great-grandmother, who never went to school a day in her life; she had to work, and little girls in mid-1860s Holland weren't considered to have the ability to learn to read anyway; she taught herself, so she could read her Bible. (Oh, yes, the source of all this [very real] repression was the Dutch Reformed Church).

As for the claims mentioned by OP, the one I really want to address is the one about Wycliffe. He got in trouble with the English monarchy for translating the Bible; the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. The British were notorious for wanting to keep their 'subjects' illiterate. This applied equally to Catholic & non-Catholic monarchs, none of whom wanted anything to interfere with their "divine right" to rule anyone they could.

Jericho, you need to get out more and read some books that didn't come from Jack Chick's fevered imagination.

[patrick457]

Jericho,
No offense, but ever since you posted the "the Church forbade publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls" or "the Church kept medieval people stupid and ignorant", I just found it hard to take you seriously. Precisely because I've never heard of your theories from more reputable sources - including non-Catholic ones.

I'll admit that if there's anything I ever hate, it's the perpetuation of the lie cooked up during the 'Enlightenment' that the Middle Ages are dark and that medieval folk are dirty, stupid hillbillies. Interestingly, the old red herring that the Church oppressed people during this time period is exactly a by-product of this misconception - some thinkers during this so-called 'Age of Reason' had a distrust of religion, considering it antithetical to reason, and spread this little story which became accepted as fact, even unto the present day (seriously, how many people still think that all medievals thought the earth was flat?)

Finally, know what the funny thing is? Many conspiracy theories involving Christians/the Catholic Church usually follow the following elements:

1.) The masses are so gullible and stupid enough to be deceived for millenia.
2.) Christianity is evil.
3.) The masses are a bunch of dumb folk.
4) Christianity hides the truth, which are a direct threat to them.
5.) The very evil Christians - more specifically, the Catholics in the form of the Vatican - hides some potential threat to the faith to (1) keep the masses dumb and gullible and (2) so the reality that they are a bunch of evil liars will never ever be discovered.
6.) Those who 'know the truth' are obviously smarter than the brainwashed common man.
7.) Did I mention that the masses are so stupid and gullible?

The Church also controlled access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't until some people figured a way around the road block and published the work. Now us plain stupid folks can read it too.

First of all, let's apply common sense here. Why would the Catholic Church forbid the publication of some bunch of ancient texts, some of which have no relation to Christianity at all (but is of interest to those researching the religious and political climate around the time of Jesus)?

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in a prompt manner: all of the writing found in Cave 1 appeared in print between 1950 and 1956; the finds from 8 different caves were released in a single volume in 1963; and 1965 saw the publication of the Psalms Scroll from Cave 11. Translation of these materials quickly followed. The exception to this speed was the documents from Cave 4, which represented 40% of the total material. So, even before the material was completely published, we had 60% of it in public access!

The publication was indeed entrusted to an international team led by Fr. Roland de Vaux O.P., archeologist, director of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, a French Dominican-run establishment which specialises in archaeology and Biblical exegesis, and author of the classic work Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. However, a single priest and his personal decisions is hardly 'the Catholic Church'. We might as well say that one Lutheran pastor is say, the 'Missouri Synod'!

The story continues:

This group published the first volume of the materials entrusted to them in 1968, but spent much of their energies defending their theories of the material instead of publishing it.

Geza Vermes, who had been involved from the start in the editing and publication of these materials, blamed the delay - and eventual failure - on de Vaux's selection of a team unsuited to the quality of work he had planned, as well as relying "on his personal, quasi-patriarchal authority" to control the completion of the work.

As a result, the finds from Cave 4 were not made public for many years. Access to the scrolls was governed by a "secrecy rule" that allowed only the original International Team or their designates to view the original materials.

After de Vaux's death in 1971, his successors repeatedly refused to even allow the publication of photographs of these materials so that other scholars could at least make their judgments.

This rule was eventually broken: first by the publication in the fall of 1991 of 17 documents reconstructed from a concordance that had been made in 1988 and had come into the hands of scholars outside of the International Team; next, that same month, by the discovery and publication of a complete set of photographs of the Cave 4 materials at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, that were not covered by the "secrecy rule".

After some delays these photographs were published by Robert Eisenman and James Robinson (A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, two volumes, Washington, D.C., 1991). As a result, the "secrecy rule" was lifted, and publication of the Cave 4 documents soon commenced, with five volumes in print by 1995.