Catholocism Versus The Bible

[Bruce S]

[quote]POPE INNOCENT III

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:

... to [b]be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels[/b], the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. [b]They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence.[/b] The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)
[/quote]

[quote]The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

[b]Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these [Bible] books.[/b][/quote]

[quote]Some Catholics may doubt that there even was a Church Council in Toulouse France in 1229. The following quotes are offered as corroborating evidence:

After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: "prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere" (Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875).

Source: The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
[/quote]

[quote]The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them[b] he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, [/b]be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."

-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.
[/quote]

Edited April 6, 2004 by Bruce S

[Aloysius]

The translations were clearly flawed, and the Church saw that and was trying to protect her members from misleading translating techniques. i wouldn't mind if the Bible was forbidden today, i'd hear it in Church, and there'd be a lot less arrogant people out there that thought they knew what the Bible meant when they clearly have no idea.

I'm not suggesting it be banned, because there are good translations out there now. but back then people like Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers were bringing about erroneous translations that the Church didn't want currupting her members. For these translations were like wolves in sheeps clothing, they looked like a Bible and smelled like a Bible, but put one bit of arsenic in a glass of water and it becomes poison, put one heretically-motivated mistranslation in the Holy Bible, and it is dangerous to true faith and detrimental to people's souls.


let's say in the current day, someone came out with a Bible in which they had added a few words that, say, made Jesus out to not be God... like when He says "my God and your God" what if someone added "my God above me and your God above you" because of their own agenda. Would the Church be justified in banning it?

i see that angel as ripping out Martin Luther's additions to the Bible.

and have you not heard of the woman crushing the head of Satan in the Book of Revelation. Forget for a second whether or not it's Mary, it's still the woman that symbolizes the Church.

now, we cannot know the state of the souls of the reformers, the Church never specifically said they went to hell, but such crimes of schism and attack on the Church are worthy of that, it depends on their culpability and their level of repentence, and the Church has always taught that. but people back then were just a little ticked off at the reformers. In the same way maybe we could make artwork depicting Hitler in hell. not to equal Hitler's crimes with that of the reformers, but they were both crimes against God that were publicly known and publically provoked people's anger over their crimes, and so of course people would depict them being cast out of heaven or something of the like in their artwork. Don't forget that the reformers had their share of burning people at the stake.. where's the apology for that? it was the times they lived in, heresy was a crime punishable by death, according to BOTH SIDES. Martin Luther and his gang went to villages burning every book except the Bible and burning people at the stake if they did not renounce Catholocism. We burned reformers at the stake. John Paul II publically recognizes that those actions by the hierarchy were grevious, will you admit that your precious reformers had grevious crimes also? they tore apart the Church, and i for one like that sculpture, it's inspirational. not in a personal way against the reformers, but in a way in which it shows what the reformers represent: schism and division amoung Christianity, false beliefs and heresies.

[Bruce S]

[quote] [b]i wouldn't mind if the Bible was forbidden today, i'd hear it in Church, [/b]and there'd be a lot less arrogant people out there that thought they knew what the Bible meant when they clearly have no idea.[/quote]

Wow. Toss the Bible, put IN the CCC! That just about say's it all, doesn't it?

That way ONLY the Catholic Church supporting parts of the Bible are relevant, and the rest is consigned to the dusty archieves in the Vatican, never to be seen again.

In your dreams...

[Bruce S]

[quote]and have you not heard of the woman crushing the head of Satan in the Book of Revelation. Forget for a second whether or not it's Mary, it's still the woman that symbolizes the Church. [/quote]

Err....

The SEED is the progeny of the woman, Jesus. Didn't you watch carefully the Mel Gibson education part for Catholics who always get that one wrong?

[Bruce S]

[quote]let's say in the current day, someone came out with a Bible in which they had added a few words that, say, made Jesus out to not be God... like when He says "my God and your God" what if someone added "my God above me and your God above you" because of their own agenda.[/quote]

Isn't that EXACTLY what the Catholic Church has done with Mary? Show me PLEASE where apparitions like Zeitun, or Medjugore are SCRIPUTALLY SOUND? That is PURE extrabiblicality, and you know that.

[Dave]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 6 2004, 09:12 AM']
Wow. Toss the Bible, put IN the CCC! That just about say's it all, doesn't it?

That way ONLY the Catholic Church supporting parts of the Bible are relevant, and the rest is consigned to the dusty archieves in the Vatican, never to be seen again.

In your dreams... [/quote]
ALL of the Bible supports the Catholic Church, Bruce!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 5 2004, 11:39 PM'] phat,

are you talking about being justified by faith at the moment of salvation? in which case we DON'T NEED WORKS...James WASN'T speaking to a bunch of people in the RCIA...he was speaking to a bunch of people who already professed to be Christians, in which case we DO need works to show our walk of faith.

do you demand fruit from a seed as soon as you put it in the ground?

do you not water it?

and care for it?

and ensure that it is growing correctly, BEFORE you demand fruit from it?

love. [/quote]
lumberjack, we fully believe that nobody can merit the initial grace of justification

[ICTHUS]

Also, Bruce, Luther added the word 'alone' to his translation of Romans. Could it be that the angel is ripping out that page, since Luther corrupted it?

Also, how do you know that that book is the Bible? Luther wrote a lot of heretical books, could it be that the angel is ripping up Luther's works? ??

Edited April 6, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Bruce S]

[quote]ALL of the Bible supports the Catholic Church, Bruce!
[/quote]

Sure, Jesus commanded his followers to build a Rome, complete with palaces, police, and excessive wealth. There is NO WAY that I can support a religion, that morphed into an earthly kindom with earthly delights for a few.

The kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not umpteen billion dollars controlled by a few men who have been shown, all to often, to be ungodly men.

[Bruce S]

[quote]Also, how do you know that that book is the Bible? Luther wrote a lot of heretical books, could it be that the angel is ripping up Luther's works? ??
[/quote]

Ah, the bookburning defense...grin?

Have Mary banish them from heaven, kill a few, and burn the commentaries.

THAT MY DEAR FRIENDS, is why you have such a bum rap on the online sites, since most here would glady support that even now if it could be done.

[Dave]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 6 2004, 09:34 AM']
Sure, Jesus commanded his followers to build a Rome, complete with palaces, police, and excessive wealth. There is NO WAY that I can support a religion, that morphed into an earthly kindom with earthly delights for a few.

The kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not umpteen billion dollars controlled by a few men who have been shown, all to often, to be ungodly men. [/quote]
That's such an absurd statement that it doesn't even merit a response!

And btw, Rome is NOT nearly as wealthy as you think! That's just b.s.

[Dave]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 6 2004, 09:17 AM']
Isn't that EXACTLY what the Catholic Church has done with Mary? Show me PLEASE where apparitions like Zeitun, or Medjugore are SCRIPUTALLY SOUND? That is PURE extrabiblicality, and you know that. [/quote]
Nope, the Church has done nothing of the sort with Mary. And while the verdict is still out on Medjugorje, there's nothing unbiblical about Zeitun, Fatima, Lourdes, or other approved Marian apparitions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I agree that in a sense we are saved by our works of grace in that if we don't do them, we aren't with God. We will all be given according to our works. That just makes sense.

What I am arguing is that being eternally separated by God or not is not a matter of our works of grace from a legal perspective, but by faith. If we have faith, we should know that we can always choose God and our works have nothing to do with that. That also just makes sense.


Here are several quotations from the church fathers:

[quote]
Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...[b]good works follow after a justified person[/b]; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God." [/quote]

Edited April 6, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 6 2004, 09:15 AM']
Err....

The SEED is the progeny of the woman, Jesus. Didn't you watch carefully the Mel Gibson education part for Catholics who always get that one wrong? [/quote]
Actually, when referring to the passage in Genesis that foretells what comes to pass in Revelation, either "the woman" or "the seed" can be said to crush the head of the serpent. Yet, truth be told, this isn't an "either-or" proposition. Rather, it's a "both-and" proposition. So, depending on emphasis, Gen 3:15 can be translated to say:

1) The Seed of the woman will crush the serpent's head, OR ....

2) The woman will crush the serpent's head BECAUSE she will bring the Messiah (the Seed) into the world.

Both are true; and neither takes away from Jesus being the actual cause of Satan's destruction. If it is the woman who crushes the serpent's head, it is only because of her bearing the Seed. So, either way, Jesus is the one Who actually does it. Mary is merely the MEANS by which He does it (i.e., by means of the HUMANITY which He gets from her: the Incarnation).

Also, Mary is an image of the Church. So if you have a problem with Mary being depicted crushing the serpent's head, please explain Romans 16:20, which reads:

"...then the God of peace will quickly crush satan UNDER YOUR FEET" (emphasis added).

That is, the "feet" of the Church. So, if not only the Messiah Himself (Gen 3:15) crushes the head of Satan, but ALSO His Church, why do you have a problem with His mother (i.e., the first member of this Church and the very image of it) crushing the head of Satan? Again, it's "both-and," not "either-or."

[Bruce S]

[quote]Also, Mary is an image of the Church. So if you have a problem with Mary being depicted crushing the serpent's head, please explain Romans 16:20, which reads:

"...then the God of peace will quickly crush satan UNDER YOUR FEET" (emphasis added).
[/quote]

I guess Mel, and all the JESUIT theologians who consulted with him on the PASSION movie were just ignorant then, right?