nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

PDN

New mega thread time!

We're sick of the board being taken over by numerous threads where the same rather tired arguments and entrenched positions keep getting rehearsed over and over again.

So, if Protestants and Roman Catholics want to debate the merits of their respective positions this is the place to do it. Any new threads started for this purpose will be locked.

It is OK, in other threads, to say "as a non-Catholic I believe this" or "as a Catholic I don't believe this". That's fine, and people can note your position. But once it moves into arguing against Protestantism or against Catholicism then this is the thread to bring it to.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

StealthRolex

owenc wrote: »

Yea and i can't see why they are like that, i thought that no one cared about religion down south like they do up here but i guess thats definitely wrong!

Hi Owenc

One of the problems here is that there is an attitude that Catholics are and have been leaving the Church and going lapsed because they have no time for Church "authoritarianism". There is some truth there, but only some, as there are a few who don't like some of the rules and have a preference for Apostasy.

The reality is that most have been driven away by growing secularism, liberalism and the implemention of fictitious or spurious changes post Vatican II.

Far from there being a McQuaidian Luddite mentality about there are many in the laity who know that the bishops implementation of Vatican II here has been grossly flawed.

For example - Protestants have their take on the Eucharist and that is fair for them. Their comments on transubstantiation are unfair but that is a different matter. But how do you think it looks when a Protestant visitor who knows what transubstantiation means for us sees the great unwashed pretending to be concelebrants and handling what we know to be the Body of Christ? Does it look like we have much respect for our own beliefs?

Regardless of what individual opinions may be Canon law is Canon law and it is being breached by liberals much to the consternation of the traditionalists.

Do you have children or do you work with children? Have you tried dealing with them with no form of discipline? A child responds well to discipline - they know the rules and if the rules are fair they accept them.
What happen in Ireland, and elsewhere, is that someone got it into their heads that they no longer needed discipline. That happens. What happened next is that the Church for some unearthly reason agreed!
Instead of saying" thems the rules" they stood back and ceased providing direction. The shepherds went off to have a few beers and a couple of smokes, or whatever, came back and found some of their flock were missing.

The battles have already begun. The Church needs those who know and understand and love Catholicism because she holds all the Truth given her by Jesus Christ and she will provide the armour and weapons for the war ahead. Do you think we will find the liberals on the front lines?

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Warnings are issued when people breach, or come close to breaching the Charter. The new megathread makes no difference to that, as normal Charter and forum rules apply.

But what is frustrating is when you have the same old arguments multiplying across four threads at once - including hijacking what could otherwise be useful discussions. That's why we have a creationism megathread, a clerical child abuse megathread, and now a Protestant/Catholic megathread.

The Creationism mega thread also has Prophesy included yet any attempts at discussing Prophesy are swamped by the evolution\creation discussion. Should that thread not be split to allow some discussion on prophesy?

Apart from Craig Venter there is no place for discussions on evolution wrt to prophesy unless someone thinks we will survive long enough to evolve wings for when the oil runs out

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Creationism mega thread also has Prophesy included yet any attempts at discussing Prophesy are swamped by the evolution\creation discussion. Should that thread not be split to allow some discussion on prophesy?

Apart from Craig Venter there is no place for discussions on evolution wrt to prophesy unless someone thinks we will survive long enough to evolve wings for when the oil runs out

People are free to discuss prophecy or the Bible in new threads. The title of the Creationism thread is a bit of an oddity, named by an OP who lit the blue touch paper and then retired. In practice it has become 2the Creationism thread".

smurfhousing

One of the problems here is that there is an attitude that Catholics are and have been leaving the Church and going lapsed because they have no time for Church "authoritarianism". There is some truth there, but only some, as there are a few who don't like some of the rules and have a preference for Apostasy.

One of the things that gets me big time is to hear certain well known people within the Church talk about abuse of authority, power, corruption and clericalism (all things contrary to authentic Catholicism), and carried out by those who, in one way or another, dissented from the true faith, and then use this abuse to beat the Church about its divinely ordained structure and such, and to lobby for changes in Church moral teachings on issues of sexuality, married priests, and women 'priests'... all the while dissenting from the true faith, using dissent to justify it... Ingenious madness.

There's got to be a simple analogy to describe what I am saying here. Anyone got any ideas?

It's so frustrating inside my head - I wish there was a simple illustrative concept I could use.

lmaopml

I think the mistake Stealth in some approaches is blaming liberalism for dozy Catholicism...and a poor perfomance educating people in the faith over the last ( well my lifetime anyways..)

It's the Church that failed to put the message across in an adequate way not the 'rise' of liberalism...That is something that will always be at odds with an unchanging moral code etc. and liberalists will always be there, and it's their 'choice' to be what they are, they will come and go from the faith, and may come back again, who knows?..... but it's not 'liberalists' fault in general, it's the internal workings of the Church in Ireland as to why people are fed up..

We need to concentrate on inside first..

Instead of the Catholic faith doing a massive U turn, and laying the law down at this stage; especially in light of the recent Murphy reports etc. we need to recognise that not everybody 'is' Catholic, even if we would like them to be, and try to think of a good way forward that educates Catholics in the faith who 'want' to be Catholic about not only the 'rules', but about the 'whys'...and the history etc. We need to rebuild the Church with all the good people found within; a good foundation in Ireland again of people who can be both 'modern' and 'Catholic' and live in a more diverse nation but hold true to our own faith and morals ( not change them ) as Catholics who understand the beauty of the faith...which is entirely possible.

The Church has suffered a mighty blow that it has essentially given itself in this country...not 'all' but some of the Higher Archy have been less than 'moral' and that in itself has failed everybody, and caused untold damage...

...equally the damage is being caused by lay Catholics who are still being failed because they don't even understand their own faith because the education is dreadful....

Even in Catholic schools some of the religion teachers would make you age a decade in 40mins...

..most Catholics that are coming back are having to just 'do' it themselves..

..but the stock of faith remains, it's still there beneath the carnage and that's the jewel that has to be shined up by this generation...and taught properly.

smurfhousing

lmaopml wrote: »

We need to concentrate on inside first..

Instead of the Catholic faith doing a massive U turn, and laying the law down at this stage; especially in light of the recent Murphy reports etc. we need to recognise that not everybody 'is' Catholic, even if we would like them to be, and try to think of a good way forward that educates Catholics in the faith who 'want' to be Catholic about not only the 'rules', but about the 'whys'...and the history etc.

[...]

The Church has suffered a mighty blow that it has essentially given itself in this country...not 'all' but some of the Higher Archy have been less than 'moral' and that in itself has failed everybody, and caused untold damage...

...equally the damage is being caused by lay Catholics who are still being failed because they don't even understand their own faith because the education is dreadful....

[...]

..most Catholics that are coming back are having to just 'do' it themselves..

..but the stock of faith remains, it's still there beneath the carnage and that's the jewel that has to be shined up by this generation...and taught properly.

God used the abuse scandal to conduct a massive purging and purification of the Church. God can work good out of evil.

I think a negative approach is not the way forward. For example, tell any young couple not to live together before marriage, and they might look at you funny, and think 'why not?' Or tell two men that what they are doing is abominable, and they will call you ''hater''. Or tell people that actually pornography is not ok, and they say, ''why?''

Don't get me wrong, it is important, vital, that we have sin pointed out and clearly announced as such, but we need to go deeper.

We need to show people that sin creates misery on this earth, in this life, and denies us everlasting life in the next. The misery bit is quite easy - most people are living in quiet despair broken by whatever empty pleasures they can get. The everlasting life is something to show them that in this life we can foretaste it in the joy that God gives the soul in grace.

I think that Pope JPII's Theology of the Body, described by some as a 'theological time bomb' will be very beneficial in the years to come in showing the positive option that is the Catholic moral teaching, that in it is found freedom, happiness, satisfaction, joy, and peace. That the world's offerings lead to despair and sorrow and regret. It will also come in handy with regard to the issue of women 'priests' too...

We do have to 'do it' ourselves, by and large, but there has never been a better time for this situation to arise. We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have thousands of good books, we have wonderful internet resources - there really is little excuse for anyone not to be able to learn the true faith, even if it is hidden in parishes and not spoken of, even if dissent and irreverence is all that is on offer in many places. We have EWTN and we have other producers such as the one in my signature.

I'll finish with this from a man who would be Pope:

"From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendor. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society. Contrary to what has happened until now, she will present herself much more as a community of volunteers... As a small community, she will demand much more from the initiative of each of her members and she will certainly also acknowledge new forms of ministry and will raise up to the priesthood proven Christians who have other jobs... There will be an interiorized Church, which neither takes advantage of its political mandate nor flirts with the left or the right. This will be achieved with effort because the process of crystallization and clarification will demand great exertion. It will make her poor and a Church of the little people... All this will require time. The process will be slow and painful."

In 1969, that, in a series of radio lectures, broadcast in Bavaria, was Cardinal Ratzinger's own prophecy.

More on this subject? => http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1398168/posts

lmaopml

Goodness, I never saw that before Smurf..and from 1969..

This Pope is really having a hard time of it, and is in my opinion, a very good man who will set the course..

Prophetic no doubt...!

smurfhousing

lmaopml wrote: »

Goodness, I never saw that before Smurf..and from 1969..

This Pope is really having a hard time of it, and is in my opinion, a very good man who will set the course..

Prophetic no doubt...!

You know what, some Catholics get worried reading that. They think ''WHAT! What is this man trying to do to our Church!!!! EEEEEEK!!!!!''

And I do understand it. Common sense would tell you though that some of the more obvious things are a present reality: our Churches are too big, and they do cost a lot... Will we be able to keep them? I would be sad to see the loss of these beautiful buildings, but our preferences and God's will are often very different. My nightmare scenario is the loss of St Peter's in Rome... But who knows what the future holds. Might the state remove our churches from us? It could happen, perhaps in a major schism which could happen in our lifetimes, when the true church is fought in the courts by the new 'liberal catholic church'. I hate to say it, but this could happen. Perhaps, even back in 1969, the now Pope Benedict prophesied this.

But what I was thinking was that the most.... wondersome line might be the bit about 'new ministries' - what might that mean? And yet we have had addresses from Pope Benedict about online ministry... new technology, tools of evangelisation and so on. It was only recently that Pope Benedict referred to the work of Catholic priest bloggers, encouraging them in their work. We see to the wonderful lay efforts, in the fields of publishing and television, and online apostolates such as apologetics masters Catholic Answers and CatholicsComeHome.org.

StealthRolex

Oh I agree Imaopml, my perspective is a little different, as you may have noticed and I welcome yours

What we need are more priests like Fr Michael Maher S.M - you have to scroll down a bit ...

philologos

If I may perhaps get the ball rolling. I read this excerpt from this link which is currently in StealthRolex's signature:

It claims that the Latin Vulgate is the only proper Biblical text:

But, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, do not be offended at me for saying that. Your own most learned preachers and bishops tell you that. Some have written whole volumes in order to prove that the English translation, which you have, is a very faulty and false translation.

Now, therefore, I say that the true Bible is what the Catholics have, the Latin Vulgate. And the most learned among the Protestants themselves have agreed that the Latin Vulgate Bible, which the Catholic Church always makes use of, is the best in existence. And therefore, as you may have perceived, when I preach I give the text in Latin, because the Latin text of the Vulgate is the best extant.

1) Which English translation do we have? I've met people who have used numerous translations of the Biblical text into English. Even on this forum. NIV, KJV, NKJV, TNIV, NRSV, ESV, so on and so forth.

2) Isn't the Latin Vulgate itself a translation?

3) Who are these so called "learned" bishops and ministers that the article is referring to?

4) Does the RCC always use the Latin Vulgate, I have heard of the NRSV being used in RCC churches? This translation is based on Greek and Hebrew manuscripts rather than on the Vulgate.

5) What basis is there that English translations are severely faulty?

Another excerpt refers to salvation:

I have said, outside of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith. Some of the Protestant friends will be shocked at this, to hear me say that outside of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith, and that without faith there is no salvation, but damnation. I will prove all I have said.

6) What basis is there that if one has faith in Jesus Christ that they will not be saved Scripturally? I would hold that the author has redefined faith to suit his opinion rather than basing it on what God regards as faith.

I'll leave it there for now. However, if you are going to answer using external sources, could you quote the relevant sections here, accompanied by your own view. That would be much appreciated. Hopefully the discussion on this thread will be fruitful.

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

If I may perhaps get the ball rolling. I read this excerpt from this link which is currently in StealthRolex's signature:

It claims that the Latin Vulgate is the only proper Biblical text:

1) Which English translation do we have? I've met people who have used numerous translations of the Biblical text into English. Even on this forum. NIV, KJV, NKJV, TNIV, NRSV, ESV, so on and so forth.

Hi Jackass,

Just to note, the author of the article you quoted wrote it sometime before 1890 when he died. He was the Archbishop of New York at the time. Perhaps many of the translations weren't about then?

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Just to note, the author of the article you quoted wrote it sometime before 1890 when he died. He was the Archbishop of New York at the time. Perhaps many of the translations weren't about then?

Ah good point, the emphasis on the Latin Vulgate is also problematic though, and the issue of salvation.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

All translations (including the Vulgate) are man-made, and therefore there are bound to be errors.

For example, Hebrews 10:12 in the original Greek reads: ουτος δε μιαν υπερ αμαρτιων προσενεγκας (aorist tense) θυσιαν εις το διηνεκες εκαθισεν εν δεξια του θεου

Most English versions correctly render this as saying that Christ offered (aorist tense) a sacrifice for sins.

However, the Vulgate reads: hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens (present tense) hostiam in sempiternum sedit in dextera Dei

You can see there is an important doctrinal issue at stake here. Did Christ offer a sacrifice for sin in the past (as in the Greek) or is He still offering a sacrifice for sin in the present (as in the Vulgate)?

The Douay Rheims Bible rather ambigously reads: But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, . Depending on how you read it this could mean that Jesus has offered the sacrifice and now sits at the right hand of God. Or it could follow Jerome's mistranslation.

That ambiguity has, thankfully, been avoided in the New Jerusalem Bible which clearly uses the past tense.

My purpose in pointing this out is not to slam Jerome, who did a fine job with the resources available to him - especially when you consider that neither Latin nor Greek were his mother tongue. But the Vulgate is a fallible translation, and few Greek scholars would argue that it is the best translation.

StealthRolex

Emphasis on the latin vulgate is not that problematic if you accept that the teachings of the magisterium are what we believe and follow, and not our own personal interpretation.

It is far more problematic that one person debates a theological or doctrinal point with another who is informed from a different version. If there is no common ground how can the discussion be valid or anything arising be valid?
You may settle it one day and the next day there is a different version.

We have already seen it in the discussions here - one person interpreting one version in one way against another producing a completely different interpretation from a different version. The unity of Catholicism is such that no Catholic will present their own interpretation as valid, only that of the Magesterium who use the latin vulgate is valid.

The issue of Salvation is slightly different as Catholics do not often speak in terms of salvation or being saved or what do we do to inherit the kingdom of heaven. We speak of the hope of salvation and the hope is through following Christ and hoping we die in a state of grace. The Catholic Church contains all that we need to know and do to have that hope of salvation.

The authors point is that because those outside of Catholicism ignore certain teachings or say that what is a sin for a Catholic is not a sin for them is why he is saying what he says. For anyone to accept a sin as not being a sin is opening the door to near certain damnation.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Emphasis on the latin vulgate is not that problematic if you accept that the teachings of the magisterium are what we believe and follow, and not our own personal interpretation.

What you're basically saying is, if I accept all of your unsubstantiated assumptions, that I will hold the same point of view as you do. That isn't an argument for backing up that the Latin Vulgate and translations that come from it are more accurate than the Greek and Hebrew and translations that come from it.

That simply can't do.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is far more problematic that one person debates a theological or doctrinal point with another who is informed from a different version. If there is no common ground how can the discussion be valid or anything arising be valid?
You may settle it one day and the next day there is a different version.

How different do you think translations from the same document can be?

StealthRolex wrote: »

We have already seen it in the discussions here - one person interpreting one version in one way against another producing a completely different interpretation from a different version. The unity of Catholicism is such that no Catholic will present their own interpretation as valid, only that of the Magesterium who use the latin vulgate is valid.

This isn't back up that the Latin Vulgate is more accurate. These are claims that can be substantiated.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The issue of Salvation is slightly different as Catholics do not often speak in terms of salvation or being saved or what do we do to inherit the kingdom of heaven. We speak of the hope of salvation and the hope is through following Christ and hoping we die in a state of grace. The Catholic Church contains all that we need to know and do to have that hope of salvation.

The article that you cited, suggests strongly that non-Catholics will not be saved.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The authors point is that because those outside of Catholicism ignore certain teachings or say that what is a sin for a Catholic is not a sin for them is why he is saying what he says. For anyone to accept a sin as not being a sin is opening the door to near certain damnation.

From reading it, the point bluntly seems to suggest that Protestants have a false Bible, and that they aren't saved. I think you are taking liberties with this. It is odd that you have cited someone pre-Vatican II though. Are you an Old Catholic or do you accept the changes the RCC has made in how it has done things since?

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, I am very calm, and I would appreciate Vodafoneproblem back up his accusations.

What accusations?
Thats there are no Roman Catholic mods in this forum?
That doesn't need back up as it appears to be fact.

If someone is suggesting mods are chosen here or in any other forum on this site because of their religion,that would be patent nonsense.
I've been a mod on this site [recently retired from modding] for years and can confirm that mods are chosen wisely usually and carefully for their modding abilities and not their religion.

By the way as an occasional lurker here,I think one of the mods here should separate out the couple of pages of argument/discussion about the merits of this thread,lock the separate thread [as it's decided and discussed enough imho] and edit the op to put in a link to the separated discussion on the creation of this thread.
That way you can get on with what the thread is for.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Emphasis on the latin vulgate is not that problematic if you accept that the teachings of the magisterium are what we believe and follow, and not our own personal interpretation.

It is far more problematic that one person debates a theological or doctrinal point with another who is informed from a different version. If there is no common ground how can the discussion be valid or anything arising be valid?
You may settle it one day and the next day there is a different version.

I don't think it's problematic for people to examine the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and listen to what the best scholars and linguists (irrespective of denominational affiliation) have to say. That's the kind of informed debate that operates in any other field of knowledge.

However, you seem to be saying that, while the Vulgate is not perfect, Catholics are bound to accept it. So, even if the Vulgate is in error and mistranslates a certain word or phrase, yopu are bound to accept it anyway. Have I accurately refelected what you're saying, or am I being unfair here?

JimiTime

The root of all this Catholic v's everything else is summed up by the topic of 'One True Church'. That IMO, is the basis for any discussion here. It will always come back to this, so I reckon thats what the discussion should be on.

So I'd like to ask Firstly: On what basis do the RCC claim the above, and if you could provide supporting evidence. I would politely request that if you are providing links, that you express an understanding of what you are linking to and provide a summary of what your link says. That way, it doesn't just become link wars, and we can be assured that the person posting actually knows what they're talking about.

If RCC's don't take up this question, or have me or others on 'ignore', I'd ask our Non-Catholic bretheren to explain why they believe the RCC's assertions to be in error.

Cheers guys.

JimiTime

Deleted User wrote: »

What accusations?
Thats there are no Roman Catholic mods in this forum?

No, that RCC's are told to 'hush up' here. Also, that I got personal and aggressive.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

What you're basically saying is, if I accept all of your unsubstantiated assumptions, that I will hold the same point of view as you do. That isn't an argument for backing up that the Latin Vulgate and translations that come from it are more accurate than the Greek and Hebrew and translations that come from it.

That simply can't do.

I put it to you then that what you are basically saying is that all of the Catholic Church teaching are based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Will that do?

Jakkass wrote: »

How different do you think translations from the same document can be?

Very, which is why the Church will authorize some and not others.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't back up that the Latin Vulgate is more accurate. These are claims that can be substantiated.

See PDN and note that he makes the error of assuming that Christ and God occupy space and time by not deciding which aorist tense is being deployed - it could be gnomic aorist - or maybe he decided a particular aorist suited his interpretation. The latin vulgate implies space and time do not effect God. If the past tense is correct the we don't need to give up sin is one incorrect interpretation that does not match with other parts of scripture. If we accept that because God is outside of space and time then our sins now cause Jesus suffering.
PDN - nothing personal, it is by way of example.

Jakkass wrote: »

The article that you cited, suggests strongly that non-Catholics will not be saved.

That is a question you can examine for yourself. Do you think your life and what you do is sufficient to gain you salvation and why?
Are there elements of the teachings of Jesus that you ignore or break?
Are there commandments you ignore or break?

Example - Commandments say adultery is wrong
Jesus days remarriage after divorce is wrong
a church says remarriage after divorce is right
is this a problem?

Example - your neighbour earns more than you for doing less. Are you envious? Do you covet his life or belongings?

Example - do you bear false witness

Do you pray to win the lottery?

Do you feed the poor and hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners?

There are many many examples that can be explored.

Jakkass wrote: »

From reading it, the point bluntly seems to suggest that Protestants have a false Bible, and that they aren't saved. I think you are taking liberties with this. It is odd that you have cited someone pre-Vatican II though. Are you an Old Catholic or do you accept the changes the RCC has made in how it has done things since?

I would agree that the Bible used by Protestants contains enough errors to make it a false Bible.

As to their being saved or not - that is up to God. What Protestants can so is explore religion and theology and satisfy themselves beyond all reasonable doubt that what they are following is the true path and the only path.

With 30,000 (or more as new ones are started) protestant and non-catholic communities, churches and denominations that might take some time.

What is Old Catholic?
Are you referring to Vatican II changes that were followed correctly by the bishops or those that break Canon law?
I accept the teachings of the Magisterium and the Pope over the Irish bishops interpretation where a conflict exists.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it's problematic for people to examine the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and listen to what the best scholars and linguists (irrespective of denominational affiliation) have to say. That's the kind of informed debate that operates in any other field of knowledge.

However, you seem to be saying that, while the Vulgate is not perfect, Catholics are bound to accept it. So, even if the Vulgate is in error and mistranslates a certain word or phrase, yopu are bound to accept it anyway. Have I accurately refelected what you're saying, or am I being unfair here?

Not unfair at all - we are bound to accept the interpretation of the Church. Lets face it, the Church has been at it for 2000 years and has an immense body of knowledge and scholarship to call upon. We Trust her because she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

When you run an orchestra you all follow the same version of the music under the same conductor. His artistic interpretation might be different but he cannot re-arrange it. unless everyone has the same manuscript there would be chaos. Likewise you all follow the conductors directions. Failure to do so leads to chaos.
There may be an error in the manuscript and in reading may be missed. In playing it may also be missed or noted. If noted and corrected, great as long as everyone corrects it the same way. If it is missed but is not glaringly obvious when played then the error is probably minor.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I put it to you then that what you are basically saying is that all of the Catholic Church teaching are based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Will that do?

No, I'm merely saying that your opinion concerning:
1) The RCC being the one true church
2) The Latin Vulgate being better than English translations derived from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
amongst other things, are not adequately argued for.

There is much RCC in common with other Christian denominations, and much of it does adhere to the Scriptures. A lot could also be argued not to.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Very, which is why the Church will authorize some and not others.

Any translations that I have consulted, at least in English seem very similar in wording to one another.

StealthRolex wrote: »

See PDN and note that he makes the error of assuming that Christ and God occupy space and time by not deciding which aorist tense is being deployed - it could be gnomic aorist - or maybe he decided a particular aorist suited his interpretation. The latin vulgate implies space and time do not effect God. If the past tense is correct the we don't need to give up sin is one incorrect interpretation that does not match with other parts of scripture. If we accept that because God is outside of space and time then our sins now cause Jesus suffering.
PDN - nothing personal, it is by way of example.

PDN is looking at the Greek, looking at the Latin translated by Jerome, and looking that the Doubay-Reims translation and notes that there is a difference between both the Latin and the Greek, a change which is inherited by the Doubay-Reims, and corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible.

I'm personally not a scholar of either language.

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is a question you can examine for yourself. Do you think your life and what you do is sufficient to gain you salvation and why?
Are there elements of the teachings of Jesus that you ignore or break?
Are there commandments you ignore or break?

I believe, that Jesus is sufficient. I believe that because I have accepted His grace, I have died with Him, and I have a new life to live. A life which has responsibilities (1 John 2:6 - If I am to abide in Him, I am to walk as He walked).

It's not about me being deserving. I'm personally deserving of hell. By accepting Jesus, He is now my advocate. He stands on my behalf before the Father (1 John 2:1).

My life alone isn't sufficient for anything. Yours isn't either. Nobody's life is sufficient. Only Jesus is sufficient. That's the reason He died. If you believe that you are sufficient to save yourself, I would argue that you are mistaken.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Example - Commandments say adultery is wrong
Jesus days remarriage after divorce is wrong
a church says remarriage after divorce is right
is this a problem?

Of course it's a problem. I do think that you have misinterpreted that there is a limited context (sexual immorality) whereby divorce is permissible.

We went through that in another thread to no avail.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Example - your neighbour earns more than you for doing less. Are you envious? Do you covet his life or belongings?
Example - do you bear false witness
Do you pray to win the lottery?
Do you feed the poor and hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners?

These apply to anyone, including those who are members of the RCC. Another notable question to ask is. Do you live under the law of mercy or under the law of judgement? Do you take your position to judge others when you yourself are guilty of many of the same sins as the ones you are listing?

Dogmatism lends itself to hypocrisy. It's something I had to look at in my life too to make sure that I am living as under the law of liberty.

James 2:10-13 wrote:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would agree that the Bible used by Protestants contains enough errors to make it a false Bible.

Which Bible? - I've made clear already that there are numerous translations used by both Protestants and Catholics. The NRSV is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Greek Orthodox mainly, but also in other theological scholarship. It has also been approved by the Vatican for usage in numerous churches.

StealthRolex wrote: »

As to their being saved or not - that is up to God. What Protestants can so is explore religion and theology and satisfy themselves beyond all reasonable doubt that what they are following is the true path and the only path.

Well StealthRolex, your article has gone much further than leaving it down to God. So we are in a spot of difficulty. Either that you do believe what that article says and want to be politically correct about it, or you believe that the article is mistaken. If you believe what the article has said be forthright about it, I have thick enough skin

StealthRolex wrote: »

With 30,000 (or more as new ones are started) protestant and non-catholic communities, churches and denominations that might take some time.

You're telling me! That's why I and others have suggested the best model for ecumenism is actually inter church co-operation on a pragmatic level rather than on a theoretical level.

StealthRolex wrote: »

What is Old Catholic?
Are you referring to Vatican II changes that were followed correctly by the bishops or those that break Canon law?
I accept the teachings of the Magisterium and the Pope over the Irish bishops interpretation where a conflict exists.

I'm referring to numerous individuals who rebel against the changes brought in by Vatican II.

I ask this because you refer to a bishop who is writing pre-Vatican II rather than one who is writing post-Vatican II.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I'm merely saying that your opinion concerning:
1) The RCC being the one true church

Well, that's not just my opinion. Christ gave us one Church and expected unity amongst Christians. There was for a while, in Europe at least, and then things changed.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) The Latin Vulgate being better than English translations derived from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
amongst other things, are not adequately argued for.

The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic reference. Im sure if there was a better reference she would be using it.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is much RCC in common with other Christian denominations, and much of it does adhere to the Scriptures. A lot could also be argued not

It depends on what is argued not and the effect that has on the soul.
e.g celibacy. Jesus set the bar high but scripture allows for married clergy.
Catholicism follows Christ and sets the bar high. Other Catholic rites allow married clergy and there is no conflict.
Contrast
Catholicism - all rites - does not allow women priests and openly gay clergy.
Other denominations allow women clergy and openly gay clergy including cohabiting. This is clearly not scriptural.

Jakkass wrote: »

Any translations that I have consulted, at least in English seem very similar in wording to one another.

I get an orchestra of 30 players together, give them each a similar but different arrangement of the same piece.
What will it sound like when played?
Speed, key signature, interpretive marks, pauses, recitatives - if they are not all synced it's cacophony.
We need to be working from the same piece under the same direction.

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN is looking at the Greek, looking at the Latin translated by Jerome, and looking that the Doubay-Reims translation and notes that there is a difference between both the Latin and the Greek, a change which is inherited by the Doubay-Reims, and corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible.

I'm personally not a scholar of either language.

No matter. My point is when it comes to the aorist tense it can be past or present.
The Latin Vulgate encompasses "best fit" in this example. In regards to the Bible in general Protestants admit that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible, and it is only since the Reformation that conflicting versions have appeared.
Lets face it, only one version can be as correct as it can be. Why have more than one reference document?

Encylopedia Brittanica only publishes one version at a time.
Software is released one version at a time.
Why not refer to only one version of the Bible?

It is also a historical record. How many other history books get rewritten and reversion-ed ad hoc?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe, that Jesus is sufficient. I believe that because I have accepted His grace, I have died with Him, and I have a new life to live. A life which has responsibilities (1 John 2:6 - If I am to abide in Him, I am to walk as He walked).

Jesus did not believe that. If he did why then did he recruit Apostles and give them directives? Why did He say there were things He could not tell the Apostles then but would send the Holy Spirit later.
If Jesus is sufficient then you are relying on an unchanging history. Jesus is alive and living and so is His message which is kept alive by the workings of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about me being deserving. I'm personally deserving of hell. By accepting Jesus, He is now my advocate. He stands on my behalf before the Father (1 John 2:1).

Likewise. However what happens if Jesus who is merciful steps aside so you face the Father who is Just?

Jakkass wrote: »

My life alone isn't sufficient for anything. Yours isn't either. Nobody's life is sufficient. Only Jesus is sufficient. That's the reason He died. If you believe that you are sufficient to save yourself, I would argue that you are mistaken.

Jesus did not just give us Himself. He also gave us the Church.

We are a family

God the Father, Mary the Mother, Jesus the Son, us the Children of God.

Like most families we all want to be in the same house. There are some who leave - Prodigal perhaps.
The Father is not happy until all his Children are back in the same house.

For us the Catholic Church is the house of God in this life. We want all who have left the house to return. No questions asked.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it's a problem. I do think that you have misinterpreted that there is a limited context (sexual immorality) whereby divorce is permissible.

We went through that in another thread to no avail.

We did but misrepresentation, eisegesis and misinterpretation led to no conclusion. Maybe it should be pursued in a thread of its own.

Jesus did not say remarriage after divorce was permissable.
He said divorce due to adultery is permissable.
He advised that whoever married a divorced woman, even one divorced because of adultery, commits adultery.

He said what God has put together no man can put asunder. This means that while you can separate and "divorce" on earth the marriage bond is permanent in heaven.

Jakkass wrote: »

These apply to anyone, including those who are members of the RCC. Another notable question to ask is. Do you live under the law of mercy or under the law of judgement? Do you take your position to judge others when you yourself are guilty of many of the same sins as the ones you are listing?

Dogmatism lends itself to hypocrisy. It's something I had to look at in my life too to make sure that I am living as under the law of liberty.

We do not judge. However we are not tolerant of sin either which is why we are expected to go to confession and do our best not to sin. Not "try" but do all that we can not to sin. We fail and fail miserably but it is lifetimes work we are about, not instant gratification, success or achievement. For every sin we overcome there will be another waiting in the wings.

Jakkass wrote: »

Which Bible? - I've made clear already that there are numerous translations used by both Protestants and Catholics. The NRSV is used by Catholics, Anglicans and Greek Orthodox mainly, but also in other theological scholarship. It has also been approved by the Vatican for usage in numerous churches.

use in a church is different to use by the Magisterium. There are childrens bibles too but we don't use them to inform doctrine.
Why do you have an issue with NRSV being used in a church? I', not seeing this as being an issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well StealthRolex, your article has gone much further than leaving it down to God. So we are in a spot of difficulty. Either that you do believe what that article says and want to be politically correct about it, or you believe that the article is mistaken. If you believe what the article has said be forthright about it, I have thick enough skin

Well Jakkass, what can I say. I didn't write it but I found it well written.

Let me put is this way - we tend to see the prodigal son as one who walks away from Christ. What would have happened him if he never returned to his fathers house?
Maybe the Prodigal is an analogy for Protestants or non-Catholic Christians and his fathers house is an analogy for the Catholic Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're telling me! That's why I and others have suggested the best model for ecumenism is actually inter church co-operation on a pragmatic level rather than on a theoretical level.

If there are 30,000 churches then either they are all right or only one is right.
That's not theoretical as we know Jesus started One Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm referring to numerous individuals who rebel against the changes brought in by Vatican II.

I ask this because you refer to a bishop who is writing pre-Vatican II rather than one who is writing post-Vatican II.

I think there is much misunderstanding about Vatican II and what it contains. It might be better to explore the changes you think caused rebellion so we can see if what people thought they were rebelling against were really worth rebelling against or was it all brought about by confusion fomented by the evil one.

JimiTime

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, that's not just my opinion. Christ gave us one Church and expected unity amongst Christians. There was for a while, in Europe at least, and then things changed.
.

Said it before, say it again. This is what the whole thing is about. We can talk about vulates, magesteriums, reformations, faith, works blah blah yawn yawn, but once the above assertion is in the mix its an absolute waste of time.

You either deal with this question of one true church, or its the biggest waste of time of a conversation. If someone holds someone as the authority, then you can quote whatever until the cows come home. It needs to be established by Catholics that their assertion of OTC is correct, and it needs to be rebuffed by those against this assertion.

StealthRolex

Fine Jimi, prove that Jesus wanted 30,000 churches and more every day.

JimiTime

StealthRolex wrote: »

Fine Jimi, prove that Jesus wanted 30,000 churches and more every day.

I have not being making claims. Think of me as a blank canvas. What I have seen, is yourself assert that Jesus set up the RCC and its the OTC. The simple question, from this simple Christian is, what is the basis for the claim. Why should I believe your, presently unsubstantiated, claim? I.E. Substantiate your assertion with the evidence of your belief. Otherwise you might as well say that God lives in your kitchen.

StealthRolex

JimiTime wrote: »

I have not being making claims. Think of me as a blank canvas. What I have seen, is yourself assert that Jesus set up the RCC and its the OTC. The simple question, from this simple Christian is, what is the basis for the claim. Why should I believe your, presently unsubstantiated, claim? I.E. Substantiate your assertion with the evidence of your belief. Otherwise you might as well say that God lives in your kitchen.

Equally I could ask you and members of all the other churches that claim to be valid to prove that their church is the one church founded by Christ.

Is there any scriptural support for disunity among Christians?
Is there any scriptural support for multiple doctrines among Christians?
Is there any scriptural support for more than one successor to St. Peter at a time?

Who outside of the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins as Jesus did "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them..." (John 20:23 NAB)

Christ founded only One Church
He gave the job of being His Vicar to St. Peter.
St Peter has successors all the way to the present Pope.
"His office let another take." (Acts 1:20 RSV) ...and so Matthias did... And Clement... And Linus... And Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21:14 RSV

"You form a building which rises on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone." Ephesians 2:20 RSV

"...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." Acts 2:42 RSV

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..." 1 Corinthians 12:13 RSV

"...one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." Ephesians 4:5 RSV

"And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets... Are all apostles? Are all prophets?" 1 Corinthians 12:27-29 NAB

"Moreover, we [the apostles] possess the prophetic message which is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it... Know first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation." 2 Peter 1:19-20

"In them [Paul's letters] there are some things that are hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." 2 Peter 3:16 NAB

there is more

Acts 2:42: doctrine, community, sacred rite (bread).
Eph 5:25-26: Christ loved the Church.
1 Tim 3:15: church is pillar and foundation of truth.
Mt 16:18; 20:20: Christ protects Church.
Heb 13:17: obey.
Mt 18:17-18: church as final authority.
Mt 23:2: Pharisees succeeded Moses (seat of Moses).
1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20: excommunication.
Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14 ...apostles are the Church's foundation, Christ is its cornerstone.

Other churches did not exist until the Reformation. The onus is on them to prove their place in the family of Christ.

The Bible speaks of one and only one church

StealthRolex

I swiped this and it puts over some good points. As it is not mine I will not be respond to comments.

Orestes Brownson, maybe America’s greatest philospher and certainly most prolific writer, offers something along these lines as to why Protestant attempts to destroy the Church will always fail.

First, the Catholic Church is in possession of the title “Church of Christ” and always has been in possession of that title. Therefore, the presumption is with the Church not the assailants of the Church (the Protestants). In a court, the defendant is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. If a group of citizens of a country declare that the current state government is no longer possesses the right or title of government, then the burden is on the dissenters to show that to be so. Burden of proof on Protestants

Second, any attack cannot be a mere assertion.
Mere assertions can be rebutted by mere asssertions. E.g., Protestant 1: “The Church of Rome has left true doctrine”; Catholic Church: “No I haven’t.” Nothing gained by the Protestant and the Church is still presumed to be the Church Christ Himself instituted.Bare assertions will not score points

Third, Protestants cannot use the Bible to backup their assertions.
Prot. 2: “The Papists contradict the teachings of the Bible, like ‘There is only one mediator between God and man’”;
Cath. Ch., “And where do you get your authority to interpret and teach Scripture authoritatively? You cannot say that the Bible gives you that authority, for that would be to teach from the Bible that you can teach from the Bible, which is to assume what you are supposed to be proving.”
So unless the Protestant has a divine commission from a source that is not the Bible (a vision, a dream, etc., accompanied by signs and wonders proving your divine commission), then the Protestant has no recourse to the Holy Scriptures.Cannot use the Bible as a authoritatively religious book to prove Catholicism is not the One Church.

Fourth, Protestants may, by the use of reason, draw logical inferences from Holy Scriptures that prove that there is no Church. So if a Protestant can find a rational argument from the Bible, one that clearly and expicitly or even implicitly states that the Catholic Church as she understands herself is mistaken or false, then we will concede the point.
There is also recourse to natural reason: if it can be shown that the Catholic Church in Her dogmatic teaching truly and really contradicts either known natural reason or herself (that is, her dogmas contradict one another) then we will concede that the Roman Church is no Church at all.
Protestants must content themselves with the use of natural reasoning alone. Since none of this has been, or can be, accomplished by those who rage against God and His Church, then we are left with two options:

1. Bend the knee in submission to the holy Mother Church, the Body of Christ.

2. Embrace atheism.

Here is a link to the whole article. I left tons out and he explains it very well and what objections you may have to what I have here wrote should be cleared up.

lmaopml

The whole debate has to be taken in context with ...history, tradition, fathers writings, and what various translations mean to us as they stand. As Jesus spoke 'Aramaic' himself and original manuscripts would have been written in Hebrew and Aramaic there are bound to be some translation nuances.....Did they matter in St. Jerome's time? Certainly not!

So, the way history stands is that St. Jerome did a sensational job as a fabulous scholar and under the circumstances to transcribe into Latin the Vulgate which has been used by the church, under the guidance of the church and in light of the Sacraments by Christianity for hundreds of years in actual 'practice' and that 'practice' extends back prior to Jerome writing the bible - people of the time would have known exactly what was meant by baptism etc. etc.

If one changes the 'name' of a word or context of a 'word' in the bible when it is being translated from Greek into English of course there will be errors etc. in comparison to other texts...It's what one takes out of that or reads into it that counts, and what they 'do' with that...

What has to be remembered here though, is that Catholics believe the Bible came out of the Church along with traditions and understanding, under apostolic authority, that were handed on, spoken orally, and written down from the original apostles, not that the Church came out of the bible...

Whereas Protestants today look to the bible as the only source...after the reformation and sola scriptura doctrine of Luther. It's the reason why our Sacraments ( to Catholics ) which are central to the faith and the grace we receive from understanding and having faith and belief, are so at variance with some of the Protestant denominations....and I don't mean any offence by saying that - just stating a fact, and why some are more like the Catholic faith that they originated from..

So, what one has to ask oneself is.......What 'did' the apostles mean? and how is the best way to know this? rather than argue semantics, over greek and latin and aramaic and hebrew etc. and for a Catholic to get the correct interpretation today, we refer to the direction of the Church, Sacred Scripture, tradition, history and the fathers which contribute to getting the full picture, rather than sacred scripture alone...

As a side note;

It's great to see scholars able to use the dead sea scrolls to actually confirm the integrity of scripture; something even St. Jerome didn't have..which is, and should be a celebration for all of Christianity.

Also, they are putting the Codex Sinaiticus online which is 1600 years old in the original Greek for scholarly review, which is also brilliant...

Here's a really cool site; http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ to view the work underway!

Also, here's a good article from a Catholic website that may be of interest, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

I rather like the DR, and have been known to reference all of em if looking at Scripture online etc. there is no need as a Catholic to limit myself either, to only Latin texts ( Although as it's the official language of the Church, some Catholics have a great affinity with it; Obviously..lol ) ...because sacred scripture goes hand in hand with tradition, apostolic authority and the Church..

Some great internet comparison sites out there too, what a great age to live in..