Exactly What is the Authority of the Pope?

[pax]

this is when these teachings started:
593 Purgatory was taught
600 prayer to mary and the saints started
709 was the start of kissing the popes foot, obviously it evolved.
995 was the start of canonizing the saints
1079 started celibacy
1090 prayer of the rosary
1215 was the start of transubstantiation
and 1439 started the sacrements.

are these dates incorrect?

Using that reasoning, the Trinity wasn't taught until 325 in the Council of Nicea. Purgatory was taught before Christianity even existed, prayer to the saints is evident in the book of Revelations and inscriptions on tombs in the catacombs well before the 7th century. Kissing the foot of the Pope is a sign of respect. Cultural attitudes change. Kissing the pope's foot isn't a matter of doctrine in any case. Priestly celibacy is a discipline that I support wholeheartedly to this very day, but theoretically it's free to change. The rosary is a matter of private devotion, not of public faith. 1215 was probably when Aquinas defined transubstantiation, using philosophical terms, but the Real Presence dates back to the time of the apostles. Finally, all the Sacraments existed since the time of Christ.

 

[MattMMMan17]

[size=+0]

Well now we have an issue. Your quoting from the “apocrypha” which provides some problems. First I and many others do not find that to be the word of God; Which is a problem because if we do not find it to be the word of God we are deadlocked and can go no further. [/size]

Where do you get your Bible from?

 

[FOMWatts<><]

HEHEHE, I love it when people ask that...I'd just say before you ask that again, go read the history of the Protestant Bible. Or just the history of the Bible Period, and not the one in your college or high school history book, get on the net and find a good account of its history I wish you guys had these books I am holding, theya re awesome accounts of just WHERE we got our Bible from.


Anyway, you know what I wish I could see before I die? I know it is highly unlikely, but I wish I could see a reunion of Christian Churches. How unlikely it would be for us to lay down our differences and join together in the union of Christ, and to accept one another in love for the commonality we have in Christ. For we ALL believe that He is the Son of God and that He was the sacrifice given for our sins and that three days after His death, God the Father Rose Him up and made Him alive again. We all believe that He is our way to Heaven, and that only He can cleanse us from our sin (no matter where or when He does this, HE IS THE ONE THAT DOES THIS, and THAT is something no one disagrees upon). I wish we could have a BIG dinner on the ground and only fellowship with one another and talk about the great thigns He has done for us. O wait! That will happen, but it wil be called Heaven!!! I'll see you there!!!

Blessings and Excitement,

FOMWatts<><

 

[MattMMMan17]

Your enthusiasm for the re-unification of Christianity back into His Church is wonderful. And I've read much on the history of the Bible and of Christianity itself. So, where do you think your bible came from?

 

[Symes]

Notice there is no Hail Mary, or something being repeated over and over again.

Amen.

Not praying to Peter, a saint, or a pope.


But praying to our Father in heaven.

 

[MattMMMan17]

By that reasoning, all prayers other than the Our Father must be stricken from use. Jesus didn't give his apostles the perfect prayer to the Father to the exclusion of all others. He gave it to us so that we would HAVE a perfect prayer. And who better to give a perfect prayer to than God himself?

Note: Praying to the Pope doesn't make sense. The saints are in greater communion with God in death. Their saintliness gives their prayers said on our behalf more weight.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

You forget the parallel in Mark 3:28 - I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Clearly, this is not talking about any other sin except blasphemy of the holy spirit. It does not indicate that there are other sins. and the verse in Matthew doesn’t prove there is an age of purgatory.

No, by itself it doesn’t prove it. It is only when we read Matthew 12:32 in light of other scripture, and in the light of Sacred Tradition.

There is tons of scripture to back up purgatory, you can accept it or reject it.

Onesiphorus is not dead, he is never shown to be dead. That is an irresponsible assumption. I pray that God will have mercy on me in my daily life, that things go well, that what i plan succeeds. Since Onesiphorus is never shown to be dead, is it not irrational that Paul is praying that he be successful or something of the sort.

Onesiphorus seems to have died before this letter was written. His family is mentioned twice (here and in 2 Tim 4:19), though it was Onesiphorus himself who was helpful to Paul in prison and rendered much service to the community of Ephesus. Because the apostle complains of abandonment by all in Asia during his second imprisonment and trial, the assistance of Onesiphorus seems to have been given to Paul during his first Roman imprisonment (A.D. 61-63).

And this being the case, with Onesiphorus being dead it only makes sense that St. Paul asks for mercy on him, they were close and cares about his soul. And like I said, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

It is not purgatory. All contexts of when it says "made perfect" refer to that exact moment when they accept Jesus into their life.

You want context? Here is context, let’s start at Hebews 12: 21 – 26, remember the key verse is 23:

Indeed, so fearful was the spectacle that Moses said, "I am terrified and trembling." No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel. See that you do not reject the one who speaks. For if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much more in our case if we turn away from the one who warns from heaven. His voice shook the earth at that time, but now he has promised, "I will once more shake not only earth but heaven."

I believe the context is more then clear.The spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. It does not say they necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits were in purgatory.

No we cant use our salvation as a lisence to sin. Galations and Romans. Whats to work out? Paul doesnt tell us to continue to work out our salvation he tells us to keep faith in Jesus who died for us, and who purified us.

Yes, St. Paul does! Look at Philippians 2:10-14

“at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [/b]So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.[/b] For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. Do everything without grumbling or questioning, “

Acts 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Purified, by faith. It doesn’t say they are purified in the age to come.

Have a look at Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory.

Or 1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

And even 1 Cor. 3:15 - Paul says though he will be saved, "but only" through fire. The phrase "but only" in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both rewarded and saved by fire.

And there is also Mal. 3:2-3 - also refers to God's purification of the righteous at their death.

1 PE 1:22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Keep going to verse 15

PHP 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

The term born again, makes you think of a baby believer. Well when you mature you should "take such a view of things." Yes you are saved, but thats no excuse to lag in devotion to Christ. That God will make it clear to you is to mean that God is not meant to be a complacent part of your life. Keep living the faith, Paul understood that he could turn his back anytime, but he urges you to press on toward the goal. (IE Heaven. Paul later states in:

2 Timothy 4:7 "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day..."

Paul believed in Christ right up till then end. He did not lose his faith even though he was a sinner. He knew about his crown in heaven. He did not say that he needed to be purified one last time before he could see heaven.

And Saint Paul is proud of keeping the faith. He is saying, “Yes, I did it, I persevered!” Paul was a great man of God, and He knew he was going straight to heaven!

I do not disagree with what Paul says in 2 Thess. - "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." - 2 Thess. 2:15

The fact of the matter is that the scripture was taught vocally by Paul and the other apostles till it could be written down. I urge you to focus on “either by a oral statement or by a letter of ours” See Paul explicitly states where these traditions come from.”

Now, that is really an irresponsible interpretation. The Sacred Tradition wasn’t scripture waiting to be written down. It was separate doctrine taught by the Apostles.

"Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.”​

Jesus commands the apostles to “proclaim” or “preach," not write, and only three of the apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith. There is just none!

Also look at Luke 1:1-4

“Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.”

Saint Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the Sacred Oral Tradition they already received.

d0c, I could spend hours ripping Sola Scriptura apart. It is a bad doctrine rooted in emotional problems of Martin Luther, but I’ll leave it at that.

Read 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul doesn’t pull these traditions out of a hat. They were taught by Jesus to the apostles. Of course you know this. But scripture is also useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If tradition does not match up with scripture you can not do it.

Listen, don’t fall into the trap of what many anti-Catholic Protestants do. As Catholics – it isn’t a Scripture Vs. Tradition things. Anti-Catholic Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim!

Here, Saint Paul appeals to Apostolic Tradition right before the anti-Catholics often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and they generally ignore this fact.

“and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” - 2 Tim. 3:15

St. Paul then appeals to the Sacred Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

Then we get to verse 16 this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Anti-Catholics unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive; Also , the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true.

Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

(Thank John Salza)

Read Acts 17:11 - Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true

If we are to recognize apostolic tradition as being true, we have to find it in the scriptures to see if it’s true. And because we have the writings of some of the original Apostles we can do that.

I’m glad you asked!!! First there is Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is Sacred Oral Tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Next we have Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on Sacred Oral Tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

We also can look at Acts 20:35 – Saint Paul relies on Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

Then in 1 Cor. 7:10 – St. Paul relies on the Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

And 1 Cor. 10:4 – St. Paul relies on the Sacred Oral Tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Next, Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on Sacred Oral Tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Open up to Hebrews 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on Sacred Oral Tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded anywhere in the Old Testament!

And my favorite is Jude 9 – Saint Jude relies on the Sacred Oral Tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the Sacred Oral Tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jesus himself determined truth from scripture, and used it to prove his points over and over again. Since he was God, that also allowed him to teach new things to the apostles, which he did, and which they wrote down.

Not everything was written down! Read the Gospel of Saint John 21:24-25

“It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true. There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

And John 20:30 - “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.”

Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through Sacred Oral Apostolic Tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

To quote you , “To examine these dates you gave me concerning the assumption and what not, they fall way beyond the end of the apostolic era. Which ended in roughly 100 A.D.

That’s some 400 years after the last apostle died! How can you rightly say that this was a teaching of the apostles when it didn’t appear till then? Or any of your traditions appearing so long after.

You are coming it this from a misunderstanding of Sacred Tradition. Just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed. It was common knowledge. Everyone knew it. Why do no church claim to have the bones of the Blessed Virgin? Because everyone knew there were no bones to be had. She was assumed body and soul to heaven!

You can quote Luther all day long, the fact is he is 1000 years after the fact, a bit late.

Ah ha! Why did I quote Martin Luther? Because you

… especially her immaculate conception and her assumption. That’s not scriptural, that [b[teaching did not even come around till 1950(assumption anyway).[/b]

You made the false claim that the teaching of Mary’s Assumption didn’t “come around until 1950. That is a huge lie. When I quoted Luther is showed it was around in the early 1500’s and then when I quoted St. Timothy of Jerusalem I showed it has been around as early as 400 AD!

Well now we have an issue. Your quoting from the “apocrypha” which provides some problems.

It is form a book from the deuterocanon actually. But call it what you will. It’s funny, speaking of 2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Saint Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that Martin Luther and gang removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, and Wisdom were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used!

First I and many others do not find that to be the word of God;

Well you are in the minority. A billion Catholics accept it as scripture as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church - the two oldest churches that can be traced back to Christ stand together again.

Even the original 1611 King James Bible had the deuterocanonical books in it!

As for the last part of that Adam will be in mourning, I’m not to sure as to the context of it, but doesn’t it contradict with Gen 3:19?[/font]

It doesn’t… trust me.

Oh come on. If you said anything different, the “perfect” church would burn you at the stake, that is not a fair claim to make, or reasonable. Martin Luther wasn’t only one who spoke up but he was quickly silenced.. I forget his name, quick one of you Luther people what’s his name?

There were other reformers, with Martin Luther – however from Pentecost up until the Reformation, Christians accept all 73 books as scripture. If Martin Luther and company would have had his way the books of St. James, Hebrews, and Revelation would have been removed from the Bible as well.

Why are you punished?!?! What is your support for pain? We are freed from our sin in Jesus.

That is what Scared Scripture and Sacred tradition tell us! Jesus frees us from sin yes! We died to save us all from sins. But we must want his salvation! And when we commit sin we must ask for forgiveness when we don’t that is rejecting what Christ did for us on the cross!

Your quotes are interesting, but when I examine it in light of scripture I do not see it. They earliest quote you have is from the year 160. That’s not the very beginning. That’s over 100 years since the start of the church, and 60 since the end of the apostolic era. A lot can be thought up in that time.

There are quotes earlier but I just quoted what I saw was appropriate and it shows that truth of Apostolic Faith.

"[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

Sounds like the Shepard is rebuking Hermas for not praying to the lord directly, instead of being slothful..

What’s not clear is the context, what’s the intercession he is receiving, and what is the angel doing. I think the keyword and why your quoting this is “intercession.” The Shepard doesn’t exactly seem pleased. Can the angel not be sent by Jesus himself? Can you expand on it please?

Here is the quote in context:

I prayed him much that he would explain to me the similitude of the field, and of the master of the vineyard, and of the slave who staked the vineyard, and of the sakes, and of the weeds that were plucked out of the vineyard, and of the son, and of the friends who were fellow-councillors, for I knew that all these things were a kind of parable. And he answered me, and said,

"You are exceedingly persistent with your questions. You ought not," he continued, "to ask any questions at all; for if it is needful to explain anything, it will be made known to you." I said to him "Sir whatsoever you show me, and do not explain, I shall have seen to no purpose, not understanding its meaning. In like manner, also, if you speak parables to me, and do not unfold them, I shall have heard your words in vain." And he answered me again, saying, "Every one who is the servant of God, and has his Lord in his heart, asks of Him understanding, and receives it, and opens up every parable; and the words of the Lord become known to him which are spoken in parables? But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask Him. But you, having been strengthened by the holy Angel, and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from Him?"

I said to him, "Sir, having you with me, I am necessitated to ask questions of you, for you show me all things, and converse with me; but if I were to see or hear these things without you, I would then ask the Lord to explain them." - Fifth Similitude Chapter 4
OF TRUE FASTING AND ITS REWARD: ALSO OF PURITY OF BODY.

Without going into anything else, after doing research, one of the problems christians have with the rosary and praying to mary is because it violates:

MT 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling pagans for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him

First, most Christians are Catholics and see no problem with praying the Rosary. Second, even a lot of Protestants (Lutherans for example) pray a forum of the Rosary as well as Eastern Orthodox. So you have your facts way off here.

And how does it violate Matthew 6? It says don’t pray like “hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men”

Most people who pray the rosary pray it in their bedrooms in the privacy of their homes. I try and say it before I go to sleep every night, that makes me a hypocrite? Your claim doesn’t make any sense!

]Praying the rosary you repeat things over and over and over again...

Again you are way off.

There is nothing wrong with saying prayers over and over again. Look at the Psalms for heavens sake those are prayers and songs repeated over and over again!

Look at Matt. 26:44 - for example, Jesus prayed a third time in the garden of Gethsemane, saying the exact same words again. It is not the repetition that is the issue. It's the vanity. God looks into our heart, not solely at our words.

Look at Luke 18:13 - the tax collector kept beating his breast and praying "God be merciful to me, a sinner." This repetitive prayer was pleasing to God because it was offered with a sincere heart.

What does Saint Paul tell us to do in 1 Thess. 5:17 - “Pray continually!”

And look at Rev. 4:8

“Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."

The angels pray day and night without cessation the same words "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty." This is repetitious prayer that is pleasing to God.

And why not look at Psalm 136 - in this Psalm, the phrase "For His steadfast love endures forever" is more repetitious than any Catholic prayer, and it is God's divine Word!

"hail mary" and what not. Rather the next verse Jesus instructs us just how to pray and is a good example to go off of. Protestants consider prayer important and do catholics but they focus it as more of a dialouge from the to God.

Do you even what the Hail Mary says? This prayer begins,

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee."

This is nothing other than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28. The next part reads this way:

"Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus."

This was exactly what Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42.

The only thing that has been added to these two verses are the names "Jesus" and "Mary," to make clear who is being referred to. So the first part of the Hail Mary is entirely biblical.

The second part of the Hail Mary is not taken straight from Scripture, but it is entirely biblical in the thoughts it expresses. It reads:

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Let’s look at the first words. Some anti-Catholic Protestants do object to saying "Holy Mary" because they claim Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. But Mary was a Christian (the first Christian, actually, the first to accept Jesus; cf. Luke 1:45), and the Bible describes Christians in general as holy. In fact, they are called saints, which means "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2).

Furthermore, as the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Mary was certainly a very holy woman.

Also, anti-Catholics object to the title "Mother of God," but suffice it to say that the title doesn’t mean Mary is older than God; it means the person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. (Jesus is one person, the divine, but has two natures, the divine and the human; it is incorrect to say he is a human person.) The denial that Mary had God in her womb is a heresy known as Nestorianism (which claims that Jesus was two persons, one divine and one human), which has been condemned since the early 400s and which the Reformers and Protestant Bible scholars have always rejected

I do not know much about cahtolic prayer but the few masses i have gone to, you read from a script, usually giving praise to mary as the merciful one whom she asks Jesus to interven on our part.

No, that is not what goes on at mass at all! Mary is only mentioned twice at Mass! First when we confess our sins we say:

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

And when we say the Nicene Creed:

by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Look for yourself and you will see the Mass is centered very much around Jesus Christ:

http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Mass.htm

MT 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray:


" `Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
MT 6:10 your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
MT 6:11 Give us today our daily bread.
MT 6:12 Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
MT 6:13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one. '

Umm, the Lord Prayer (Catholics call it the “Our Father”) is prayed at every single Mass every day. It is very much a part of the Rosary, and Catholics pray it several times a day. To day Catholics don’t pray the Our Father is just silly.

In the Mary’s Holy Son, My Lord,
Jeff

resources:

Holy Bible:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm

Scripture Catholic
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

Catholic Answers Inc
http://www.catholic.com

The Shepherd of Hermas
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Amen.

Not praying to Peter, a saint, or a pope.


But praying to our Father in heaven.

As do Catholics...

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

By that reasoning, all prayers other than the Our Father must be stricken from use. Jesus didn't give his apostles the perfect prayer to the Father to the exclusion of all others. He gave it to us so that we would HAVE a perfect prayer. And who better to give a perfect prayer to than God himself?

Note: Praying to the Pope doesn't make sense. The saints are in greater communion with God in death. Their saintliness gives their prayers said on our behalf more weight.

Very well said brother.

 

[FOMWatts<><]

Where do you get your Bible from?

Well, most of my Bibles came from Zondervan or Tyndale House Publisher's hehehe, just pickin. I know what you mean. I believe you are TRYING to imply that we got our Bible from the Catholic Church and though it played a role in the way things played out it is only part of GOD'S plan in getting HIS truth to His people.

The OT part of the Bible comes from Oral tradition passed down over time beginning somewhere around the 12th Century B.C. It's formulation took much much longer than that. None of the original documents are known to exist today, other than SOME NT writings, but anyway the compilation of works would later be canonized, or accepted as Divine Word of God. These copies of writings where then passed on by scribes and copyists who hand copied each Bible until the first printed Bible in the 15th Century A.D. We get our OT from the Hebrew people with the exception of a few passages written in Aramaic and its origin lies within the Jewish Community.

now for what is known as the "Christian" Bible...it was originally written in Greek and later canonized as part of the Bible. Most of the Bibles were written in Greek and Latin and Augustine is sittin around saying how many different versions there are and thinks there should eb a main version and so does the Pope at the time so they get home dude Jerome, who is pretty reknowned for his production of the Bible to create a version in Latin strictly for use by the Catholic Church and it's Priests. IT took him 20 years to get it done, but none the less he got it done. This was known as the Vulgate or common language edition of the Bible, all of which were too expensive for the common people to won and even if they COULD afford it, the majority were illiterate and unable to read enough to comprehend what it said. ANYWHO, thios Vulgate Bibel was accepted at the Council of Trent in 1546 as the Standard version of the Roman Catholic Church. BUT MY BIBLE, was introduced nearly 1000 years before by a radical, John Wyclif and he is credited with the first ENGLISH Bible in 1382. He was my hero, though extreme. He believed that God's Word was for man's own personal interpretation and not that of the Church's, as do I. He believed that the Bible was a personal guide for every man and that its contents were not to be hidden from the people to which it was addressed. Anywho, as time passes we hear of a guy named Tyndale who is creativly responsible for the release and producition of the Bible IN ENGLISH!!! Man o man did this make some people mad. He fled to Germany were the reformation was burning brightly. He was inspired by some guy named Luther and in Cologne, Germany he witnessed the first copying of HIS Bible which was translated with HIS scholarship from Anciet Greek Srolls. This too made some people mad so he ran away to Worms. He smuggeld finished copies into London and was labeled by the church as "the murderer of the truth" and was legally charged with "advancement of setting forth of Luther's abominabel heresies". The Church publicly bought and burned as many of these copies as possible and condemned all that possessed a copy. After this he began his translation FROM HEBREW TEXTS of the OT, but he did not live to see it done. In antwerp he was caught and labeled a heretic and burned at the stake as if he were a liar.

So to answer your question as wholeheartedly as I may it would set in one or two simple statements...My Bible comes from God through His servant Willaim Tyndale and many others who loved the truth through the negative inspiration of the authorities at hand. Their refusal to be kept away from the Truth of God was enough to drive them to change the way things were done and because of that drive, we have the Geneva Bible and it is available to every man that wished to possess it.


Blessings,

FOMWatts<><

 

[d0c markus]

Where do you get your Bible from?

All Over:

Amazon.com
Christian Book Stores
My attic
Friends.
I have quite a few.

 

[d0c markus]

HEHEHE, I love it when people ask that...I'd just say before you ask that again, go read the history of the Protestant Bible. Or just the history of the Bible Period, and not the one in your college or high school history book, get on the net and find a good account of its history I wish you guys had these books I am holding, theya re awesome accounts of just WHERE we got our Bible from.


Anyway, you know what I wish I could see before I die? I know it is highly unlikely, but I wish I could see a reunion of Christian Churches. How unlikely it would be for us to lay down our differences and join together in the union of Christ, and to accept one another in love for the commonality we have in Christ. For we ALL believe that He is the Son of God and that He was the sacrifice given for our sins and that three days after His death, God the Father Rose Him up and made Him alive again. We all believe that He is our way to Heaven, and that only He can cleanse us from our sin (no matter where or when He does this, HE IS THE ONE THAT DOES THIS, and THAT is something no one disagrees upon). I wish we could have a BIG dinner on the ground and only fellowship with one another and talk about the great thigns He has done for us. O wait! That will happen, but it wil be called Heaven!!! I'll see you there!!!

Blessings and Excitement,

FOMWatts<><

Cool, what books do you have on the subject for anyone interested?

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists [catholics] that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." ~ Martin Luther​

I suggest you get the book called:

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church
By The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM,

Here is the table of contents:

Preface
Introduction
Chapter I. Some Errors Removed
Chapter II. The Making of the Old Testament
Chapter III. The Church Precedes the New Testament
Chapter IV. Catholic Church Compiles the New Testament
Chapter V. Deficiencies of the Protestant Bible
Chapter VI. The Originals and their Disappearance
Chapter VII. Variations in the text Fatal to the Protestant Theory
Chapter VIII. Our Debt to the Monks
Chapter IX. Bible Reading in the 'Dark Ages'
Chapter X. Where then are all the Mediaeval Bibles?
Chapter XI. Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff
Chapter XII. Why Wycliff was Condemned
Chapter XIII. Tyndale's Condemnation Vindicated by Posterity
Chapter XIV. A Deluge of Erroneous Versions
Chapter XV. The Catholic Bible (Douay)
Chapter XVI. Envoi

You can buy the book cheap off eBay or amazon.com or you can PM me and I will email you a copy of it. I have it in .doc format and .pdf format.

 

[d0c markus]

By that reasoning, all prayers other than the Our Father must be stricken from use. Jesus didn't give his apostles the perfect prayer to the Father to the exclusion of all others. He gave it to us so that we would HAVE a perfect prayer. And who better to give a perfect prayer to than God himself?

Note: Praying to the Pope doesn't make sense. The saints are in greater communion with God in death. Their saintliness gives their prayers said on our behalf more weight.

It's an outline, praying the rosary never touches that format of a prayer.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

It's an outline, praying the rosary never touches that format of a prayer.

The Rosary is made up of many different individual prayers.

 

[Palatka44]

Well, most of my Bibles came from Zondervan or Tyndale House Publisher's hehehe, just pickin. I know what you mean. I believe you are TRYING to imply that we got our Bible from the Catholic Church and though it played a role in the way things played out it is only part of GOD'S plan in getting HIS truth to His people.

The OT part of the Bible comes from Oral tradition passed down over time beginning somewhere around the 12th Century B.C. It's formulation took much much longer than that. None of the original documents are known to exist today, other than SOME NT writings, but anyway the compilation of works would later be canonized, or accepted as Divine Word of God. These copies of writings where then passed on by scribes and copyists who hand copied each Bible until the first printed Bible in the 15th Century A.D. We get our OT from the Hebrew people with the exception of a few passages written in Aramaic and its origin lies within the Jewish Community.

now for what is known as the "Christian" Bible...it was originally written in Greek and later canonized as part of the Bible. Most of the Bibles were written in Greek and Latin and Augustine is sittin around saying how many different versions there are and thinks there should eb a main version and so does the Pope at the time so they get home dude Jerome, who is pretty reknowned for his production of the Bible to create a version in Latin strictly for use by the Catholic Church and it's Priests. IT took him 20 years to get it done, but none the less he got it done. This was known as the Vulgate or common language edition of the Bible, all of which were too expensive for the common people to won and even if they COULD afford it, the majority were illiterate and unable to read enough to comprehend what it said. ANYWHO, thios Vulgate Bibel was accepted at the Council of Trent in 1546 as the Standard version of the Roman Catholic Church. BUT MY BIBLE, was introduced nearly 1000 years before by a radical, John Wyclif and he is credited with the first ENGLISH Bible in 1382. He was my hero, though extreme. He believed that God's Word was for man's own personal interpretation and not that of the Church's, as do I. He believed that the Bible was a personal guide for every man and that its contents were not to be hidden from the people to which it was addressed. Anywho, as time passes we hear of a guy named Tyndale who is creativly responsible for the release and producition of the Bible IN ENGLISH!!! Man o man did this make some people mad. He fled to Germany were the reformation was burning brightly. He was inspired by some guy named Luther and in Cologne, Germany he witnessed the first copying of HIS Bible which was translated with HIS scholarship from Anciet Greek Srolls. This too made some people mad so he ran away to Worms. He smuggeld finished copies into London and was labeled by the church as "the murderer of the truth" and was legally charged with "advancement of setting forth of Luther's abominabel heresies". The Church publicly bought and burned as many of these copies as possible and condemned all that possessed a copy. After this he began his translation FROM HEBREW TEXTS of the OT, but he did not live to see it done. In antwerp he was caught and labeled a heretic and burned at the stake as if he were a liar.

So to answer your question as wholeheartedly as I may it would set in one or two simple statements...My Bible comes from God through His servant Willaim Tyndale and many others who loved the truth through the negative inspiration of the authorities at hand. Their refusal to be kept away from the Truth of God was enough to drive them to change the way things were done and because of that drive, we have the Geneva Bible and it is available to every man that wished to possess it.


Blessings,

FOMWatts<><

I dare say that without Tyndale and Wyclif's sacrifices the English world would be very different today in relation to the spreading of the Gospel. Thak God for men that have given their blood for the the humble man's benefit.

Good post FOMWatts.

 

[Palatka44]

Well, most of my Bibles came from Zondervan or Tyndale House Publisher's hehehe, just pickin. I know what you mean. I believe you are TRYING to imply that we got our Bible from the Catholic Church and though it played a role in the way things played out it is only part of GOD'S plan in getting HIS truth to His people.

The OT part of the Bible comes from Oral tradition passed down over time beginning somewhere around the 12th Century B.C. It's formulation took much much longer than that. None of the original documents are known to exist today, other than SOME NT writings, but anyway the compilation of works would later be canonized, or accepted as Divine Word of God. These copies of writings where then passed on by scribes and copyists who hand copied each Bible until the first printed Bible in the 15th Century A.D. We get our OT from the Hebrew people with the exception of a few passages written in Aramaic and its origin lies within the Jewish Community.

now for what is known as the "Christian" Bible...it was originally written in Greek and later canonized as part of the Bible. Most of the Bibles were written in Greek and Latin and Augustine is sittin around saying how many different versions there are and thinks there should eb a main version and so does the Pope at the time so they get home dude Jerome, who is pretty reknowned for his production of the Bible to create a version in Latin strictly for use by the Catholic Church and it's Priests. IT took him 20 years to get it done, but none the less he got it done. This was known as the Vulgate or common language edition of the Bible, all of which were too expensive for the common people to won and even if they COULD afford it, the majority were illiterate and unable to read enough to comprehend what it said. ANYWHO, thios Vulgate Bibel was accepted at the Council of Trent in 1546 as the Standard version of the Roman Catholic Church. BUT MY BIBLE, was introduced nearly 1000 years before by a radical, John Wyclif and he is credited with the first ENGLISH Bible in 1382. He was my hero, though extreme. He believed that God's Word was for man's own personal interpretation and not that of the Church's, as do I. He believed that the Bible was a personal guide for every man and that its contents were not to be hidden from the people to which it was addressed. Anywho, as time passes we hear of a guy named Tyndale who is creativly responsible for the release and producition of the Bible IN ENGLISH!!! Man o man did this make some people mad. He fled to Germany were the reformation was burning brightly. He was inspired by some guy named Luther and in Cologne, Germany he witnessed the first copying of HIS Bible which was translated with HIS scholarship from Anciet Greek Srolls. This too made some people mad so he ran away to Worms. He smuggeld finished copies into London and was labeled by the church as "the murderer of the truth" and was legally charged with "advancement of setting forth of Luther's abominabel heresies". The Church publicly bought and burned as many of these copies as possible and condemned all that possessed a copy. After this he began his translation FROM HEBREW TEXTS of the OT, but he did not live to see it done. In antwerp he was caught and labeled a heretic and burned at the stake as if he were a liar.

So to answer your question as wholeheartedly as I may it would set in one or two simple statements...My Bible comes from God through His servant Willaim Tyndale and many others who loved the truth through the negative inspiration of the authorities at hand. Their refusal to be kept away from the Truth of God was enough to drive them to change the way things were done and because of that drive, we have the Geneva Bible and it is available to every man that wished to possess it.


Blessings,

FOMWatts<><

Good post and I'll shout a hardy Baptist AHMEN!

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

From chapter 12 of "Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church"

CHAPTER XII. Why Wycliff was Condemned

BUT here we are likely to be met with an objection by those who have not a very profound or accurate knowledge of the history of this question. 'Why, then,' they will say, 'why, if the Catholic Church approved of the Bible being read in the tongue of the people, why did she condemn Wycliff, one of her own priests, for translating it into English, and forbid her people to read his version of the sacred Scriptures?'

I answer, because John Wycliff 's version of the Bible was not a correct version, and because he was using it as a means of corrupting the people's faith and of teaching them false doctrine; and it seems to me at least that that was a perfectly good reason for condemning it.

For, please observe, that whilst the Church approves of the people reading the Scriptures in their own language, she also claims the right to see that they really have a true version of the Scriptures to read, and not a mutilated or false or imperfect or heretical version. She claims that she alone has the right to make translations from the original languages (Hebrew or Greek) in which the Bible was written; the right to superintend and supervise the work of translating; the right of appointing certain priests or scholars to undertake the work; the right of approving or condemning versions and translations which are submitted to her for her judgment.

She declares she will not tolerate that her children should be exposed to the danger of reading copies of Scripture which have changed or falsified something of the original Apostolic writing; which have added something or left out something; which have notes and explanations and prefaces and prologues that convey false doctrine or false morals. Her people must have the correct Bible, or no Bible at all.

 

[MattMMMan17]

Well, most of my Bibles came from Zondervan or Tyndale House Publisher's hehehe, just pickin. I know what you mean. I believe you are TRYING to imply that we got our Bible from the Catholic Church and though it played a role in the way things played out it is only part of GOD'S plan in getting HIS truth to His people.

The OT part of the Bible comes from Oral tradition passed down over time beginning somewhere around the 12th Century B.C. It's formulation took much much longer than that. None of the original documents are known to exist today, other than SOME NT writings, but anyway the compilation of works would later be canonized, or accepted as Divine Word of God. These copies of writings where then passed on by scribes and copyists who hand copied each Bible until the first printed Bible in the 15th Century A.D. We get our OT from the Hebrew people with the exception of a few passages written in Aramaic and its origin lies within the Jewish Community.

now for what is known as the "Christian" Bible...it was originally written in Greek and later canonized as part of the Bible. Most of the Bibles were written in Greek and Latin and Augustine is sittin around saying how many different versions there are and thinks there should eb a main version and so does the Pope at the time so they get home dude Jerome, who is pretty reknowned for his production of the Bible to create a version in Latin strictly for use by the Catholic Church and it's Priests. IT took him 20 years to get it done, but none the less he got it done. This was known as the Vulgate or common language edition of the Bible, all of which were too expensive for the common people to won and even if they COULD afford it, the majority were illiterate and unable to read enough to comprehend what it said. ANYWHO, thios Vulgate Bibel was accepted at the Council of Trent in 1546 as the Standard version of the Roman Catholic Church. BUT MY BIBLE, was introduced nearly 1000 years before by a radical, John Wyclif and he is credited with the first ENGLISH Bible in 1382. He was my hero, though extreme. He believed that God's Word was for man's own personal interpretation and not that of the Church's, as do I. He believed that the Bible was a personal guide for every man and that its contents were not to be hidden from the people to which it was addressed. Anywho, as time passes we hear of a guy named Tyndale who is creativly responsible for the release and producition of the Bible IN ENGLISH!!! Man o man did this make some people mad. He fled to Germany were the reformation was burning brightly. He was inspired by some guy named Luther and in Cologne, Germany he witnessed the first copying of HIS Bible which was translated with HIS scholarship from Anciet Greek Srolls. This too made some people mad so he ran away to Worms. He smuggeld finished copies into London and was labeled by the church as "the murderer of the truth" and was legally charged with "advancement of setting forth of Luther's abominabel heresies". The Church publicly bought and burned as many of these copies as possible and condemned all that possessed a copy. After this he began his translation FROM HEBREW TEXTS of the OT, but he did not live to see it done. In antwerp he was caught and labeled a heretic and burned at the stake as if he were a liar.

So to answer your question as wholeheartedly as I may it would set in one or two simple statements...My Bible comes from God through His servant Willaim Tyndale and many others who loved the truth through the negative inspiration of the authorities at hand. Their refusal to be kept away from the Truth of God was enough to drive them to change the way things were done and because of that drive, we have the Geneva Bible and it is available to every man that wished to possess it.


Blessings,

FOMWatts<><

I just took 20 minutes typing out an entire explanation, and in trying to open a new window, i accidentally pressed the Back button. I am irked, so please don't take my tone as a personal affront. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Bible that was translated from the original hebrew texts between 400-100 BC, by order of the King that wanted a complete text in use at his library in Alexandria. This was the translation and scripture in use during the times of the apostles, by Christians and Jews alike. However, when the Pharises saw this spread of Christianity, they composed their own text called the Masoretic text by removing books and parts of books that were in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was used by Christians still for centuries afterwards until it was officially canonized as scripture of the Old Testament by the Church Council of Hippo in the early fourth century, along with the New Testament. The Bible canonized by the Church then is the same Bible used by the Catholic Church today. The Council of Trent only had to reaffirm the books of the Bible because of the Protestant reformation that had recently attacked the Church. It restated that which had been said at the beginning of the fourth century.

So, I ask you this. On what authority did this man, Wyclif, make his own interpretation of the bible and distribute it? He claimed Godly inspiration? So does every other denomination of Christianity that has interpreted the bible(often changing the bible itself) to suit the beliefs of its founders. THAT is why Peter warned us explicitly in his second Epistle NOT to put faith in ourselves to interpret the Word of God. Just look at what it's done to Christianity as a whole?

On what authority

 

[MattMMMan17]

All Over:

Amazon.com
Christian Book Stores
My attic
Friends.
I have quite a few.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posts with intent to mock or ridicule a question I've put forth by responding to it like that.