Jack Chick's View on Catholicism

[PeaceByJesus]

If you are sick, don't you ask your friends to join you in prayer so you might be healed? The "created beings" in heaven are our friends, some of whom we know personally and others we know by the miracles that have happened. And, remember, when Christ died for us, He trampled down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

That is simply an invalid, illogical argument, as it presumes that the desire to do something means that such can and do, and the one does not mean that other. Those under the altar may have desired that the Lord hasten His judgment, (Rv. 6:10) but they could do nothing to effect it.

Yet my argument is not even that the elect in Heaven do not pray for us, though 1Tim. 2:5 teaches that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, but the argument is that there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that we are to pray to them in Heaven, much less requiring this as a belief, despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture, and this being a most basic practice, and there always being plenty of created beings to pray to.

Nor is there any real evidence that they can hear all prayers from Heaven (angels and elders offering up prayers of saints as a memorial before the final judgments will not do it), which only God is shown to do.

Also in John 8:56-58 (KJV)

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Now, if Abraham was dead, which Calvin and other reformers teach, then how could he have rejoiced to see Jesus?

Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. John 8:52-53 says, "Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

If Calvin is wrong about that, then his teachings are in error about "soul sleep" or even the concept of death. And if he is wrong about that, then how can his teachings be the pure Gospel?

I am not a student of Calvin, nor do i believe in soul-sleep (though i do not make that a belief a salvific issue), nor did i argue on that basis, and thus this is irrelevant here, except that once again, these believers being alive simply does not warrant the belief that we are to pray to them. Or need to.

Instead of throwing Calvin in here, learn to interact with the arguments made.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If he is citing them AS Scripture, maybe it is because he recognized that they WERE Scripture.

Which would make him "fickle" as postulated, since he clearly excluded them as canonical. Having seen him abuse Scripture in order to support his view of marital relations being unclean, I would not put it past Jerome to be inconsistent if needed, but seeing as he clearly relegated the deuteros to being non-canonical, including Sirach, then the one clear example of Jerome citing an apocryphal book as Scripture, Sirach 13;2 (writing to to Eustochium) can be understood not either mistaking it for one of the two books of Solomon he affirmed as canonical, for he fails to give the reference, or he is referring to Scripture in the second class as edifying literature, distinct from formally canonical writings which are assuredly wholly inspired, and authoritative.

As for the few other examples which are interpreted by zealous Caths as inferring Jerome treating writings of the deuteros as canonical. he does not call them Scripture, or the word of God, or can refer to either canonical writings, and Jerome often does not his sources but uses terms such as "Solomon says, " I would cite the words of...Baruch," "in another place it is written," "in another passage,""Let me call to my aid the example."

Moreover, the mere esteem and use of books for support does mean they must have been regarded as Scripture, for as said, NT writers cite such themselves, and as a foremost authority on Luther found (James Swan''s examination of Gary Michuta's views), "Luther quoted approvingly from Sirach and Tobit throughout his career." James Swan''s examination of o Gary Michuta's views are worth reading.

Who was an Anglican deacon and then Canon, writing from a Protestant world view. Citing someone like that is NOT a way to come to a consensus.

Typical: RCs cite him when he supports them, while if i cite Catholics sources who testify contrary to the RC desired spin then they reject them. I have seen RCs say they will not regard anything as valid that does not have the Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, while other RCs disparage that. I have even been told only that which is infallible matters.

Anyway, the Catholic Encyclopedia, among other RCs RC sources, clearly teaches that Jerome relegated the deuteros as apocryphal, and unfit for doctrine.

And as shown in a previous post, books such as 1st Clement and the Didache were also read in churches.

Besides, the Bible was defined 1,700 years ago, by a consensus of CHRISTIANS. So whatever you have to quote against the "apocrypha" it is moot.

Maybe about 1600 years by a majority of Catholics, but you are missing the point. What Rome did is irrelevant except that there was no indisputable/infallible canon of wholly God-inspired Scripture for over 1400 years after the last book was penned, and after death of Luther, who had substantial Catholic support for the separate status he gave them in his German translation, in which he included them for edification but not as Scripture proper. See here on Luther and the canon.

And that the weight of evidence indicates that the Prot canon best corresponds to the Palestinian canon, which the Lord would be quoting from as Scripture, meaning the Prot canon has the greatest antiquity. This is the issue, not whether the RC canon was generally established early on.

And it was Rome who first dogmatically disallowed what previously had been allowed, including the deuteros as edifying but not authoritative Scripture.[/QUOTE]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Correct, I am willing to let Saint Jerome defends his own words that Sacred Scripture is Sacred Scripture.

Them find where he calls the deuteros wholly inspired sacred Scripture. See my post above on this, by God's grace,

Something the Calvinist theologian and Anglican Priest were apparently unwilling to do. That a Protestant wishing to trash the dueterocanonical books should find in their research a distorted view of Saint Jerome's writings should come as no surprise.

"Wishing to trash the dueterocanonical books?" Why resort to a strawman, and why the venom against an esteemed historian who conflates which what Catholic sources confirm, that Jerome rejected the deuteros as canonical Scripture?

Kelly can hardly be described as anti-Catholics, and is often cited by them for support, and Anglicans are the closest major Prot. church to Catholicism. And you simply cannot discard any scholars because their findings are contrary to your desired complementary view of history.

I do agree with Saint Jerome that people who do what those men did to his words are making fools of themselves and slander of him. The fact in practice the alleged distinctions falsely being attributed to their usage of words never made any difference to Saint Jerome quoting from those books further demonstrates he and everyone prior all held these books as Sacred Scripture.
In private writings Saint Jerome often quotes from Sacred Scripture and does so without distinction in use of these 7 deuterocanonicals, which should at least seem odd to those who think his prefaces indicated some imagined lessor value of books long held by all before him as Sacred Scripture.

Wrong: you are simply repeating Cath propaganda. My research finds that you have ony one quote of Jerome manifestly referring to a book as Scripture, but which he fails to name, it, thus allowing for a mistaken memory of the source, and which books he also excluded as canonical Scripture. Other references are not to deuteros as Scripture, or can refer to canonical books. And reformers also referenced deutercanonical writings, without holding them as wholly inspired Scripture.

You can argue for a broader and technical use of the term Scripture, but again, the issue for me is that Luther Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon, for in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books existed and were seen right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.

Commenting on how the Septuigent being in LONG USE (read accepted as Sacred Scripture) by the Church BEFORE he translated it's books to Latin. Note that Gentiles using a Greek translation of Sacred Scripture (the Septuagint) comes about in the first century hundreds of years before this 5th century letter is writtne. So the ACCEPTANCE of all these OT books, including the deuterocanonical, by the Church dates to the first century.(my bolds added).

Jerome chided Augustine for criticizing his differences from the LXX and misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures), but skipping past stuff i think was already dealt with, the argument that the use of the Septuagint means the acceptance of the deuteros by the Church to the first century is another example of uncritical use of RC propaganda, for the reality is that, besides the fable of Letter of Aristeas, (the Jewish Bible was miraculously translated by the “Seventy” ca. 270 BC, which was before the deuteros all existed) which was instrumental in the advocation of the LXX by Augustine, Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear. We have no extant evidence that the 1st c. LXX contained the deuteros, and nor do the LXX manuscripts that we do have all contain the same apocryphal books and names.

And thus if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Beckwith states,
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; Triablogue: The legendary Alexandrian canon)

Edward Earle Ellis finds, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

And before you attempt the next likely attempted object of support,
Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran "included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community." — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And writing a screed about how the Catholic Church ruined Christianity is worthless, if the author of said drivel is not competent enough to proof read his own publication. Here is the first sentence of the first paragraph: "Catholic apologists decieve souls by asserting that their church is uniquely the one true church which the Lord Jesus founded."

Everyone knows that the rule is "I before E except after C or when sounded as A like neighbor and weigh." Now, if I was writing what I felt was an important document, I would have spell checked everything before I posted it.

Thanks! With my stiff, arthritic fingers, requiring me to lift up my hands for every letter (taking hours to type such responses as today's), I make typos in most every sentence, and which I regularly correct, as can be seen by the relative uncharacteristic occurrence of them, by God's grace. But "decieve" for "deceive" was likely added in notepad, which does not mark such typos.

But yes, I (which purposely is usually lower case to save time) do fail at proof reading, especially on forums (mind fatigue), and you are welcome to examine all my pages for typos and grammatical errors and let me know. I do see a lot of typos on this forum, but I rarely correct them, or use them against my opponents.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

repeating the claim, is both disingenuous, and fails to provide any contribution of value.

Which "disingenuous" remark was actually straightforward/candid, but you are free to declare your expected condemnation, while Catholics malign an Anglican scholar who writes findings they do not like.

 

[Philip_B]

Which was actually straightforward/candid, but you are free to declare your expected condemnation, while Catholics malign an Anglican scholar who writes findings they do not like.

I agree, I think JND Kelly adds great weight to your argument, I simply have no need to malign anyone.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Them find where he calls the deuteros wholly inspired sacred Scripture. See my post above on this, by God's grace,

"Wishing to trash the dueterocanonical books?" Why resort to a strawman, and why the venom against an esteemed historian who conflates which what Catholic sources confirm, that Jerome rejected the deuteros as canonical Scripture?

Kelly can hardly be described as anti-Catholics, and is often cited by them for support, and Anglicans are the closest major Prot. church to Catholicism. And you simply cannot discard any scholars because their findings are contrary to your desired complementary view of history.

Wrong: you are simply repeating Cath propaganda. My research finds that you have ony one quote of Jerome manifestly referring to a book as Scripture, but which he fails to name, it, thus allowing for a mistaken memory of the source, and which books he also excluded as canonical Scripture. Other references are not to deuteros as Scripture, or can refer to canonical books. And reformers also referenced deutercanonical writings, without holding them as wholly inspired Scripture.

You can argue for a broader and technical use of the term Scripture, but again, the issue for me is that Luther Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon, for in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books existed and were seen right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.

Jerome chided Augustine for criticizing his differences from the LXX and misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures), but skipping past stuff i think was already dealt with, the argument that the use of the Septuagint means the acceptance of the deuteros by the Church to the first century is another example of uncritical use of RC propaganda, for the reality is that, besides the fable of Letter of Aristeas, (the Jewish Bible was miraculously translated by the “Seventy” ca. 270 BC, which was before the deuteros all existed) which was instrumental in the advocation of the LXX by Augustine, Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear. We have no extant evidence that the 1st c. LXX contained the deuteros, and nor do the LXX manuscripts that we do have all contain the same apocryphal books and names.

And thus if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Beckwith states,
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; Triablogue: The legendary Alexandrian canon)

Edward Earle Ellis finds, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; What are the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha?)

And before you attempt the next likely attempted object of support,
Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran "included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community." — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

Am going to ask a stupid question. What would a Protestant want a Protestant historian or theologian to tell them about the recorded history of the Church?
That one should be some version of Catholic or give them a view of it to justify a division from all that to some form of Protestantism?

So when Saint Jerome says something like this (which I think this is the third time I have posted this)

""It is this same man, then, who wrote this fictitious letter of retractation in my name, making out that my translation of the Hebrew books was bad, who, we now hear, accuses me of having translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint."

How does one twist that to say Holy Scriptures does not mean Sacred Scriptures?

 

[outlawState]

I think Chick's views on Catholicism are mild. The focus of Christianity should be on knowing Christ. The focus of Catholicism is on obedience to the Pope and the Church and increasing the church's temporal political dominion. It is not Chick himself who is really at issue. He just reflects the views that Catholics have of their own church; and one may consult various youtube videos (e.g. why did Benedict resign?) to understand what the members of the hierachy get up to in private.

In France an estimated 1-in-20 only regularly attend Mass anymore, but up to 88% are nominally Catholic. In the Republic of Ireland, a nominaly (84 percent) Catholic nation, they recently voted to allow gay marriage.

It is an established fact that Catholics have no faith in their own religion, they don't know God, or Christ, and so why is what Chick says (or said) so unreasonable? If Catholicism is genuine, why do so few people actually believe in it?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Am going to ask a stupid question. What would a Protestant want a Protestant historian or theologian to tell them about the recorded history of the Church?
That one should be some version of Catholic or give them a view of it to justify a division from all that to some form of Protestantism?

That question is as you call it, for i expect each source should strand upon its own merits, and the question is why do you thrown an Anglican under the bus when many Catholics esteem and quote him for support, and here he compliments what the Catholic Encyclopedia and other Catholic sources attest to.

And I have read from a Catholic source that most of the works of the ECFs that we have on the Internet are the result of the labors of Anglicans.

But blithely rejecting and maligning Kelly because he fails to supports your desired version of history then you show that you cannot be objective when it comes to this, and thus provide an argument against becoming Catholic.

So when Saint Jerome says something like this (which I think this is the third time I have posted this)

""It is this same man, then, who wrote this fictitious letter of retractation in my name, making out that my translation of the Hebrew books was bad, who, we now hear, accuses me of having translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint." How does one twist that to say Holy Scriptures does not mean Sacred Scriptures?

First, again, the Septuagint did not originally contain the deuteros, and Jerome only translated some of these books directly from the LXX, while what he is speaking of as having "translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint" is contextually indicated as referring to his having translated all 39 books of the holy Hebrew Scriptures into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint.

Before your quote Jerome states that "My brother Eusebius writes to me that, when he was at a meeting of African bishops which had been called for certain ecclesiastical affairs, he found there a letter purporting to be written by me, in which I professed penitence and confessed that it was through the influence of the press in my youth that I had been led to turn the Scriptures into Latin from the Hebrew." The accuser charged that "my translation of the Hebrew books was bad" and then charged that this translation of the Holy Scriptures was done in order to disparage the Septuagint, since Jerome holds the former, which translation he is calling the Holy Scriptures, to be what corrects the latter, the work of "the seventy translators, whose work I carefully purged from corruptions..." which statement proceeds from your quote.

Jerome goes on to invoke his prefaces to the books of the Old Testament, specifically to Genesis in order to deal with this charge of disparaging the Septuagint by preferring the Hebrew, saying,
I do not know whose false imagination led him to invent the story of the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the translators were said to have written the same words. Aristeas, the champion of that same Ptolemy, and Josephus, long after, relate nothing of the kind; their account is that the Seventy assembled in one basilica consulted together, and did not prophesy. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator. The former through the Spirit, foretells things to come; the latter must use his learning and facility in speech to translate what he understands...

The better we understand a subject, the better we describe it. Hearken then, my rival: listen, my calumniator; I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11, while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place. Why are you tormented with jealousy? Why do you inflame the minds of the ignorant against me? Wherever in translation I seem to you to go wrong, ask the Hebrews, consult their teachers in different towns. The words which exist in their Scriptures concerning Christ your copies do not contain. The case is different if they have rejected passages which were afterward used against them by the Apostles, and the Latin texts are more correct than the Greek, the Greek than the Hebrew...

The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words "He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," and in the words used on the cross itself, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," which is by interpretation "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" not, as it is given by the Septuagint, "My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end. - CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Rufinus, Book II (Jerome)

Obviously by rejecting the story of the miraculous nature of the so-called 70 translators of the LXX (which to Augustine meant it was the standard) and preferring the Hebrew over that, then Jerome can be seen as disparaging the Septuagint, but I think it is clear that having ''translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint" refers to his work of translating the Vulgate from the holy Hebrew Scriptures rather than referring to his translation of books of the LXX. The translation from the Hebrew Scriptures was received with skepticism by many of his contemporaries, with Augustine urging him to stick to translating from the LXX rather than working directly from the Hebrew. However, what Augustine opposed is what became the standard text for Rome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia adds (though not agreeing with him),

St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. (Catholic Encyclopedia>St. Jerome: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome)

St. Jerome rejected the story of the cells as fabulous and untrue ("Praef. in Pentateuchum"; "Adv. Rufinum", II, xxv). likewise the alleged inspiration of the Septuagint. Finally the seventy two interpreters translated, not only the five books of the Pentateuch, but the entire Hebrew Old Testament. ( Catholic Encyclopedia>Septuagint Version: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Septuagint Version

We also have private exhortations as in Jerome's letter to Laeta, the daughter-in-law of Paula:

let her pass on to the gospels never to be laid aside when once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer hurt from it. Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, [which Jerome included deuteros as) and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt. (CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 107 (Jerome))

There is also the technical distinctions of the term Scripture" provided before, and the more you argue the more testimony accumulates against Jerome holding the deuteros as being wholly inspired Scripture equal to the Hebrew and NT, and thus authoritative for doctrine, which Trent made it and against any distinctions made by notable ECFs and reformers.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think Chick's views on Catholicism are mild. The focus of Christianity should be on knowing Christ. The focus of Catholicism is on obedience to the Pope and the Church and increasing the church's temporal political dominion. It is not Chick himself who is really at issue. He just reflects the views that Catholics have of there own church; and one may consult various youtube videos (e.g. why did Benefict resign?) to understand what the members of the hierachy get up to in private.

In France an estimated 1-in-20 only regularly attend Mass anymore, but up to 88% are nominally Catholic. In the Republic of Ireland, a nominaly (84 percent) Catholic nation, they recently voted to allow gay marriage.

It is an established fact that Catholics have no faith in their own religion, they don't know God, or Christ, and so why is what Chick says (or said) so unreasonable? If Catholicism is genuine, why do so few people actually believe in it?

Actually I rather doubt someone who could say Jack Chic's views are mild ever saw what many of his comics use to look like before his death. But the sentiments of the above post are reflected in most of his handy work. And it is a rather dim as it is ignorant view of the Church. From the tone of this post however, even the worst of those disgusting comics are probably acceptable to people sharing Jack's opinions now.

The Church itself would not assume nominally Catholics are OK with God anymore than a nominal Christian in any number of faiths would be. So am not sure what the point there is, even if those numbers are true. The Church itself must actually insist there will be Catholics in Hell, along with many other various forms of Christian faith. That would be the result of living as a nominal Christian and being also Catholic would not prevent that. Same Church teaches we cannot rule out even some pagans, atheist and agnostics in Heaven.

Am sure just like nominal Catholics, many nominal Christians justify their position and delude themselves into thinking God must accept them when the time comes because they feel they have done whatever they think is required of them. I do not think any of the Churches do them favor in not reminding that being nominal is not running a good race. I suspect those nominal Catholics are nominal for the same reasons a lot of Christians are nominal. Being a nominal Christian can actually be argued from Scripture to be worse than a pagan or atheist because they know more than the pagan or atheist do. So in that sense one can say the pagan or atheist or agnostic are more likely to be in Heaven than a nominal Christian.

But am glad we at least have one protestor being honest about and standing up to be counted for their particular opinions, which stands in memory of Jack Chic to show such opinions unfortunately did not die with him.

 

[outlawState]

Actually I rather doubt someone who could say Jack Chic's views are mild ever saw what many of his comics use to look like before his death.

Well I accept that there is over generalization and inaccuracies, and that his comics are in the nature of propaganda, but it is still quite mild contrasted with what Catholicism has been hurling against protestants down the centuries, commencing with the crusades against the Albigenses, Cathars and Waldenses in the 13th century, and then against numerous other non-conformist groups such as the Lollards, Hussites etc, and then further against the Huguenots, English reformers, radical Luthern peasants, Anabaptists and Calvinists in the Netherlands, etc, in the 16th centry and then in Germany in the 17th.

So when you look at all this wholesale slaughter of non-Catholics by Catholics down the ages, the material disseminated by Jack Chic seems mild - far milder than the numerous pictures of protestants being tortured and put to death in my books on martyrology.

But the sentiments of the above post are reflected in most of his handy work. And it is a rather dim as it is ignorant view of the Church. From the tone of this post however, even the worst of those disgusting comics are probably acceptable to people sharing Jack's opinions now.

I don't get my education from such materials. I am not sure who would. I just find them mildly amusing, as any other comic book.

The Church itself would not assume nominally Catholics are OK with God anymore than a nominal Christian in any number of faiths would be. So am not sure what the point there is, even if those numbers are true. The Church itself must actually insist there will be Catholics in Hell, along with many other various forms of Christian faith. That would be the result of living as a nominal Christian and being also Catholic would not prevent that. Same Church teaches we cannot rule out even some pagans, atheist and agnostics in Heaven.

If there will be Catholics in hell, then why are they not excommunicated in this life, so that they may know their position? Did not Paul insist on the excommunication of the wicked so that they may be ashamed and repent? Yet this is not what Catholics practice. In this sense they have abandoned a core teaching of the the early church - excommunication for faith relapsed.

Am sure just like nominal Catholics, many nominal Christians justify their position and delude themselves into thinking God must accept them when the time comes because they feel they have done whatever they think is required of them. I do not think any of the Churches do them favor in not reminding that being nominal is not running a good race. I suspect those nominal Catholics are nominal for the same reasons a lot of Christians are nominal. Being a nominal Christian can actually be argued from Scripture to be worse than a pagan or atheist because they know more than the pagan or atheist do. So in that sense one can say the pagan or atheist or agnostic are more likely to be in Heaven than a nominal Christian.

Whatever. What is important is that those without faith be made to know that they have no faith. This is what Catholics seems to be incapable of doing. They do not act with apostolic authority, because they are keen to retain the nominal allegiance of all baptized as Catholics. The reasons seem to be political or mercenary.

But am glad we at least have one protestor being honest about and standing up to be counted for their particular opinions, which stands in memory of Jack Chic to show such opinions unfortunately did not die with him.

That's because protestantism is not based on Jack Chic but Wycliffe, and many many others, including many martyrs. It is the martyrs who give life to Protestantism, not the comics of Jack Chic.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well I accept that there is over generalization and inaccuracies, and that his comics are in the nature of propaganda, but it is still quite mild contrasted with what Catholicism has been hurling against protestants down the centuries, commencing with the crusades against the Albigenses, Cathars and Waldenses in the 13th century, and then against numerous other non-conformist groups such as the Lollards, Hussites etc, and then further against the Huguenots, English reformers, radical Luthern peasants, Anabaptists and Calvininists in the Netherlands, etc, in the 16th centry and then in Germany in the 17th.

So when you look at all this wholesale slaughter of non-Catholics by Catholics down the ages, the material disseminated by Jack Chic seems mild - far milder than the numerous pictures of protestants being tortured and put to death in my books on martyrology.


I don't get my education from such materials. I am not sure who would. I just find them mildly amusing, as any other comic book.


If there will be Catholics in hell, then why are they not excommunicated in this life, so that they may know their position? Did not Paul insist on the excommunication of the wicked so that they may be ashamed and repent? Yet this is not what Catholics practice. In this sense they have abandoned a core teaching of the the early church - excommunication for faith relapsed.


Whatever. What is important is that those without faith be made to know that they have no faith. This is what Catholics seems to be incapable of doing. They do not act with apostolic authority, because they are keen to retain the nominal allegiance of all baptized as Catholics. The reasons seem to be political or mercenary.


That's because protestantism is not based on Jack Chic but Wycliffe, and many many others, including many martyrs. It is the martyrs who give life to Protestantism, not the comics of Jack Chic.

Rather odd to say there were Protestants in the 1200s. Speaking of education, where is this taught concerning Protestants besides from Jack Chic?

If we are going to talk about wars and martyrs, Protestants could be said to have slaughtered many other Protestants and Catholics. From my view those deaths are all political power actions of humans making grave error, rather than a religious matter. All the Churches are full of and made from people. Most of the Church followed the errors of Arius for a very long time, but that mistake was corrected. Point to a modern "Protestant" martyr killed by Catholics or try to explain long ago Protestants killing Protestants while the Church was on the sidelines. Am not sure how any of this makes either position superior, regardless of the reason or involvement of political powers at the time.

Who said anything about nominal Christians being seen or not seen as obviously wicked. If someone where obviously seen as wicked I should hope any Church's would banish them from attending if they did not repent and abandon their wicked ways. But lets not mischaracterize the thought and further foster misplaced hatred. Excommunication is not sentencing someone to hell. No one can do that, not even the Church or the Pope.

No, the nominal Christian sits right next to other Christians in worship, probably only on Sundays. But am not excluding every day with Catholics or other groups that hold worship services daily 24/7/365. Possibly a few nominal Christians there too. Just tend to think such displays of daily devotion would tend to exclude that level of activity from someone doubting much at all is required of Christians, so less likely to find such people attending daily Mass. Just my opinion, though many no doubt share it.

Yes, casting people out is suppose to shame them into wanting to repent and mend their ways, at which point they can return. In essence the Protestants have excommunicated themselves, as they are likewise not welcome to fully join in as if they were in union with the Church. So no, excommunication of wicked Catholic is obviously not a sentence to hell and that should have been understood by my earlier comments about who might be in Heaven. The Church still hopes and even prays for unity among all believers, but it is not expected anytime soon.

I too wish more Church leaders would speak out against public wickedness of people claiming to be members of their respective Church. However, I am also not privy to what goes on in private so perhaps they have and are attempting to get some of them to mend their ways. Not a few Bishops have made very public statements about the state of a few politicians. I think we could use more of that and less of the wishy washy sort of everyone is going to be OK sort of thing we see or that at least the media emphasizes.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I think Chick's views on Catholicism are mild. The focus of Christianity should be on knowing Christ. The focus of Catholicism is on obedience to the Pope and the Church and increasing the church's temporal political dominion. It is not Chick himself who is really at issue. He just reflects the views that Catholics have of there own church; and one may consult various youtube videos (e.g. why did Benefict resign?) to understand what the members of the hierachy get up to in private.

In France an estimated 1-in-20 only regularly attend Mass anymore, but up to 88% are nominally Catholic. In the Republic of Ireland, a nominaly (84 percent) Catholic nation, they recently voted to allow gay marriage.

It is an established fact that Catholics have no faith in their own religion, they don't know God, or Christ, and so why is what Chick says (or said) so unreasonable? If Catholicism is genuine, why do so few people actually believe in it?

The problem with Chick is not that he does not have some overall good evangelical material but that his conspiratorial (the Jesuit order was responsible for the creation of communism, Islam, and Nazism, and causing the World Wars, recession, the Jonestown Massacre, and the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy) and Alberto Rivera fantasies, among things, made him a National Inquirer type outfit in the eyes of many. Being inaccessible was not right either.

Of course, Rome made use of forgeries for many years in the past.

I selectively like some of the comic tracts ("Hi There," Holy Joe," "Room 310" etc.).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is simply an invalid, illogical argument, as it presumes that the desire to do something means that such can and do, and the one does not mean that other. Those under the altar may have desired that the Lord hasten His judgment, (Rv. 6:10) but they could do nothing to effect it.

Yet my argument is not even that the elect in Heaven do not pray for us, though 1Tim. 2:5 teaches that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, but the argument is that there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that we are to pray to them in Heaven, much less requiring this as a belief, despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture, and this being a most basic practice, and there always being plenty of created beings to pray to.

Nor is there any real evidence that they can hear all prayers from Heaven (angels and elders offering up prayers of saints as a memorial before the final judgments will not do it), which only God is shown to do.

I am not a student of Calvin, nor do i believe in soul-sleep (though i do not make that a belief a salvific issue), nor did i argue on that basis, and thus this is irrelevant here, except that once again, these believers being alive simply does not warrant the belief that we are to pray to them. Or need to.

Instead of throwing Calvin in here, learn to interact with the arguments made.

The argument from Scripture would be that we are all called to Pray for each other (as well as play nice together). Where in Scripture do we see any part of the Body of believers being released of the duty to pray for each other?
Absent that, am unclear how to say the dead in Heaven are released from that command/calling. The foot cannot say I don't want to be a part of the Body anymore.
In fact if any part of the Body could be said to be living as Christians aught to live (including praying for each other) it would have to be those said to be already enjoying the benefit of a Judgement that they are really and actually forever more a part of that Body.

edit to add: praying "Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" would rather seems to require those in Heaven be prayer warriors on our behalf and to our benefit.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Maybe about 1600 years by a majority of Catholics, but you are missing the point. What Rome did is irrelevant except that there was no indisputable/infallible canon of wholly God-inspired Scripture for over 1400 years after the last book was penned, and after death of Luther, who had substantial Catholic support for the separate status he gave them in his German translation, in which he included them for edification but not as Scripture proper. See here on Luther and the canon.

You are still missing my point. It is not Rome did or did not do anything. In that time, there WAS only ONE church, not Roman, not Alexandrian, not Antiochian, or from Jerusalem. Rather, there was ONE church, and it was that church that split (about 1054 A.D.) into Roman Catholic and Orthodox. The views of the "Reformers" did not exist.

I will grant you that there were some excesses in the One Christian Church, and they continued in the Roman Church--while Orthodox continued to fight heresies. I am always willing to admit that there were errors in administration and in the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But how many errors have the Reformers made in the past 600 years? More than all of the heresies of the East, or problems in the West.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Thanks! With my stiff, arthritic fingers, requiring me to lift up my hands for every letter (taking hours to type such responses as today's), I make typos in most every sentence, and which I regularly correct, as can be seen by the relative uncharacteristic occurrence of them, by God's grace. But "decieve" for "deceive" was likely added in notepad, which does not mark such typos.

But yes, I (which purposely is usually lower case to save time) do fail at proof reading, especially on forums (mind fatigue), and you are welcome to examine all my pages for typos and grammatical errors and let me know. I do see a lot of typos on this forum, but I rarely correct them, or use them against my opponents.

My fingers are just as old and arthritic. Plus I have a nervous tremor in my hands which I have to control, think about, and then I still spell check my postings, which are sometimes as clear as cold, blue mud.

I was not taking you to task about your postings here. And yes, spelling and grammar are a major bugaboo for me. I was talking about the link you gave us, which is where I found that spelling error. Unless you were the original author of that posting.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I think Chick's views on Catholicism are mild. The focus of Christianity should be on knowing Christ. The focus of Catholicism is on obedience to the Pope and the Church and increasing the church's temporal political dominion.

And you got this information where???

The focus on Catholicism and Orthodoxy are also about knowing Christ. I know that there are those on these fora that report on every time the Pope passes gas. But the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are NOT interested in the Pope's diet. We are only interested in passing on the message we ourselves received, that Jesus Christ, True God and true man, came down from heaven, humbled Himself to die ignominiously on the Cross, was buried, on the third day He raised Himself from the dead, and that ALL who believe in Him can have eternal life.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

"Yet my argument is not even that the elect in Heaven do not pray for us, though 1Tim. 2:5 teaches that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, but the argument is that there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that we are to pray to them in Heaven, much less requiring this as a belief, despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture, and this being a most basic practice, and there always being plenty of created beings to pray to."

Okay, let's face it. You are just going to spit hate back at any of the Catholics on this forum.

What? Do you consider such a reply to my explanatory statement to be spouting hate, since it does not support your desired doctrine? This response like those who charge us with "hating Mary" simply because we reprove the supererogatory Catholic adulation of her, rather than thinking of the holy blessed mother of Jesus way "above that which is written." (1Co. 4:6)

So, we'll try it a different way. Do you have ANY Scriptural belief that the people who died and are alive with Jesus in heaven don't pray for us? If you were in heaven right now, wouldn't you pray for family and friends to be "saved?" I know I would.

Did you even read and comprehend what I wrote? As carefully explained that is not even the real argument, though as said, 1Tim. 2:5 teaches that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God. If they are praying for is, fine, but we have no examples of teaching that would teaches contrary to Christ being the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, but the real issue is as was explained, even if you find that explanation to be spouting hate."

Or that they are dead, and will not rise until the Last Judgment? If they are dead, how will Jesus return them to life? You really aren't answering my questions, just spouting hate speech on this forum.

Again, you evidence that you did not comprehend and thus interact with what i said.

As explained, i do not believe in soul-sleep, nor did i argue on that basis, thus i hold that they are alive in Heaven, awaiting the redemption of their physical bodies. (Rm. 8:23; 2Co 5:2-4)

As for spouting hate speech, ignoring what i said and then accusing me of just spouting hate speech on this forum renders you guilty of what you accuse.[/QUOTE]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The argument from Scripture would be that we are all called to Pray for each other (as well as play nice together). Where in Scripture do we see any part of the Body of believers being released of the duty to pray for each other?

Absent that, am unclear how to say the dead in Heaven are released from that command/calling. The foot cannot say I don't want to be a part of the Body anymore.
In fact if any part of the Body could be said to be living as Christians aught to live (including praying for each other) it would have to be those said to be already enjoying the benefit of a Judgement that they are really and actually forever more a part of that Body.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. (Revelation 14:13)

Paul was willing to remain on earth since it was here that he could minister to the body. If he could so more from Heaven then he would have chosen that. (Philippians 1:23-25) And he taught that there was only one heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1Tim. 2:5)

However, if that does not exclude believers in glory praying for those on earth, then I am fine with that. The issue is, as explained before, that there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that we are to pray to them in Heaven, much less requiring this as a belief, despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture, and this being a most basic practice, and there always being plenty of created beings to pray to.

And despite the Spirit of Christ characteristically clearly exampling such basic practices, rather than leaving believers to extrapolated what is nowhere seen, based on a presumption of unseen abilities and activities that are contrary to what we do see. And who only instructs believers to address God in prayer to Heaven.

You can only wish there was even one example of a believer addressing someone else besides God in prayer to Heaven, instead of having to hold the untenable presumption that the Holy Spirit would not include even one among the approx. 200 inspired recorded prayers (while recording pagans making supplication to unseen heavenly beings), especially since this is a most basic Cath. practice that you imagine saints regularly engaged in, and should.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

My fingers are just as old and arthritic. Plus I have a nervous tremor in my hands which I have to control, think about, and then I still spell check my postings, which are sometimes as clear as cold, blue mud.

I was not taking you to task about your postings here. And yes, spelling and grammar are a major bugaboo for me. I was talking about the link you gave us, which is where I found that spelling error. Unless you were the original author of that posting.

Sorry about your old and arthritic fingers. I usually am so fatigued in mind by the time i am done that i do not do thorough proof reading, and sometimes not at all, at least not till later. It appears many others do not either.

But if i ever need the grammar police I may call you, and yes, I am was and am the author of that page, and corrected the error you pointed out. Thanks.