Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church into all truth, and the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to make that error.Yeah, but it was dismissed and we all know it was the RCC fathers who chose all the books of the Bible, right? I wonder why they didn't leave that one in there?
There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is just one of many rites in the community of churches that make up the Catholic Church. "Roman Catholicism" only exists in the minds of anti-Catholics and pathetic tract writers pretending to be historians....the RCC...
Actually each Apostolic Rite has every right to discern its own Bible, and they do, and they are not all the same.Yeah, but it was dismissed and we all know it was the RCC fathers who chose all the books of the Bible, right? I wonder why they didn't leave that one in there?
Actually each of the Patriarchates were free to choose the books of the Bible as long as, when read in the proper way (i.e. based on the oral traditions behind the said book), they didn't conflict with the doctrines of the Church. For instance, in the early Constantinople patriarchate's liturgical canon, the deuterocanon was not included (hence St. Jerome's objection to them being added into the canon). However, they considered them to be just as inspired as the rest of scripture (also validated by St. Jerome). Just because something is not in the canon does not guarantee that it is not inspired. For example, in some of the Eastern Catholic and even some of the older Eastern Orthodox canons you will not find the book of Revelation. It's not because they didn't consider it inspired, but because they didn't consider it canonical, or necessary for liturgical purposes - which was, essentially, the purpose of the Bible. The Bible was not meant to be a stand-alone pillar, but a very important supplement to the liturgies of the real source of the faith - the Church, whose source is Christ.Yeah, but it was dismissed and we all know it was the RCC fathers who chose all the books of the Bible, right? I wonder why they didn't leave that one in there?
Actually each of the Patriarchates were free to choose the books of the Bible as long as, when read in the proper way (i.e. based on the oral traditions behind the said book), they didn't conflict with the doctrines of the Church. For instance, in the early Constantinople patriarchate's liturgical canon, the deuterocanon was not included (hence St. Jerome's objection to them being added into the canon). However, they considered them to be just as inspired as the rest of scripture (also validated by St. Jerome). Just because something is not in the canon does not guarantee that it is not inspired. For example, in some of the Eastern Catholic and even some of the older Eastern Orthodox canons you will not find the book of Revelation. It's not because they didn't consider it inspired, but because they didn't consider it canonical, or necessary for liturgical purposes - which was, essentially, the purpose of the Bible. The Bible was not meant to be a stand-alone pillar, but a very important supplement to the liturgies of the real source of the faith - the Church, whose source is Christ.
So were other apocryphal gospels and NT letters. Your point?The 27 we recognize were already in use years before any council voted on them.
Indeed. I always get a kick out of telling some of my more ignorant Catholic friends that some of the Eastern Catholic Rite Bibles don't have the book of Revelation... and watching their expression of shock.Some Roman Catholics don't know that many Orthodox/Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have Cannons that are different from ours.
So were other apocryphal gospels and NT letters. Your point?
They did indeed. So why did Herr Weinermeister think he could throw out more centuries later?The early church fathers knew which ones to throw out.
They did indeed. So why did Herr Weinermeister think he could throw out more centuries later?
1) LutherWho is he and what did he throw out?
1) Luther
2) about 6 Old Testament books
If that is so, why did Martin Luther throw out the deuterocanonicals when the ECF's agreed on their divine inspiration?The early church fathers knew which ones to throw out.
Who sez I agree with Luther? Is Luther now the main focus in this?If that is so, why did Martin Luther throw out the deuterocanonicals when the ECF's agreed on their divine inspiration?
Also, how did the ECF's know which ones to throw out and which ones to keep?
I never said you agreed with Luther. I'm asking you - why did Luther take them out? Why did virtually the rest of the Protestant world follow suit?Who sez I agree with Luther? Is Luther now the main focus in this?
I never said you agreed with Luther. I'm asking you - why did Luther take them out? Why did virtually the rest of the Protestant world follow suit?
Also, how did the ECF's know which ones to keep and which to take out?
I have my ideas but it all has to thing to do with the my earlier comment. Give it up. I stated the 27 as we know were excepted long before the RCC came into town.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?