The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[MoreCoffee]

Catholic and Orthodox are brethren. We've had squabbles in history and that's soured the relationship but we're still family and "blood is thicker than water" as they say. I think nearly every Catholic would prefer Orthodox theology over any but their own.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My point in saying what I did was that the Councils were pre-Schism. I prefer to think of it as The Church gave us the canon - not specifically the Catholic church, or the Orthodox Church, etc. since there was only "The Church" at that time. Not for a point of pride or argument, but for unity, such as it was. Historically it seems more accurate to me anyway. But I meant no argument or insult.

Agreed. When I say the Catholic Church, I mean the universal Church. It's others who cast themselves out of the one Church Christ instituted. No argument or insult taken.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I did NOT give the titles of the Holy Spirit, did I?? No matter who did what, it was GOD in control.

In comparison to Scriptural Truth they are UNINSPIRED and should not be taken as such. THAT is the point. If they line up with the 66 then fine, but don't hang onto every word as is a FACT. That is how the uninspired were found out. Through ERROR.

Isn't it so much easier to say that Catholics added 7 books rather than to admit that Protestants subtracted 7??? The fact is, the 73 books were used in liturgy from at least the 3rd century.

 

[Root of Jesse]

He would not. Do you want the real reason some Protestants removed them?

Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
Purgatory/ Toll Houses/ Partial judgement (Wisdom 3:1-7)
Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)

A few brief reasons. I have about 50 more. But basically: Too Catholic is the real reason.

A M E N !

 

[Root of Jesse]

What other books other than the accepted Deuterocanon by the early church was rejected? What about the book of Enoch for example?


http://www.christianforums.com/t7796133-2/
More Light on the Apocrypha - Deuterocanon - Anaginoskomena





.

Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Protoevangelium of James, Letters of Clement, Gospel of Thomas (when it surfaced), lots of them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, but Jerome is not authoritative. He's not Magisterium.

Yep, but your church decided to use his Latin translation for many centuries. So, there must have been a certain level of agreement with him by the Magisterium, would you not say?

 

[bbbbbbb]

He would not. Do you want the real reason some Protestants removed them?

Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
Purgatory/ Toll Houses/ Partial judgement (Wisdom 3:1-7)
Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)

A few brief reasons. I have about 50 more. But basically: Too Catholic is the real reason.

Actually, those verses you cited are not used by Catholics to substantiate the doctrines you mentioned, although they may have been at one time. The reality is that there is nothing in the Deutercanonical books which diverges from anything expressed in the other books of the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Catholic and Orthodox are brethren. We've had squabbles in history and that's soured the relationship but we're still family and "blood is thicker than water" as they say. I think nearly every Catholic would prefer Orthodox theology over any but their own.

Now that you admit that these two denominations are brethren, which sort of brethren are they - Plymouth, Dunkard, Evangelical, etc.?

 

[Albion]

Do you want the real reason some Protestants removed them?

That's a very cynical thing to say--to accuse a major branch of Christianity of intentionally altering the Bible in order to avoid doctrines it doesn't like. The fact that the Apocrypha has a clearly different style from the rest of the Old Testament, doesn't prove any important doctrines and is seldom cited in support of any, does not continue the historic pattern of the OT, and was not considered to be part of the Hebrew Bible by approximately half of the Jews of Christ's time should count for something!

In addition, the main Protestant Reformers, in England and the German states, Scandinavia, and elsewhere, KEPT these books, appointing them to be read during worship for instruction in morals and manners. This fact shows that they did NOT ditch them in order to avoid some conclusion or other as you are alleging they did. They merely found them to not have the character of the OT books. And they were far from being the first Christians to have concluded such--which is yet another reason why your judgment about the motivation of the Reformers does not hold up.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

That's a very cynical thing to say--to accuse a major branch of Christianity of intentionally altering the Bible in order to avoid doctrines it doesn't like. The fact that the Apocrypha has a clearly different style from the rest of the Old Testament, doesn't prove any important doctrines and is seldom cited in support of any, does not continue the historic pattern of the OT, and was not considered to be part of the Hebrew Bible by approximately half of the Jews of Christ's time should count for something!

In addition, the main Protestant Reformers, in England and the German states, Scandinavia, and elsewhere, KEPT these books, appointing them to be read during worship for instruction in morals and manners. This fact shows that they did NOT ditch them in order to avoid some conclusion or other as you are alleging they did. They merely found them to not have the character of the OT books. And they were far from being the first Christians to have concluded such--which is yet another reason why your judgment about the motivation of the Reformers does not hold up.

Did I say reformers or some protestants? I'm very aware much of Protestantism kept the books. Now tell me why those who removed them, removed them. Basically the evangelicals. I know why. Too Catholic. I'm not being cynical. I'm being realistic. I was a Baptist for two score years and heard that "too Catholic' phrase more times than I can count. Also the term "uninspired writings" which always struck me as odd that we trusted that council for 66 books but not the rest. And it took 15-1600 years to come to that conclusion. Cynical? I think not. There must be something in those books they dislike enough to tear them out of their holy book they view as the only true authoritative teaching. About the same reason as the non-Pauline believer removes Pauline books. It goes against their beliefs. Frankly, I'm surprised the gospel of John made it past their shredder. It's a bit too catholic (or at least troublesome) to many of that camp.

 

[Rick Otto]

Catholic and Orthodox are brethren. We've had squabbles in history and that's soured the relationship but we're still family and "blood is thicker than water" as they say. I think nearly every Catholic would prefer Orthodox theology over any but their own.

Bretheren share the Eucharist.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Agreed. When I say the Catholic Church, I mean the universal Church. It's others who cast themselves out of the one Church Christ instituted. No argument or insult taken.

lol.

O ye of little faith.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

lol.

O ye of little faith.

That could go either way. I'd submit he has more faith in the Catholic church than either you or I.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

That could go either way. I'd submit he has more faith in the Catholic church than either you or I.

I would agree.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I would agree.

I have a good deal of respect for folks so close to their church. It's a good quality.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I have a good deal of respect for folks so close to their church. It's a good quality.

Yes, but to be close to God is what matters most.


Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

8 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Now that you admit that these two denominations are brethren, which sort of brethren are they - Plymouth, Dunkard, Evangelical, etc.?

Brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

I had a good friend who was brethren, but not the closed variety.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, but to be close to God is what matters most.

The best way to get close to God is to minister to him by feeding Him when He is hungry, clothing Him when He is naked, visiting Him when He is sick or in prison, giving Him something to drink when He is thirsty...

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The best way to get close to God is to minister to him by feeding Him when He is hungry, clothing Him when He is naked, visiting Him when He is sick or in prison, giving Him something to drink when He is thirsty...

I think i agree, theology sure doesn't seem to be it. I don't find happiness here.

 

[Erose]

You have a point, and in the Orthodox Church the Creed is spoken each week to say that we believe in "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". It doesn't even say "Orthodox".

I am simply trying to take a kinder, gentler approach. Of course, both the Orthodox and Catholic claim to be "the Church" and that the other split off.

Well the truth to be told the Orthodox, Catholic and even the Oriental Orthodox are THE Church. None has a greater claim than the other on this matter, IMO. If you have three children squabbling with each other to the point they disown each other, none of the three children can legitimately claim they are THE family, can they? No all three children are still members of the same family, albeit they have disowned each other. You cannot remove blood ties, and the ancient Churches have blood ties that run deeper than any squabble. And considering that Blood is Christ's sacred Blood, well then one would imagine that Blood runs deeper yet.

What one calls oneself doesn't bear out proof. And I will certainly respectfully allow you and all the Catholics their position. While I am not Catholic, and I disagree on a few points of doctrine/dogma, I greatly respect the Catholic Church and have to offer thanks for helping me to better understand so many theologies through her catechism, and in the process to better understand even a variety of Protestants as well as the Orthodox position. Just having things so well written out is extremely helpful, even in the cases where I might not agree.

I think that was one of the intents of the Catechism, to help even non-Catholics understand even their faith better.

In the end, I find too many similarities among all of the traditional Churches to be comfortable pitting any one against another.

I agree.

Each of us has to be persuaded in our own minds. And for that matter, I have family members who have just begun attending church for the first time in their lives. I don't find their church to be ideal - it is almost not really what I'd even call "church". But they believe in God, they encourage reading the Bible, and they meet together. If I were to insist (if I had that power) that my family members attend MY Church ... I think they would honestly run screaming the other way and may never darken the door of any Church again. I have been in such a position myself while changing churches before - sometimes I was not ready or just barely ready for what I was about to learn and understand. So for that reason, I have to even respect their church, and hope it leads them to grow in the faith. It seems to be what they need and what they can appreciate right now.

If my mom and dad started going to church, any church, I would be ecstatic.

Sorry, I'm rambling. More than you asked for. God bless you!!!

Nothing wrong with some lagniappe.