logo Sign In

Religion — Page 116

Author
Time

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.

Possessed said:

Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.

You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.

Of course that’s not the official reason the catholic Bible was made. Are you suggesting the scriptures that warn against celibacy and strictly forbid calling a man heavenly father and warn against restricting diet for certain times didn’t count or what? There’s also the matter of the Bible quite clearly saying each individual congregation should be it’s own governing body and not answer to another higher church or church figure other than God himself. That had to go, amirite? (And yes, I am. Catholics don’t read the Bible very much for the most part in my experience. Once upon a time they were actually discouraged from reading it. I wonder why…)

Oh boy, there are so many things wrong with this.

  1. The Catholic Church is firmly grounded in the Bible. It’s not our only source of authority and we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us), but almost everything about Catholicism has at least something to do with Scripture.
  2. The Catholic Church assembled the Bible. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage established the canon, although some local churches still included additional books, and it was more firmly defined at the Council of Trent when it was challenged by Luther and other reformers during the Protestant Reformation.
  3. Any Scriptures that warn against celibacy are in the Old Testament, as far as I am aware, and therefore have been superseded because of the new understanding of priesthood, etc. "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12). “Eunuchs for the…kingdom” has long been understood to refer to celibacy, and Jesus doesn’t condemn it. Not to mention that he was celibate…
    St. Paul writes:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. (1 Corinthians 7:1-7)

Here, he clearly recommends marriage to avoid sexual immorality. He concludes, however, by saying that this is a concession and that he wishes that all were like him, which is to say, celibate (which can be interpreted as him saying that marriage is a necessary evil, but it’s more likely that the statement about different gifts is an acknowledgement that not all are called to celibacy, and that perhaps his view that the second coming was imminent meant that he saw no need for the procreative aspect of marriage).
4. The passage about not calling people “father” also says not to call them “teacher” or “master,” and in context, can be easily understood as a call to recognize that all authority comes from God. Not to mention that if Jesus meant it literally, St. Paul is guilty of breaking this rule: “For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15).
5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.
6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
a. Most people couldn’t read.
b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.
c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.
d. There was a reaction against the Protestant idea of personal interpretation over Church authority and Tradition that led to Catholics shunning biblical scholarship and people not being encouraged to read the Bible on their own. This was simply to avoid people with little education misinterpreting Scripture and falling into heresy.
e. Catholics are steeped in Scripture through their participation in the Mass. Typically, when the Mass was in Latin, the priest would translate the gospel and other reading into the vernacular. If you ever read anything written by almost any saint, whether or not they were clergy, they constantly reference Scripture, even if they couldn’t read it for themselves because of an ignorance of Latin (St. Teresa of Avila comes to mind).
f. Why didn’t the Church commission vernacular translations before the Renaissance? Because most people who could read knew Latin anyway.

As a Catholic, I have been immersed in Scripture from the time I was born, whether at Mass (which, again, is highly Scriptural), or learning my catechism, or memorizing Scripture, or reading Bible stories (or the writings of the saints). It boggles my mind that people think Catholicism is anti-Biblical.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like.

I’m… not sure what to make of this. I don’t recall the New Testament saying certain foods can only be eaten at certain times. At best the only related Scriptures I can think of are in Mark 7, where Jesus declares all food as clean; and in Acts 15, where the council discusses that Gentiles are not necessarily beholden to Jewish custom.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

I still don’t see the reason to make a distinction between saying “we interpret it differently than Protestants” and “Protestants interpret it differently than us”. It is the same thing. Protestants and Catholics interpret the scripture differently.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

Well I am not expert on the accuracy of Tyndale’s translation. But from what I know, I think it was more than just the Catholic church objecting to bad translation, it was objecting to translating the Bible from Latin into English and other languages. I am pretty sure there was Catholic opposition to the KJV.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

  1. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
    a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

I still don’t see the reason to make a distinction between saying “we interpret it differently than Protestants” and “Protestants interpret it differently than us”. It is the same thing. Protestants and Catholics interpret the scripture differently.

There’s a subtle semantic difference, but let’s not get caught up over it.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

Well I am not expert on the accuracy of Tyndale’s translation. But from what I know, I think it was more than just the Catholic church objecting to bad translation, it was objecting to translating the Bible from Latin into English and other languages. I am pretty sure there was Catholic opposition to the KJV.

That’s not quite accurate. The èarliest Catholic English translation of the Bible (or at least the first major one), the Douay-Rheims, predates the KJV (the New Testament is a few decades older and the Old Testament was published shortly before it). In fact, the Douay-Rheims influenced the KJV, although Anglican England banned the original Douay-Rheims (Bible-banning wasn’t just one sided!). So it’s a myth that the Church was opposed to vernacular translations. The Vulgate, after all, was originally just that: a translation from Hebrew and Greek into the more common language, Latin.

Author
Time

Well, I haven’t the sufficient expertise to argue the history with you, so I won’t at this time.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

  1. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
    a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Well, I haven’t the sufficient expertise to argue the history with you, so I won’t at this time.

Fair enough. But I’ll leave you with the following quote from a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism. 😉

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

“They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” - 1 Timothy 4, and it’s in reference to false teachers. The Catholic church also prohibits marriage for priests and nuns.

  1. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
    a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

In mass, the Bible was read in Latin for centuries.

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

Yeah, I don’t need your history lesson. I know how illiterate people were, but surely the Bible could have been read in foreign languages. Translate the Bible into French so that French priests could read it in that language to their congregations.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.

Unfortunately I would have to subscribe to read the entire article. The problem with Thought for Thought translation is are you translating the text means or what you think the text means.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

“They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” - 1 Timothy 4, and it’s in reference to false teachers. The Catholic church also prohibits marriage for priests and nuns.

So you interpret “prohibit marriage” as meaning “requiring celibacy among certain people”? That’s a bit of a stretch. The passage is almost certainly referring to those in the Church who wanted to ban marriage altogethr because they thought the second coming was going to happen within their lifetime and thus thought marriage was pointless (according to some heresies, marriage was considered immoral).

The same deal with requiring abstinence from certain foods. The Church doesn’t do that. It has historically required abstinence on Fridays, but that’s not the same as outright banning certain foods, and it has nothing to do with us believing that meat is not to be received with thanksgiving and is somehow unclean. Quite the opposite in fact. Meat is something very good, and therefore a sacrifice to give up, which is the whole point. It’s something extra done to commemorate Christ’s Passion, and is a sacrifice precisely because it’s a normal part of people’s diet the rest of the time. Plus the point was that you would give up meat and give the money you saved to the poor.

Thanks for finding the relevant Scripture passages for me though.

  1. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
    a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

In mass, the Bible was read in Latin for centuries.

And then in his homily, the priest would typically read a translation of the readings to the people before speaking about them. Your point?

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:
I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

History supports the concept that people are capable of great stupidity and great brutality, and the Catholic Church has participated in that just as much as everyone else has. When Facebook starts taking strides to eliminate fake news by murdering or jailing people then I will deem that an accurate analogy. Obviously they weren’t protecting anyone’s right to the truth by ensuring that those people didn’t have a right to comprehend the truth unless they learned Latin. I honestly thought, until now, that everyone including the most devout Catholics could agree that the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyingly corrupt and immoral but I guess that’s not the case.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Scripture existed before the Pope. When someone asks you for proof of the Pope’s authority, what do you do? You show him scripture.

My beliefs aren’t based on historical justification, they are based on faith.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.

The problem with Thought for Thought translation is are you translating the text means or what you think the text means.

The problem with word for word translation is that not all language has the same vocabulary (eg. multiple words for “love”), and it has the potential to not read as easily as it should–like the original writings probably did.

To some degree, there is an advantage to not have to stop and say “So, in other words, what it’s saying is…”. I’m pretty sure the churches Paul wrote letters to didn’t have to do that.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.

Unfortunately I would have to subscribe to read the entire article. The problem with Thought for Thought translation is are you translating the text means or what you think the text means.

One example is the biblical parable about the foolishness of building a house on sand vs stone. For an Indonesian culture that has houses built on stilts it was translated as to build a house on metal stilts vs building out of a certain type of weak wood. The idea was to convey the meaning without requiring a lesson on house building foreign to their culture.

Your question is very interesting because isn’t a translation always just what the translator thinks a text means? Languages don’t align so neatly that you can just translate word for word and expect the same meaning to come through.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Question: do you believe Protestants can go to heaven?

.

Author
Time

The church has definitely not always been catholic. It used to not have an organization hierchy, which the Bible actually warns against having. Does NOT say priests should be celibate, encourages the opposite. Says call no man father, and I don’t even need to go any further on that one. Baptism for people of sound mind who understand the weight of the decision they are making (ie not babies). I don’t even want to continue listing all the things catholics do different than the Bible as I’m sure you have a way to word yourself out of them, but claiming the church has always been catholic when the catholic church very clearly is very different than the early churches spoke of in the Bible is just silly.