WHY I COULD NEVER CHOOSE TO BE A PROTESTANT. (one stupid thread title is as good as another)

[brakelite]

World Youth Day; too bad you missed it

If I remember correctly, pope John Paul 2 joined that celebration several years ago in France. Quite the occasion by all accounts. And on the anniversary of St Bartholemew massacre where 100s of protestants were murdered even in their own beds by a Catholic mob. The pope of that time celebrated a"Catholic victory" by having a medallion minted with his picture on it as a memorial. I do wonder sometimes when I read from both sides of the current divide, that there are not some who would welcome a renewed physical persecution between the faiths. Prophecy declares it will come again. Only Catholicism in its teachings and dogma continues to justify it as a legitimate exercise in purifying the church. No surprise there.

 

[amadeus]

WHY I COULD NEVER CHOOSE TO BE A PROTESTANT continued

122. Contrary to Protestant anti-Catholic myth, the Catholic Church has always revered the Bible, and hasn't suppressed it (it protested some Protestant translations, but Protestants have often done the same regarding Catholic versions). This is proven by the laborious care of monks in protecting and copying manuscripts, and the constant translations into vernacular tongues (as opposed to the falsehoods about only Latin Bibles), among other plentiful and indisputable historical evidences.

I cannot speak with authority on the CC's official position on such things, but I can speak concerning my own experience. I grew up as a Catholic in a different time all before Vatican II occurred and before all of its decisions or rulings or changes were implemented. Seemingly some of those changes are for the better, but better still does not necessarily mean good. Jesus said, "there is none good but one, that is God" [Matt 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19]. If God is not in a person, the person cannot be good as I understand it. So then Catholics or Protestants or others, who are really good have something of Him in them and it certainly should be visible to a person with "eyes to see".

I lived in a small Catholic mission town in California. There was only one Protestant church [denomination not unknown. Never did I ever enter that building] in the town. There was one Mormon church a few miles outside of town. There were no other organized churches in the vicinity. Our priest was a Monsignor and I suppose he was a pastor although I do not ever recall anyone calling him. He had other priests from a Catholic school several miles away come to assist him in saying the masses. All of the masses were said in Latin even though the most common language of the people was English with Spanish being a close second. It was in that small town as a Catholic or... 'would be Catholic' that I first found God, but the details of that are for another time and place.

I knew everyone in town by sight and many of them by name. It was a small town. No Catholic I knew ever read the Bible. It was never expressly forbidden, but it certainly was expressly discouraged. The nuns taught us during our weekly religious release times from the public elementary school not we should not read the Bible ourselves, but follow rather the teachings of the church. In those days, unlike post-Vatican II I suppose, there was no schedule of Bible readings that would cover the entire Bible in relatively short period of time. The Bible we heard was whatever the priest would read when he stood before the people to speak to them in English... which was not a lot. He would read a few verses, usually from the Gospels and then give us a lesson or interpretation. Anything spoken during the mass proper was of course in Latin. As an altar boy I was familiar with much of the Latin, even though I did not know the specific translations into English for a large part of it. I was not required to... although a nun once gave a short course of instruction in the Latin. But that which was not used regularly was soon forgotten. [I did take Latin in college to support my Spanish and German studies, but that was completely disconnected with any purposeful active participation in the things of God.]

My mother always had a beautiful big Bible on her coffee table in our living room. It was open to the center where there were some beautiful glossy pictures of things scriptural in color displayed. No one in my home ever read that Bible. To my knowledge no one in the home owned another, but in my later years I found out I was wrong. My mother had an old Protestant Bible my father had given her before her divorce from him during WWII. I never saw it at any time until many years after I no longer lived in her home. My older brother and I were the Catholics in our home who ever went to mass. My brother stopped when he went off to high school and never resumed his attendance. Neither one of us ever owned a Bible while we lived in my mother's home. If there was ever a Bible for sale in that little town, I never saw it and I certainly knew what every store business in town had for sale in the way of books. There was not a large selection.

Our priest, the Monsignor, was very kindly old man, but he had one bad habit to which he readily admitted. He smoked way too many cigarettes. Only he and one of the priests who came to us from the school on Sundays do I remember clearly. Both of them were from everything I could see and can remember were very "good" men and loved God. As an altar boy in a small town I knew them like I knew all of the residents. Even when I expressed and interest in becoming a priest neither one of them ever suggested that I get and read a Bible. If one of them had, I have no doubt that I would have...

Those were "good" times and my best friends were always altar boys, but when I went off to college in San Jose I drifted away from Catholicism and God. I did try to connect there and while in Viet Nam in the army, but I never to my knowledge encountered God again in the CC. I did not encounter Him personally again until after I was married and it was not through the Catholic Church even though I had been married by a Catholic priest in 1972. They, the Catholics, simply no longer had anything that attracted me to them.

It was when God called me back to Him in 1976 that I opened a Bible for the first time in my life and began to read it. Give God the glory!

 

[epostle1]

I cannot speak with authority on the CC's official position on such things, but I can speak concerning my own experience. I grew up as a Catholic in a different time all before Vatican II occurred and before all of its decisions or rulings or changes were implemented.

Vatican II ended in 1965. That was some 53 years ago when you grew up as a Catholic. You must be old

Seemingly some of those changes are for the better, but better still does not necessarily mean good. Jesus said, "there is none good but one, that is God" [Matt 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19]. If God is not in a person, the person cannot be good as I understand it. So then Catholics or Protestants or others, who are really good have something of Him in them and it certainly should be visible to a person with "eyes to see".

You can't compare the worst Catholics with the best Protestants, it just isn't fair.

I lived in a small Catholic mission town in California. There was only one Protestant church [denomination not unknown. Never did I ever enter that building] in the town. There was one Mormon church a few miles outside of town. There were no other organized churches in the vicinity. Our priest was a Monsignor and I suppose he was a pastor although I do not ever recall anyone calling him. He had other priests from a Catholic school several miles away come to assist him in saying the masses. All of the masses were said in Latin even though the most common language of the people was English with Spanish being a close second. It was in that small town as a Catholic or... 'would be Catholic' that I first found God, but the details of that are for another time and place.

Latin is a universal language. You still see Latin in anatomy, biology, zoology and numerous other academic disciplines. Latin was the language of the Church for centuries. Anyone who could read was fluent in Latin. It was never a secret language as some anti-Catholics suppose, but a public one. Your doctor writes a prescription in Latin so any pharmacist anywhere in the world can fill it. Vatican II decided it was outdated, yet some Masses are in Latin because some people like it.

I knew everyone in town by sight and many of them by name. It was a small town.

No Catholic I knew ever read the Bible. It was never expressly forbidden, but it certainly was expressly discouraged.

What was discouraged is private interpretation that leads to confusion and division. If everybody was allowed to interpret the Bible apart from the Tradition and Teaching Authority that the Bible came from in the first place, we would be just as divided and chaotic as Protestantism. I grew up in that era too. To say that Bible reading was forbidden is anti-Catholic nonsense. The Bible was HEARD, not necessarily READ. There are 3 Bible readings at every Mass. One from the OT,, one from the epistles, and one from the gospels, plus the psalms. They were never read in Latin even before Vatican II. The Bible says we are to HEAR the word of God, it says nothing about READING it. All the main points of the Bible are read out loud in a 1 year period, and the entire Bible is read in a three years cycle. We use the Bible as part of the liturgy while Protestants use the Bible for study and devotion. It's wrong to pit one against the other. Saying No Catholic I knew ever read the Bible is highly misleading. You are suggesting no Catholic ever heard the Bible, which is false.

The nuns taught us during our weekly religious release times from the public elementary school not we should not read the Bible ourselves, but follow rather the teachings of the church.

If you follow the teachings of the Church, you are following the Bible. What the nuns meant is not to interpret the Bible privately, what you heard them say is all together different from the intention.

In those days, unlike post-Vatican II I suppose, there was no schedule of Bible readings that would cover the entire Bible in relatively short period of time.

A one year and 3 year cycle which covers the entire Bible. There is more Bible reading at a single Catholic Mass than a month of Protestant services, before and after Vatican 2.

The Bible we heard was whatever the priest would read when he stood before the people to speak to them in English... which was not a lot. He would read a few verses, usually from the Gospels and then give us a lesson or interpretation.

All priests all over the world are obligated to read the same readings, and how old were you 53 years ago? You remember how much the priest read?

Anything spoken during the mass proper was of course in Latin. As an altar boy I was familiar with much of the Latin, even though I did not know the specific translations into English for a large part of it. I was not required to... although a nun once gave a short course of instruction in the Latin. But that which was not used regularly was soon forgotten. [I did take Latin in college to support my Spanish and German studies, but that was completely disconnected with any purposeful active participation in the things of God.
My mother always had a beautiful big Bible on her coffee table in our living room. It was open to the center where there were some beautiful glossy pictures of things scriptural in color displayed. No one in my home ever read that Bible. To my knowledge no one in the home owned another, but in my later years I found out I was wrong. My mother had an old Protestant Bible my father had given her before her divorce from him during WWII. I never saw it at any time until many years after I no longer lived in her home. My older brother and I were the Catholics in our home who ever went to mass. My brother stopped when he went off to high school and never resumed his attendance. Neither one of us ever owned a Bible while we lived in my mother's home. If there was ever a Bible for sale in that little town, I never saw it and I certainly knew what every store business in town had for sale in the way of books. There was not a large selection.

Our priest, the Monsignor, was very kindly old man, but he had one bad habit to which he readily admitted. He smoked way too many cigarettes. Only he and one of the priests who came to us from the school on Sundays do I remember clearly. Both of them were from everything I could see and can remember were very "good" men and loved God. As an altar boy in a small town I knew them like I knew all of the residents. Even when I expressed and interest in becoming a priest neither one of them ever suggested that I get and read a Bible. If one of them had, I have no doubt that I would have...

You were deaf?

Those were "good" times and my best friends were always altar boys, but when I went off to college in San Jose I drifted away from Catholicism and God. I did try to connect there and while in Viet Nam in the army, but I never to my knowledge encountered God again in the CC. I did not encounter Him personally again until after I was married and it was not through the Catholic Church even though I had been married by a Catholic priest in 1972. They, the Catholics, simply no longer had anything that attracted me to them.

It was when God called me back to Him in 1976 that I opened a Bible for the first time in my life and began to read it. Give God the glory!

I am glad you discovered the Bible, but I think you have had 50+ years of anti-Catholic bias.

​

 

[Helen]

Lovely testimony @amadeus
I know some of your history but never read that much before. Great.

 

[epostle1]

Pope Francis: Read the Bible as often as you check your cellphone
Leave the cellphone, take the Bible, Pope Francis said on Sunday.

“What would happen if we turned back when we forget it, if we opened it more times a day, if we read the message of God contained in the Bible the way we read messages on our cellphones?” the pontiff said during his weekly blessing in St. Peter’s Square.

“During the forty days of Lent, as Christians we are called to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and address the spiritual battle against evil with the power of the Word of God,” Francis told those gathered. “For this you have to become familiar with the Bible, read it often, meditate on it, assimilate it.”

Francis, 80, encouraged people to carry a pocket-sized Bible with them at all times.
Pope says put down your cell phones and read the Bible more

Catholics were NEVER forbidden to read the Bible; this is a lie. Copies of the Bible in Latin (the Vulgate) were widely available during the Middle Ages, and a few vernacular translations as well, all approved by the Church. What the Church banned were UNAUTHORIZED Bible translations by people like John Wyclif and William Tyndale, which contained erroneous or questionable translations and anti-Catholic footnotes. Luther was never forbidden to read the Bible. The best way to answer fallacious arguments like this is to demand that the person making them give YOU sources. EWTN.com - WERE CATHOLICS EVER FORBIDDEN TO READ THE BIBLE?

In 397 A.D., the Catholic Church gave a definitive decision as to which writings and books should be admitted into the Bible and which should be rejected, and every book which is in the Protestant New Testament today, was put there by Pope Siricus and the Catholic Bishops in the year 397 A.D.

With the invention of printing, vernacular bibles multiplied. Of one German version alone, first printed in 1466, 16 editions had been printed before Luther's New Testament appeared in 1522. The first French New Testament appeared in 1478, five years before Luther's birth, and the complete French Bible in 1487. The Italians had theirs in 1471, the Dutch in 1477. The Swedes, the Bohemians, Slavs, Russians and Danes all had vernacular Bibles, circulated with full ecclesiastical support.
Letter: Bible translations before Luther
Whatever was going on in the 16th century, whatever the importance of Luther's own translation, it was not about putting the Bible in the hands of the people.

 

[Phoneman777]

Hi Phoneman,

Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Jerome, Zwingli, Coverdale, Melanchthon, Huss, Wycliffe, Fox’s and all the other Protestants you didn’t list disagreed with each other even though SOME of the things they taught agreed with the Catholic Church. So do tell Phoneman....Who is delusional???

Who has the inability to think critically when all of them can’t even agree with each other and figure out exactly what false teaching The Church is teaching? According to your theory all of these men continued the false teachings of The Church in one fashion or another.

Would you care to try another theory?

Mary

So, the RCC wages a 1,000 year long all out war against public dissemination of the Bible, but you would deride Protestants for their inability to agree with each other on every point of doctrine the moment the light of Scripture began to shine upon a land covered in a millennium of Papal darkness? It's a miracle they agreed on as much as they did!

Two things that they did agree on are called "The Twin Pillars of the Reformation":
1) Salvation by grace through faith
2) the Papacy is the Antichrist of Bible prophecy

It's a matter of history.

 

[Phoneman777]

of course you have it wrong protestant 'good' Queen Bess spilt more blood than Catholic 'bloody' Mary imho - twinc

Never heard of Bess to be anything but a moderate, unlike that murderous Mary - well did she employ the tactics of the Papacy in her attempt to turn England back to Rome.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Never heard of Bess to be anything but a moderate, unlike that murderous Mary - well did she employ the tactics of the Papacy in her attempt to turn England back to Rome.

It's this kind of ignorance - or outright denial - that fascinates me.

Queen Mary I - also known to Protestants as "Bloody Mary" was responsible for the executions of about 300 Protestants.

Her half-sister Queen Elizabeth I, known as "Good Queen Bess" to Protestants, however, is said to have been responsible for the executions and murders of THOUSANDS of Catholics.

Sounds like YOU haven't done your homework - again . . .

 

[amadeus]

Vatican II ended in 1965. That was some 53 years ago when you grew up as a Catholic. You must be old

I suppose so. I graduated from high school in 1961. It was from that time that I never again was an actively involved Catholic although I bore the label for several more years. I will be 75 this coming December. Is that old? LOL

You can't compare the worst Catholics with the best Protestants, it just isn't fair.

Of course it is not fair and I try not to make such comparisons, but sometimes other people make it hard and sometimes I make it hard to do better. Two wrongs do not make a right, do they?

"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." II Cor 10:12

Latin is a universal language. You still see Latin in anatomy, biology, zoology and numerous other academic disciplines. Latin was the language of the Church for centuries. Anyone who could read was fluent in Latin. It was never a secret language as some anti-Catholics suppose, but a public one.

I don't believe I was arguing that it was, but the lack of understanding on the part of the people and of me as a child attending mass and catechism alone was still a reality, wasn't it? It was not important to my parents what I knew of the mass for they knew nothing about it, so the fact that I even attended was a good thing as I see it. God was with me during that time... but many years later it was also God who finally drew me back to Him after I was effectively away from Him for so long.

Your doctor writes a prescription in Latin so any pharmacist anywhere in the world can fill it. Vatican II decided it was outdated, yet some Masses are in Latin because some people like it.

Yes, from what I know of Vatican II it did work to improve things, but what of the thousands who were there before it was in place? You don't need to answer that, as any criticism against ministers not working for God as they should applies not only to Catholics.

I am careful to avoid direct criticism of Catholicism in general because I recall only too well that is was while I was a Catholic that God first drew me to Him. In spite of the stories I hear from others on forums, I always remember the good in the priests and nuns and brothers of my acquaintance during my own Catholic years. If there was any evil there, I was ignorant of it. There was no disappointment until later on... but I don't blame that on individuals as much as I blame myself.

What was discouraged is private interpretation that leads to confusion and division. If everybody was allowed to interpret the Bible apart from the Tradition and Teaching Authority that the Bible came from in the first place, we would be just as divided and chaotic as Protestantism. I grew up in that era too. To say that Bible reading was forbidden is anti-Catholic nonsense.

I never had anyone tell me that I could not read the Bible, only that I should not read it. I wanted to and it was one reason that drew me toward the Catholic priesthood as a teenager. I thought that once I became a priest I would be able to read the Bible without any opposition. But, what happened was my mother talked to the Monsignor and he agreed with her strong suggestion that discussions on me becoming a priest be delayed until I was older. Well further discussions never happened and I drifted away. By the time I knew what had happened I no longer cared.

The Bible was HEARD, not necessarily READ. There are 3 Bible readings at every Mass. One from the OT,, one from the epistles, and one from the gospels, plus the psalms. They were never read in Latin even before Vatican II.

Yes, I remember those Bible readings, but they were Not at time three in number and seldom more than one. They only occurred only in connection with the message [sermon?] the priest would give to the people. He was the only one to read from the scriptures during a mass. Sitting on a chair while he spoke I would always listen carefully. I know that in all of those years as a Catholic there were many parts of the scripture the priest never read from. I only became familiar with those when I finally began to read the Bible myself at the age of 32 years.

The Bible says we are to HEAR the word of God, it says nothing about READING it. All the main points of the Bible are read out loud in a 1 year period, and the entire Bible is read in a three years cycle.

I have heard that this has been the case for many years now, but the whole Bible was never read in mass during all my time as an active Catholic from age 6 [1949] to my graduation from high school in 1961. I only attended one old mission church during those years so I had no idea what was happening, or not, in other places. I did trust my priest and the four Franciscan nuns who always taught us the catechism during religious release times once a week. Our elementary public school allowed an optional religious release one day a week. The nuns met us and led us to an old adobe building that belonged to the mission for our catechism studies, which probably lasted a little over half of an hour. The nuns never read to us from the Bible.

We use the Bible as part of the liturgy while Protestants use the Bible for study and devotion. It's wrong to pit one against the other. Saying

No Catholic I knew ever read the Bible is highly misleading. You are suggesting no Catholic ever heard the Bible, which is false.

I did not mean for it to be misleading. I apologize. I was simply telling my story in my own words. By reading the Bible, I meant just that, reading. Of course we heard many things that were from the scripture even though they may or may not have been a literal rendering of what is written in the Bible. That they sometimes paraphrased them seems as likely for them as it is for the Protestants of my experience. As I said I trusted my Catholic teachers, and while they were my teachers I never had a reason that I can remember to doubt what they taught us. If they were in error, I am certain that they were not purposely so.

If you follow the teachings of the Church, you are following the Bible. What the nuns meant is not to interpret the Bible privately, what you heard them say is all together different from the intention. A one year and 3 year cycle which covers the entire Bible. There is more Bible reading at a single Catholic Mass than a month of Protestant services, before and after Vatican 2. All priests all over the world are obligated to read the same readings, and how old were you 53 years ago? You remember how much the priest read? You were deaf?

Why have you gone into an attack mode here? No, I was not deaf. As I have already said, I always listened very closely to what they said and worked hard to live according to what I was taught. I remember thinking to myself more than once that I wished the priest would read more of the Bible than he did.

As to the Catholic Church always reading more scripture before Vatican II than the Protestants, that may have been true generally, but I have no way of really knowing. My father was a Protestant, but he lived in Oklahoma while I was in California so my visits to him gave me little to go on... He and his mother were much closer to God than most of the Catholics I knew except for perhaps the nuns and priests in that mission church. They may have been on a par, but I would hesitate to make a judgment on that. My visits with my father were short until after I was no longer living in my mother's house and no longer an active Catholic.

 

[Triumph1300]

Good post, Amadeus.
I can relate to some of it.
Well done.

 

[epostle1]

I suppose so. I graduated from high school in 1961. It was from that time that I never again was an actively involved Catholic although I bore the label for several more years. I will be 75 this coming December. Is that old? LOL

Of course it is not fair and I try not to make such comparisons, but sometimes other people make it hard and sometimes I make it hard to do better. Two wrongs do not make a right, do they?

"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." II Cor 10:12


I don't believe I was arguing that it was, but the lack of understanding on the part of the people and of me as a child attending mass and catechism alone was still a reality, wasn't it? It was not important to my parents what I knew of the mass for they knew nothing about it, so the fact that I even attended was a good thing as I see it. God was with me during that time... but many years later it was also God who finally drew me back to Him after I was effectively away from Him for so long.


Yes, from what I know of Vatican II it did work to improve things, but what of the thousands who were there before it was in place? You don't need to answer that, as any criticism against ministers not working for God as they should applies not only to Catholics.

I am careful to avoid direct criticism of Catholicism in general because I recall only too well that is was while I was a Catholic that God first drew me to Him. In spite of the stories I hear from others on forums, I always remember the good in the priests and nuns and brothers of my acquaintance during my own Catholic years. If there was any evil there, I was ignorant of it. There was no disappointment until later on... but I don't blame that on individuals as much as I blame myself.


I never had anyone tell me that I could not read the Bible, only that I should not read it. I wanted to and it was one reason that drew me toward the Catholic priesthood as a teenager. I thought that once I became a priest I would be able to read the Bible without any opposition. But, what happened was my mother talked to the Monsignor and he agreed with her strong suggestion that discussions on me becoming a priest be delayed until I was older. Well further discussions never happened and I drifted away. By the time I knew what had happened I no longer cared.


Yes, I remember those Bible readings, but they were Not at time three in number and seldom more than one. They only occurred only in connection with the message [sermon?] the priest would give to the people. He was the only one to read from the scriptures during a mass. Sitting on a chair while he spoke I would always listen carefully. I know that in all of those years as a Catholic there were many parts of the scripture the priest never read from. I only became familiar with those when I finally began to read the Bible myself at the age of 32 years.


I have heard that this has been the case for many years now, but the whole Bible was never read in mass during all my time as an active Catholic from age 6 [1949] to my graduation from high school in 1961. I only attended one old mission church during those years so I had no idea what was happening, or not, in other places. I did trust my priest and the four Franciscan nuns who always taught us the catechism during religious release times once a week. Our elementary public school allowed an optional religious release one day a week. The nuns met us and led us to an old adobe building that belonged to the mission for our catechism studies, which probably lasted a little over half of an hour. The nuns never read to us from the Bible.



I did not mean for it to be misleading. I apologize. I was simply telling my story in my own words. By reading the Bible, I meant just that, reading. Of course we heard many things that were from the scripture even though they may or may not have been a literal rendering of what is written in the Bible. That they sometimes paraphrased them seems as likely for them as it is for the Protestants of my experience. As I said I trusted my Catholic teachers, and while they were my teachers I never had a reason that I can remember to doubt what they taught us. If they were in error, I am certain that they were not purposely so.


Why have you gone into an attack mode here? No, I was not deaf. As I have already said, I always listened very closely to what they said and worked hard to live according to what I was taught. I remember thinking to myself more than once that I wished the priest would read more of the Bible than he did.

As to the Catholic Church always reading more scripture before Vatican II than the Protestants, that may have been true generally, but I have no way of really knowing. My father was a Protestant, but he lived in Oklahoma while I was in California so my visits to him gave me little to go on... He and his mother were much closer to God than most of the Catholics I knew except for perhaps the nuns and priests in that mission church. They may have been on a par, but I would hesitate to make a judgment on that. My visits with my father were short until after I was no longer living in my mother's house and no longer an active Catholic.

Why are so many Bible scholars and ministers becoming Catholic?
The Coming Home Network - Discover Catholicism, Come Home

 

[epostle1]

WHY I COULD NEVER CHOOSE TO BE A PROTESTANT continued
119. Catholicism doesn't regard the Bible as obscure, mysterious, and inaccessible, but it is vigilant to protect it from all arbitrary and aberrant exegesis (2 Pet 1:20, 3:16). The best Protestant traditions seek to do the same, but are inadequate and ineffectual since they are divided.

120. Protestantism has a huge problem with the Canon of the NT. The process of determining the exact books which constitute the NT lasted until 397 A.D., when the Council of Carthage spoke with finality, certainly proof that the Bible is not "self-authenticating," as Protestantism believes. Some sincere, devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible, and others considered books as Scripture which were not at length included in the Canon. St. Athanasius in 367 was the first to list all 27 books in the NT as Scripture.

121. The Council of Carthage, in deciding the Canon of the entire Bible in 397, included the so-called "Apocryphal" books, which Protestants kicked out of the Bible (i.e., a late tradition). Prior to the 16th century Christians considered these books Scripture, and they weren't even separated from the others, as they are today in the Protestant Bibles which include them.
Protestantism accepts the authority of this Council for the NT, but not the OT, just as it arbitrarily and selectively accepts or denies other conciliar decrees, according to their accord with existing Protestant "dogmas" and biases.

122. Contrary to Protestant anti-Catholic myth, the Catholic Church has always revered the Bible, and hasn't suppressed it (it protested some Protestant translations, but Protestants have often done the same regarding Catholic versions). This is proven by the laborious care of monks in protecting and copying manuscripts, and the constant translations into vernacular tongues (as opposed to the falsehoods about only Latin Bibles), among other plentiful and indisputable historical evidences.

The Bible is a Catholic book, and no matter how much Protestants study it and proclaim it as peculiarly their own, they must acknowledge their undeniable debt to the Catholic Church for having decided the Canon, and for preserving the Bible intact for 1400 years. How could the Catholic Church be "against the Bible," as anti-Catholics say, yet at the same time preserve and revere the Bible profoundly for so many years?.
The very thought is so absurd as to be self-refuting. If Catholicism is indeed as heinous as anti-Catholics would have us believe, Protestantism ought to put together its own Bible, instead of using the one delivered to them by the Catholic Church, as it obviously could not be trusted!

124. Protestantism disbelieves, by and large, in the development of doctrine, contrary to Christian Tradition and many implicit biblical indications. Whenever the Bible refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians individually and (particularly) collectively, an idea similar to development is present.

Further, many doctrines develop in the Bible before our eyes ("progressive revelation"). Examples: the afterlife, the Trinity, acceptance of Gentiles. And doctrines which Protestantism accepts whole and entire from Catholicism, such as the Trinity and the Canon of the Bible, developed in history, in the first three centuries of Christianity.
It is foolish to try and deny this. The Church is the "Body" of Christ, and is a living organism, which grows and develops like all living bodies. It is not a statue, simply to be cleaned and polished over time, as many Protestants seem to think.

 

[amadeus]

Why are so many Bible scholars and ministers becoming Catholic?
The Coming Home Network - Discover Catholicism, Come Home

Without reading the article I know that answer to that question, but you would not accept my answer in any case, so I'll leave it alone.

 

[mjrhealth]

The Bible is a Catholic book, and no matter how much Protestants study it and proclaim it as peculiarly their own, they must acknowledge their undeniable debt to the Catholic Church for having decided the Canon, and for preserving the Bible intact for 1400 years.

And that is why it cant be trusted, thanks for clearing up that matter who insist it is the word of God.

 

[Marymog]

Wow ! DEAR dear dear lady, can you have a look in the mirror ! Attacking Amadeus this way, who is one of the most stable people on this forum ( thankfully there are a couple on this site), shows us clearly, just how, either deceived or just plain contrary, you really are....It is a pity actually..

Hi pia,

Please quote my words that were an attack: Definition of ATTACK

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

So, the RCC wages a 1,000 year long all out war against public dissemination of the Bible, but you would deride Protestants for their inability to agree with each other on every point of doctrine the moment the light of Scripture began to shine upon a land covered in a millennium of Papal darkness? It's a miracle they agreed on as much as they did!

Two things that they did agree on are called "The Twin Pillars of the Reformation":
1) Salvation by grace through faith
2) the Papacy is the Antichrist of Bible prophecy
It's a matter of history.

Thank you.

What years was the 1,000 year war against the dissemination of the bible?? I have never heard of this "war".

The Christian Church had unity and one church with one message with one interpretation of scripture and one doctrine for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

The Reformation brought multiple churches with multiple messages multiple interpretations of scripture and multiple doctrines/dogmas.

Your theory, that the CC is the Church of the anti-Christ suggests that satan prevailed for the first 1,500 years when The Church was united as One with One message.

Your theory is that now that enlightened Reformation Christians have broken away from that evil Catholic Church everything is FINALLY right. No more "Papal darkness".

However, none of these Reformation Christians can agree on anything with some supporting the evils of abortion on demand and gay marriage.

Protestants have been confused and divided and supporting evil since the Reformation.

Tell me Phoneman: Who is the sower of confusion, division and evil?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Oh, for crying out loud.
Talk about "twisting words".
Amadeus would be the last guy on this forum to twist scriptures.
Let me ask you this:
Are you here to attack others left and right?
It seems like it.
Every time somebody answers one of your posts you come back in "attack-mode".

Really? The last guy on this forum to twist scripture?

Jesus said we must eat his body and blood, gave bread/wine to his Apostles and this is my body and blood do this in rememberence of me etc. etc. You already know everthing scripture says about it.

@amadeus twisted that into we are supposed to eat His words thru reading scripture.

Of course if you ALSO believe that twisted version then I guess I am wasting my time here...

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Gone fishing!
View attachment 2345

Have fun. I tried it with my kids...never enjoyed it.

And when you get back would you love to take a stab at answering post #191?

I am curious what you view as an "attack" on @amadeus

If you don't have any evidence of an "attack" then I would appreciate an apology!

Holding my breath.....Mary

 

[amadeus]

Really? The last guy on this forum to twist scripture?

Jesus said we must eat his body and blood, gave bread/wine to his Apostles and this is my body and blood do this in rememberence of me etc. etc. You already know everthing scripture says about it.

@amadeus twisted that into we are supposed to eat His words thru reading scripture.

Of course if you ALSO believe that twisted version then I guess I am wasting my time here...

Mary

We all certainly should be careful about saying someone twists scripture. To me it has the sound of someone who is purposely changing things to agree with what he already believes or what he wants to believe, etc.

I may miss the mark sometimes, but it is simply my missing... never my twisting. I read and I study and I pray. I always talk to God when I am doing those things [reading, studying, praying] and listen for what God has to say to my heart. You may not believe it is God talking to me, but I can say with certainty that I definitely am not purposely twisting anything to suit myself or to fit my own established doctrines or those of any church group.

As I say, some of my beliefs may be in error and for some questions I may have either no answers or I am very unsure of the answer I do have. What I believe in this regard is that if I am following the lead of the Holy Spirit, I will have the answer I need when God determines that I need it.

Again, I know you disagree, but your disagreement likely comes from ideas you have received from some man or men or a church or churches. I listen to a lot of them too, but the Holy Spirit in me will sift through it all for what is truth and what is not... Again as I said before sometimes I have quenched the Holy Spirit and so my result is in error, but who have you know other than Jesus who has not at times quenched the Holy Spirit?

One day perhaps when you are really in prayer God will help you gain better control of your tongue and your keyboard when they are directed at others with whom you disagree. It really is an essential as I see it and I believe as God sees it...

"For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be." James 3:7-10

 

[epostle1]

Without reading the article I know that answer to that question, but you would not accept my answer in any case, so I'll leave it alone.

It's not an article but a network of converts to Catholicism helping clergy and laity of other Christian traditions discover the truth and beauty of the Catholic Church. It is not a threat to anyone's faith.
The Coming Home Network - Discover Catholicism, Come Home