Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[2ndAmendment]

There is such a thing as faith, either you have it or you don't. Now, Christ founded the Catholic Church and made St. Peter the first Pope. The New Testament was compiled by the Catholic Church through the power of the Holy Spirit. When the Pope makes a statement regarding faith and morals he speaks infalliably because he is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
If you have faith, you believe, if you do not have faith, you don't.
The people who depend only on the bible also do so based on faith, there is no proof in a scientific, physical sense.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Y'shua, Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, is God come as man to suffer and die for our sins and be resurrected as a promise of eternal life for all who accept God's plan of salvation.

Since Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, there can be no bodily evidence of Him. You must accept Him by faith. Fred is right; you either have it or you don't.

The Bible is what we have by men writing by the power of the Holy Spirit. All else is man made tradition.

Revelation 22:18-21

<sup id="en-NASB-31100">18</sup>I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

<sup id="en-NASB-31101">19</sup>and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

<sup id="en-NASB-31102">20</sup>He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

<sup id="en-NASB-31103">21</sup>The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

 

[Qurious]

Goerge Orwell predicted much in his novel "1984"; Alvin Toffler predicted even more accurately in his nonfiction treatise "Future Shock".

Each generation has seen signs of the Apocolypse in their own times. What gives this generation the right to think it is any more special?

What gives this generation the right to question anything God puts forth for our benefit??? He designated prophets to record his word and from that we have the bible which now for the Catholics is all of a sudden not accurate? this is nothing but a sick ploy for those being taught by these men to now allow homosexuality amongst priests to be OKAY in the eyes of the lord.

its blasphemy to beleive in God, teach his truths from the bible and then question the very thing you teach as being accurate to fit your ideals!!!

2 Tim 3:16

this whole thing disgusts me.

 

[Bustem' Down]

this whole thing disgusts me.

This whole thing is not new. Read up on the Catholic church in Irealnd. In the begining they didn't agree with Rome. Nothing is new, it's all been done before if you know your history.

 

[kingpl2]

OK, here we go.

Catholic = universal - universal != Christian. The first recorded instance of the term "catholic church" is found in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The Christian church was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine. Constantine was a "Christian" but did not formally renounce heathenism, and did not receive baptism until, in 337, he was laid upon the bed of death. The "church" was made more inclusive by tolerating bowing before and praying to graven images and including a female deity. Of course these are expressly against the Ten Commandments and other scripture. There are other scriptures, but one is enough; I have given you two.

Peter, the first pope - There is no evidence from the Bible that Peter was the first pope even though this is claimed by the Catholic church. The Biblical evidence indicates that Paul probably founded the church at Rome while he was imprisoned there.

Fred Hoeck likes to bring up when certain scripture was written as evidence of correctness.

Immaculate Conception of Mary - established in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in the bull Ineffabilis Deus. This also declared that Mary was without sin. This is a contradiction to the Bible. Even Mary said she had a Savior.A sinless person does not need a Savior.


The Assumption of Mary - proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. You will not find this in the Bible anywhere. Two people never died and were assumed into heaven, Enoch (Gen 5:24Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.) and Elijah (II Kings 2:11 As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.). Jesus also ascended into heaven, but He died for our sins first and was resurrected.

The transformation of the Eucharist - became official at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches that the wafer and the wine actually becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus and is to be worshiped and adored by the people. (ref. The Catholic Catechism, Garden City, New Yorkoubleday, 1975, p. 463) I have received the wafer and wine at an open communion at a Catholic church; the wafer and wine did not change. I don't think it did for anyone else either.

The infallibility of the pope - The infallibility of the pope was declared doctrine in 1870 in the First Vatican Council.

The selling of indulgences - I don't think the church does this any more, but it is the reason Martin Luther, an Augustinian priest, broke from the RCC. The RCC was selling pardons from purgatory in order to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica.

purgatory - The doctrine of purgatory was declared in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyons.

The RCC has continued to add traditions of men to the gospel and the letters of the apostles over the years. This is also in contradiction to the Bible. I don't expect that any of this will convince anyone, but the Truth is in the Bible if you chose to seek it.

You are quoting the bible. In doing so you are relying on 300 years of Tradition. Do you realize this fact?

 

[kingpl2]

If you knew anything about the Bible (capital B), you would know that the falling away of people from belief in God and the Bible is prophesied in the Bible.

The Catholics have been far from the Truth since the Reformation. That was the reason for the Reformation.

Jesus could have faxed a copy of scripture from heaven. instead he chose to come here to establish what he calls his church which the gates of the netherworld shall not defeat...The Lord's prayer was "that they may be one" whoever breaks from that oneness is obviously in direct opposition to the will of God.

 

[Makavide]

The RCC has continued to add traditions of men to the gospel and the letters of the apostles over the years. This is also in contradiction to the Bible. I don't expect that any of this will convince anyone, but the Truth is in the Bible if you chose to seek it.

Just curious, who decided what would be in the Bible? And are you refering to the Bible or the Protestant Bible, in which books were removed. Was God wrong when he first put the Bible together and changed His mind and had the other books removed. Is is possible that there are other books that may be prophetic but not required in the Bible, so were not been put in by God?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Just curious, who decided what would be in the Bible? And are you refering to the Bible or the Protestant Bible, in which books were removed. Was God wrong when he first put the Bible together and changed His mind and had the other books removed. Is is possible that there are other books that may be prophetic but not required in the Bible, so were not been put in by God?

The apocryphal books were ADDED by the RCC and removed later to conform the Bible to the text originally accepted by the first century Christians. This has been discussed in this forum. Just do a search.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You are quoting the bible. In doing so you are relying on 300 years of Tradition. Do you realize this fact?

The Bible actually covers a span of about 4000 years and it is the inspired word of God. Men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote it.

Jesus could have faxed a copy of scripture from heaven. instead he chose to come here to establish what he calls his church which the gates of the netherworld shall not defeat...The Lord's prayer was "that they may be one" whoever breaks from that oneness is obviously in direct opposition to the will of God.

Jesus did indeed establish His church, body of believers, and it will not be defeated, but it is certainly not the RCC.

There are Christians in the RCC for sure and there are many Catholics but not Christians in the RCC just as there are Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, name a denomination that are not Christians.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The apocryphal books were ADDED by the RCC and removed later to conform the Bible to the text originally accepted by the first century Christians. This has been discussed in this forum. Just do a search.

For those that don't believe that the RCC had the books addded.


390 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test; though the Apocrypha was a cut and paste effort upon pressure by the church, and not by Jerome’s choice (he did not believe the apocryphal books were canonical.).<o> </o>

397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.

 

[DD214]

For those that don't believe that the RCC had the books addded...

I'm at work and I don't have time to formulate a lengthy response myself, so I'll post an excellent link concerning this issue. Here's an excerpt:

...And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions... And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Here's the whole article: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Another good explanation can be found here: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

 

[DD214]

Oh, and since I am cutting and pasting, I thought I would put one of your earlier statements in context. You referenced St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. John and consecrated by St. Peter, as being the first person to use the word 'Catholic' in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Here is that instance in context:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

And more St. Ingnatius from his letter to the Philadelphians:

Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

Wow. Sounds a lot like the teachings of the modern Catholic Church, does it not? But that couldn't be since St. Ignatius was alive during the apostolic era, unless...

 

[2ndAmendment]

I don't care if you are a Catholic. I don't care if you believe in the apocryphal books. I do care that the Catholic Church officials have stated that the Bible is not true. At that point, the Catholic church becomes an anathema.

Christians should concentrate more on being Christians and less on being Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.

 

[DD214]

I don't care if you are a Catholic. I don't care if you believe in the apocryphal books. I do care that the Catholic Church officials have stated that the Bible is not true. At that point, the Catholic church becomes an anathema.

Christians should concentrate more on being Christians and less on being Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.

Please show me where the Catholic Church has said that the Bible is not true. She has never, nor will she ever make such a claim. It's the whole gates of Hell shall not prevail against it thing.

You are right that we should all concentrate on being better Christians, but you must understand that I and millions of other Christians believe that Christ established a Church on Earth for that very reason. We do not believe that Christ's intent to establish a visible Church on Earth was an arbitrary gesture that we can choose to ignore. You obviously don't share that belief, and that is your right, but I think that if you studied the issue with an open heart and an open mind that you might come to a different conclusion. I'm sure you disagree, as not too long ago I shared the same opinions as you on the Catholic Church (I was raised Southern Baptist). I approached the subject a few years ago not with the intent to convert, but just out of curiosity about the history of the Christian religion. What I found surprised and confused me. Almost all of my preconceived (or planted) notions about subjects such as Purgatory, the Eucharist, etc were unfounded. A good and true quote by Bishop F. Sheen says that few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Please show me where the Catholic Church has said that the Bible is not true. She has never, nor will she ever make such a claim. It's the whole gates of Hell shall not prevail against it thing...

Follow the link in the first post of this thread and read.

 

[DD214]

Follow the link in the first post of this thread and read.

Once again, I will ask you to back up your statement that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH says the Bible is not true. The Church has not, nor will she ever say such a thing. The only evidence you have been able to show is a times.uk article with a disingenuous title. That article concerns a document published by certain British Bishops and does not carry any weight with the Church. It is the published personal opinions of a handful of local clergy and nothing more. If you think that what they wrote is an official statement by the Church, endorsed by the Vatican, and binding on all Catholics, then you truly don't understand the way the Catholic Church works. It is the same as if the Governor of Alaska published a document saying that the Earth is square, and then the times.uk published an article titled 'Americans No Longer Believe the Earth is Round'.

As I said before, it is not hard to find out what the Catholic Church actually believes since it is all documented in the Catechism, which can be found here : http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm . Here is what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches regarding the truth of the Bible:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

There you go. That is the official position of the Catholic Church, signed by the Pope himself.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Once again, I will ask you to back up your statement that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH says the Bible is not true. The Church has not, nor will she ever say such a thing. The only evidence you have been able to show is a times.uk article with a disingenuous title. That article concerns a document published by certain British Bishops and does not carry any weight with the Church. It is the published personal opinions of a handful of local clergy and nothing more. If you think that what they wrote is an official statement by the Church, endorsed by the Vatican, and binding on all Catholics, then you truly don't understand the way the Catholic Church works. It is the same as if the Governor of Alaska published a document saying that the Earth is square, and then the times.uk published an article titled 'Americans No Longer Believe the Earth is Round'.

As I said before, it is not hard to find out what the Catholic Church actually believes since it is all documented in the Catechism, which can be found here : http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm . Here is what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches regarding the truth of the Bible:

There you go. That is the official position of the Catholic Church, signed by the Pope himself.

Then the RCC needs to publicly admonish those Bishops or possibly defrock them.

I will accept that the RCC believes that the Bible is the Truth. I would hope that it would be so. The posts in this thread regarding the teaching of the Bible as untruthful by the RCC originated in the topic of this thread, "Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible".

 

[DD214]

Then the RCC needs to publicly admonish those Bishops or possibly defrock them.

I didn't read the source document, so I don't know if the article is accurate or not, but if it is then I agree with you. The problem is that over the past 2000 years there have been countless numbers of heresies by countless numbers of clergy/laymen. If the Church tried to address each and every one there would be no time to actually serve the people and do God's work. Most of the original Church councils were held to combat some heresy or another. Unfortunately, this one happened to make the headlines, and will undoubtedly cause scandal, as this thread already proves that it has. It is quite possible that the Church will address it at some point, most likely in an encyclical released by the Vatican restating the Church's position on the truth of Scripture. But as I said before, there are countless numbers of heterodox opinions floating around, and as long as they don't start to spread like a cancer in the Church, the Vatican will most likely just keep trucking along, proclaiming the truth as the chaff falls by the wayside. The pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The Church published the Catechism so that if such questions were to arise that the common Catholic will have an official source with which to appeal to for the truth.

 

[DD214]

I've been trying to find the source document, and interestingly it is not to be found online. I also learned that the reporter who wrote this article is notoriously anti-Christian and has written many smear pieces in the past. It is quite possible that this article is nothing more than an editorial that uses snippets of an innocuous document to paint a more sinister picture. I'll withhold my judgment until this mysterious document emerges.