The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[SioDenz]

---

In the above diagram we see that the Head is in heaven (Col. 3:1-2) and the Church is on the earth (John 17:15). Each member of the Church is related to the Head and to each other member. No one can become a member of Christ's Church unless they go through the cross (by faith.) When a person does this, God places them (baptizes them) into His body (see 1 Cor. 12:13).


In Christian theology, the Christian Church, or Church Universal, is traditionally divided into:

*the Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians on earth who are living; christian militia, who struggle against sin, devil and "..the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).

*the Church Triumphant (Ecclesia Triumphans), comprising those who are in Heaven, and

*the Church Suffering, a.k.a Church Padecent or Church Penitent (Ecclesia Penitens) or Church Expectant (Ecclesia Expectans), comprising those Christians presently in Purgatory.

These terms are often used in the context of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints; although Christians may be physically separated from each other by the barrier of death, they nonetheless remain united to each other in one Church, and support each other in prayer.

So Christianity is the 'Church' mentioned in the Bible? Not an institution but a fellowship of Believers whos headed by Jesus Christ.

[SioDenz]

religion nako catholic man jud pero dli ko mu basa ug bible or memorize ug prayer.... ang ako lang mangurus ug salig lang sa ginuo kung mu ad2 simbahan ug e sulti lang ang mga sala

pero ang nasabtan rajud nako sa tanan!!!


LIHOK PARA TABANGAN KA SA GINUO!!!!

unsa may purpose sa pagpanguros beh...

[hitch22]

In short, kining King James bible gikan diay kini sa Latin Vulgate sa mga katoliko.

I would have to say that this is an exaggeration and an oversimplification of a book that really has a complicated history behind it.

The King James Version of the Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, codified in the Middle Ages. The New Testament was primarily based on Greek texts predating the Latin Vulgate.

Regarding KJV's lifting from the Latin Vulgate,

F. H. A. Scrivener, however, notes many passages which correspond to the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek.

I would add that the Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh. That's about as much as anyone can say about the Latin Vulgate's influence on the King James Bible.

(source: King James Bible - Conservapedia)

The Latin Vulgate had a great influence in early Bible translations like the Gutenberg Bible and Wycliffe's. You have to remember that, when Bible translations were going on, these activities had to be carried out in secret, because the Roman Church was heavily against these activities. They were hell bent on being the sole possessor of the scriptures, and they persecuted and burned alive many Reformers who translated the Bible into their local tongues.

Beginning with the great scholar Desiderius Erasmus, however, translations moved away from the Vulgate. Erasmus thought that "Latin scholarship, however elaborate, was maimed and reduced by half without Greek." He actually said that the Vulgate was so corrupt, that he made a completely new translation based upon the Greek manuscripts. Erasmus' version had Greek text on the left-hand column and the Latin text on the right. And when people who could read Latin read Erasmus’ Latin texts and compared this with the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church, they saw that these didn't agree with each other in many places.

For instance, there’s a big difference between the word “Penance” and “Repentance”. Take Luke 13:3, for example. It had gotten translated into the Latin Vulgate as: “Except you do penance you shall all likewise perish”. Erasmus said “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish”. If you know the roots of the Reformation, you'll know the difference between repentance and doing penance. The Roman Church commercialized the notion of penance into the sale of Indulgences. This was one of the practices which Luther railed against, in his thesis.

If you asked a Protestant about the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, as I have occasioned to ask them once many years ago, the reply would invariably be this: A Protestant is just a Catholic who thinks that the church needs Reformation. And this is true. Most of the Reformers began as Catholic priests. Wycliffe was a Roman Catholic priest, so was William Tyndale and Jan Hus, John Knox (founder of the Presbyterian denomination), Huldrych Zwingli (leader of the Reformation in Switzerland), and most famously, Martin Luther.

The claim that the Catholic Church was always in the business of spreading the "Word" is not supported by the facts in history. They were the principal burners of Bible translators. They did all they could to stop the Reformers from bringing the Bible to the masses. To the Roman Church, their authority trumped everything else. Catherine of Siena captured this spirit in her quote (as cited in Apostolic Digest, Book V, The Book of Obedience):

Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest in his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ. We honor Christ if we honor the Pope.

To be fair to Catholics though, I would say I am impressed by Pope John Paul II's humility when he made that landmark millenium speech, acknowledging and apologizing for the "sins" of his church...which included the Crusades, Inquisition, the burning of Jan Hus, the persecution of Galileo, the silence during Hitler's Shoa, the forced conversion of indigenous peoples of South America, etc. In his tenure as the pope, JPII actually made about 90+ apologies.

[yanong_banikanhon]

they persecuted and burned alive many Reformers who translated the Bible into their local tongues.

Share your sources here or it didn't happen.

Let me share mine:

In the 8th and 9th centuries, ...translations were freely made into the vernacular languages, and, perhaps, read in churches.

src: Patrick F. O'Hare, The Facts About Luther, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, rev. ed., 1987 (orig. Cincinnati, 1916), pp.183,185

We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing . . .

src: E. v. Dobschutz, Deutsche Rundschau, 101, 1900, pp. 61ff.

We shall . . . refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof . . .

In the same (8th) century we have the copies of Eadhelm . . . of Guthlac, . . . and of Egbert . . . these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time.

src: Patrick F. O'Hare, The Facts About Luther, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, rev. ed., 1987 (orig. Cincinnati, 1916), pp.185,186

The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches [The time Luther broke away from the church] at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . .

src: Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., tr. A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 (orig. 1891), v. 1, pp. 56-57 and v. 14, p. 388

It would be to perpetuate a prejudice . . . founded on Luther's often false or at least exaggerated statements, were one to fail to recognise how widely the Bible was known even before Luther's day and to what extent it was studied among educated people. Modern research, not seldom carried out by open-minded Protestants, has furnished some surprising results in this respect.

src: Hartmann Grisar, Luther, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917, v. 5, p. 536

[yanong_banikanhon]

They were the principal burners of Bible translators. They did all they could to stop the Reformers from bringing the Bible to the masses.

Asa man lagi ang reliable source anang imong statement? Pila diay ka bible translators ang gisunog sa simbahang katoliko? Pwede nimo i-share ang ilang mga pangalan diri. Iapil pud og share ang imong source para atong ma-examine.

Gikan pa sa karaang panahon gi-encourage na sa simbahan ang katawhan pagbasa ug pagtuon sa balaang kasulatan.

St. John Chrysostom (344/354 - 407 AD)

To become adult Christians you must learn familiarity with the scriptures.

src: On the Letter to the Ephesians - Education of Children

Pope Gregory was literally BEGGING the religious to study the bible.

Pope St. Gregory I (604 AD)

The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.

src: Letters, 5, 46

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)

The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ.

src: Providentissimus Deus ( Nov. 18, 1893)

Third Council of Baltimore (7 December AD 1884)

It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures...

src: The Holy Bible, Holy Trinity Edition (Chicago: Catholic Press,1951) p.xxi.

Matud pa ni Pope Pius X (1903-1914 AD):

Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.

Ang leader mismo sa mga protestante (Martin Luther) ni-acknowledge nga kun dili pa tungod sa simbahang katoliko, dili wala'y kasayoran ang mga protestante bahin sa bibliya.

We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) -- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should know nothing at all about it.

src: Luther's Works, Vol. 24, Commentary on the Gospel of John, discussion on 16th chapter

[koralstratz]

Ngano ang Pari ra man muinom sa WINE... Dba tanan man ang nanginom sa WINE atong LAST SUPPER?

Not all the time bro that only the priest consumes the Altar wine....in fact more than once nakasulay nako ug ang akong pamilya nga nag kalawat mi unya gi patuslob sa pari ang Holy Bread (host) sa Holy Wine before namo gi consume.


But to answer your question as to WHY

It is not necessary that we receive Our Lord's body and blood under the appearances of both bread and wine. Christ is entirely present under the appearances of bread ALONE , and also entirely present under the appearances of wine ALONE. Therefore, we receive Him whole and entire under the appearances of either bread alone or of wine alone.

And for further explanation, kindly read this:

The Sacrament to be received under both kinds by the officiating priest only, and why

(excerpt from this link: The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist)


As to the rite to be observed in the administration of this Sacrament, the pastor will teach that the law of the Church interdicts its administration under both kinds to any but to the officiating priest, unless by special permission of the Church. Christ, it is true, as has been explained by the Council of Trent (Sess. 21, De Communione sub utraque specie, can. 1, 2, 3), instituted and administered to His Apostles, at His last supper, this great Sacrament under Both kinds; but it does not follow of necessity that by doing so He established a law rendering its administration to the faithful under both species imperative. Speaking of this Sacrament He Himself frequently mentions it under one kind only. " If," says He, "any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world," and "He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever (John vi. 52, 59)." The Church, no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent reasons, not only to approve, but to confirm by solemn decree the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid accident or indignity, which must become almost inevitable if the chalice were administered in a crowded assemblage.

In the next place, the Holy Eucharist should be at all times in readiness for the sick, and if the species of wine remained long unconsumed, it was to be feared that it might turn acid. Besides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine. Lest, therefore, what is intended for the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to the health of the body, the Church, in her wisdom, has sanctioned its administration under the species of bread alone. We may also observe that in many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be brought from distant countries without incurring very heavy expense and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally (a circumstance which principally influenced the Church in establishing this practice), means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. This object was attained by communion under the species of bread alone, which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes the truth of the Catholic faith. Those who have written expressly on this subject will, if it appear necessary, furnish the pastor with additional reasons for the practice of the Catholic Church in the administration of the Holy Eucharist.

[hitch22]

To my good friend, yanong:

Be honest now. You've lifted all those quotes from these Catholic websites:

thecatholicconvert.webs.com
Catholic Community Forum - The Catholic Community Forum
www.catholicfidelity.com
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INFORMATION
Defending the Bride
forums.catholic.com
More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism By Dave Armstrong

Of course, what can we expect?

Let me begin first with some facts in history. The invention of the Gutenberg Movable Type was in 1440 A.D. Prior to that, producing just one Bible took the average scribe several months to copy. Gutenberg's invention, however, enabled 200 or more copies to be printed in a single year. A lot of historians would point out that this invention was probably what fueled the Reformation.

Sure, there were earlier attempts to translate PARTS of the bible before the Reformation (like those you mentioned)...but they were mostly for missionaries' use...not for public self-reading nor for their shelves. Just remember when mass publication became more or less viable.

In the late 8th century Charlemagne commissions translation of parts of the Bible for the use of his missionaries in the drive to convert pagan Germans. In the 9th century the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius, sent from Constantinople to Moravia at royal request, translate the Gospels and parts of the Old Testament into Slavonic.

The intention of St Jerome, translating into Latin the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, was that ordinary Christians of the Roman empire should be able to read the word of God. 'Ignorance of the scriptures', he wrote, 'is ignorance of Christ'.

Gradually this perception is altered. After the collapse of the western empire, the people of Christian Europe speak varieties of German, French, Anglo-Saxon, Italian or Spanish. The text of Jerome's Vulgate is understood only by the learned, most of whom are priests. They prefer to corner the source of Christian truth, keeping for themselves the privilege of interpreting it for the people. Translation into vulgar tongues is discouraged.

John Wycliffe and his followers produced full English versions of the Old and New Testament in the late 14th century. At the same period the Czechs have their own vernacular Bible, subsequently much improved by John Huss.

Above selected quotes are taken from this source: HISTORY OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

So when you talk about translating the Bible for the masses, for their self-reading, I have to say that that started with the Reformers. And yes, Reformers who did these translations (or even possessed these translated Bibles) were burned alive...just look up William Tyndale, Kramner, Jan Hus...I mean, come on. Do you deny that the Roman Church didn't do these things? We can't be indulging in revisionist history here just because these things happened so deep in the past. Take a cue from Pope John Paul II who had the humility and maturity to acknowledge these "sins". In any case, as I am not a Protestant and am in no position to speak on behalf of Protestants, I'll leave it to Protestant Istoryans to confirm or deny what I've stated.

I shall leave you all to your own devices. Study the different sources (not just those that are from your religion), be cognizant of the temperament of the times and the technologies available, and try to make the most sense of it all. Don't take my word for it.

Peace.

[yanong_banikanhon]

To my good friend, yanong:

Be honest now. You've lifted all those quotes from these Catholic websites:

Of course, what can we expect?

Bay hitch22, sure you can find these quotes from the websites you've mentioned. Pero mas labaw ni nimong makit-an in printed form. Did you check the books and their corresponding authors nga na-mentioned sa akong previous post?

Sama ani:

We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) -- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should know nothing at all about it.

src: Luther's Works, Vol. 24, Commentary on the Gospel of John, discussion on 16th chapter

Are you telling me that Martin Luther's commentary on the Gospel of John was actually written by the catholic church just because you can see some of its text being quoted in some catholic websites?

[hitch22]

^^Of course, my friend. Martin Luther credited the Roman Church as the original custodian of those biblical manuscripts. No one denies that. What I'm talking about earlier was the Roman Church's opposition to mass translation and publication of the entire Bible during the Reformation.

[JENY198]

Question:

Unsay stand sa Roman Catholic church bahin sa sugal or pagsugal?

Thanks...