Was Bible possesion banned by the Catholic Church?

[37818]

Since you refuse to study history - name ONE SINGLE person "Rome" has killed.
This should be easy for you . . .

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius in fact made mention of anabaptists were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment.

The actual quote:
Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur.
(The letters of Cardinal (Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

 

[Adonia]

Are the teachings of the New Testament (New Covvenant) Protestant?

No. They are Christian.

 

[Adonia]

Not trying to prolong an argument

Good. We can agree to disagree on this issue, and the disagreement is a minor one to be sure. God bless.

 

[Adonia]

"Roman" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite.

First brought up as a pejorative I believe by our separated brethren. I really like the term "Latin Rite" myself.

 

[MarysSon]

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius in fact made mention of anabaptists were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment.

The actual quote:
Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur.
(The letters of Cardinal (Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

And he was entitled to his opinion - but that doesn't substantiate the myth that anybody was put to death by "Rome" . . .

 

[37818]

The Catholic Church is comprised of some TWENTY Liturgical Rites that are in full communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome - the Pope.

Seriously, how is Bishop of Rome - the Pope make the case of what you accept as the Catholic Chrurch to be a New Testament church? There are too many "pot holes," issues of interpretations. Many. And one thing you have right, the killing of Christian believers who had Scriptures not apporoved by the standing church-state goverments - there has been here a "deafening silence" in giving historical examples.

 

[MarysSon]

Seriously, how is Bishop of Rome - the Pope make the case of what you accept as the Catholic Chrurch to be a New Testament church? There are too many "pot holes," issues of interpretations. Many. And one thing you have right, the killing of Christian believers who had Scriptures not apporoved by the standing church-state goverments - there has been here a "deafening silence" in giving historical examples.

The Catholic Church isn't "A" New Testament church. Christ built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18).
The "churches" spoken of in Corinth and Ephesus and Pamphylia, et al - are ALL the same ONE Church in different locations.

Through Scripture and historical documentation, we discover that this ONE Church is the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church that experienced the East-West split in the 11th century and the same Catholic Church that exists today.

As to the actions of SOME within the Church that were NOT Christlike examples - this has existed from the beginning - starting with Judas. Christ warned (Matt. 7:15) - as did Paul (Rom. 16:17-19( - that there would be bad people within the Church that would lead others astray. This does NOT nullify the entire Church. Besides there have been plenty of representatives who have apologized for the sins of others in Church history.

Christ guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL truth and that even the gates of HELL wouldn't prevail against it.
Those promises were completely disregarded during the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

 

[37818]

The Catholic Church isn't "A" New Testament church. Christ built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18).
The "churches" spoken of in Corinth and Ephesus and Pamphylia, et al - are ALL the same ONE Church in different locations.

Through Scripture and historical documentation, we discover that this ONE Church is the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church that experienced the East-West split in the 11th century and the same Catholic Church that exists today.

As to the actions of SOME within the Church that were NOT Christlike examples - this has existed from the beginning - starting with Judas. Christ warned (Matt. 7:15) - as did Paul (Rom. 16:17-19( - that there would be bad people within the Church that would lead others astray. This does NOT nullify the entire Church. Besides there have been plenty of representatives who have apologized for the sins of others in Church history.

Christ guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL truth and that even the gates of HELL wouldn't prevail against it.
Those promises were completely disregarded during the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

This "Revolt" is because the Catholic Church is not a New Testament church. The New Testament is the word of God to His people handed down to them. And His people are His because they believe in God's Christ, 1 John 5:1.

 

[MarysSon]

This "Revolt" is because the Catholic Church is not a New Testament church. The New Testament is the word of God to His people handed down to them. And His people are His because they believe in God's Christ, 1 John 5:1.

So - the New Testament is a Book? Rather, a collection of Books??

OR, is the Word of God handed down in the written and oral form?

 

[Walpole]

This "Revolt" is because the Catholic Church is not a New Testament church. The New Testament is the word of God to His people handed down to them. And His people are His because they believe in God's Christ, 1 John 5:1.

The New Testament (Covenant) was instituted by Jesus Christ in the Upper Room...

Matthew 26:26-28 ---> "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"


Mark 14:22-24 ---> "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'"


Luke 22:19-22 ---> "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'"


Here is Paul quoting Jesus in 1 Cor 11;23-25 ---> "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'”


The reason why the collection of books in the New Testament is called the “New Testament” is because those writings, along with commemorations of the saints and martyrs, were read when Christians gathered to celebrate the “New Testament”, that is, the Eucharist.


If you have no Eucharist, you have no Church because the Church cannot exist without the Eucharist; nor can the Eucharist exist without the Church. Thus when you reject not only the reality of the Eucharist, which God's presence among His people - Emmanuel, you also reject the reality of the Church and replace it with an "invisible, pneumatic" sect of disjointed believers of various and differing creeds.

No Eucharist = No Church

 

[37818]

So - the New Testament is a Book? Rather, a collection of Books??

OR, is the Word of God handed down in the written and oral form?

The New Tesrament is a collection of books and letters, and are the sole Apostalic writings and authority of and for God's people who are His one church. Either one believes in God's Christ, 1John 5:1, or one believes in a false Christ, 1 John 2:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.

Any oral traditions, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, were given then by the living Apostles.

 

[MarysSon]

The New Tesrament is a collection of books and letters, and are the sole Apostalic writings and authority of and for God's people who are His one church. Either one believes in God's Christ, 1John 5:1, or one believes in a false Christ, 1 John 2:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.

Any oral traditions, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, were given then by the living Apostles.

Wrong.

Sola Scriptura is a man-made, 16th century invention. It is NOT taught in Scripture itself - nor was it ever taught by or believed by the historic Christian Church. In short - it is Scripturally and historically untenable.

That being said - Scripture itself places the Church as the final earthly Authority - and NOT Scripture (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).
2 Thess. 2:15 puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture - and NOT just for the Apostles. there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.

So, either one believes in Christ an the Supreme Authority He gave His Church, which He compares to His very SELF (Acts 9:4-5) - or one rejects that Church and by default, rejects Him and the One who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

 

[Yeshua1]

The New Tesrament is a collection of books and letters, and are the sole Apostalic writings and authority of and for God's people who are His one church. Either one believes in God's Christ, 1John 5:1, or one believes in a false Christ, 1 John 2:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.

Any oral traditions, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, were given then by the living Apostles.

That woukld be the ONLY reason why oral traditions would be acceptable, as Inspired Apostles recorded them down to us, but when canon closed off, no more of that allowed!

 

[MarysSon]

That woukld be the ONLY reason why oral traditions would be acceptable, as Inspired Apostles recorded them down to us, but when canon closed off, no more of that allowed!

Really?

Ummmmm, can you show me where the Bible gives an expiration date for 2 Thess. 2:15??
I must have missed that.

Also - can you tell me WHO declared that the Canon of Scripture was closed - and when?
WHO had the earthly Authority to make such a declaration on behalf of the Holy Spirit??

 

[37818]

The New Testament (Covenant) was instituted by Jesus Christ in the Upper Room...

Matthew 26:26-28 ---> "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"


Mark 14:22-24 ---> "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'"


Luke 22:19-22 ---> "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'"


Here is Paul quoting Jesus in 1 Cor 11;23-25 ---> "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'”


The reason why the collection of books in the New Testament is called the “New Testament” is because those writings, along with commemorations of the saints and martyrs, were read when Christians gathered to celebrate the “New Testament”, that is, the Eucharist.


If you have no Eucharist, you have no Church because the Church cannot exist without the Eucharist; nor can the Eucharist exist without the Church. Thus when you reject not only the reality of the Eucharist, which God's presence among His people - Emmanuel, you also reject the reality of the Church and replace it with an "invisible, pneumatic" sect of disjointed believers of various and differing creeds.

No Eucharist = No Church

"No Eucharist = No Church" is not true. The reaching of the immersions began with John the Immersionist, Luke 3:16-17. Jesus told Peter and His disciples how He was building His church, Matthew 16:17-18 and John 6:44-45. The rememberance was of what was to be done on the cross, that was the gospel of the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Romans 1:16, John 3:16.

 

[37818]

Wrong.

Sola Scriptura is a man-made, 16th century invention. It is NOT taught in Scripture itself - nor was it ever taught by or believed by the historic Christian Church. In short - it is Scripturally and historically untenable.

That being said - Scripture itself places the Church as the final earthly Authority - and NOT Scripture (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).
2 Thess. 2:15 puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture - and NOT just for the Apostles. there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.

So, either one believes in Christ an the Supreme Authority He gave His Church, which He compares to His very SELF (Acts 9:4-5) - or one rejects that Church and by default, rejects Him and the One who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

There is absolutly no Apostolic authority outside of the New Testament. There is none.

 

[MarysSon]

"No Eucharist = No Church" is not true. The reaching of the immersions began with John the Immersionist, Luke 3:16-17. Jesus told Peter and His disciples how He was building His church, Matthew 16:17-18 and John 6:44-45. The rememberance was of what was to be done on the cross, that was the gospel of the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Romans 1:16, John 3:16.

Wrong.

The Eucharist is at the center of the Christian faith:
1 Cor. 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

This corresponds with the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, where Jesus was emphatic about the fact that we must eat His FLESH and drink His BLOOD in order to have life with us (John 6:53). Interestingly - He doesn't use the usual word for human eating (Phago). He uses the word for the way an animal gnaws and rips apart his food (Trogo). He uses this hyperbole in order to make His point that His flesh is TRUE FOOD and His blood is TRUE DRINK (John 6:55).

Just as the Jews were required to consume the Passover Lamb - it is also true for Christians that we must consume the Lamb of GOD. This is why we read people like 1st century Bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius who wrote:
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

This was the UNANIMOUS belief and teaching of the Early Church. Not "most" believed it - but ALL believed it.
It didn't change until the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century . . .

 

[MarysSon]

There is absolutly no Apostolic authority outside of the New Testament. There is none.

Wrong again.
The Bible itself attests to Apostolic Succession.

In Acts 1:20, we read of the Apostles gathering to choose a successor for Judas. When Peter speaks - he quotes Psalm 109 when he says:
"Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" - which means "Bishopric".
As I stated earlier - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 - NOR is there one on John 16:12-15, where Jesus guarantees the leaders of his Church that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL Truth.

In other Letters, Paul makes a further case for Apostolic Succession (2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).
In short - Apostolic Authority rests with the OFFICE of Apostle, which is that of BISHOP.

 

[37818]

Wrong.

Sola Scriptura is a man-made, 16th century invention. It is NOT taught in Scripture itself - nor was it ever taught by or believed by the historic Christian Church. In short - it is Scripturally and historically untenable.

That being said - Scripture itself places the Church as the final earthly Authority - and NOT Scripture (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).
2 Thess. 2:15 puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture - and NOT just for the Apostles. there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.

So, either one believes in Christ an the Supreme Authority He gave His Church, which He compares to His very SELF (Acts 9:4-5) - or one rejects that Church and by default, rejects Him and the One who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

That the New Testament (those 27 books) are the sole Apostolic authority for Christianity are in evidence.

 

[37818]

Wrong again.
The Bible itself attests to Apostolic Succession.

In Acts 1:20, we read of the Apostles gathering to choose a successor for Judas. When Peter speaks - he quotes Psalm 109 when he says:
"Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" - which means "Bishopric".
As I stated earlier - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 - NOR is there one on John 16:12-15, where Jesus guarantees the leaders of his Church that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL Truth.

In other Letters, Paul makes a further case for Apostolic Succession (2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).
In short - Apostolic Authority rests with the OFFICE of Apostle, which is that of BISHOP.

The New Testament is the sole Apostlic succession of any kind.