Hoddie

Then please show where 66 book Protestant Canon came from if not from the Catholic Church's original 72 Books? Who declared it? Who had the authority do do so? So far nobody as been able to do so on four threads,. could you? You mean spew out mis-conceptions and down-right lies of the Catholic Church with nothing to back it up.

Another impotent post..... nothing more.

Thank you for another impotent, fallible, and open for error personal opinion with nothing to back it up.

And there is no denying the "FACT" that is something you have failed to do! Lol! Who's truth..... Yours? Lol! you never cease to amaze me Erza. Your desperateness is truly showing by quoting the likes of Charles Chiniquy as truth. For those that didn't know, He has been a favorite source for anti-Catholics – throughout the 19th and 20th and now the Twenty First centuries – for his spiteful and entirely unfounded accusations against the Church. The basis for his anti-Catholicism stemmed from his own removal from Catholic ministry for inappropriate behavior. The facts are: Chiniquy was ordained a priest in 1839 in Quebec City and became known as a powerful orator and the so-called Canadian "Apostle of Temperance." In 1846, however, his scandalous and immoral activities led to his departure from Quebec, from the Oblate novitiate at Longueuil in 1847, and from the diocese of Montreal in 1851. The last removal stemmed from his improper relationships with women. He journeyed to Chicago and was so unwilling to curb his behavior and sexual indiscretions that he local bishop, Anthony O’Regan suspended him and, with regret, eventually excommunicated him for refusing to cease his behavior or desist in administering the sacraments. In 1859, he and 1,000 followers gathered at St. Anne, Illinois and became affiliated with the local Presbyterian Synod. In 1862, the Presbyterians also cast Chiniquy from their community – going so far as to defrock him – for conduct unbecoming a minister. He then went with his gullible followers to Canada. There he embarked upon a long career as a vicious anti-Catholic polemicist in order to gain favor with the various anti-Catholic Protestant groups in the country and as a means of explaining away his own excommunication. His writings are so blatantly untruthful that they are not worth critiquing. One other area of Chiniquy’s writing that is worth mentioning is his absurd effort to claim that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 by a conspiracy of the Jesuits. Such a notion, propagated by anti-Catholics even in to the 20th century, is completely unsupported by historical fact. Chiniquy claimed to be a close friend of Lincoln, using the one-time legal assistance given to him by the future president to claim that he had visited Lincoln during the civil war, in 1862 and 1864. Such visits were not noted in any of Lincoln’s papers, nor were they ever mentioned by Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. The story was also thoroughly rejected by Lincoln’s own son who attested to the fabrication by Chiniquy of quotes supposedly made by the resident relating to the Jesuits and a Catholic cabal. For useful reading, you might consult "The Lincoln Writings of Charles P.T. Chiniquy," by Joseph George Jr., in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Feb. 1976, vol. 69, pp. 17-25. The article documents Chiniquy’s lies and distortions. Given his lack of credibility on this major issue, one can easily see why his other anti-Catholic claims are considered so preposterous.

It seems too? So in other words..... you're not positive. Thanks for clearing that up. Besides woundeddog, you don't have much room to talk when it comes to traditions. As RealPresence and myself have proven over and over, your adhereant to sola scriptura is, ironically, a human tradition not found in Scripture, and it is a huge source of theological chaos and a doctrine not fully lived even by its adherents. Scripture is the written portion of the Church’s sacred Tradition. It cannot be separated from the whole of that Tradition and from the Catholic Church’s magisterial authority without distorting the very message God intends us to discover in it. And sola scriptura is only one of the many unbiblical man-made traditions (lower case t) that Protestant/non-Catholics embrace.... like The Sinner's Prayer, the Altar Call, using grape juice at communion service to name a few. If they are not found in Scripture, what do you consider them? Yes... Blessed among women. Scripture also says "from henceforth, 'all' generations shall call me Blessed." Lk.1:48. Do you? In St. John’s account of the Crucifixion, there is the following passage: "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home." (Jn. 19:26-27). The Church has traditionally understood this passage as creating a mother-son relationship between Mary and St. John. Further, the Church has understood St. John’s as representing all of Christ’s disciples, thus providing a biblical basis for Mary’s spiritual motherhood of the People of God. In Galatians 4:4-7, there is an unmistakable connection between the Son of God’s being "born of woman" and our becoming God’s children by adoption. Further, Scripture reveals Mary as having other children—those who keep God’s commandments (cf. Rev. 12:17; Lk. 8:31). Early in the life of the Church, Mary was given the title the "New Eve," because "the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith" (St. Irenaeus, as quoted in Lumen Gentium, no. 56). In other words, as Eve became the "mother of all the living" (Gen. 3:20) on a natural level, Mary became the mother of all the living (i.e., those alive in Christ) on a supernatural level, in the order of grace (cf. Catechism, no. 968). From heaven she still intercedes for us as our mother (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 62). Deacon Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Professor of Theology and Mariology at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio, offers a valuable explanation of this term: "The title, "Co-redemptrix," refers to Mary’s unique participation with and under her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the historic Redemption of humanity. The prefix, "Co," comes from the Latin "cum," which means "with." The title of Co-redemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity’ s Redemption. Rather, it denotes Mary’s singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work of Redemption for the human family. The Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work of her Savior Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity." Deacon Miravalle spells out precisely what Mary did alongside her dying Son. "Mary uniquely participated in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity (theologically referred to as "objective redemption"). Mary offered her Son and her maternal rights in relation to her Son to the Heavenly Father in perfect obedience to God’s will and in atonement for the sins of the world. Mary’s offering of her own Son on Calvary, along with her own motherly compassion, rights and suffering, offered in union with her Son for the salvation of the human family, merited more graces than any other created person. As Pope Pius XII confirmed in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, Mary "offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam." Despite her enormous grief as she watched her Son die, Our Lady generously "yielded" Jesus to the purpose the Father through the Holy Spirit intended, namely the reconciliation of the human race to its Creator. Although what Mary did on Calvary was secondary and subordinate to what Christ did, it was, nevertheless, necessary because God made it so. In His unparalleled wisdom, the Lord required this all-encompassing—and real—sacrifice from Mary, who said her fiat with incredible trust in God as she had at the Annunciation. Mary’s entire existence has been one of cooperation with the Lord. So it was on Calvary. She who was preserved by God from Original Sin at the moment of her conception and heard from the mouth of Simeon that "you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Lk.2:35) I'm an average Catholic, ask me if The Blessed Virgin Mary is an object of worship? Again you are incorrect. The Catholic Church has as its sole rule of faith, the entire Word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally…Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down…this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about "tradition":2 Thes 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to "stand firm and hold to". Sacred Scripture and 1 Cor 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 2 Tim 2:2: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition. 1 Thes 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers." So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In other words woundeddog, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Is that right? Do you not remember what you posted back on page 9 of this thread to Matrix? Here, I'll refresh your memory: "Hoddie has proven time and time agAin by many incredibly astute point that Tradition is equaL AND IN MANY CASES NEGATES ACTUAL SCRIPTURE." So, if you are not lying, show the post or posts where I stated Sacred Traditions "Negates Actual Scripture". If you cannot, are you willing to admit your error? (lie) How could the sin of Bearing False Witness be forgiven, if one won't even admit to it? To quote Jiminy Cricket..... "Always let your conscience be your guide." 　 　

How do you know I haven't, and how are you so sure that I know, that I most likely will not? I don't consider it a waste of time refuting the fallicies about Catholicism that are being posted and showing the truth and beauty of Christs Church, The Holy Catholic Church. Nope, I don't enjoy arguing anymore than seeing all the lies some people in this forum are spewing about Catholicism. And I feel it is my job to reveal these lies to the world.. Peace

Lol! Dude... you are too paranoid. Besides, even if RealPresence and I were one in the same (which we are not!) what concern would that be of yours anyhoo? Woundddog.... you crack me up sometimes! Lol! Peace

Please show where I posted Sacred Tradiion "in Many cases negates actual Scripture"? If you cannot, are you willing to admit this is a lie and apologize not only to me but the whole Worthy Christian forum?

Lol! Really man..... going down that dusty ol' road again. I wasen't aware Real Presence has the sole rights to that phrase! Lol!

And we keep telling you that the Bible did not drop down from Heaven ready-made, as you seem to imagine; it did not suddenly appear upon the earth, carried down from Almighty God by the hand of angel or seraph; but it was written by men like ourselves, who held in their hand pen (or reed) and ink and parchment, and laboriously traced every letter in the original languages of the East. They were divinely inspired certainly, as no others ever have been before or since; nevertheless they were human beings, men chosen by God for the work, making use of the human instruments that lay to their hand at the time. First off, claiming that the Catholic Church and her members put anything or anyone above God is a bald-face lie and I resent it! I would be very interested if the Moderators are going to let this insult against we Catholics and our faith go unchallenged, without any sort of repercussions. Steve_S? Secondly, for the record, and as early Church history reveals, we Catholics beleive that the Bible is God’s Word. That the Bible is composed of 46 books that were written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and 27 books written since that time, as defined by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. to form the canon of Scripture. We also beleive (and history affirms) that the New Testament came after the Church; that the Church did not come after the New Testament. That before a line of the New Testament was written:Christ established his Church; the Apostles preached Christ and Him crucified; St. Peter converted 3,000 Jews; the Council of Jerusalem assembled; the Jewish law was abrogated. That before the last Book of the New Testament was written the Catholic Church had celebrated her golden jubilee; the faith of Christ had been "proclaimed all over (the then known) world" (Rom. 1:8), and eleven of the twelve Apostles had died. Early Church history also affirms that as late as the end of the second century, many churches, composed of believers in the doctrines of the Apostles, did not know of all the New Testament books. That is why St. Irenaeus, martyr, Father of the Church, disciple of St. John the Divine, could say, "If the Apostles had not left us any writings, would it not have been our duty to be guided by the rule of that tradition which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted the churches? A rule asserted by many of the barbarous nations believing in Christ, who, not possessing any written language, have the words of salvation written without paper and ink, in the hearts by the Spirit, and carefully preserve the ancient doctrines delivered to them." (Adv. Heresies, lib. iii, c. 4.). And that the authority for the inspiration, and interpretation, of the books in the Bible rests upon the living testimony of the maker of the Bible, Christ’s Church. The Holy Catholic Church! Thats right! And who were these men? They surely couldn't have been Protestant since history shows that Protestantism didn't exsist until the 16th century. So you need to ask yourself Matrix, who were these men if they were not Protestant? The only conclusion can be that they were Catholic! Which brings up the topic of this thread.... The Canon! Again history proves the Canon recognized by the Catholic Church for the past fifteen plus centuries (73 books) was specified in the Council of Laodicea in 367 A.D., and was definitely adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after being sent to the Pope for confirmation.While some of the books ratified by the Council of Carthage had always been considered to be canonical, others had been disputed. Finally at this Council a union of minds was reached as to the canonicity of the whole 73 books and epistles. History alsoshows in the 16th century Martin Luther greatly stirred the religious world, by dubbing as apocrypha certain books that were unquestioned for fifteen centuries. He declared the Epistle of St. James to be an "Epistle of straw"; threw "Esther" into the Elbe; called "Judith" a mere poem; "Tobias" a farce; and expressed regret that the "second Book of Machabees" was ever written. The Council of Trent (1546) therefore deemed it expedient to declare, ex-cathedra, that is by the infallible authority of the Church, that the list of books adopted at the Council of Carthage is the authoritative, the finally determined, collection of writings composed under Divine inspiration. Peace and a Blessed New Year to you Matrix. 　 　

You mean the original 72 books, before Martin Luther removed seven books because they didn't agree with his particular theology. These deuterocanonical books were accepted as Sacred Scripture until Luther removed them as he removed the letter of James for James II:24 "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."(the only place in the bible outside, of Luther's personal version, that the term faith alone appears) Hmmmm.... why does the image of an Ostrich come to mind? Unlike most Protestant and non-Catholics within this forum, it is not my job to try and convert anyone to Catholicism. My job here is to correct the lies and mis-conceptions of Catholicism that many post. However, if showing the truth and beauty of the church Jesus Christ founded, The Holy Catholic Church brings one person to to her, all the better. And miss all the fun debunking the lies that are being strewn about like candy to kids at the Rose Bowl Parade? You'd like that wouldn't you. Sorry.... no can do! A Happy and Blessed New Year to you aswell woundeddog! Peace be with you

Lol! Your facts? You mean Carm.org and Matt Slick's anti-Catholic fallible facts don't you?

Thats ridiculous....... Just as a stream can never be higher than it's source, a creation can never be greater than it's creator. Sheesh! It is obvious you have fallen prey for purveyors of fanciful "histories" by likes of Jack T. Chick, Dave Hunt, John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, and James McCarthy that claim to account for the origin and advance of Catholicism. As far as your false claim of adopting pagan rituals and teachings.... History does not agree with you. For example.....Augustine wrote the The City of God in 413-426 AD. Augustine answers the pagans, who attributed the fall of Rome (410) to the abolition of pagan worship. If pagans were angry that Catholicism abolished pagan worship it's hard to imagine that the Church adopted paganism. History doesn't seem to be your friend Matrix. So..... your feeble attempt to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. For you to make a charge of paganism stick, you must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. You must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item. Something you (or anyone else for that matter) have failed at miserably. Sorry. Sure you want to go there? How about I bring up the first Protestants, who tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics? Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. The fact remains Matrix, that your Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect. In other words......People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Thats not what the bible say's. Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15). As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). Peace

Oh I think I/we (RealPreasence) have repeatedly., you just keep side-stepping it. So once again Matrix.... WHERE did the Protestant Canon of Scripture come from - if NOT from the Canon declared by the Catholic church in the 4th century?

And so does the Catholic Church, the most charitable Christian organisation on earth. If you don't beleive me... google it!

Lol!!! Really.... Carm.org???? and well worth the reading? your kidding right? Matt Slick is as much anti-Catholic as David Duke is anti- African American! You gotta do better that that Matrix ! sheesh! I tell ya man.... some people!

In other words, you can't or won't. As far as who cares goes? you should care! Peace

And with all respects, where did you get the authority to "set the record straight"? Thank you. I disagree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is fallible. It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed (a) that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society; (b) that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them; (c) that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; (d) and that in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy—and on them exclusively—the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed. And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority. It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent, indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility. As for your statemnet that the bible is infallible, yes. However...If God was capable of using thousands of sinners to infallibly communicate infallible truth, then, so that the Church could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ himself and all the teachings, if God could do it then, with fallible sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn't He still do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible." Then you should have no problem proving this with historical documentation as I did with the historical writings of the Early Church Fathers proving otherwise. I would wish you'd wait until you showed scriptural or historical documentation to prove your claims. Peace

Until someone has the courage to answer. And who cares? you should. Because it is a major part of Christianity's history. And what? So are you ready to admit that the Protestant Canon of Scripture came the Canon declared by the Catholic Church in the forth century? If not, where did it come from, and from who? Because I want you to know the truth. Dosen't it matter to you knowing where you received the Canon of Scripture that you hold so dear? As for your question where did these traditions come from if not from Ancient Babylon and paganism? It's very simple Kwik, Sacred Traditions came from Jesus and His Disciples. Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to His Apostles, who handed down to their disciples (The early Church Fathers) who in turn handed it down to the next generation, then to the next generation, then the next, and then eventually to us. As you well know, many of you non-Catholics keep insisting that Scripture alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith, and no one as of yet has shown one passage in the Bible that makes this claim. And we Catholics have repeatly insisted thats not the case according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, (lower case t) the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we "command you", brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). To make sure Kwik that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show. Papias: "Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]). Eusebius of Caesarea: "At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21). Irenaeus: "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]). "That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1). Clement of Alexandria: "Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]). Origen: "Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]). Just to name a few Kwik. History is what it is, you just cannot deny it. What it seems however, is that many within this forum think Christianity didn't exsist until the reformation in the 16th century which is completly false. Another thing many dont seem to understand, is that for the first 400 years of Christianity there was "no" New Testament to fall back on. All the Apostles and disciples taught orally for them first 400 years. One might say "didn't Peter John,Luke,and Paul, ect. writhe everything down in their epistles and gospels?" The answer to that is, yes they did, but none of it was widely available to their separated disciples by geographics, and it wasen't part of the Bible until the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage put the 27 books of the N.T. together on 382 a.d., 393a.d., and 397a.d. At that time, it took on the mantel of infallible scripture with the O.T. Whats really interesting, is that you Erza, Haz, woundeddog, and non-Catholics in gerneral accept this Catholic "Tradition" of these 27 books of the Bible being divinely inspired! And if you think about it, all those non-Catholics I mentioned above also accept the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday. Peace Sorry..... I couldn't disagree more.

RealPresence may have been banned from this thread, but I have not. Sooo.... to echo what RealPresence and I have been asking over and over, and with a bit of editing to appease the moderators....Our (RealPresence and I ) questions to Protestants thus far on this forum has been: Where the the 66 Book Protestant Canon come from if NOT from the Catholic Church original 72 Book Canon? WHO declared it? WHO had the authority to do so? So far - nobody has been able to answer this on FOUR threads now. Two of the threads have been closed and we have been thrown off of two other threads and have been given warning points. Instead of doing a little research and answering the question - the response has been to simply report us to the Mods to have us thrown off. As a matter of fact - entire threads have been closed because of this question. This speaks VOLUMES of many on this forum. This should shake every Protestant on this forum to their very foundation. If you don't know WHERE you got your Bible - how can you possible know that it is your SOLE rule of faith? 　 Peace

Your desperateness is really startng to show Haz..... if it wasn't so sad, it would almost be funny. I will continue to keep you in my prayers. I hope and pray you find peace

Really woundeddog.... I thought you were smarter than that... falling for Haz's anti-Catholic drivel? And if you are comparing the Blessed Virgin Mary (Lk.1:48) with some demonic goddess, how do plan on explaing that one to Jesus? If this is the case, I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes when that time comes. You might want to seek forgivness for dis-respecting His Mother if it is.. Peace

Could you please elaborate? You are mistaken, I have as of yet seen where anybody (in this or any other forum) has shown "over and over" that the Roman Catholic Rite or any other Rites of the Catholic Church's teachings that are "anti-bible." Besides, how could the Catholic Church be anti-bible when it was the Catholic Church that compiled it? Your statement makes no sence whatsoever! I'll tell whats anti-bible........ the unbiblical doctrine of the Bible Alone. (sola scriptura) 　 Say's who? So is this your fallible or infallible opinion? 　 Peace

Just more anti-Catholic drivel Haz. I won't even quote the post to spare everyones intelligence. Like I said before Haz, your creditalibilty is squat!

Thank you for your fallible and open for error personal opinion Erza. In other words.... you got nothing...... your stumped! 　 Peace