The C0uncil 0f Trent

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

34 minutes ago, fixerupper said:

I didn't say the Catholic church adopt anything.  I said the Protestants adopted Catholic doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd-3rd century.  Trinitaeianism is a Catholic doctrine they persecuted people for back then.  Today, many Protestants condemn those who are non trinitarian.

sorry I misunderstood

[brakelite]

On 21/06/2017 at 0:52 AM, inchrist said:

On 20/06/2017 at 11:08 AM, brakelite said:

"At his weekly general audience June 25, Pope Francis continued his series of audience talks about the church, telling an estimated 33,000 people that there is no such thing as 'do-it-yourself' Christians or 'free agents' when it comes to faith ... Pope Francis described as 'dangerous' the temptation to believe that one can have a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church."

"These are dangerous and harmful temptations. These are, as the great Paul VI said, absurd dichotomies." 

And what exactly is unbiblical here?

inchrist, I have already quoted scripture that plainly and clearly states that there is only one Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. Not any church...not Mary or the saints....not any priesthood...not even the pope. Jesus is the sole and only Mediator appointed by God to mediate between Himself and mankind. Any interposing themselves between man and Jesus is replacing Jesus with something or someone else, and that is Antichrist. (See 500 and 473 in Strong's concordance).

That said, I am not suggesting that fellowship with like-minded Christians is unimportant. That is not what this is about, and you know that don't you. Your bluster and obfuscation doesn't hide the fact that the Catholic Church hierarchy demands its church members to be obedient, loyal, and faithful to all church ordinances, sacraments, rites and rituals, because they claim that without them there is no salvation. The Protestant reformers were absolutely correct when teaching sola Christus...Christ alone. No man should allow another man to act as any sort of mediatorial agent between himself and his Savior.

[brakelite]

On 21/06/2017 at 1:08 AM, inchrist said:

 

So this isnt scriptual according to you the council of trent definds idoltary as follows?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)  "by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them" (374). 

 

The Catechism, in places , may reflect some truths of scripture. That does not make it scripture...it doesn't even necessarily make it scriptural, as there are far too many statements that contradict scripture, making the whole extremely debatable. Take the above quoted statement for example, "by worshipping idols and images as God"....I would suggest that while that is correct, one needn't consider the object of worship as actually being God in order for such an act to be idolatry. One may not consider his favorite sport as a god, yet if following that sport is your whole aim in life and your life is so caught up in that sport as to make it your life's priority, then it has become an idol. It is the same with many Catholics in their reverence for Mary and/or saints. They spend more time, more dedicatory commitment, to Mary than they do for Jesus. That is idolatry.

 

[brakelite]

On 21/06/2017 at 1:10 AM, inchrist said:

On 20/06/2017 at 0:42 PM, brakelite said:

 when the church of Rome literally banned the Bible, and persecuted all those who had one, killing those who would dare translate one, because it exposed the false teachings of Rome.

Is there no end to you making things up?

Are you serious?

Read section four of the syllabus of errors, where it is declared as dogma that to believe a Bible society is not a pest in the same vein as communism and secret societies is error.

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal” (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).

(2) The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). This council ordered that the bishops should appoint in each parish “one priest and two or three laics, who should engage upon oath to make a rigorous search after all heretics and their abettors, and for this purpose should visit every house from the garret to the cellar, together with all subterraneous places where they might conceal themselves” (Thomas M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, 1856, p. 82). They also searched for the illegal Bibles.

(3) The Council of Tarragona (1234) “ORDERED ALL VERNACULAR VERSIONS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BISHOP TO BE BURNED” (Paris Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 1929, 162).

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS” (M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand: “WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial” (John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible: “This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue” (Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45).

(6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. “THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year” (Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages).

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

Following is a quote from Trent: “…IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO PRINT OR TO HAVE PRINTED ANY BOOKS WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH SACRED DOCTRINAL MATTERS WITHOUT THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, OR IN THE FUTURE TO SELL THEM, OR EVEN TO HAVE THEM IN POSSESSION, UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY, UNDER PENALTY OF ANATHEMA AND FINE prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran” (Fourth session, April 8, 1546, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder, pp. 17-19).

These rules were affixed to the Index of Prohibited Books and were constantly reaffirmed by popes in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. These prohibitions, in fact, have never been rescinded. It is true that the Council of Trent did not absolutely forbid the reading of the Scriptures under all circumstances. It allowed a few exceptions. The priests were allowed to read the Latin Bible. Bishops and inquisitors were allowed to grant license for certain faithful Catholics to read the Scriptures in Latin as long as these Scriptures were accompanied by Catholic notes and if it was believed that these would not be “harmed” by such reading. In practice, though, the proclamations of Trent forbade the reading of the Holy Scriptures to at least nine-tenths of the people. Rome’s claim to possess authority to determine who can and cannot translate, publish, and read the Bible is one of the most blasphemous claims ever made under this sun.

The attitude of 16th century Catholic authorities toward the Bible was evident from a speech Richard Du Mans delivered at Trent, in which he said “that the Scriptures had become useless, since the schoolmen had established the truth of all doctrines; and though they were formerly read in the church, for the instruction of the people, and still read in the service, yet they ought not to be made a study, because the Lutherans only gained those who read them” (William M’Gavin, The Protestant, 1846, p. 144). It is true that the Bible leads men away from Roman Catholicism, but this is only because Roman Catholicism is not founded upon the Word of God!

Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) confirmed the Council of Trent’s proclamations against Bible translations (Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, p. 112) and went even further by forbidding licenses to be granted for the reading of the Bible under any conditions (Richard Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 1924, p. 91).

(8) The restrictions against ownership of the vernacular Scriptures were repeated by the popes until the end of the 19th century:

Benedict XIV (1740-1758) confirmed the Council of Trent’s proclamations against Bible translations (Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, p. 112) and issued an injunction “that no versions whatever should be suffered to be read but those which should be approved of by the Holy See, accompanied by notes derived from the writings of the Holy Fathers, or other learned and Catholic authors” (D.B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, p. 479).

It was during the reign of Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) that the modern Bible society movement began. The British and Foreign Bible Society was formed in March 1804, the purpose being “to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment.” Other societies were soon created for the same exalted purpose. Germany (1804); Ireland (1806); Canada (1807); Edinburgh (1809); Hungary (1811); Finland, Glasgow, Zurich, Prussia (1812); Russia (1813); Denmark and Sweden (1814); Netherlands, Iceland (1815); America, Norway, and Waldensian (1816); Australia, Malta, Paris (1817); etc. One of the societies began distributing a Polish Bible in Poland. The Pope, instead of praising the Lord that the eternal Word of God was being placed into the hands of the multitudes of spiritually needy people, showed his displeasure by issuing a bull against Bible Societies on June 29, 1816. The Pope expressed himself as “shocked” by the circulation of the Scriptures in the Polish tongue. He characterized this practice as a “most crafty device, by which the very foundations of religion are undermined,” “a pestilence,” which he must “remedy and abolish,” “a defilement of the faith, eminently dangerous to souls.” Pope Pius VII also rebuked Archbishop Buhusz of Mohiley in Russia because of his endorsement of a newly formed Bible society (Kenneth Latourette, The Nineteenth Century in Europe, p. 448). The papal brief, dated September 3, 1816, declared that “if the Sacred Scriptures were allowed in the vulgar tongue everywhere without discrimination, more detriment than benefit would arise” (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Versions Compared, p. 236).

While taking a look at the syllabus of errors, read through numbers 19 to 38 on what is considered 'errors'. For example, 24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

[brakelite]

18 hours ago, inchrist said:

What to fabricate history? Is that the way now? I truly detest double standards

No pope bishop or proests executed anyone. Executions were done by the state for heretics like your protestant states

Protestant executions of heretics

In December 1527, Felix Manz, Jacob Falk, and Henry Reiman were put to death by drowning. The council had decreed, Qui mersus fuerit mergatur, or “He who immerses shall be immersed.” The Protestant leader Gastins wrote, “They like immersion, so let us immerse them” (De Anabaptiami, 8. Basite, 1544, cited by Christian). The Baptists were delivered to the executioner, who bound their hands, placed them in a boat and threw them into the water. Some Protestants mockingly called this the “third baptism.”

........................

BALTHASAR HUBMAIER. executed by protestant authorities as a heretic

On March 10, 1528, in Vienna, he was burned to death at the stake, and he died in the faith that he preached. His faithful Christian wife was drowned eight days later.

....................................

Hugh Latimer was another of the famous Protestant reformers who supported the persecution and burning of Baptists during the reign of Edward.

.................................

 

Luther, Calvin, and most other reformers, were all brought up by, raised, and educated in Catholic schools, and universities, and graduated from Catholic seminaries. They became priests, observed the corruptions and hypocrisy in the church, but did not seek to begin new churches, but simply to 'reform' that church they knew and loved. That their leaders refused, was not the reformers' fault, nor was it because they taught heresy. The reason for the reformation was because Catholic prelates, priests, bishops, and rulers of the church refused to repent of their sins an hypocrisies.

Then the Lutherans persecuted the Calvinists. The Calvinists persecuted the Presbyterians. And so it continued until it was realized that all must be granted religious liberty...that is the freedom to make mistakes and practice their religion according to conscience, without fear of persecution. Being brought up and raised and taught Catholic ways, it took a while for Protestants to realize that even persecution for observing religious practice other than orthodox, was itself wrong. The age old practice by Catholicism to force people to submit to Roman dogma WAS ERROR, despite the arrogant pontifications by a variety of popes defending their right to enforce religious teachings on the general population, even that as late as the 19th century. And I haven't seen any official church council yet declare otherwise, until Vatican 2, which declarations on religious freedom were very much a surrender to demands from US bishops....not because the curia had a change of heart.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 hours ago, inchrist said:

Did I give you the impression that I wasnt?

 

Firstly you get all your resources from protestants....biased much with your evidence at all? 

 

All your nonsense is a copy and paste rehashed attack from this anti catholic website https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/romes_persecution_of_bible.html

 

Secondly it seems abit much for it to dawn on you to actually do your own research on true history but rather regurgitate someones anti catholic hatred and agenda.

 

Where is your sense of seeking unbiased truth? 

 

Where is your sense of not bearing false witness? 

 

Are these not important principles for you? 

 

Yet its just easy to copy and paste without having a single thought of your own, given historical context

 

Pope Innocent III issued a law  

 

Even though you or the author of the website you copied this from can not provide the actual original source, never the less  if someone who had only had two semesters of Greek attempted to translate the Bible, would you believe their Bible worthy of reading? 

 

 

 

 

Same historical context as The Council of Tarragona 

 

This was due to combat the heresy of Albigenses. 

 

Would you encourage people to read the JW version of the bible? Would you authorize a JW bible?

 

If no, then you are clearly entitled to an opinion what can be authorized and what can't but the Catholics arnt?

 

 

WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE,

 

Surely at some point common sense must prevail

 

No one can take it upon themselves to simply translate the Bible and then twist it to their liking and then expect ANY church to accept it without question?

 

 

 

 

Another false nonsense

 

There has been various catholic spanish translations the first was in Pre-Alfonsine version, which led to the Alfonsine version for the court of Alfonso X (ca. 1280).

 

German translation commissioned by the holy roman emperor King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia

Wenceslas Bible, a German translation from 1389 

 

King alfred the great a catholic commission the anglo saxon version

you are a great witness to your fathers faith, it is saddening that peoples bias guides their intellect.

I often say (here and in my everyday life) "I don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches because they say I have to, I believe what they teach because I've researched their claims and those claims that challenge theirs. And I have not found any claim against the Church to be true and I have not found a claim of the Church to be false"

When even I check a claim I use 3 sources, Catholic, Protestant and when possible a secular. This is how you combat a bias, not by copying and pasting from a source that is not only bias but often hostile.

Lets take a look at gotquestions, its a site that is often copied and pasted here. Let check their credibility, the first paragraph is from an article called "What is paradise? Is it different than Heaven?" and the second is from an article called "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?" Both quote Luke 23:43 and the conversation between Jesus and the thief on the cross. In one article it says "paradise" is another word for heaven and in the other article is says "paradise" is Abraham bosom. Surely Protestants don't believe that Abraham bosom is heaven. Scripture doesn't call Abraham's bosom heaven, it makes a clear distinction between the two (1 Peter 3:19-22).

Got Question credibility Check
 
When Jesus was dying on the cross and one of the thieves being crucified with Him asked Him for mercy, Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus knew that His death was imminent and that He would soon be in heaven with His Father. Therefore, Jesus used “paradise” as a synonym for “heaven.
 
https://www.gotquestions.org/paradise.html
 
Sheol/hades was a realm with two divisions—a place of blessing and a place of judgment (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27–31). The abodes of the saved and the lost are both generally called “hades” in the Bible. The abode of the saved is also called “Abraham’s bosom” (KJV) or “Abraham’s side” (NIV) in Luke 16:22 and “paradise” in Luke 23:43.
 
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html
 

In the purgatory thread I asked the OP what paradise was and a page or more of back and forth he refused to answer the question. Why, well I can't read his mind but if I had to wager a guess I would say that he was using the verse to prove that after death you go straight to heaven and there is no intermediate step. And by admitting the truth of that scripture verse would discredit his attack on Church teaching because that verse actually shows the opposite, the thief went to hades, Abraham's bosom, paradise BEFORE going to heaven.

In another thread a member tried saying that one of the criteria for canonization is that your body had to be incorruptible after death, and to back this up she used a True or False question off and RCIA quiz found on a parish website. For her that proves Church teaching. This is what passes for "truth" by some members here.

Scripture tells us we are not to bare false witness and far too often ones pride has to be protected to the point of rejecting scripture, we've seen this in this thread and other threads. Someone makes a claim and I have shown them what they've been told was not accurate and they dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge that they 1. May be wrong 2. Their source may be wrong. The Pope isn't infallible but every individual Protestant is, thats why there's  thousands of DIFFERENT churches to the point that Protestant have begun to reject church and stay home with their bibles. They have become a church onto themselves because they are right and only their interpretation of scripture is correct. They have become their own Pope. 

People don't have to agree with the Catholic Church but at least be honest when making a claim to what it teaches and believes. Scripture says we are not to bare false witness.... for that matter so does the TOS of the site "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate". 

Cheers

 

 

[fixerupper]

The Protestant's adhere to a host of mis-information and false accusations against the Catholics.  And the people who run "gotquestions" don't get everything right either.  They have never responded to my replies when I exposed some of their falsity.

Edited June 22, 2017 by fixerupper

[Fidei Defensor]

Both The First and Second Councils of Trent were in response to Protestant Reformation. In them is establishing the Eucharist becoming the literal blood and body of Jesus during the Mass, giving the authority to Pope of infallibility, and many others decisions that contradict Scripture and the Spirit of Christ.  

[brakelite]

@inchrist

Again, bluster and obfuscation. It doesn't matter that I copied those pages from any particular web-site...it could have been CNN or EWTN...either way it takes nothing away from the truth. The syllabus of errors promulgated by Pius whatever number he was was a fact of life. Condemning the messenger, though may be popular with other Catholic apologists, unfortunately for you doesn't alter the facts contained in the message. The syllabus of errors was  gross "infallible" portrayal of extreme Catholic dogma in defense of extreme restriction of religious liberty and in defense of the church's so-called God-given right to persecute all whom she, in her arrogance and self importance , deem "heretic".

It was also a condemnation against any and all secular authorities who would dare claim authority over the church. The hiding of various criminals over the centuries in the Vatican or among the Swiss guards , including fraudsters (aka chairman of the Vatican Bank wanted for fraud by countless countries) , pedophiles (way too many to mention), and assassins (aka Abraham Lincoln's murderer), thus protecting their own against civil law, is arrogance in the absolute. But of course, you will no doubt defend this as being quite appropriate.

Finally, my pointing out that the reformers were ex-Catholic priests, was not a defense of their wrongs, nor was it a condemnation of Catholicism per se. They shall each answer for their abuses of authority, just as everyone else will, Catholic Protestant or otherwise. I mentioned it not to lay blame on the church, but as a reasonable explanation for their behavior.   They had been taught that such persecutions were entirely justifiable...they were wrong. Just as the Vatican is wrong today for not publicly and with heartfelt repentance completely eradicating all such teachings from its books. And condemning all her theologians, past and present, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, for teaching it and practicing it.

BTW, I am not ignorant of Catholicism as you would attempt to make out. I was a dedicated committed Catholic into my twenties. Educated throughout my young life in Catholic institutions. My rejection of Catholicism today is not based on what you folk like to claim ignorance of Catholc culture and/or Protestant bias.

[existential mabel]

https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation