existential mabel

The C0uncil 0f Trent

214 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, brakelite said:

Are you serious?

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? 

 

 The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE 

 

 

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?

 

  Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books

 

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by fixerupper
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites