Reasons you should he catholic

[winsome]

You might want to be a Catholic if:

8.) You agree to accept what was initially a Pagan ideology and choose to believe in Purgatory. This became an official article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence and confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1548.

There may be similar concepts to purgatory in paganism but the Catholic understanding is firmly rooted in Judaism and scripture.  The classic point on this as I'm sure you are aware in 2Macc 12:46 where Judas Maccabeus offers up prayers for the dead, thus indicating that there is some existence after dead that can be helped by prayers. I realise you probably do not accept this as scriptural, although it was accepted as such by all Christians for almost 1500 years. However there is other evidence that this was a Jewish belief. They called it Gehoim.


"According to Judaism, the purifying process that a sullied soul undergoes to cleanse it from its spiritual uncleanliness is a temporary one, and is restorative in its intent, and not punitive, as many mistakenly believe. Ultimately, all Jews have portion in the World to Come, as do Righteous Gentiles, non-Jews who observe the Seven Noahide Commandments." (see this link http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...-teachings.htm)

Orthodox Jewish practices, which branched off from the Old Testament religion, to this day reflect belief in this "place" of final purification which they call Gehenom: when an Orthodox Jewish person dies, a ritual called the taharah is performed by the "Chevra kaddisha -- gmilat khessed shel emet," the "Holy Society" or "Burial Society" of Jews knowledgeable in these traditional duties. They cleanse and prepare the physical body and recite the required prayers (Chevra Kadisha) which ask God for forgiveness for any sins the departed may have committed, and beg Him to guard and grant eternal peace to the departed. For eleven months after the death of a loved one certain members of the family pray a prayer called the Mourner's Qaddish (or Kaddish) for their loved one's purification.

Even the The Talmud1 speaks of Purgatory: Sabbath 33b:
"The judgment of the wicked in purgatory is twelve months."
Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a:
"It has been taught that the school of Shammai says: "There will be three groups on Judgment Day (yom haDin):
(1) one that is completely righteous,
(2) one that is completely wicked,
(3) and one that is in between."

Rabbi Shammai (50 BC - AD 30), one of the two main teachers of early rabbinical Judaism, also is on record as having interpreted Zechariah 13:9 as referring to a state of purification after death. Isaiah 66:15-16 and Malachi 3:2-3 were also interpreted in rabbinic literature as referring to the purgatorial process.

[Red Baker]

Before when I was a evangelical my life was really no different than when I was an agnostic.  I found a church that didn't teach on the topics that morally where difficult for me to change and I believed in once saved always saved so sin didn't matter any way.  Finally people (3) killed them self at my evangelical church because of once saved always saved they where living sinful lives and o well I'm saved I'll just off my self and go to heaven. My life really didn't change until I considersd the catholic church so I want the same for you out there.

All you have done is jumped from one religion to another, nothing more.  Your logical fallacy arguments proves nothing more than humanistic reasoning outside of Divine revelation has lead you from one error to another, and even your opening OP supports my point.

[Buster D Body Crab]

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

You might want to be a Catholic if:

1.) You accept the source of authority is the Bible and the Apocryphal books. The Apocrypha were not canonized by the Roman Catholic church until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD. And are not accepted in the Protestant Canon because their authorship is pseudonymous.

They were canonised over 1100 years before that.

Prove it.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition..."
(Council of Trent, Session 4)

Note:- this is not establishing something new but "the books that are received by this Synod.... as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition..." The old Lating vulgate being the edition produced by Jerome.

The first definitive list was made at the Council of Rome in 482 and approved by Pope Damasus I.

[Buster D Body Crab]

Then you should be able to refer us to a scripture that identifies precisely Purgatory as is taught by the RCC.


Meanwhile: PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

You might want to be a Catholic if:

8.) You agree to accept what was initially a Pagan ideology and choose to believe in Purgatory. This became an official article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence and confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1548.

There may be similar concepts to purgatory in paganism but the Catholic understanding is firmly rooted in Judaism and scripture.  The classic point on this as I'm sure you are aware in 2Macc 12:46 where Judas Maccabeus offers up prayers for the dead, thus indicating that there is some existence after dead that can be helped by prayers. I realise you probably do not accept this as scriptural, although it was accepted as such by all Christians for almost 1500 years. However there is other evidence that this was a Jewish belief. They called it Gehoim.


"According to Judaism, the purifying process that a sullied soul undergoes to cleanse it from its spiritual uncleanliness is a temporary one, and is restorative in its intent, and not punitive, as many mistakenly believe. Ultimately, all Jews have portion in the World to Come, as do Righteous Gentiles, non-Jews who observe the Seven Noahide Commandments." (see this link http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...-teachings.htm)

Orthodox Jewish practices, which branched off from the Old Testament religion, to this day reflect belief in this "place" of final purification which they call Gehenom: when an Orthodox Jewish person dies, a ritual called the taharah is performed by the "Chevra kaddisha -- gmilat khessed shel emet," the "Holy Society" or "Burial Society" of Jews knowledgeable in these traditional duties. They cleanse and prepare the physical body and recite the required prayers (Chevra Kadisha) which ask God for forgiveness for any sins the departed may have committed, and beg Him to guard and grant eternal peace to the departed. For eleven months after the death of a loved one certain members of the family pray a prayer called the Mourner's Qaddish (or Kaddish) for their loved one's purification.

Even the The Talmud1 speaks of Purgatory: Sabbath 33b:
"The judgment of the wicked in purgatory is twelve months."
Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a:
"It has been taught that the school of Shammai says: "There will be three groups on Judgment Day (yom haDin):
(1) one that is completely righteous,
(2) one that is completely wicked,
(3) and one that is in between."

Rabbi Shammai (50 BC - AD 30), one of the two main teachers of early rabbinical Judaism, also is on record as having interpreted Zechariah 13:9 as referring to a state of purification after death. Isaiah 66:15-16 and Malachi 3:2-3 were also interpreted in rabbinic literature as referring to the purgatorial process.

[Red Baker]

To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really the Son of God; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification, etc.  and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them

That may be your opinion RB but you are wrong (and you supply no evidence to back that up).

I am not sure what exactly would you think that I need to give scriptural proof for in my the comments on John 6.  Help me out a little.  I might have to wait later to post, since I have company coming out of town that will take much of my time for the next few days.  But, I will answer.  Looking forward to digest Andre's comments that you posted.

[winsome]

You might want to be a Catholic if:

3.) You disagree with the sacred teachings in 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus...

The Catholic Church does not disagree with this.

From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

..Christ, the one Mediator... (para 8)

Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. Para 14)

..Christ the sole Mediator (para 28)

Christ, the eternal and unique Mediator (para 41)

... Jesus, the one and only Mediator (para 56)

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".( (para 60)

...Christ the one Mediator (para 62)

[winsome]

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

[Buster D Body Crab]

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

No, it wasn't. Jerome was a scholar in your church. Had the Apocrypha been canonized he would not have noted the books pertaining to the Apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate, were not canonized. A notation he made at the beginning of each book of the Apocrypha so that there would be no mistake.

[winsome]

Then you should be able to refer us to a scripture that identifies precisely Purgatory as is taught by the RCC.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/purgatory-66928/msg1054746941/#msg1054746941

[winsome]

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

No, it wasn't. Jerome was a scholar in your church. Had the Apocrypha been canonized he would not have noted the books pertaining to the Apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate, were not canonized. A notation he made at the beginning of each book of the Apocrypha so that there would be no mistake.

No, you are wrong. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree that the Canon was set back in 4th/5th century. As the Orthodox broke away in 1054 it is false to claim it wasn't set until the Council of Trent.

[Buster D Body Crab]

You are mistaken.

The scripture in 1 Timothy is very clear. There is one God. And one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

One!

Whereas you appear to be unfamiliar with the Catholic Catechism.

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church


(Sic). . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

(Sic) 969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." 

IN BRIEF

973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.

974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

You might want to be a Catholic if:

3.) You disagree with the sacred teachings in 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus...

The Catholic Church does not disagree with this.

From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

..Christ, the one Mediator... (para 8)

Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. Para 14)

..Christ the sole Mediator (para 28)

Christ, the eternal and unique Mediator (para 41)

... Jesus, the one and only Mediator (para 56)

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".( (para 60)

...Christ the one Mediator (para 62)

[Buster D Body Crab]

You'll have to take your point of view up with the Vatican. History speaks for itself. As did Jerome.

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

No, it wasn't. Jerome was a scholar in your church. Had the Apocrypha been canonized he would not have noted the books pertaining to the Apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate, were not canonized. A notation he made at the beginning of each book of the Apocrypha so that there would be no mistake.

No, you are wrong. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree that the Canon was set back in 4th/5th century. As the Orthodox broke away in 1054 it is false to claim it wasn't set until the Council of Trent.

[winsome]

You'll have to take your point of view up with the Vatican. History speaks for itself. As did Jerome.

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

No, it wasn't. Jerome was a scholar in your church. Had the Apocrypha been canonized he would not have noted the books pertaining to the Apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate, were not canonized. A notation he made at the beginning of each book of the Apocrypha so that there would be no mistake.

No, you are wrong. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree that the Canon was set back in 4th/5th century. As the Orthodox broke away in 1054 it is false to claim it wasn't set until the Council of Trent.

You seem to be in denial of history.

[winsome]

You are mistaken.

The scripture in 1 Timothy is very clear. There is one God. And one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

One!

Whereas you appear to be unfamiliar with the Catholic Catechism.

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church


(Sic). . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

(Sic) 969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." 

IN BRIEF

973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.

974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

You might want to be a Catholic if:

3.) You disagree with the sacred teachings in 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus...

The Catholic Church does not disagree with this.

From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

..Christ, the one Mediator... (para 8)

Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. Para 14)

..Christ the sole Mediator (para 28)

Christ, the eternal and unique Mediator (para 41)

... Jesus, the one and only Mediator (para 56)

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".( (para 60)

...Christ the one Mediator (para 62)

I'm not the one that is mistaken.

From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

..Christ, the one Mediator... (para 8)

Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. Para 14)

..Christ the sole Mediator (para 28)

Christ, the eternal and unique Mediator (para 41)

... Jesus, the one and only Mediator (para 56)

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".( (para 60)

...Christ the one Mediator (para 62)

[Buster D Body Crab]

I'll leave you to believe what you wish.
Meanwhile the Catechism of the Catholic church speaks for itself. And to Catholics.


I'll cease to correspond with you now. I don't think you're up to a fair exchange of facts as pertains to the RCC.

You are mistaken.

The scripture in 1 Timothy is very clear. There is one God. And one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

One!

Whereas you appear to be unfamiliar with the Catholic Catechism.

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church


(Sic). . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

(Sic) 969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." 

IN BRIEF

973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.

974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

You might want to be a Catholic if:

3.) You disagree with the sacred teachings in 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus...

The Catholic Church does not disagree with this.

From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

..Christ, the one Mediator... (para 8)

Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. Para 14)

..Christ the sole Mediator (para 28)

Christ, the eternal and unique Mediator (para 41)

... Jesus, the one and only Mediator (para 56)

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".( (para 60)

...Christ the one Mediator (para 62)

I'm not the one that is mistaken.

From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:

..Christ, the one Mediator... (para 8)

Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. Para 14)

..Christ the sole Mediator (para 28)

Christ, the eternal and unique Mediator (para 41)

... Jesus, the one and only Mediator (para 56)

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".( (para 60)

...Christ the one Mediator (para 62)

[Buster D Body Crab]

You appear to be in denial of the Catholic Churches affirmations.

You'll have to take your point of view up with the Vatican. History speaks for itself. As did Jerome.

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

No, it wasn't. Jerome was a scholar in your church. Had the Apocrypha been canonized he would not have noted the books pertaining to the Apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate, were not canonized. A notation he made at the beginning of each book of the Apocrypha so that there would be no mistake.

No, you are wrong. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree that the Canon was set back in 4th/5th century. As the Orthodox broke away in 1054 it is false to claim it wasn't set until the Council of Trent.

You seem to be in denial of history.

[Catholica]

What is at issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church, with its own Bible that includes 7 other books not included in the Protestant

And which came first? The Catholic Church with 73 books or Protestant churches with 63?

There are 66 books in the Protestant Bible.

If you don't know which came first, you just should say so, there is no shame in that.

I have no shame at all in holding to my faith. In fact I take great pride in correcting the errant who do not know how many books are in the Protestant Bible.

But you couldn't answer a simple question, but rather answered with "great pride". 

And by the way, being first does not necessarily mean being superior.

That is true, but it is often a good indicator of being superior.

The Protestant Bible does not contain the Apocrypha because they are not attributable to being credible works delivering the word.

In whose opinion?  By what authority do you make such a statement?

Therefore, our Bible may be second

There see?  That wasn't so hard.

but that does not mean it is less than as some would imply when they posed the question as to which came first.

Is that what winsome meant to imply?  Or is that what you implied?

[Buster D Body Crab]

Ah, I see you could not read my simple answer back a few posts ago. I did answer the question. Thank you.

What is at issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church, with its own Bible that includes 7 other books not included in the Protestant

And which came first? The Catholic Church with 73 books or Protestant churches with 63?

There are 66 books in the Protestant Bible.

If you don't know which came first, you just should say so, there is no shame in that.

I have no shame at all in holding to my faith. In fact I take great pride in correcting the errant who do not know how many books are in the Protestant Bible.

But you couldn't answer a simple question, but rather answered with "great pride". 

And by the way, being first does not necessarily mean being superior.

That is true, but it is often a good indicator of being superior.

The Protestant Bible does not contain the Apocrypha because they are not attributable to being credible works delivering the word.

In whose opinion?  By what authority do you make such a statement?

Therefore, our Bible may be second

There see?  That wasn't so hard.

but that does not mean it is less than as some would imply when they posed the question as to which came first.

Is that what winsome meant to imply?  Or is that what you implied?

[Catholica]

You are mistaken on a number of points here.

Firstly, St.Jerome's Vulgate (Aka/ The Latin Vulgate of which he was the foremost contributor) is a 4th century translation of the Bible in Latin. It was promulgated by the Catholic church in the 16th century.
When Jerome's Vulgate was published in Nuermberg Germany and by Johannes Petreius in 1527, the order of the books of the Apocrypha arrive with a note at the beginning of each.That it is not canonical.

It should be mentioned here that even St.Jerome,who translated the Latin Vulgate, which was used in western churches for generations, was a scholar of renown. He could read both Hebrew and Greek. And he rejected the Apocrypha, also referred to as Deuterocanonical books:

(Sic)"....And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa...so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha..."Jerome, Helmed Prologue to the Vulgate version of Samuel and Kings, as quoted in Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church,page 120.

As I said before, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be Canonized.

(sic)"...If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts...and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), as quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 1954) page 245.


For those who may be interested in learning more: Source for this reply:) Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
written by Aaron Brake

The Latin Vulgate was produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. It was then the standard in the Western Church. It wasn't promulgated in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not keep it in the vaults for 1200 years. It was published in 405 AD

Whatever Jerome's personal opinions the canon of the OT was made definitive at the Council of Rome (382) and re-iterated on other occasions before Trent, notably by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 410).

No, it wasn't. Jerome was a scholar in your church. Had the Apocrypha been canonized he would not have noted the books pertaining to the Apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate, were not canonized. A notation he made at the beginning of each book of the Apocrypha so that there would be no mistake.

The whole reason Jerome translated the books that made up the Vulgate was because it was at the request of the Church.  Why would Jerome even including the Deuterocanon (what you call apocrypha) otherwise?  It makes no sense at all.  There are a ton of legitimate apocrypha that were not included.  Why include some apocrypha and not others?  The truth is that the Church did not consider them apocrypha.  And Jerome submitted to the Church.  His was a minority view.

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

[Buster D Body Crab]

A Blog?
Scrolling down to the comments provides an interesting read on the Blog authors understanding of St.Jerome's writings.

[Catholica]

A Blog?
Scrolling down to the comments provides an interesting read on the Blog authors understanding of St.Jerome's writings.

Yes, quite. More than your run of the mill blogger. Fairly scholarly actually