/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>652001

Yes, in fact, true papist theology was originally that no one should be allowed to read the bible, so youre a better papist than most by not.

>>652001

>Can i still call myself Catholic?

yes, but being able to "call yourself Catholic" is a silly goal. you should be seeking continual conversion to Christ, and one of the best ways to do that is to read and study Scripture

>>652003

The was no Bible for the first 300 years of Christianity. How did the IFBs know how to browbeat people with Scripture taken out of context? Did they just use the OT?

>>652003

Man, why do you IFBs always jump to the insults?

1 Peter 3 (KJV)

8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

James 1:26

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Ephesians 4

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

James 3

9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

The Bible is clear, your constant derision and insults against Catholics or other denoms "ought not so so to be."

>>652031

He's right though

Why was it made illegal to translate the word of god to be understood by every man woman and child?

>>652033

Why were the people who first wanted to do so make themselves into the greatest threat to the unity of the body of Christ that the world has ever seen?

>>652011

Then how was Jesus reading out of the book of Isaiah?

>>652031

I hate every false way.

>>652052

The Jews didn't even have a Bible. The Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on what even was to be considered Scripture.

>>652050

Latin was a translation of Greek

>>652054

>I hate

>>>/out/

>>652031

What else do they have to do, point out non-existent facts?

>>652033

The bible was vernacular for around 7 centuries, and that's only for the West.

It was made illegal thereafter for the exact same reason most baptists don't like non-KJV translations.

>>652052

Are…are you REALLY this dense?

>>652062

>He doesn't realize that's scripture

BOI

Psalm 119:104 King James Version (KJV)

104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

>>652053

>T-trust me go-guys on what it says. No I can't let you actually read it

By the way catholics and orthodox are bigger heretics than most protties

>>652054

>I hate every false way.

reread the scripture I posted >>652031 . There is no exception given for "false way[s]". You can still "hate every false way" and bridleth your tongue, not rendering evil for evil, and put away all evil speaking.

>>652080

Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge. Prov. 19:25

Who is more of a scorner of God's word? I wouldn't want to be a partaker in some of the things papists have done. Like usurping the authority of God, burning scripture, etc.

>>652053

Sounds like pharisees talk no offense

>>652086

>Who is more of a scorner of God's word?

Prov. 19:25 doesn't say "scorner of God's word" though. Also, "smite" does not mean "insult" or "curse". Further, you can reprove without resorting to cursing or insults.

>I wouldn't want to be a partaker in some of the things papists have done.

That's fine, but that is still no justification for allowing "corrupt communication [to] proceed out of your mouth." 1 Peter says we should "be pitiful, [and] be courteous."

>>652087

In a very limited sense, it has every right to, since, despite all their sins, the Pharisees actually did have an authority to teach the faith, which Jesus explicitly affirmed:

>The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

>>652092

Arnt catholics *muh tradition* like Pharisees? And didn't Pharisees think thet could only interpret the faith like Catholics did before the Bible got published to all

>>652089

>That's fine, but that is still no justification for allowing "corrupt communication [to] proceed out of your mouth."

Rebuking isn't the same as corrupt communication or filthy conversation. I hope that's clear. And another thing, you can't defend the wicked and hope to pass along unnoticed.

Proverbs 24:24

He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:

>1 Peter says we should "be pitiful, [and] be courteous."

It is courteous to the victims to spare not. Any who is wise will receive knowledge. As it says, the wise will receive knowledge when instructed.

>>652098

>Rebuking isn't the same as corrupt communication or filthy conversation.

Rebuking also isn't the same as cursing or insulting.

>Proverbs 24:24

You don't have to call someone you disagree with righteous. You also don't have to insult them.

>It is courteous to the victims to spare not.

to spare not what? Spare not them from proper instruction. Still no justification for insults.

>>652011

>The was no Bible for the first 300 years of Christianity

This is what papists actually believe

>>652050

Better to be divided by truth than united in falsehood

>>652118

In my experience it's not a common belief outside imageboards, and it's heretical by Catholic standards anyway.

>>652014

>>652124

It's by no means unorthodox in Roman Catholicism to hang the bible upon ecclesiastical authority

>>652116

>"Tradition" in the wide sense refers to everything that God once would reveal and finished revealing when the Apostles died"

This is not substantially different from the pharisees' position. They claimed Moses taught things from God outside of scripture and passed them down through the elders. This is what Jesus pointed to as the root of their errors when He said "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". When we give divine authority to an oral tradition we have union with the pharisees. Tradition only has authority insofar as it is the faith once for all delivered to the saints in scripture passed down from generation to generation. In all other cases, it may be safely rejected, and can never be considered divine revelation.

>Now there are no new dogmas that God is going to reveal, nothing to add to the Christian doctrine. That part of history has already ended. We can only pass down'' this revealed faith

I find that this is true of the Roman Catholic position in name only, but that in the practical reality it is new revelation. When these traditions cannot be traced back beyond a certain point, it is excused on the grounds it is now tradition, and therefore must be from God, or the magisterium has dogmatized it, and therefore it must be from God. Thus, though it is claimed from the apostles, the actual time when it is first 'revelized' is well after them. When divine authority is granted to tradition, this cannot be avoided, since doing so would be to question that any of that which is tradition is divine by its own virtue.

>even if they don't exist, then you still must accept that if they hypothetically existed, there would be nothing wrong with them

As shown above, the problem is they lead one to hold to traditions of men. When the problem of Jesus' condemnation is raised, I have seen Catholics defend themselves on the grounds their traditions are divine and not human. To this it must be asked, how would they know if they were?

>they, per Christ's words, could authoritatively teach the faith

Moses' seat is authority to judge the people. There is nothing about believing their doctrines (something which is actually contradicted by Jesus) or accepting their false religious authority. That is medieval papal conceptions of religion read into an old covenant context.

>>652194

>When we give divine authority to an oral tradition we have union with the pharisees.

I'm going to reply to the rest later, but before that, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that God's revelation is contained in some oral tradition: I was providing the definition of a certain term, namely "tradition". The set of truths that God revealed as Christian doctrine is simply called "Tradition" in the Catholic theological language. The name doesn't matter, perhaps it fits, perhaps it doesn't and is misleading, but it's not the name that matters, but the concept to which the name refers - and this concept is "The set of truths that God revealed as Christian doctrine". This is the definition of a certain set of truths which ought to have some name, and the name that it eventually received is "Tradition". Perhaps that's a bad and misleading name, but we aren't discussing whether the name fits the concept. We are discussing the concept itself.

>>652197

>I wasn't saying that God's revelation is contained in some oral tradition

That is what Rome teaches though, isn't it

>The name doesn't matter, perhaps it fits, perhaps it doesn't and is misleading, but it's not the name that matters, but the concept to which the name refers

…which is why I argued the concept is the same

>this concept is "The set of truths that God revealed as Christian doctrine"

But you must recognize in a Protestant-Catholic context it has the connotation of a set of things revealed outside of scripture

>>652001

Liturgy of the hours is not a mandatory prayer for the laity specifically because the church feels that it would be an undue burden for literacy to be a requirement of salvation.

The rosary was given by the blessed virgin specifically because people who couldn't read needed an easy to memorize "psalter".

Most christian laity throughout history couldn't read. That's what lectors are for.

now that we're past all that, though:

St. Jerome says – Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of christ.

I say this: you are not illiterate, so get to reading.