What do I have to do to become Catholic?

[Mungo]

With Christ's first follower(s).

Where does scripture say that?

 

[Mungo]

I think you and Mungo are addressing 2 different "problems".

Mungo is discussing the TRANSLATION of the bible into native tongues.
You're discussing the prohibition of even owning a bible.

Funny thing is: You're both right.

But, gosh, let's not go back to Pope Innocent and the 1100's !!
We have enough problems for the day.

That is possibly the difference but Phoneman777 has provided no evidence for that claim.

Did you know that Protestants actually did prohibit the reading of the Bible?
“1543 was to bring its own catastrophic set-back for the cause of reform, the notorious Act, passed on 10th May, "for the advancement of true religion"... Severe penalties were therefore imposed on those who had or kept any books containing doctrines contrary to those authorised since 1540. The Act targeted unauthorised versions of the scriptures, in particular Tyndale's New Testament, and it forbade altogether the reading of scripture in private by "women… artificers, prentices, journeymen, serving men of the degrees of yeomen or under, husbandmen or labourers.", though noble and gentlewomen might read the Bible in private. Persistent clerical offenders against this Act might be burned, laymen were subject to forfeiture of goods and perpetual imprisonment.”
(Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars pp432-433)

About the year 1583, Sir Francis Walsingham ordered the seizure of the Rheims translation. Persons in England found with it were imprisoned. Torture was applied to those Englishmen who sold or otherwise circulated it.

 

[Mungo]

The catholic church views the Bible in the same way God-hating, leftist bureaucrats view the U.S. Constitution: they claim it is the ultimate authority in the land, but turn right around and claim it's a "living" document subject to their interpretation and modification, which renders them, not it, the ultimate authority, not matter what they claim.

Likewise, the official position of the catholic church is that "the Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant". How, then, can that be the case if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place? Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.

If you wish to continue posting here please make clear what are your opinions and what actual quotes from other sources.
And also give reference for those quotes.

Please make sure you have read this sticky post - Please Read Before Posting

 

[GodsGrace]

I saw someone picking on an innocent and I had to do what I had to do.
If you see a bully what is your response?
This is an open forum... You should be aware that anyone can respond to anything at anytime.
If you had a remark that was private... take it to a private chat.
This should be basic knowledge.

You're headed for another vacation.

 

[dwb001]

You're headed for another vacation.

Hey teacher... I see a possible millstone in the future.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm Katholik

Just as I thought.
I would recommend that Mungo take the proper action.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is possibly the difference but Phoneman777 has provided no evidence for that claim.

Did you know that Protestants actually did prohibit the reading of the Bible?
“1543 was to bring its own catastrophic set-back for the cause of reform, the notorious Act, passed on 10th May, "for the advancement of true religion"... Severe penalties were therefore imposed on those who had or kept any books containing doctrines contrary to those authorised since 1540. The Act targeted unauthorised versions of the scriptures, in particular Tyndale's New Testament, and it forbade altogether the reading of scripture in private by "women… artificers, prentices, journeymen, serving men of the degrees of yeomen or under, husbandmen or labourers.", though noble and gentlewomen might read the Bible in private. Persistent clerical offenders against this Act might be burned, laymen were subject to forfeiture of goods and perpetual imprisonment.”
(Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars pp432-433)

About the year 1583, Sir Francis Walsingham ordered the seizure of the Rheims translation. Persons in England found with it were imprisoned. Torture was applied to those Englishmen who sold or otherwise circulated it.

How far back do we want to go?
And who cares?

Let's discuss the things of today.
Instead of bemoaning what happened a thousand years ago.

Phoneman777

 

[Phoneman777]

Are you here for a serious conversation or just to kid around?

I asked you twice already, once on this thread, what YOUR denomination is.
You don't have to reply of course,
but the fact that you don't is pretty convincing of your reason to be here....
just to stir trouble.
Please do not flame.

I think she asks a valid question. After all, the catholic church absolutely claims to reserve the right to "interpret", "modify", and "dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ".

 

[Phoneman777]

Just as I thought.
I would recommend that Mungo take the proper action.

I'm an SDA and people say all kinds of horrible things about that...doesn't bother me one bit. I welcome the opportunity to Biblically defend my beliefs, and the idea of circling intellectual wagons and authority figure gunbarrels around them for protection is unacceptable to me. If they can't stand the test of Biblical scrutiny, they're history.

I mean, do any of us really want to go back to state sanctioned religion which forbade criticism of the same?

 

[Phoneman777]

Then please point our where in this thread you gave a quote from a Pope - the name and document.

It may have been another thread - here's the link with the quotes:

Was Bible possesion banned by the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church actually tried to stop laymen from possessing or reading the Bible on their own and this intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages. Many try to deny it, or say there is no proof...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Phoneman777]

Let's be honest Phoneman...there are contradictory Protestant doctrine.

As for the translation of the bible:

Here are some dates of translations into vernacular languages before Martin Luther printed his German translation.:
By 400AD translations existed in Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Georgian Languages.
405 Jerome’s translation in the Latin (common language of the Roman Empire in the West).
406 Translation into Armenian
7th Century – First translation into French, First translation into German.
8th Century – first translation into English (Anglo Saxon) by Bede
9th Century – first translation into the Slavic language by Cyril and Methodius
1170 –Eadwine's Psalterium triplex, which contained the Latin versions of the Psalms accompanied by Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon English language renderings.
13thcentury – first translation into Spanish under King AlfonsoV
1300 - first translation into Norwegian
1454 – Catholic Gutenberg produced the first printed Bibles (in Latin)
1466 – first printed German Bible , 58 years before Luther’s
1470 – first printed Scandanvian Bible
1477 – first printed Italian Bible In the years before Luther's Bible was published, the Catholics printed 20 different Italian editions of the Bible.
1475 – first printed Dutch Bible
1466 – first printed French Bible

All Catholic Bibles, and yet the claim is that the Catholics Church suppressed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular.
source: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

What I'm hearing from you and Mungo is different from everything else I've heard for many many years. For instance:

William Tyndale (l.c. 1494-1536) was a talented English linguist, scholar and priest who was the first to translate the Bible into English. Tyndale objected to the Catholic Church’s control of scripture in Latin and the prohibition against an English translation. His work formed the basis of all other English translations of the Bible up through the modern era.​

​

The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated from the original by Saint Jerome (l. 347-420), assisted by Saint Paula (l. 347-404) was considered the only true version by the Church, and translation into the vernacular, in any country, was forbidden. Even before the Reformation began in 1517, however, European scholars had already translated the Bible into their own languages, the German translation by Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) being only one among many. The proto-reformer John Wycliffe (l. 1330-1384) had translated the Bible from the Vulgate to Middle English in c. 1380 but volumes of this work had been burned after his death.​

 

[Phoneman777]

Everyone is saved by faith.
Everyone.
In the OT, the NT and, believe it or not, in the CC.

The official position of the CC is that everyone is saved by faith in God.

Is there a way to default set font size to 15? I'm on a MacPro. Thanks

 

[SyrianMariam]

Where does scripture say that?

?

 

[Phoneman777]

If you wish to continue posting here please make clear what are your opinions and what actual quotes from other sources.
And also give reference for those quotes.

Please make sure you have read this sticky post - Please Read Before Posting

It's not my opinion what catholics publicly state about the church and its beliefs.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think she asks a valid question. After all, the catholic church absolutely claims to reserve the right to "interpret", "modify", and "dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ".

All denominations claim the right to interpret scripture.
I don't know any denomination that PURPOSEFULLY modifies scripture.
I don't agree with the reformed faith. No denomination modifies scripture more than they do.
As to dispensing with precepts of Christ...
Yes, that could be a conversation.
Which precept are you speaking of?

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm an SDA and people say all kinds of horrible things about that...doesn't bother me one bit. I welcome the opportunity to Biblically defend my beliefs, and the idea of circling intellectual wagons and authority figure gunbarrels around them for protection is unacceptable to me. If they can't stand the test of Biblical scrutiny, they're history.

I mean, do any of us really want to go back to state sanctioned religion which forbade criticism of the same?

If you wish to have a conversation with me, please address me.
KatholiK reminds me of the KKK.

Nothing horrible about the SDA unless one just likes to argue with another Christian brother.
I don't like gunbarrels either.

 

[GodsGrace]

Is there a way to default set font size to 15? I'm on a MacPro. Thanks

I think that has to be done on your end?
Not sure.

Could you go to:
TALK WITH THE STAFF and repeat the question?

There will be someone there with more tech knowledge than I have.
Thanks.

 

[dwb001]

Where does scripture say that?

Matt 16:18

 

[GodsGrace]

What I'm hearing from you and Mungo is different from everything else I've heard for many many years. For instance:

William Tyndale (l.c. 1494-1536) was a talented English linguist, scholar and priest who was the first to translate the Bible into English. Tyndale objected to the Catholic Church’s control of scripture in Latin and the prohibition against an English translation. His work formed the basis of all other English translations of the Bible up through the modern era.​

But then what about this:
The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated from the original by Saint Jerome (l. 347-420), assisted by Saint Paula (l. 347-404) was considered the only true version by the Church, and translation into the vernacular, in any country, was forbidden. Even before the Reformation began in 1517, however, European scholars had already translated the Bible into their own languages, the German translation by Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) being only one among many. The proto-reformer John Wycliffe (l. 1330-1384) had translated the Bible from the Vulgate to Middle English in c. 1380 but volumes of this work had been burned after his death.

source: https://www.worldhistory.org/William_Tyndale/
I do believe it's the same source you used for your first paragraph.
I did some "studying" (I'm not a scholar by any means) of church history some years ago and came across many statements that conflicted. It took a long time to get the history straight since I don't depend on any one source.
It seems to me that the same is happening here and there should be more study on this. On our part.

Here, this is from Wikepedia:

Partial English translations had been made from the 7th century onwards, but the religious foment caused by Wycliffe's Bible in the late 14th century led to the death penalty for anyone found guilty of unlicensed possession of an English translation of the Bible, although translations were available in all other major European languages.


I like to go with what I know for sure.
What I know for sure here is that it was discouraged that the bible be read by laymen.
I'm not sure of the dates. In some countries as recently as the 1900's.

The reason is because of the possibility of misunderstanding scripture and the problems it would cause.
I never understood it till I began to study the bible myself.
Just our difference in what day to worship seems to confirm that, perhaps, the church was not wrong.

​

The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated from the original by Saint Jerome (l. 347-420), assisted by Saint Paula (l. 347-404) was considered the only true version by the Church, and translation into the vernacular, in any country, was forbidden. Even before the Reformation began in 1517, however, European scholars had already translated the Bible into their own languages, the German translation by Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) being only one among many. The proto-reformer John Wycliffe (l. 1330-1384) had translated the Bible from the Vulgate to Middle English in c. 1380 but volumes of this work had been burned after his death.​

I think I addressed this above.
Yes, we used the same source.
Great minds think alike!

 

[SyrianMariam]

Just as I thought.
I would recommend that Mungo take the proper action.

You thought what?