- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For Catholics that went to Mass this weekend...
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:26 am to METAL
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:26 am to METAL
quote:We would say you added books that weren’t originally part of the canon.
Except you took books out of the Bible
Historically, there were two tiers of “Scripture”: that which was canon and authoritative for doctrine, and that which was helpful for the church but lacked the same authority. The Deuterocanon was not considered canonical in the same way the rest of the books were, which is why men like Jerome—who translated the Bible into Latin—rejected them as authoritative and had a different category for them. There were faithful Catholics who rejected the Deuterocanon as canonical all the way up until the Council of Trent—like Cardinal Cajetan, who disputed with Martin Luther—which finally made an “infallible” decision that put an end to the debate.
Even so, Protestants didn’t typically remove the Deuterocanon from their Bibles for a few hundred years. Luther included it in his translation, as did the translators of the Geneva and King James Bibles that were popular. They, like their early church counterparts, believed those books were generally helpful for Christians but not authoritative.
2
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:35 am to Canon951
I hear what you’re saying, and Catholics actually agree with a lot of that. Salvation is 100% God’s work. Grace comes first, grace sustains, and no one earns heaven. No argument there.
Jesus doesn’t treat being “born again” as just a moment either. In John 3 He ties it directly to being “born of water and Spirit,” which from the earliest Christians was understood as baptism, not just an internal decision… and even after that new birth, Scripture still talks about abiding and persevering. So yes, there’s a real beginning, but the Bible doesn’t present it as a one-and-done event that removes the need to remain in Him.
Where we differ is that Scripture doesn’t present those verses as removing our ability to walk away. It presents them alongside real warnings to believers. we were given free will and are called to participate. “Not all that say, Lord Lord…”
Jesus says no one can snatch us out of His hand, agreed… but in that same Gospel He also says “remain in me” and that branches in Him that don’t remain are cut off (John 15). That’s not outsiders, that’s people already connected.
Romans 8 says no condemnation for those in Christ, but Paul also tells believers in Romans 11:22 to “continue in His kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off.” Same author, same theology.
Ephesians talks about being sealed, but that seal isn’t described as unconditional regardless of what we do. Paul still warns those same believers not to grieve the Spirit and to persevere.
Aa far as cooperation, Philippians 2:12–13 literally holds both together: “work out your salvation… for God is at work in you.” It’s not us replacing God, it’s God working in us and us actually responding.
So the Catholic view isn’t “we finish what Jesus started.” It’s that His grace is real and effective, but He doesn’t override your freedom. You can remain, or you can walk away. That’s why the New Testament keeps warning believers to endure.
No boasting in that at all. If we make it, it’s still 100% because of Him.
Jesus doesn’t treat being “born again” as just a moment either. In John 3 He ties it directly to being “born of water and Spirit,” which from the earliest Christians was understood as baptism, not just an internal decision… and even after that new birth, Scripture still talks about abiding and persevering. So yes, there’s a real beginning, but the Bible doesn’t present it as a one-and-done event that removes the need to remain in Him.
Where we differ is that Scripture doesn’t present those verses as removing our ability to walk away. It presents them alongside real warnings to believers. we were given free will and are called to participate. “Not all that say, Lord Lord…”
Jesus says no one can snatch us out of His hand, agreed… but in that same Gospel He also says “remain in me” and that branches in Him that don’t remain are cut off (John 15). That’s not outsiders, that’s people already connected.
Romans 8 says no condemnation for those in Christ, but Paul also tells believers in Romans 11:22 to “continue in His kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off.” Same author, same theology.
Ephesians talks about being sealed, but that seal isn’t described as unconditional regardless of what we do. Paul still warns those same believers not to grieve the Spirit and to persevere.
Aa far as cooperation, Philippians 2:12–13 literally holds both together: “work out your salvation… for God is at work in you.” It’s not us replacing God, it’s God working in us and us actually responding.
So the Catholic view isn’t “we finish what Jesus started.” It’s that His grace is real and effective, but He doesn’t override your freedom. You can remain, or you can walk away. That’s why the New Testament keeps warning believers to endure.
No boasting in that at all. If we make it, it’s still 100% because of Him.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:35 am to SoWhat
quote:
Did your priest include the happenings between the Pope and Trump in the homily?
No. Even if he did, thankfully at Mass the homily is not what we’re there for.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:44 am to FooManChoo
I feel like you and I have already discussed this. I’ve grown a bit tiresome of your circular logic and inability to answer or address points but I’ll try one more time I guess…
That framing, while common, is horrifically flawed and skips actual Church history. The early Church didn’t operate with two separate “tiers” the way you’re describing. The councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397/419) all listed the Deuterocanon as Scripture, same as the rest. That’s over a thousand years before Trent.
On Jerome, yeah he had initial reservations, but he still included those books in the Latin Vulgate and ultimately submitted to the Church’s judgment. He didn’t go start a separate canon.
And the New Testament writers are constantly using and referring to the Septuagint, which included those books and the broader Greek tradition. The idea of a tighter Jewish canon didn’t really solidify until after Christianity was already spreading. If you want to subscribe to the “Jewish text” that wasn’t canonized until well after Christ’s time then perhaps you should adopt all of the Jewish beliefs from 90AD.
Trent didn’t invent a canon, it reaffirmed what had already been in use for centuries because it was being challenged. Things like this happen after what was once considered accepted or common sense, starts to be questioned or outright rejected.
You’re right about Protestants keeping them for a while, which actually undercuts the idea that they were always seen as non-authoritative. The removal came later.
So historically it’s less “Catholics added books” and more “the Reformers later removed books that had long been received in the Church because the reformers adopted the Jewish canon from after they crucified and rejected our Lord.”
That framing, while common, is horrifically flawed and skips actual Church history. The early Church didn’t operate with two separate “tiers” the way you’re describing. The councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397/419) all listed the Deuterocanon as Scripture, same as the rest. That’s over a thousand years before Trent.
On Jerome, yeah he had initial reservations, but he still included those books in the Latin Vulgate and ultimately submitted to the Church’s judgment. He didn’t go start a separate canon.
And the New Testament writers are constantly using and referring to the Septuagint, which included those books and the broader Greek tradition. The idea of a tighter Jewish canon didn’t really solidify until after Christianity was already spreading. If you want to subscribe to the “Jewish text” that wasn’t canonized until well after Christ’s time then perhaps you should adopt all of the Jewish beliefs from 90AD.
Trent didn’t invent a canon, it reaffirmed what had already been in use for centuries because it was being challenged. Things like this happen after what was once considered accepted or common sense, starts to be questioned or outright rejected.
You’re right about Protestants keeping them for a while, which actually undercuts the idea that they were always seen as non-authoritative. The removal came later.
So historically it’s less “Catholics added books” and more “the Reformers later removed books that had long been received in the Church because the reformers adopted the Jewish canon from after they crucified and rejected our Lord.”
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:51 am to METAL
There’s that old Catholic guilt. Objectively real, an old man says some words and we are supposed to believe God is there. I never felt him in mass.
I felt Jesus with me in the worship at my new church, I felt the Lord! Maybe I just didn’t stand up, sit down, kneel, stand up, repeat prayer enough.
I felt Jesus with me in the worship at my new church, I felt the Lord! Maybe I just didn’t stand up, sit down, kneel, stand up, repeat prayer enough.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 7:56 am to FooManChoo
Are you direct quoting AI slop?
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:01 am to HangmanPage1
Why not respond to any of the other good points that he made?
Also, I’m sorry for what you’re going through right now. I have already said a prayer for you and your family and will continue to pray for you. God bless you
Also, I’m sorry for what you’re going through right now. I have already said a prayer for you and your family and will continue to pray for you. God bless you
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:02 am to HangmanPage1
I get what you’re saying, and I’m not going to dismiss your experience. Feeling connected to God matters, and I’m glad you’re pursuing Him, but I’d just be careful equating feeling something strongly with that being the full measure of what’s happening.
The Mass isn’t built around generating a feeling. It’s built around what Catholics believe is objectively happening, whether you feel it or not. Same way you don’t always feel grace, forgiveness, or even love in the moment, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
On the flip side, a powerful worship environment can absolutely move you emotionally. Music, community, energy, all of that is real, but emotional intensity by itself isn’t a guarantee of truth. People feel just as strongly in all kinds of different religions.
So it’s not “Catholic guilt vs real Jesus.” It’s more like two different approaches. One leans heavily on experience, the other says God is present and acting even when it’s quiet, structured, and honestly not emotionally engaging.
Ideally you’d want both. Real presence and real encounter, but if you had to choose, I’d rather anchor my faith in what’s true even when I don’t feel it, than in what feels powerful in the moment. Maybe you can be that change in your parish.
The Mass isn’t built around generating a feeling. It’s built around what Catholics believe is objectively happening, whether you feel it or not. Same way you don’t always feel grace, forgiveness, or even love in the moment, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
On the flip side, a powerful worship environment can absolutely move you emotionally. Music, community, energy, all of that is real, but emotional intensity by itself isn’t a guarantee of truth. People feel just as strongly in all kinds of different religions.
So it’s not “Catholic guilt vs real Jesus.” It’s more like two different approaches. One leans heavily on experience, the other says God is present and acting even when it’s quiet, structured, and honestly not emotionally engaging.
Ideally you’d want both. Real presence and real encounter, but if you had to choose, I’d rather anchor my faith in what’s true even when I don’t feel it, than in what feels powerful in the moment. Maybe you can be that change in your parish.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:08 am to HangmanPage1
quote:if you didn’t feel God’s presence in the Eucharist, that’s a you thing. Either a core belief or not honest reflection and prayers, or both.
an old man says some words and we are supposed to believe God is there. I never felt him in mass.
quote:if bedazzled jeans, spiked gel hair, and lead electric guitar is what it takes for you to sense the Lord, again that’s still a you thing Brother Baw
I felt Jesus with me in the worship at my new church, I felt the Lord! Maybe I just didn’t stand up, sit down, kneel, stand up, repeat prayer enough.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:11 am to SuperSaint
Catholics proving my point…..
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:12 am to icecreamsnowball
quote:Thank you, also we are not suffering, our faith is stronger than ever as we worship our Lord! Say a prayer maybe for those suffering, as we are not.
Also, I’m sorry for what you’re going through right now. I have already said a prayer for you and your family and will continue to pray for you. God bless you
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:12 am to SoWhat
quote:
Did your priest include the happenings between the Pope and Trump in the homily?
Nope. Catholics don't talk politics at Mass.
That seems to be a protestant thing. We don't mix the two because real spirituality rather than just following morality rules has nothing to do with politics.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:14 am to METAL
Well said. Every bit of it.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:16 am to METAL
quote:No, I feel strongly that I have left the Catholic faith for good. Its insistence that it and only it is the true correct way to worship the Lord, while others speak of only the importance of worshipping the Lord and living in his light, had been a strong confirmation. My family is thriving in our faith, and we are discussing being saved!
Maybe you can be that change in your parish.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:19 am to HangmanPage1
quote:
No, I feel strongly that I have left the Catholic faith for good. Its insistence that it and only it is the true correct way to worship the Lord, while others speak of only the importance of worshipping the Lord and living in his light, had been a strong confirmation. My family is thriving in our faith, and we are discussing being saved!
If your convictions bring you there, then I'm happy for you.
Not sure what you mean by saved though ... does this involve another baptism perhaps?
This post was edited on 4/22/26 at 8:21 am
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:21 am to HangmanPage1
Just because someone isn’t responding they way you’d like doesn’t disprove an entire faith.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:26 am to HangmanPage1
I’m glad your family is growing closer to God, that’s genuinely a good thing, but I think there’s a misunderstanding about what the Church actually claims. It’s not saying “we’re the only ones who can worship God” or that no one outside has a real relationship with Him. The Church teaches that truth and grace exist outside her visible boundaries. The claim is about fullness, not exclusivity of access.
Every Christian group believes something is true and something else is not. That’s not unique to Catholics. The difference is the Catholic claim is that Christ didn’t just leave us with ideas, He established a visible Church with authority to teach and safeguard the truth. If each denomination has their own beliefs then logic would say that only one can be correct, or at least most correct.
Also I’d just say this gently, because I’m sure you’re frustrated… Thriving, feeling growth, strong community, those are great, but they aren’t reliable measures of truth by themselves. People thrive in all kinds of different belief systems.
So I’m not questioning your sincerity at all. I’d just encourage you not to reduce it to “Catholics say only us, others say just love Jesus.” The real question is what Christ actually established and where the fullness of that is found.
Every Christian group believes something is true and something else is not. That’s not unique to Catholics. The difference is the Catholic claim is that Christ didn’t just leave us with ideas, He established a visible Church with authority to teach and safeguard the truth. If each denomination has their own beliefs then logic would say that only one can be correct, or at least most correct.
Also I’d just say this gently, because I’m sure you’re frustrated… Thriving, feeling growth, strong community, those are great, but they aren’t reliable measures of truth by themselves. People thrive in all kinds of different belief systems.
So I’m not questioning your sincerity at all. I’d just encourage you not to reduce it to “Catholics say only us, others say just love Jesus.” The real question is what Christ actually established and where the fullness of that is found.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:32 am to METAL
quote:It is disappointing to me that I spend so much time responding directly to your points only to be told that I don’t actually answer or address your points. There is a communication disconnect somewhere, because I have addressed each and every one of your points. Not agreeing with me is fine, but saying I haven’t addressed your points is preposterous.
I feel like you and I have already discussed this. I’ve grown a bit tiresome of your circular logic and inability to answer or address points but I’ll try one more time I guess…
quote:The Council of Laodicea was even earlier than all those listed, and that Council didn’t include the Deuterocanon in its list, though the list, itself, is disputed as authentic (it is similar to the list that Cyril of Jerusalem made around 350 AD).
That framing, while common, is horrifically flawed and skips actual Church history. The early Church didn’t operate with two separate “tiers” the way you’re describing. The councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397/419) all listed the Deuterocanon as Scripture, same as the rest. That’s over a thousand years before Trent.
Regardless, the Councils you cited (like Laodicea) were regional, not ecumenical, and therefore did not hold the same weight as Trent as binding on the Church. Trent, itself, made the declaration of the canon for the whole church precisely because it had been disputed up until then, even before the Reformation.
quote:He didn’t start a separate text list, but translated one book that included texts that he didn’t believe were canonical, which was my point. He submitted to the pressure of the church by including them in his translation, but as the preeminent Bible scholar at the time, he still had two tiers, which is what I was saying. His commentary remains today.
On Jerome, yeah he had initial reservations, but he still included those books in the Latin Vulgate and ultimately submitted to the Church’s judgment. He didn’t go start a separate canon.
quote:A couple things here: first, Josephus acknowledged a Jewish canon (those which were laid up in the temple) that excluded the Deuterocanon. He wrote in the first century AD. While he may not be definitive, he was early, and he had an idea of the OT scriptures that contradicts Rome.
And the New Testament writers are constantly using and referring to the Septuagint, which included those books and the broader Greek tradition. The idea of a tighter Jewish canon didn’t really solidify until after Christianity was already spreading. If you want to subscribe to the “Jewish text” that wasn’t canonized until well after Christ’s time then perhaps you should adopt all of the Jewish beliefs from 90AD.
Second, you can’t argue that the acceptance of the Septuagint meant acceptance of all it contained (including the deuterocanonical books), because not even Rome accepts all the writings that were included in the Septuagint. The Septuagint wasn’t just the biblical writings, but writings of history and others that were helpful to the Jews. They viewed it similarly to Jerome, actually.
quote:Except it wasn’t “common sense” to all Catholics. It was disputed by men throughout the medieval period all the way up until Trent. While the church may have accepted the Deuterocanon generally as a consensus view, it wasn’t a required belief and there was disagreement. That’s why Trent did what it did, to settle the dispute for Catholics.
Trent didn’t invent a canon, it reaffirmed what had already been in use for centuries because it was being challenged. Things like this happen after what was once considered accepted or common sense, starts to be questioned or outright rejected.
quote:I think you missed my point about the two tiers. Including a book in the binding did not mean that book held the same authority as the rest of the books. Protestants included the Deuterocanon in their Bibles in spite of not believing they were God-breathed canon because they weren’t concerned with the optics of leaving them in like Protestants are today.
You’re right about Protestants keeping them for a while, which actually undercuts the idea that they were always seen as non-authoritative. The removal came later.
quote:Again, that’s not the argument. You are claiming Protestants removed books from the binding while Protestants argue Catholics added books to the canon. That’s a big difference.
So historically it’s less “Catholics added books” and more “the Reformers later removed books that had long been received in the Church because the reformers adopted the Jewish canon from after they crucified and rejected our Lord.”
Posted on 4/22/26 at 8:33 am to SuperSaint
quote:No. I’ve been making these arguments for years, because the history is real.
Are you direct quoting AI slop?
Posted on 4/22/26 at 9:10 am to HangmanPage1
quote:
Maybe I just didn’t stand up, sit down, kneel, stand up, repeat prayer enough.
quote:id like to add that Im guilty of repeating prayer. But when I catch myself doing it, I go back and spend some time dissecting, breaking them down and rendering the meanings. You realize how profound those core prayers are and why they are such a big part of our celebration.
repeat prayer enough.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News