re: Someday, I might give a shitt what a couple of Roman Catholic Priests have to say…

I love how some people think that adding “Roman” invalidates the Catholic Church in any way. All it does is highlight the Church’s apostolic foundation and unity.

Catholic priests take a lot of flack here. But if you get to know them they are usually terrific people. I've had several priest friends outside the walls of the church.
Years ago I saw Father Mike walk into Starbucks and invited him to sit and chat. He was wearing a really nice sweater with a Marquette emblem on it. I told him how much I liked it and asked: 'Can I have it?' He frowned and said 'What??' Me: 'Didn't you take a vow of poverty? Give it to me.'
He slowly removed it and handed it to me. I said: 'Wow, this is really nice. But you know it's Chistmas next week. I'll give you a present. Here's a nice sweater' as I handed it back to him. He thanked me for my generosity.

There are also Catholic priests that are assholes….we had one at our church not too long ago that lectured in almost every homily how the collections were too low BUT this same man took 4-5 2 week cruises per year and owned a camp on Toledo Bend (handed down to him from his family but still no living in poverty here) that he spent more time in than in his parish.

Oh boo hoo. You called me a name.

Joel, you should try praying to God for a clue, you stupid fricking bitch

quote:

---

So he removed them from the collection of books known as the bible, and he did so with no authority.

---

He didn't. He included it in the translation of the Bible. He didn't see the as canonical, as other faithful Roman Catholics and church fathers did before him. Even Cardinal Cajetan, the one who interrogated Luther, questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanon.

In the early church, there were many who saw the Deuterocanon as being helpful to the Church and called the "scripture", but thought they weren't inspired or authoritative in the same way the rest of scripture was. Luther had this same view.

quote:

---

His original 95 theses were very much Catholic. Before he and the king decided on schism.

---

Again, Luther was told to go and get a doctorate and become a teacher of the Bible. He did so, and when he started studying the Bible for himself, he saw that there were a lot of things the RCC was teaching and doing that were not only absent from the Bible, but seemed to contradict the Bible. He wrote his 95 theses to create an open debate, which was common for the day, and unbeknownst to him, his document was taken, copied, and distributed, and it created a a firestorm that eventually led to his excommunication.

He was not a schismatic but was faithful to the church and sought her reform. It wasn't until all his writings were condemned--even those that other catholic leaders thought were useful--and that he was excommunicated that he became an enemy of Rome.

quote:

---

Wrong again.

[quote]All 77 books were affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, and subsequent councils repeatedly. Any dissention was not church teaching.

---

The canon was not infallibly defined until the Council of Trent. That's an undeniable fact. I mentioned Cardinal Cajetan as an example of someone who disagreed with the RCC's view of the canon all the way up until it was finally defined. That's a historical reality.

quote:

---

Luther also put 4 New Testament books in his "appendix". For some reason Protestants ignore that.

---

No need to ignore that. Luther didn't define the Protestant canon. I was correcting the false assertion that Catholics make over and over again that Luther removed books from the Bible.

quote:

---

He also added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to support his own interpretation......again, with no authority.

---

Yep, he shouldn't have done that. While "alone" is implied theologically based on other verses, it isn't there in the text. He shouldn't have added it. Protestants don't believe in sola fide because of Luther.

quote:

---

The deuterocanonical books were affirmed as sacred scripture before Trent (1)382 Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus (2) 393 Council of Hippo (3) 397 Council of Carthage (4)1442 Ecumenical Council of Florence.

---

Again, the canon wasn't dogmatically defined until Trent. At that point, there could be no disagreement.

quote:

---

The council of Trent was a response to Luther and the reformation. You are hung up on the "infallibility" formality at Trent. All 73 books were in use for 1100 years before Trent, and confirmed as sacred Scripture.

---

The reason why I'm "hung up" is because the formality of dogmatically defining error makes a big, big difference. Prior to Trent, some Catholics still held to justification by faith alone, and yet after Trent, that was no longer an option. Being a minority and not being allowed at all is a big difference.

quote:

---

Cajetan never disagreed with the church that the books were canonical, and his position was more nuanced than you are reducing it to. His work/words were speaking to the purpose of the books, all 73 of which, again, he considered canonical.

---

The purpose is the difference. All throughout church history, there was a distinction made between scripture that was authoritative for the church and scripture that was helpful to the church. It's why Jerome put his little notes about the deuterocanonical books prior to being pressured by the Pope. Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his translation of the Bible because he, too, thought they were helpful to the Church. The Protestants did the same thing until the 1800's.

quote:

---

dragginass

---

I'll have to disagree with you on the Luther stuff, but since you're done, I'll be done, too. Thanks for the conversation.