₦airaland Forum

Requesting Help

@ Mods

If I accidentally delete or modify a post, are you guys able to recover the original version? If so I will like you to do so for me and I will provide the link.

Basically, I accidentally modified a post instead of making a new one.

Thanks

Ah, Carthage, the very one that a whole "Cardinal" Cajetan (Roman Catholic and Luther's antagonist no less!) said is a "provincial" council i.e. not a Roman Catholic council?

Per "Cardinal" Cajetan

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

Meanwhile this "Cardinal" Cajetan would now be anathema since he contradicted the canon that the Roman Catholics later made at Trent ---- in 1546!

If Carthage had set a canon for Roman Catholics why did one of the better Roman Catholic "popes" contradict Carthage 100 years later when he said that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon?

Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great

Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.”

Now, according to the Council of Trent, this "pope" would now be anathema because he excluded books which the Roman Catholics include in their canon at Trent --- in 1546!

Oh and not only him! Even Jerome would now be anathema since he too said:

Jerome:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

^^^ I'm sorry to say that you too are fast becoming an accuser --- with your false allegation against me.

Hence, I didn't even bother to reply your post.

When Roman Catholics tell lies and use fraudulent arguments, they tend to overlook that it can easily rebound on them.

If a person says the list of canonical books presented by Athanasius is "private", then of course:

- Irenaeus list of "popes" that they even gerrymander ----- is also only a "private" list.

- Eusebius' list of "popes" --- is also only a "private list".

And of course those are in any event contradicted by the lists of Tertullian and Jerome.

And of course none of these lists is said to be divine --- unlike Athanasisus' list of canonical books which is said to be accredited and divine and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning!

Yes, the canon or even canons of "the Bible" were originally determined by ---- tradition.

Yep, by tradition of Christians BEFORE there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church.

Athanasius list "private"! lol lol

Yeah right, something he said was divine, and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning' that one don become "private".

An extract from that statement of Athanasius I referred to. While identifying and listing the books of "the Bible" in AD 367 (long before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim) he referred to:

"... the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine ....... "

When it suits them the Roman Catholics claim "tradition". When Athanasius shows the world tradition that exposes Roman Catholic lies, they turn their backs to "tradition".

Talking of the African councils and their canons that the Roman Catholics are trying to claim, there are some interesting things.

For now here is something on those canons from a Roman Catholic source http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

An Ancient Introduction

(Found in Dionysius Exiguus, Codex Can. Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. lxvii., col. 182.)

"After the consulate of the most glorious emperors, Honorus for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth time, Augustuses, on the VIII. before the Calends of June at Carthage, in the Secretarium of the basilica of Faustus, when Pope Aurelius had sat down, together with Valentine of the primatial see of the province of Numidia, and Faustinus of the Potentine Church, of the Italian province Picenum, a legate of the Roman Church, and also with legates of the different African provinces, that is to say, of the two Numidias, of Byzacena, of Mauritania Cæsariensis, as well as of Tripoli, and with Vincent Colositanus, Fortunatian, and other bishops of the proconsular province, in all two hundred and seventeen, also with Philip and Asellus, presbyters and legates of the Roman Church, and while the deacons were standing by, Aurelius the bishop said, etc., ut infra."

Notice.

1. The person called "pope" there was the African bishop of Carthage NOT the Roman Catholic "pope"
2. Rome's representative/s was/were simply described as a legate/s of the "Roman Church"; yet they will lie that only in modern times do people call them "Roman"!
3. A see of the province of Numidia (basically Algeria etc) was called a "primatial" see; so it had some "primacy". This of course raise issues about what Rome means when it too claims "primacy"

About the "pope" thing, as I said before Eastern Orthodox people wre the ones who originated the word and were calling their bishops "popes" looong before the Roman Catholics appropriated and arrogated the term.

A propos Polycarp, a little titbit for now.

Polycarp is certainly known to have quoted 18 books of the New testament (I will provide evidence later); some even say he quoted all 27.

Anyway, Polycarp who knew the New Testament well said to the Philippians that they were well trained in the "sacred writings"!

"For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you."

Is it not reasonable to conclude that the Philippians too had books of the New Testament as well as the Old of course?

What is more, the Philippians evidently had the apostle Paul's epistle (written to them) and is that not part of what Polycarp called "sacred writings" that he said the Philippians were well trained in?

- If the apostles did not know/use "the Bible", the apostles did NOT know of anything called "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church

- The apostles did NOT know of anyone called or titled "pope" or any monstrosity such as the "papacy".

- Roman Catholics who claim that they "canonised" the Bible in the fourth century are still lying.

- Here an example of Roman Catholics admitting that they did not finalise their own Bible till as late as the 16th century.

From one I made earlier (taken from the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia) https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible#18265482

"The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." {Note the "Tridentine Council" took place from AD 1546 onwards. }

Before getting to Polycarp's letter and its lessons, a few quick points:

- If the apostles did not know/use "the Bible", the apostles did NOT know of anything called "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church

- The apostles did NOT know of anyone called or titled "pope" or any monstrosity such as the "papacy".

- Roman Catholics who claim that they "canonised" the Bible in the fourth century are still lying.

- Here an example of Roman Catholics admitting that they did not finalise their own Bible till as late as the 16th century.

From one I made earlier (taken from the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia) https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible#18265482

"The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." {Note the "Tridentine Council" took place from AD 1546 onwards. }

Ah, actually I've just got an idea.

After I finish with the post on Polycarp's letter, I am going to do a number of posts using quotes from the "church fathers" and other sources to show their views on Peter, 'The Rock', and that they did not believe in any "pope" and certainly not in a "universal jurisdiction" of any "pope".

Interesting stuff.

Hmm, interesting! If anyone says that the apostles did not use scriptures then that is beyond a joke! The apostles used both Old Testament and New Testament scriptures --- as the Bible informs us.

Oh, and there is evidence that the New Testament books were assembled by the late first century and certainly by the second century.

In one single letter, Polycarp alone quotes from several books (some say all 27 books) of the New Testament! How could he have done that if he did not have the New Testament books "assembled" for his use.

In fact, I am now going to do a separate post highlighting some lessons from Polycarp's letter.

Ah, by the way, here is Cajetan (A Roman Catholic and Luther's antagonist no less!) unwittingly letting us know that Roman Catholics claiming to have "canonised" the Bible in the fourth century are liars!

From one I made earlier: https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible/1#18271154

Per "Cardinal" Cajetan

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."


Note a few things:

1. Apocrypha books are not truly canonical for confirming matters of faith; they may only be for edification
2. He suggests this is what Council of Carthage decided; which means that what the Roman Catholics did hundreds of years later at Trent does not even agree with Carthage. Yet the Roman Catholics declared "anathema" those who take the position of Cajetan! Is Cajetan now also "anathema"? What irony!
3. Cajetan completely contradicts the lie that Roman Catholics spread today by confirming what some of us have been saying: Carthage was merely a provincial council!
4. If Carthage was authoritative or had truly been "ratified" by Rome, why then did Rome need Trent to finalise its "canon"?
5. If Rome already had a settled canon in the 4th century how come it needed to establish a canon hundreds of years later in the 16th century?
6. Was any of Rome's claimed canons ever binding on the other people who set out canons e.g Athanasius etc?

The Roman Catholic Church did not canonise anything in the fourth century; it is a lie.

It is also a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church "canonised" the "Bible" in the fourth century --- especially with the subliminal insinuation that it is the Roman Catholic church denomination.

Let us start with Roman catholics: if they say they "canonised" the Bible in the 4th century, then they confirm that their "church" is NOT "infallible"! Why? Because the 4th century lists that they say they "canonised" are different from what they did indeed canonise at Trent in the 16th century. In fact they even pronounce anathemas on people who rely on such lists as the lists of the fourth century.

By this token, they would render Jerome subject to the anathema; they would also render Cajetan (Luther's antagonist) subject to the anathema. Both of these said the Apocrypha is not part of the canon ---- and they were referring to a canon that existed before them and before the fourth century. Meanwhile over 1000 years later, the Roman Catholic Church declares people who rely on such lists as anathema.

The earliest fourth century list that we know of is that of Athanasius --- which the Roman Catholics do not claim and always try to keep quiet about because it exposes their falsehood.

Anyway, the more interesting thing is that Athanasius lets us know that the canon on which he based his list existed looooong before the fourth century. He said it was handed down as accredited and divine to the fathers by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

We know of course of canons much earlier than the fourth century e.g. Origen; so it is no surprise that Athanasius refers to what was handed down.

The Roman Catholic church denomination people might lie till kingdom come. History is that they did not formalise a canon of their own till the 16th century at the Council of Trent. Even then they did not know which was the authentic version of even their own Latin Vulgate and had to commission that it should be prepared --- leading to the comedic infallibility-destroying episode of "pope" Sixtus V.

Roman Catholic lies are beginning to unravel small small!

If Clement was[b]fourth[/b] "pope", how could he have been ordained by "Peter"?

Peter when don die tay tay before the dates that the liars claim Clement became "pope"?

Meanwhile who then ordained Linus and Anacletus (or Clarus and Giringory) who were supposed to be the first two "popes". Oh and on their count relying on Irenaeus, clement would actually be third "pope" not fourth --- since Peter was not counted as a "pope". We know Peter was NEVER a "pope"; and there is NO proof whatsoever that Peter was "bishop of Rome". In fact, the Bible and historical facts refute that.

Later on we will see how the Bible itself refutes the LIE that Peter was ever "pope" or even bishop of Rome.

Meanwhile, it is not wise to let these questions get hidden away.

JMAN05: @Catholics.

1. When you say you 'made' the bible, what do you mean?

2. when you say you are the first church, what do you mean?

And yet the Roman Catholics continue to lie expressly or by concealment --- continuing in the fraudulent tradition of their "popes" and "fathers" who were forging documents to deceive the world.

For a start, the Roman Catholic church denomination calls itself ---- the Roman Catholic Church, or even simply the Roman Church.

The last two or three "popes" all did it. Their Church documents do it; and even when they announced the current "pope" they did it.

Of course it is fair for other knowledgeable people to call them what they are ---- no matter their Wikipedia propaganda. So whether it is Roman, Roman Catholic, Romish or even papist --- they are all these things. They are especially "papist" because they place their "popes" above Jesus Christ and agree with their "popes" when the "popes" say only those who submit to the "pope" can be saved! What Jesus Christ said ---- does not matter to them of course. Common idolaters!

Ah, some early morning amusement.

First of all when Roman Catholics talk or boast about numbers, many of them are ignorant that they might be subjecting themselves to a curse. Here is what one "pope" said:

"To one who says, 'Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material strength,' let him be anathema." "pope" Pius IX

Second, when Roman Catholics claim to be "the Catholic Church", they are lying and trying to deceive. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox too call themselves Catholic i.e. Orthodox Catholic Church. Ask the Roman Catholics if the Eastern Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, it was this same Eastern Orthodox who did all or most of the things that Roman Catholics are laying claim to fraudulently.
See here for examples: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

And as for the question above which I quote below, considering that there are many examples of Roman Catholics not only saying that "they" compiled the Bible but also saying that they wrote the Bible, well doesn't anyone know that the Roman Catholic church denomination existed loong before Jesus Christ? Afterall both the Old Testament and the Apocrypha were written well before Jesus Christ was born ---- by Roman Catholics!

JMAN05: @Catholics.

1. When you say you 'made' the bible, what do you mean?

2. when you say you are the first church, what do you mean?

adsonstone: ....
The church Christ found is 'The Christian Church' which Deeper life is part of and not the 'catholic' church as you claimed.

Indeed the Church that Jesus founded is the Church of Christ aka The Christian Church.

There is a Wikipedia entry on The Christian Church here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

It starts like this:

"The term Christian Church when used as a proper noun usually refers to the whole Christian religious tradition throughout history. When used in this way the term does not refer to a particular denomination or to a building."

I have bolded the bit that says the Christian Church does not refer to a particular denomination or building.

One of the first things to note is that the English word "church" is part of the problem unintentionally. And it is the abuse of that word that can only allow any pompous group whether they be the Roman Catholic church denomination or another to claim to be the only or true "church".

The word tanslated "church" is the Greek 'ekklesia'. However that word really means assembly or even more properly/technically the called out. Christians are "the called out" because they are called out to be separate i.e. to be holy, i.e. consecrated for God Himself.

So imagine if 'ekklesia' had been only translated to mean 'the called out' and then understand how ridiculous or idiotic and more crucially how unbiblical the Roman Catholic church denomination or any other denomination sounds when they claim that they are the only "called out"!

There is indeed another Greek word that really means "church" in the sense of a building etc i.e. 'kyriakos' (kyriakos oikos). You can even see the linguistic connection to various other language forms rooting to the English "church" e.g. 'kirk' to take just one example.

@adsonstone

Please let me help clarify a few things.

adsonstone: yes, I said the church in Rome (probably catholic) because the books of the bible were agreed upon and compiled as a result of a meeting. I really think you should read on the bible history.

Sorry, this is not quite correct.

Let me start with the Roman Catholic position. The Roman Catholic church denomination claims it held a council in AD382 in Rome which produced a list of Bible books. It is now widely accepted that the list is a forgery. Next they rely on regional African synods of Hippo and Carthage of between 393 AD and 416 AD. Here again, they are deceiving themselves as those synods were NOT Roman Catholic synods; they were African synods!

Now even BEFORE any of the above, Athanasius produced a list in AD 367 i.e. 15 years before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim!

One of the interesting things about Athanasius' list is something that he himself said about it: he referred to his list as:

"the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine"

And he also said he was talking about:

the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers

Notice a number of things about Athanasius' list

1. The Roman Catholics never claim it (it refutes them in some respects e.g. it differs from their own Bible or canon).
2. It shows that even without any council Christians had essentially decided on the books of the Christian canon. Remember that the earliest council that the Roman Catholics claim came 15 years later than Athanasius' list.
3. Athanasius gives us an insight into and confirms the scholarly and Christian understanding of the development of the New Testament canon especially: it was originally based on use and acceptance i.e. what Christian churches regarded as canonical, and what they regarded as helpful though not canonical, and what they rejected.


I will try and dig up some old posts for you and also give you some links in a following post. I will also read your post again to see if there is anything else I can also address.

In fact, fraud lies at the root of the whole of Roman Catholicism --- it stinks.

For centuries they used fraudulent documents to fool others including other Christians and even kings and state officials.

For a start, the only document they can produce which suggests that Peter was a "bishop of Rome" is now well known to be a forgery.

Otherwise, the "church fathers" that they would want to rely on do not say that Peter was a "bishop of Rome". They base their modern list of "popes" on Irenaeus but he doesn't say Peter was "bishop of Rome"; he says Peter and Paul selected Linus.

But other "church fathers" contradict that because they thought Clement was the first bishop having been placed in the chair by Peter. This seems to be because some of them were also fooled by the Roman Catholic forged document. That document is called Pseudo-Clementine;

Here is what one Catholic Professor said about the work : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature
"The Old Catholic Professor Joseph Langen in 1890 elaborated a new theory. Until the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, he says, that city was the centre of the Christian Church. A new pivot was then needed. The Church of the capital made a bold bid for the vacant post of pre-eminence. Shortly after 135 was published the original form of the Clementine romance. It was a Roman forgery, claiming for the Church of Peter the succession to a part of the headship of the Church of James. James indeed had been "bishop of bishops", and Peter's successor could not claim to be more than Peter was among the Apostles, primus inter pares. The Roman attempt was eventually successful, but not without a struggle."


The other forged document, the one with which they even fooled kings among others is called the Donation of Constantine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

"The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy."

Roman catholic church denomination #forgerymasters

Roman Catholics are still liars. And the local ones obviously learned from their fraudulent and degenerate "popes" who have been lying for centuries.

Anyway, no matter how much Roman Catholics try to lie about the origin of the Bible the historical fact remains that it was NOT the Roman catholic church denomination that gave us the Bible.

The Roman Catholic church denomination did not even formalise its own canon till the 16th century. Even at their Trent council they did not know which Latin version (i.e. supposedly their own Latin Vulgate) was authentic. Then the mumu "pope" Sixtus V botched up an attempt to come up with an authoritative Vulgate as Trent required; it was declared infallible and then within months declared fallible again!

Nothing that the fraudulent Roman Catholics can lay claim to as where they "established the canon" comes before Athanasius' Festal Letter of AD 367 where he set out the canon of the Bible -- and even said it had been handed down. And Athanasius was NOT a Roman Catholic.

One of the frauds even used style style to claim Origen earlier on. Meanwhile Origen was Not a Roman Catholic. In fact, the Roman Catholics regard Origen as a heretic. See how much fraud they resort to when they even claim someone they officially regard as a heretic!

Sal C: Hello brethren, hope all is well with you.

Help me thank God for the successful surgery I went through yesterday. Though the doctors said it will take 4 months for my complete recovery but am doing great already.
Praise God

Sal C

Very happy for you and wishing you speedy return to complete wellness.

adsonstone: ... you can also join him in the Study on church fathers on wikipedia.

Funny enough, there is indication that some Roman Catholics are spreading propaganda on wikipedia (as with elsewhere) so one must be careful when using it; it is still OK on the whole though!

Meanwhile for them to refute the claim that many "church fathers" were NOT Roman Catholics, they would have to resort to (a) the wuruwuru Mathematics of 5-4=5 and (b) the shameless double face argument where they say that the Eastern Orthodox are not Catholics but then they lay claim to things done by Eastern Orthodox people.

Things done by the Eastern Orthodox like: being the ones to coin the word "catholic"; being the first to have "popes"; being the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"; being the ones doing all the arguing at Nicea etc etc

See more on this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Something worth pondering:

In 2 Peter 1 we read:

"12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things."

There is a respectable line of argument that the bolded verse 15 is pointing out that Peter planned and anticipated that Christians would also have "scriptures" as guide in addition to the messages that the apostles delivered personally. Some even link the passage to the belief that Mark, who was reckoned to be connected to Peter, wrote the gospel that bears that name.

In any event, Peter clearly also referred to Paul's works as "scriptures". Paul himself is believed to have quoted from the Gospel of Luke. In addition, Paul asked the Colossians to ensure that that epistle was also read to the Laodiceans and also to read an epistle that he had also written to the Laodiceans.

See how early the apostles were already seeing to it that Christians would have authoritative "scriptures", that Christians would have the Christian Bible.

Bergoglio is interesting. It is good to keep watching and to see how honest and well intended he is. For me I will like him to do a "Vatican III" (or Lateran whatever) and undo a lot of mad baggage in the Roman Catholic church denomination.

As to the matter at hand, yes individual catholic priests may not match the "Daddy G.O.s" of today but the Vatican itself and the "popes" (and even some bishops) historically are far far far above the level of the modern Daddy GOs.

Heck, even the "robes" and stuff are copied from what the emperors and "elites" of the Roman empire used to wear. Before we talk of the "titles" especially of the "pope" ---- some of those titles being essentially anti-Christ!

Here how one former Roman Catholic priest put it!

"How can anyone read Jesus' demands that his disciples shun titles of honor, and never suspect that, if Jesus considered the titles "Father" and "Teacher" objectionable, how much more would he object to the use of titles like "Monsignor" (which is French for "My Lord" ), "Your Excellency", "Your Eminence", "Your Holiness", "The Holy Father", "Supreme Pontiff", and perhaps most presumptuous of all, "Vicar of ( i.e. stand–in for ) Christ", the equivalent of "Vice–Messiah"!

How can Jesus possibly smile on popes wearing robes and crowns that even the most powerful leaders in today's world would find embarrassing in their pompous arrogance? The papal "tiara" isn't just a crown, it's three crowns in one! And is there a head of state anywhere in the twentieth century who had the arrogance to have eight mere mortals carry them about on a royal "sedia"? Did you know that in Pius XII's day, it was considered an exclusive privilege for cardinals to be allowed to kiss the pope's foot and hand? Mere archbishops only kissed the pope's foot and knee; and abbots only got to kiss the Holy Father's foot?"

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/PopesvsChrist-1.html

From a Roman Catholic source; apparently written by a "monsignor" no less!

First of all, our man admits that the Roman Catholic denomination only formally listed and set its own canon of the Bible in the 16th century.

" On April 8, 1546, two Biblical Decrees were solemnly promulgated by the Tridentine Fathers. The first, called "Sacrosancta," declares the Catholic rule of faith in regard to the Sacred Scriptures by repeating the value of divine tradition, defining the inspiration of the Bible, and listing officially the books of the Canon. Then for the first time these books were formally canonized. This first Decree is a formal dogmatic definition of the Church."

Then he indicates that the events surrounding the Sixtine Vulgate makes a nonsense of the idea of "papal infallibility". Before quoting him again, let us have some background. One "pope" Sixtus V thought he knew more than everybody and produced a shabby edition of the vulgate; the "mumu" even made a Bull declaring "infallibly" (though some Roman Catholics like to deny this); other Roman Catholics who saw that the edition were filled with errors were horrified. Lucky for them the "pope" soon died and immediately they set about replacing the useless thing. It is understood they even tried to recover all copies but unlucky for them some escaped and one copy is believed to be in Oxford's Library.

Here is the "infallible" statement of the mumu "pope". The fact that it was soon set aside by Roman Catholics when he died destroys the nonsensical claim of "papal infallibility".

"By the fullness of apostolic power, we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private discussions, reading, preaching and explanations." (From Aeternus Ille Celestium)

Anyway, here is what the Roman Catholic source says on the matter:

"In 1586 the third commission was appointed by Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590). In the preceding period the Biblia Regia or Polyglot had been published at Antwerp (1569-1572) under the supervision of Arias Montanus. At Rome a special commission after ten years of intensive work published the Septuagint in 1587. This work of the Septuagint was of the greatest utility for the revision of the Vulgate. Cardinal Carafa was placed at the head of the new Vulgate commission. The members of the commission had at their disposal much collected material of variant readings, but especially the Codices Amiatinus, Vallicellianus, Legionensis, and Toletanus,31 and a 1547 Louvain Bible with the marginal readings of Cardinal Sirleto. After two years of intensive efforts the results of the commission were handed to the Pope. It was contained in a 1583 folio edition of the Louvain Bible with the textual emendations proposed by the commission in the margin. The emendated critical text differed so much from the then current text that the Pope did not give it his approval.

Pope Sixtus V now determined to revise the Vulgate himself with the aid of the Spanish Jesuit, Toledo, and the Augustinian, Angelo Rocca. The Pope, in rejecting for the most part the proposed emendations of the Carafa commission, returned to the Louvain text. Likewise, the conventional division of chapters into verses was altered by him. On November 25, 1589, the printing of the Vulgate was finished. The Bible was prefaced by the Bull "Æternus ille celestium" of March 1, 1590, which today is commonly recognized as not having been properly and canonically promulgated. On May 2 it was distributed to the members of the Curia and on May 31 to the Catholic princes. Copies were then also sold to the public. But Pope Sixtus was not content with his new work. He was prepared to print a separate copy of corrigenda so that each one could make his own corrections, but died on August 27, 1590, before completing his task. This Vulgate of Sixtus V was not well received, because it had rejected the advice of the Carafa commission, it had a very sloppy appearance with corrections made by erasures and slips pasted or words stamped over the text, and had changed the conventional order of verse division.32 On September 5, 1590, the sale of the Sistine Bible was forbidden and all available copies were destroyed."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

Ah, now let us have a little play.

For all the fraudulent Roman catholic claims, see how one of the Roman Catholic "popes" botched up a Roman Catholic version of the Bible --- to the horror of other Roman Catholics. The episode and its aftermath is of course a clear demonstration that the Roman catholic denomination's idea of "papal infallibility" is complete hogwash.

Read here about the Vulgata Sixtina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata_Sixtina

"The Vulgata Sixtina was a Latin edition of the Bible from 1590, prepared on the orders of Pope Sixtus V. It was the first edition of the Latin Vulgate authorised by a pope, but its official recognition was short-lived."

"On 8 April 1546 the Council of Trent required that the Vulgate be printed quam emendatissime (fewest possible faults).[1] There was no authoritative edition at that time.[2]

The first committee was appointed by Pope Pius IV in 1561 to undertake the work, but the committee worked slowly and ineffectively. The second committee was appointed by Pope Pius V in 1569 (Congregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum), with four Cardinals Marcus Antonius, Sirleto, Madrutius, and Antonio Carafa.[3][4] The committee was resolved under the Pope Gregory XIII.[5]

The Pope Sixtus V had appointed the 3rd committee of scholars to continue the work. The committee was under the presidency of Cardinal Carafa. The work was prepared on the basis of the edition of Robertus Stephanus from Louvain (1583) and good manuscripts were used as authorities, including notably Codex Amiatinus.[6] Carafa presented the result of their work, in the beginning of 1589, but Sixtus rejected their work and in 18 months prepared another text he corrected to agree with the Greek and Hebrew,[7] He used Codex Carafianus,[8] but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors,[9] as well as serious problems reflecting the inability of the headstrong Sixtus as a Bible scholar. After his death Robert Bellarmine warned that his work was an embarrassment, and a great danger to the church.[10] In May 1590 the completed work was issued from the press in three volumes.[2]


And from elsewhere, here is a statement attributed to the same Bellarmine on the matter: he was advising a subsequent "pope" on how to deal with the matter of the dodgy Sixtus Sixtine Vulgate. He effectively advised that they should lie!

"Some men, whose opinions had great weight, held that it should be publicly prohibited. I did not think so, and I showed the Holy Father that, instead of forbidding the edition of the Bible in question, it would be better to correct it in such manner that it could be published without detriment to the honour of Pope Sixtus. This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus' name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the
fault of printers and other persons."

ajayikayod: Well, they mit be thinking it, i m not thinking it, i know it is. So if anyone think otherwise d person can give me a simple definition/meaning of ATHEISM.

I've just noticed that I forgot to include tye link in my first post. Here it is: https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/2#9227593

I have also edited the first post.

adsonstone: .... Church Fathers, I have read articles online abuot these men. Many of whom were not even 'catholics' they contributed a lot to 'Christianity' in general......

This is what I have been saying.

First of all, let us even go back to the Apostles. The apostles never heard of "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic church denomination. They only knew the Church of Christ aka the Christian Church.

The "church fathers" who lived before 110 AD never heard of "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic church denomination. It was not until 110 AD if not even later that Ignatius used the expression "catholic Church".

Now watch this: even Ignatius who coined the expression "catholic Church" did not know of "the Catholic Church" let alone the Roman Catholic church denomination.

Even more interesting, the Roman Catholic church denomination have declared the church of Ignatius as anathema --- yet they are stealing and misusing the word "catholic" that he coined.

When Ignatius coined the expression "catholic Church", he meant universal Church; he did not believe in any "pope". Remember that "catholic" according to Roman Catholics means submission to the Roman catholic "pope". Ignatius did not know or even know of that particular monstrosity.

According to Ignatius, each bishop of whatever church is equal to any other bishop. The bishop of Yaba is equal to the bishop of Oyingbo is equal to the bishop of Bariga and is equal to the bishop of Rome. In fact, we can say what he meant by "bishop" was not much different from "parish priest" or "head of congregation".

It was not till much later that some people turned Ignatius' catholic i.e. universal Church into something else that they called "the Catholic Church" and which much later in AD380 (over about 300 years after Ignatius coined the word 'catholic') that they used the law to say that only some people can call themselves "Catholic".

NOTE in the context of this thread: the reason why some insisted on being the only ones to be called "Catholic" even then was ----- denominationalism. In other words, even in those days they created denominations because of their theological differences.

ajayikayod: Can i ask u wat atheism is, Mr High IQ and wat religion is?

You may find this post and others following interesting --- especially what the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal think on whether atheism is a religion or not. https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/2#9227593

I can yet point you to other posts and threads if necessary.

adsonstone: ....the Catholic Church did this, the catholic church did that.....

I like this line. And it gets interesting because if you ask the lying mumus to explain or define what they mean by "the Catholic Church", they wont! Why? Because it would expose their lies and also expose the Roman Catholic church denomination as a shamelessly fraudulent organisation.

When they say or imply that "they" are "the Catholic Church", they are simply engaging in wuruwuru Mathematics. According to their fraudulent mathematics 5-4=5 (five minus four = five)

The Catholic Church = Alexandria + Antioch + Constantinople + Jerusalem + Rome!

The Roman Catholic Church = Rome

Now the frauds are trying to pass off only Rome i.e. the Roman Catholic Church as "the Catholic Church".

In any event, whether it is the fraudulent Roman Catholic church denomination or even the Catholic Church, the Bible had been written and "compiled" before either of them came into existence --- by Christians! Hallelujah.

If you want to catch the liars, when they say "the Catholic Church", ask them which one e.g. the Orthodox Catholic Church aka Eastern Orthodox who even have a better claim to be called "the Catholic Church" than the fraudulent Roman Catholic church denomination?