Cardinal Arinze is awesome. I wish all our leaders were as clear on orthodox Catholic teaching. Not like alot of western wishy-washy bishops who don't want to offend anyone.
The very first time I EVER heard this cardinal Arinze and I was listing very good ,not on this particular vid but another I...FELL IN LOVE WITH THE WAY HE TELLS IT❗and BOY does he TELL IT👄❣ ✝😇✝Now that I found this Link ALL of his Q and answers videos will be VERY EXCELLENT.
"Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church" Graham This is a Short but very powerful book on how the Bible came to be. Bishop Graham uses mostly Protestant sources to prove that the Catholic Church is responsible for putting the Bible together as we have it today and totally obliterates a number of Protestant myths about the Catholic Church and the Bible.
Roughly at the End of the 4th Century there was a debate about which letters of the Apostles and Church Fathers were considered Scripture. There were the Acts of Peter, Acts of Clement, Epistles and writings by Ignatius, etc. The Church called 2 councils and by the Early 400ad. The Church canonized what Catholics call the Bible. We kept the OT that St. Paul used with the Books that Luther threw out. He threw out hebrews, James, and Revelations, then put the books back a year later.
Cardinal Arinze is great, but the one thing that I would add to all the wonderful things he said is that the Sacraments are principally predicated on the Most Holy Trinity, first and foremost. The cooperation we bring into it is necessary, important, and very very real, but at all times it is dependent on the 'first move' of the Infinite and Eternal One to us, hence they are Sacraments, or in other words, physical means by which God Almighty touches, envelopes, and penetrates us with His Grace.
You have a good point, language does change over the years, so how can u be sure the that Latin text is not misrepresenting the Koine Greek text in which the original apostles wrote from? You can only carry so much meaning of one word from one language to another.
Have you ever read the original Greek texts? I have, sometimes its almost impossible to translate that meaning over to English. Like some languages to others. So how can you be sure that latin is 100 percent reflecting the original writings of the Apostles? Oh by the way Koine Greek is also a dead language.
Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent @Augsburg in 1518 was among one of many people who didn't believe the deuterocanonicals to be inspired. Also, Carthage canonized a book that Trent did not: 3 Esdras. About Luther removing books: He translated the deuterocanonicals in his NT, but qualified them, saying that they were a profitable read but not inspired. He didn't remove the books you mentioned from his translation; he questioned their apostolicity. But Erasmus and Catejan did as well.
This is something of a common misconception held by Catholics and many Protestants; Hippo and Carthage were not Ecumnical councils; they were merely local ones, and as such were not considered binding and infallible upon Christians, according to Catholic theology. As such there was not a truly "infallible" list until Trent in 1546. John of Damascus (676-749)listed 1st and 2nd Clement as canonical (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17). cont
by the way i did respond to luvdidfeet, he asked where in the Bible, i gave it to him, Romans 10:8-10. I have a question for you, what is the difference between the Sacraments and the Old Covenant? I mean if we have to follow the Sacraments, why not just follow the Old? Another question? Is Jesus' blood not enough? Do we have to partake in Sacraments cause Jesus' blood is not enough?
I will say yes the sacraments are required for salvation because they bring us closer to Jesus all the time! We are forgiven and restore all the time with the Eucharist and confession. We need baptism and the Holy Spirit. So, yes we need the sacraments!
@14greg14 but Jesus said, ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven".
He was saying we're justified purely by faith, not by our Godliness, not by works done by holiness of heart! The Council of Trent would curse such a statement: Cnn 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said wrks are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be accursed." Clem wasn't a Pope; he was1 of numerous elders in the Roman Church.
Romans 10:8-10 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
There wasn't a single bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd century;till then the church was governed by a plurality of elders. Throughout 1st Clement,"WE" is used, not "I." Ignat of Antioch, in his letter to the Church at Rome, never mentions a bishop there; he mentions bishops of other churches in other letters, which would indicate that Rome was still ruled by a plurality of elders in 107. This is fatal to the notion of Christ giving a single person in Rome the ability to rule in his stead.
Interesting, so if the Bible was written originally in the Greek, then how come Catholics have been using the Latin translations for such long periods of time? I mean isnt the Greek translations more authentic? So why such a huge reliance upon Latin? Isnt there lots of room for errors right there? The oldest manuscripts of the Bible are in Aramaic Hebrew and Koine Greek
@14greg14 Friend, the Scriptures are very clear that God uses physical means, namely water, to communicate His Grace and Salvation to you. This is basically the "Incarnational Principle", because the Incarnation of our God, Jesus Christ, as True Man with a True physical Body which He sacrificed for our sins, was the means by which infinite grace and salvation came to us. Likewise, in baptism, the salvation of God comes to us by His Grace and our cooperation. It is *not* a 'work'.
Trent canonized a different canon than Carthage and Hippo, Tony...Trent excluded 3Esdras which H&C included. H&C weren't general councils, and they weren't seen as dogmatic, Tony. You seem to have ignored the info about Cajetan and John of Damascus disbeliving the apocrypha and including 1&2 Clement as canon respectively. All the bluster and hard-guy argmentation you put forth can't change the FACT that there was no Dogmatic Canon until Trent. Quit saying otherwise-it's a lie.
Jesus, not Peter and subsequent Roman Presbyters possess the Key to the House of David: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: (Rev 3:7) The keys (plural) given Peter in Matt 16 which give him the ability to bind and loose are given to the rest of the apostles in Matt 18:18; these men certainly had the capacity to speak for Christ on earth. About the Pope as Vicar: See next.
He's right. It's a waste of time for those of you who say, "Never mind the Fact,s I've made up my Mind." BTW, about a year ago in Bible study we talked about the Misconception the Protestents have about the bible being Canonized in the 1500's. I'd go ask our Instructor for the Info, But your not interested in the Facts. I'll take Pope Alexanders advice, I think it's good. Because this is a waste of time.
The Bible was fully canonized by the Church in the fourth century by the Council of Rome, Council of Carthage, and the Council of Hippo. Then again at the Council of Florence in 1441. All of this was down prior to the Protestant Revolt (revulsion more like it). Then the Council of Trent in 1545, in response to the garbage from the Protestants, affirmed the canon of the Bible again...73 books.
@vonMohl Evidently according to RC private interpretation but not according to the Holy Scriptures. Bottom line-Arinze ADDED to the word of God by claiming Christ said BAPTISM when He didn't! Using your logic when a woman gives birth her "baptism breaks"????
Many Protestents believe that all you need is a "Personal relationship in Jesus. But can't argue with Luvdidfeets logic that Judas had a Personal Relationship with Jesus. Christ left us a Church, not a Book. The Church(1 Tim 3:15) Canonized and Compiled the Bible. Can't have an Infallible book with a Fallible Teacher. If Luther had God's Blessing, where was Luthers Pentacost? I'll stick with Christs Church. Protestentism offers nothing but Disunity, + Scriptural Anarchy and Dishonesty.
It's Kinda funny to think when Protestents claim the Bible is the Infallible word of God they are admitting to the Infallibility of the Church. Most Don't know where the Bible came from. When Jesus ascended to Heaven he gave the world a Church, The New Davidic Kingdom. With Jesus as King, Mary as Queen(Just as every Jewish Mother reigned with their Son after Solomon, & the Pope as Vicar in the form of Eliakim. Isaiah 20:22. Hence 1 of Jesus's title's "Son of David". The Church Gave us the Bible.
Oops, that's Infallibility. Anyway, for all your proclaiming Faith Alone, the Epistle of James says Faith Alone is Not enough. Jesus, after the Lords prayer says we have to have forgiveness, to be forgiven. Can we go to Heaven if we don't forgive and are Not Forgiven? Jesus says many will say Lord, Lord, I did many things in your name. Jesus says, I do not know you. Probably because you didn't belong to his Church and Worship as he commanded. John 6? No Faith alone there. Out of Context? Nope.
Polycarp said "Provided we ONLY BELIEVE." Nowhere in his statement was he talking about the Catholic Church; he was talking about believing on Jesus and beling saved. Quit saying Sola Fide is un-historical; that is a lie.
Arinze must be next pope. ¿Jesús pidió a Juan que lo Bautizara en Agua si o no? Sí, lo hizo. ¿Si o no? ¡Sí! ¿Entonces? Palabras, palabras... Por qué no entiende el Protestante que Dios enseñó con el ejemplo y no con un Libro. En todo caso Dios habría mandado escribir un libro exacto. Sin embargo, prefirió la Tradición. Estudió la Sagrada escritura, sí, pero no escribió ningún libro. Nos dejó la Tradición. Jesús sabía que los libros se Terjiversan.
Actually it is quite Genious. Language Changes. The Word "Gay" today means something different than it did 50-60 years ago. Putting scripture in Latin was Brilliant because Latin was a Dead Language. So the words would Not Change, just as God does Not Change. Now?answer the questions that Luvdidfeet posted or nything you say has No Credibility IMO.
Thank You for teaching us Cardinal Arinze.These teachings are so exciting.You make things clear
Cardinal Arinze is awesome. I wish all our leaders were as clear on orthodox Catholic teaching. Not like alot of western wishy-washy bishops who don't want to offend anyone.
I love Cardinal Arinze!
The very first time I EVER heard this cardinal Arinze and I was listing very good ,not on this particular vid but another I...FELL IN LOVE WITH THE WAY HE TELLS IT❗and BOY does he TELL IT👄❣ ✝😇✝Now that I found this Link ALL of his Q and answers videos will be VERY EXCELLENT.
"Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church" Graham
This is a Short but very powerful book on how the Bible came to be. Bishop Graham uses mostly Protestant sources to prove that the Catholic Church is responsible for putting the Bible together as we have it today and totally obliterates a number of Protestant myths about the Catholic Church and the Bible.
Do not forget that Christ himself got baptized by Saint John ! For our sake, not for his own !
Roughly at the End of the 4th Century there was a debate about which letters of the Apostles and Church Fathers were considered Scripture. There were the Acts of Peter, Acts of Clement, Epistles and writings by Ignatius, etc. The Church called 2 councils and by the Early 400ad. The Church canonized what Catholics call the Bible. We kept the OT that St. Paul used with the Books that Luther threw out. He threw out hebrews, James, and Revelations, then put the books back a year later.
i wanted him to b pope so bad.... totally love this Cardinal. Love pope Ratzinger too
In a word, "YES."
I love him...
Cardinal Arinze is great, but the one thing that I would add to all the wonderful things he said is that the Sacraments are principally predicated on the Most Holy Trinity, first and foremost. The cooperation we bring into it is necessary, important, and very very real, but at all times it is dependent on the 'first move' of the Infinite and Eternal One to us, hence they are Sacraments, or in other words, physical means by which God Almighty touches, envelopes, and penetrates us with His Grace.
@drbible1611 Be born of water - By "water," here, is evidently signified "baptism." Thus the word is used in Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5.
You have a good point, language does change over the years, so how can u be sure the that Latin text is not misrepresenting the Koine Greek text in which the original apostles wrote from? You can only carry so much meaning of one word from one language to another.
Have you ever read the original Greek texts? I have, sometimes its almost impossible to translate that meaning over to English. Like some languages to others. So how can you be sure that latin is 100 percent reflecting the original writings of the Apostles? Oh by the way Koine Greek is also a dead language.
Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent @Augsburg in 1518 was among one of many people who didn't believe the deuterocanonicals to be inspired. Also, Carthage canonized a book that Trent did not: 3 Esdras.
About Luther removing books: He translated the deuterocanonicals in his NT, but qualified them, saying that they were a profitable read but not inspired. He didn't remove the books you mentioned from his translation; he questioned their apostolicity. But Erasmus and Catejan did as well.
"And this fellow is going in where angels are afraid to go in"
Jay Harmony 😂😂😂
@vonMohl
"...baptism now saves you" (1Pet 3 :21).
This is something of a common misconception held by Catholics and many Protestants; Hippo and Carthage were not Ecumnical councils; they were merely local ones, and as such were not considered binding and infallible upon Christians, according to Catholic theology. As such there was not a truly "infallible" list until Trent in 1546. John of Damascus (676-749)listed 1st and 2nd Clement as canonical (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17). cont
by the way i did respond to luvdidfeet, he asked where in the Bible, i gave it to him, Romans 10:8-10.
I have a question for you, what is the difference between the Sacraments and the Old Covenant? I mean if we have to follow the Sacraments, why not just follow the Old?
Another question? Is Jesus' blood not enough? Do we have to partake in Sacraments cause Jesus' blood is not enough?
What did the Cardinal say to read on those who did not receive baptism? I couldn't hear him clearly. It was towards the end of the video
Hi, TonyLVNV...could you could tell me when the Catholic Church Infallibly proclaimed the Canon of Scripture?
@vonMohl
"and this fellow is going in where angels are afraid to go in."
I will say yes the sacraments are required for salvation because they bring us closer to Jesus all the time! We are forgiven and restore all the time with the Eucharist and confession. We need baptism and the Holy Spirit. So, yes we need the sacraments!
@14greg14 but Jesus said, ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven".
He was saying we're justified purely by faith, not by our Godliness, not by works done by holiness of heart! The Council of Trent would curse such a statement:
Cnn 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said wrks are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be accursed."
Clem wasn't a Pope; he was1 of numerous elders in the Roman Church.
@Joshster777 I think you will like Kolbe 1019's new video on Mary in Scripture.
Romans 10:8-10
8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
can somebody transcribe please 3:47 -49?
Witold Domeyko where angels are afraid to go in
There wasn't a single bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd century;till then the church was governed by a plurality of elders. Throughout 1st Clement,"WE" is used, not "I." Ignat of Antioch, in his letter to the Church at Rome, never mentions a bishop there; he mentions bishops of other churches in other letters, which would indicate that Rome was still ruled by a plurality of elders in 107. This is fatal to the notion of Christ giving a single person in Rome the ability to rule in his stead.
Interesting, so if the Bible was written originally in the Greek, then how come Catholics have been using the Latin translations for such long periods of time? I mean isnt the Greek translations more authentic? So why such a huge reliance upon Latin? Isnt there lots of room for errors right there? The oldest manuscripts of the Bible are in Aramaic Hebrew and Koine Greek
@14greg14 Friend, the Scriptures are very clear that God uses physical means, namely water, to communicate His Grace and Salvation to you. This is basically the "Incarnational Principle", because the Incarnation of our God, Jesus Christ, as True Man with a True physical Body which He sacrificed for our sins, was the means by which infinite grace and salvation came to us. Likewise, in baptism, the salvation of God comes to us by His Grace and our cooperation. It is *not* a 'work'.
Trent canonized a different canon than Carthage and Hippo, Tony...Trent excluded 3Esdras which H&C included. H&C weren't general councils, and they weren't seen as dogmatic, Tony. You seem to have ignored the info about Cajetan and John of Damascus disbeliving the apocrypha and including 1&2 Clement as canon respectively. All the bluster and hard-guy argmentation you put forth can't change the FACT that there was no Dogmatic Canon until Trent. Quit saying otherwise-it's a lie.
Jesus, not Peter and subsequent Roman Presbyters possess the Key to the House of David:
He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: (Rev 3:7)
The keys (plural) given Peter in Matt 16 which give him the ability to bind and loose are given to the rest of the apostles in Matt 18:18; these men certainly had the capacity to speak for Christ on earth.
About the Pope as Vicar: See next.
He's right. It's a waste of time for those of you who say, "Never mind the Fact,s I've made up my Mind." BTW, about a year ago in Bible study we talked about the Misconception the Protestents have about the bible being Canonized in the 1500's. I'd go ask our Instructor for the Info, But your not interested in the Facts. I'll take Pope Alexanders advice, I think it's good. Because this is a waste of time.
The Bible was fully canonized by the Church in the fourth century by the Council of Rome, Council of Carthage, and the Council of Hippo. Then again at the Council of Florence in 1441. All of this was down prior to the Protestant Revolt (revulsion more like it). Then the Council of Trent in 1545, in response to the garbage from the Protestants, affirmed the canon of the Bible again...73 books.
@vonMohl Evidently according to RC private interpretation but not according to the Holy Scriptures.
Bottom line-Arinze ADDED to the word of God by claiming Christ said BAPTISM when He didn't!
Using your logic when a woman gives birth her "baptism breaks"????
Many Protestents believe that all you need is a "Personal relationship in Jesus. But can't argue with Luvdidfeets logic that Judas had a Personal Relationship with Jesus. Christ left us a Church, not a Book. The Church(1 Tim 3:15) Canonized and Compiled the Bible. Can't have an Infallible book with a Fallible Teacher. If Luther had God's Blessing, where was Luthers Pentacost? I'll stick with Christs Church. Protestentism offers nothing but Disunity, + Scriptural Anarchy and Dishonesty.
It's Kinda funny to think when Protestents claim the Bible is the Infallible word of God they are admitting to the Infallibility of the Church. Most Don't know where the Bible came from. When Jesus ascended to Heaven he gave the world a Church, The New Davidic Kingdom. With Jesus as King, Mary as Queen(Just as every Jewish Mother reigned with their Son after Solomon, & the Pope as Vicar in the form of Eliakim. Isaiah 20:22. Hence 1 of Jesus's title's "Son of David". The Church Gave us the Bible.
Oops, that's Infallibility. Anyway, for all your proclaiming Faith Alone, the Epistle of James says Faith Alone is Not enough. Jesus, after the Lords prayer says we have to have forgiveness, to be forgiven. Can we go to Heaven if we don't forgive and are Not Forgiven? Jesus says many will say Lord, Lord, I did many things in your name. Jesus says, I do not know you. Probably because you didn't belong to his Church and Worship as he commanded. John 6? No Faith alone there. Out of Context? Nope.
Polycarp said "Provided we ONLY BELIEVE." Nowhere in his statement was he talking about the Catholic Church; he was talking about believing on Jesus and beling saved. Quit saying Sola Fide is un-historical; that is a lie.
Arinze must be next pope. ¿Jesús pidió a Juan que lo Bautizara en Agua si o no? Sí, lo hizo. ¿Si o no? ¡Sí! ¿Entonces? Palabras, palabras... Por qué no entiende el Protestante que Dios enseñó con el ejemplo y no con un Libro. En todo caso Dios habría mandado escribir un libro exacto. Sin embargo, prefirió la Tradición. Estudió la Sagrada escritura, sí, pero no escribió ningún libro. Nos dejó la Tradición. Jesús sabía que los libros se Terjiversan.
Actually it is quite Genious. Language Changes. The Word "Gay" today means something different than it did 50-60 years ago. Putting scripture in Latin was Brilliant because Latin was a Dead Language. So the words would Not Change, just as God does Not Change. Now?answer the questions that Luvdidfeet posted or nything you say has No Credibility IMO.