2 questions for non-catholics, that were always on my mind as a former non-catholic...

[E.E.N.S]

I would guess that most Protestants don’t see the list of books contained in the Bible as a function of anyone’s tradition but by inspiration of the Holy Spirit instead.

The fact of the matter is that the Holy Spirit did use the Church to determine the canon of Scripture. Even within Scripture itself we see that it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth, and that those who do not listen to the Church are to be treated as outcasts.

One has to have some pretty thick glasses of bias to not see the importance, authority and necessity of the Church.

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

I genuinely do not understand what you mean by this post. I know there are a lot of misunderstandings of Protestantism by Catholics, and vice versa, but I thought it was generally received knowledge that most protestants do not believe in the Real Presence.

What is it that you mean by the Real Presence? I wonder if it is the same as what a catholic would mean by the Real Presence.

If you believe in the Real Presence but not Transubstantiation (which is, often, very misunderstood), how do you believe the Real Presence comes into being?

I believe in the real presence through faith.When I partake of the Lords Supper I perceive the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. As to the workings of how it happens is a mystery and a miracle. All the Lord requires is you believe it does happen. I don’t require the theories of men to fortify my faith. If you require proof you have no faith.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

 

[gerhardc]

The fact of the matter is that the Holy Spirit did use the Church to determine the canon of Scripture.

Thank you, we are in agreement then.

 

[pablope]

I would guess that most Protestants don’t see the list of books contained in the Bible as a function of anyone’s tradition b

Probably, the concern would not be with tradition per se but with the seemingly great reliance placed on writings, which, unlike the Holy Bible, cannot with surity be considered to have been authored by the Spirit.

So, you are saying that when Pope Damasus declared and proclaimed and wrote this…in the 382AD…you are not sure it was authored with the guidance by the HS:

The Canon of Sacred Scripture…

[SIGN] Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle, one epistle.

[/SIGN]

rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html

And yet, you follow a protestant OT canon which removed 7 books from the Original OT…by the mere actions of men…and it was to save money on printing costs…with no surety in the guidance of the HS?

 

[Ginger2]

I personally think the canon of Scripture is off-topic, but here’s a little info from Catholic sources on the subject:

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The "Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants."
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,” [/COLOR]

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

“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.”* Jerome (340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

 

[gerhardc]

So, you are saying that when Pope Damasus declared and proclaimed and wrote this…in the 382AD…you are not sure it was authored with the guidance by the HS:

The Canon of Sacred Scripture…

[SIGN] Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle, one epistle.

[/SIGN]

rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html

And yet, you follow a protestant OT canon which removed 7 books from the Original OT…by the mere actions of men…and it was to save money on printing costs…with no surety in the guidance of the HS?

You are right, there is no surety of omissions from Pope Damasus’ Bible as being led by the Holy Spirit.

However, it probably depends somewhat on whether or not you consider Constantine’s intervention into the ways and belief’s of the Early Christians prior to Pope Damasus as a good thing. I don’t know too much about the subject but this is what Wikipedia has to say about the history of* authority in the Church* - it seems as if the Emperor or State had a significant role to play:

*According to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition, Constantine I adopted Christianity as his system of belief after the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. His legions, who were victorious, fought under the “labarum”, a standard with the first two Greek letters of Christ’s name.

In 313, the Edict of Milan legalised Christianity alongside other religions allowed in the Roman Empire. In 325, the First Council of Nicaea signalled consolidation of Christianity under an orthodoxy endorsed by Constantine, and though this did not make other Christian groups outside the adopted definition illegal, the dissenting Arian bishops were initially exiled. But Constantine reinstated Arius before his death and exiled Orthodox Athanasius of Alexandria. In 380 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the Roman Empire’s official religion (see State church of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and the Goths) and did enforce the edict. In 392 he passed legislation prohibiting all pagan cultic worship.

During the 4th century, however, there was no real unity between church and state: In the course of the Arian controversy, leading Trinitarian bishops, such as Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Gregory of Nyssa, were exiled by Arian emperors, as were leading Arian and Anomoean theologians such as Aëtius.

Towards the end of the century, Bishop Ambrose of Milan made the powerful Emperor Theodosius do penance for several months after the massacre of Thessalonica before admitting him again to the Eucharist. On the other hand, only a few years later, Chrysostom, who as bishop of Constantinople criticized the excesses of the royal court, was eventually banished and died while traveling to his place of exile.
*

The validity of the men noted above (Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Gregory of Nyssa) is not relevant to this discussion. The person who made the decisions about them is.

Whilst there was no real unity during the 4th century, it seems as if the State started to become Church and* vice versa*. I know that might be construed as controversial or offensive by some but that, essentially, is what Wikipedia is saying above.

 

[joe370]

Protestants do follow the doctrine of Real Presence in Communion. It is the doctrine of Transubstantiation they do not follow.
As far as I am aware Catholic Answers is a forum for discussing Roman Catholic beliefs NOT attacking Protestant ones, though some seem to think other faiths are fair game.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

Regarding the Eucharist: do you believe that there is change in the bread and wine into Jesus’ Body and Blood, respectively, while all that is accessible to the senses maintains the appearance of bread and wine, and as to the workings of how this miracle happens, remains a mystery?

I was just curious because that is the definition of transubstantiation. It simply means: The conversion of one substance into another…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I believe in the real presence through faith.When I partake of the Lords Supper I perceive the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. As to the workings of how it happens is a mystery and a miracle. All the Lord requires is you believe it does happen. I don’t require the theories of men to fortify my faith. If you require proof you have no faith.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

It appears, then, that you believe in what some call transubstantiation. The Catholic Church teaches, too, that it is a mystery. The Catholic Church teaches that it happens but not how. The Catholic Church says we may call this mystery transubstantiation but that we don’t have to, in fact we don’t have to give it any name. We don’t require proof just belief.

 

[pablope]

I personally think the canon of Scripture is off-topic, but here’s a little info from Catholic sources on the subject:

If you come to think of it…it points to the main issues between Catholics and Protestants…authority.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The "Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants."
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,” [/COLOR]

We know this already…so thanks for posting it…

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

 

[pablope]

You are right, there is no surety of omissions from Pope Damasus’ Bible as being led by the Holy Spirit.

However, it probably depends somewhat on whether or not you consider Constantine’s intervention into the ways and belief’s of the Early Christians prior to Pope Damasus as a good thing. I don’t know too much about the subject but this is what Wikipedia has to say about the history of* authority in the Church*

 

[pablope]

You are right, there is no surety of omissions from Pope Damasus’ Bible as being led by the Holy Spirit.

And so with that “there is no surety of omissions from Pope Damasus’ Bible as being led by the Holy Spirit.”…why do protestants follow an OT canon that is different from that proclaimed by Pope Damasus…where men took the authority upon themselves to remove these 7 books?

Do you think these men were inspired by the HS or not for removing those 7 books?

 

[gerhardc]

Constantine was only baptized a christian on his deathbed, not prior.

This is exactly the point. Up to that time - his baptizm on his death bed - Constantine had, according to Wikipedia, executed several decisions about matters pertaining to faith and the Church, which decisions, given that he did not come to a *true decision for Christ *untill he was about to pass away - cannot reasonably equate to them having being made through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, being an Emperor did not seem to qualify anyone to execute decisions pertaining to faith and the Church prior to that moment, whether or not they were sympathetic to the Christian cause. Given the Emperor’s influence over the Church (seemingly including the head of the Church), one needs to ask the question as the correctness of declarations made by Church officials during and after Constantine’s reign.

 

[gerhardc]

And so with that “there is no surety of omissions from Pope Damasus’ Bible as being led by the Holy Spirit.”…why do protestants follow an OT canon that is different from that proclaimed by Pope Damasus…where men took the authority upon themselves to remove these 7 books?

Do you think these men were inspired by the HS or not for removing those 7 books?

I think someone else has a better answer than I :

I personally think the canon of Scripture is off-topic, but here’s a little info from Catholic sources on the subject:

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The "Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants."
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,” [/COLOR]

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

“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.”* Jerome (340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I believe in the real presence through faith.When I partake of the Lords Supper I perceive the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. As to the workings of how it happens is a mystery and a miracle. All the Lord requires is you believe it does happen. I don’t require the theories of men to fortify my faith. If you require proof you have no faith.
Your Brother in Christ,
Richard.

Then you’re obviously much closer to the Catholic belief than the protestant. You’re also (in the first post) very confused about what the typical protestant believes, but I notice in this post you seem to be speaking for yourself rather than protestants.

You’re very confused about transubstantiation though because it has nothing to do with fortifying faith.