A question for Catholics

[CumberlandPres]

I think you have some very good and relevant questions that deserve answers. I think part of the problem here is the answering a question with a question, or not truly discussing, which is leading this off in tangents.

Stick with one topic per thread, and if something else comes up that is off topic, stick it in a new thread for discussion. We are not all in the same room together - it gets very difficult to stay on topic when the topic keeps changing.

This may help you in getting the answers you are looking for.

~Liza

Hello,

I am new here, I have been looking at this forum for awhile, and I keep hearing about “The one true faith” Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church

CumberlandPres

 

[Lee44]

Hello,

I am new here, I have been looking at this forum for awhile, and I keep hearing about “The one true faith” Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church

CumberlandPres

Oh lord, you have gone and done it now.

Lee44

 

[ricko]

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?

Jokerz

I believe you might have your history mixed up. The Catholic Church (there is no church called the Roman Catholic Church) never had a problem with James nor Hebrews. The Church accepted them as inspired but only questioned the authorship. Now it was Luther who rejected Hebrews and James and called James an “epistle of straw”.

 

[ricko]

Hello,

I am new here, I have been looking at this forum for awhile, and I keep hearing about “The one true faith” Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church

CumberlandPres

Welcome. We will answer any question you have. However this thread deals with another topic. The correct way is to start a new thread with your question and we will start the ball rolling.

 

[mark_a]

If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it?

Comparatively:

How could Martin Luther and his cohorts dispose of books of the bible that were in use for over 1000 years?

How could Christians still disagree about which books should be in the bible after 500 years?

It is a presumption to think that this matter is “so simple”.

 

[Lee44]

Hello,

I am new here, I have been looking at this forum for awhile, and I keep hearing about “The one true faith” Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church

CumberlandPres

For the sake of your soul leave this website and don’t ever come back! I made the mistake of converting to the “Roman” faith, and once they have their hex on you its very difficult to get back with God, please visit this website.

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope_burning_in_hell.htm

 

[lizaanne]

Hello,

I am new here, I have been looking at this forum for awhile, and I keep hearing about “The one true faith” Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church

CumberlandPres

Two suggestions:
1.) Start a new thread to ask your questions
2.) Take a listen to the podcasts in the link you will find in my signature - there is some great information there that might help you.

Oh - and welcome to CA!

~Liza

 

[Subrosa]

I merely have questions, whats wrong with questions? For example. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple?

Hello and good day, Jokerz -

As a matter of historic fact, there existed only One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church during the councils you mentioned. The East and West seperated in a devistating schism in the year 1054. (By the way, these churches are making inroads at repairing the schism - see ecupatriarchate.org/)

As such, both these churches you mention eventually agreed on which books would be accepted into the universal church’s canons.

Another aside - throughout christian history the books you call apocrypha have been used by every apostolic church in existance. They are in use to this day.

I once asked a venerable Orthodox priest about the subject of the Protestant Apocrypha. His answer was that the Orthodox Church didn’t know that they were using the wrong books until the 20th century! LOL! They had been using the same books since the beginning of Christianity!

If you don’t believe me, how about the academicians at Calvin College?
ccel.org/info/apoc.html

The truth is that it wasn’t just the Roman Catholic Church that chose the books of the bible. It was actually debated for over 100 years between all the churches in existance at that time. Every Apostolic Church uses the same books that the Roman Catholic Church uses. In fact, some use even more!. The Orthodox Church accepts Maccabees 3&4, as well as Psalm 151, which even the RCC doesn’t use.

You see, the books were chosen according to the Traditions of each church.

By contrast, Martin Luther decided for himself in one fell swoop which ones he liked or didn’t like, including Hebrews, James, Revelation, and Jude. Believe it or not, he removed them. They were put back by later protestants.

I hope this enlightens you!
Subrosa

 

[mark_a]

The truth is that it wasn’t just the Roman Catholic Church that chose the books of the bible. It was actually debated for over 100 years between all the churches in existance at that time.

Do you expect us to believe that people at one time had enough love and respect for Jesus to allow his Church’s leaders to to contemplate and make decisions for it and not just start their own church?

 

[jmcrae]

Hippo and Carthage were indeed local councils not binding on the whole Church.

The canon of the Scriptures was promulgated to the whole Church in 405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I, seven years later; not by any of these Councils, although obviously their findings did have a great deal of influence on the Pope’s final decision; of that there can be no doubt.

 

[Allweather]

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong.

Well, the Scriptures are actually a rather complex library of various types of literature. Some history, some theology, some poetry, etc. Are you talking both OT and NT? Or just NT? BTW it has been my experience that men will come to differing opinions about the meanings of Scripture. When I was a Protestant, I was part of a group of people that broke up over an argument over the meaning of baptism. One might suggest that it was hardheadedness rather than interpretation, and I would tend to agree, but there ya go. Absent a central authority, and you end up with multiple denominations, whether thru hardheadedness, multiple interpretations, or a combination of those. The Protestants have been harping for 500 years that Scripture “is self-interpreting” but for some strange reason they keep breaking up into new denominations usually over disagreements about what Scripture means.

If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills?

I don’t know where you get this idea that the Catholics teach that “those outside the church and common pew dwellers” are “unable to understand the Bible.” The Catholic Church teaches no such thing. Problems arise, however, when someone concludes a meaning that leads to divisions and schisms. The Church cannot tolerate any such thing as that. The Church has 2k years of experience with Scripture, a treasury of knowledge that is without parallel. The Catholic Church is a Bible-based institution. The Church teaches the fullness of Scripture, not just parts here and there. The various heresies, among which are those taught by the Protestants, are actually good things in the sense that they have forced the Church to crystalize its understandings of Scripture and Theology. Still, heretics are in a very unfortunate position, because they often are separated from God’s Church, and therefore in serious danger of Hellfire.

 

[Subrosa]

Do you expect us to believe that people at one time had enough love and respect for Jesus to allow his Church’s leaders to to contemplate and make decisions for it and not just start their own church?

Hi Mark -

Yes. Jesus Christ left His Church in the hands of men in order to perpetuate and grow the faith.

This is expounded in the Bible. In Acts chapter 15 we see the very first meeting of the church. The Apostles and the presbyters met to discuss doctrine and ended up making changes.

The result of thier meeting was acceptance of Gentiles and agreement to not subject them to Jewish dietary law.

These decisions they made on thier own with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It is the model which is used for all synods to this day.

Subrosa

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

Let’s look at Ephesians 3:3-5 more closely …

that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

… it clearly states that scriputre was revealed to the Aposltles and their successors and NOT to all. According to Acts 1:22, one must be literally ordained by a successor of the apostles in order to have Christ’s authority.

Furthermore, 2 Peter 3:16 states that Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction.

 

[Norseman82]

Hippo and Carthage were indeed local councils not binding on the whole Church.

The canon of the Scriptures was promulgated to the whole Church in 405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I, seven years later; not by any of these Councils, although obviously their findings did have a great deal of influence on the Pope’s final decision; of that there can be no doubt.

Thanks for the information, as I’ve also heard that that those were not ecumenical councils and that has left a question in my head.

Would you happen to have a link to the decree of promulgation that we could bookmark?

 

[Jokerz]

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

 

[francesco920]

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

St. Augustine:

“I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6)

If Scripture is so easy to understand, why is it that you Protestants have hundreds of conflicting understandings of Scripture?

Perhaps St. Peter was right when he wrote:

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulses of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The Protestant doctrine that Scripture can be easily understood is contradicted by Scripture as are many other Protestant doctrines. For example:

Protestants: “We are justified by faith alone (sola fide)!”

James 2:24 - “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

 

[francesco920]

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

Your argument is a non sequitur. Timothy wasn’t the only bishop around; there are several lines of succession because there wasn’t only one apostle.

For example, succession from Peter has nothing to do with succession from Timothy. A bishop be a successor of Peter and not be a successor of Timothy and vice versa.

Also, this is why the Catholic Church says that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have valid apostolic succession. Many Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession as well. Again, your argument doesn’t follow.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for the information, as I’ve also heard that that those were not ecumenical councils and that has left a question in my head.

Would you happen to have a link to the decree of promulgation that we could bookmark?

No, since I have only read about it in history books; I’ve never seen the actual decree itself.

 

[Nan_S]

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

OK, I’m missing something here. The wording of your question and the quotes you referenced seem to imply that 2nd Timothy is instructions from Timothy to whomever. I hope I’m just misunderstanding your question.

Timothy did not write 1st or 2nd Timothy. They were written by Paul (who was not part of the Petrine succession) to Timothy. In this context, Paul’s authority to issue instructions to Timothy parallel the authority of the modern Cardinals and Bishops to issue instructions to each other and their flocks.

 

[Sixtus]

oth Hippo and Carthage would have their turn at being invaded in 429 by the Vandals from which we get the word vandalism. Both cities in the 390’s were basically peaceful and prosperous - ideal for hosting a council.

AMEN