Bible As Authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter tGette
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I’m back, …geez…I’m still trying to get over what RD says about Peter not being in Rome. You say in your earlier posts that you believe Peter, well, why don’t you believe Peter when he is speaking from Rome? When we prove to you here that he was in fact in Rome, you still turn a blind eye. Why? Because it will make you see that Catholicism is real? And that Apostolic succession is also real?
I stood in the prison of Peter and Paul. I went to the tomb of St. Peter, I saw Peter’s chains…have you?
 
Gara3987 said:
What you fail to understand is the fact that there are two types of tradition, Divine and ecclesiastical Tradition. Divine being from God, whether it be Dominical or Divine Apostolic (from the Holy Ghost). And ecclesiastical or Simple Apostolic, the Divine Traditions are throughout the whole Roman Catholic Church and Catholicism. Due to the disputes on the Ecclesiastical Traditions is what led to the Division. Here is the thing the Orthodox is really a fork of the Catholic Faith. This fork began with the Great Schism in 1054 AD. Protestantism (this includes all denominations outside of Catholicism) is a complete break from the Catholics, and started when Martin Luther revolted in 1517 AD. We know that the Scriptures are hard to understand: *“*As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” II Peter III, XVI, and that private interpretation will lead to disaster (2 Peter 1, 20). If Scriptures are clear to understand, why did Martin Luther and his imitators make new catechisms of Christian doctrine? Why do they fill the libraries with innumerable books of interpretations, explanations and commentaries? Above all, why have they any churches, where the Scriptures are explained, if the Scriptures are sufficient? And if there should be a church, why so many churches, of so many denominations, in every city and in every town? If there is a clear statement that in the Scriptures which all Christians should endeavor to put into execution, it is certainly the desire which Christ expressed in His prayer to the Eternal Father on the eve of His Passion and Death, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17, 21). What else do such words mean than that all Christ’s followers should first of all have the same faith?—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5). If you are in a faith that contradicts the teachings of the Apostles and the Roman Catholic Church then you cannot claim to be apart of this “one faith.”

It is a historical fact that the Church of Rome was always considered the first, the most important, and the most powerful Church in Christiandom. This was admitted in the first centuries and is so regarded today. She saved civilization and the Scripture. Her children outnumbered by far members of all other churches put together; and what is most important, they are bound in “One Faith,” as there can be but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

“While they argue from the Scriptures, they make poor exhibition of the Scriptures… because truth cannot be found by those who do not know Tradition, for not through writing, but by the living voice, Tradition was delivered.” Saint Irenæus (born between 135 – 140 Anno Domini., Smyrna / died 202 Anno Domini., Lyons., disciple of Saint Polycarp)
Click to expand...
I cannot decide who has the correct combination of tradition and scripture. Hundreds of groups claiming to be the correct one. It will take years to go through.
 
churchcamefirst said:
OK, I’m back, …geez…I’m still trying to get over what RD says about Peter not being in Rome. You say in your earlier posts that you believe Peter, well, why don’t you believe Peter when he is speaking from Rome? When we prove to you here that he was in fact in Rome, you still turn a blind eye. Why? Because it will make you see that Catholicism is real? And that Apostolic succession is also real?
I stood in the prison of Peter and Paul. I went to the tomb of St. Peter, I saw Peter’s chains…have you?
Click to expand...
I do believe Peter. Okay IF you really want to go this route, you might convince me that Rome and Babylon are one in the same. This of course has nothing to do with apostolic succession because the Bible contains the church offices and nothing about a bishop in Rome being a successor of Peter.
No if I think that Babylon is Rome, I will have no choice but to believe that Rome is indeed the great harlot to come.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do believe Peter. Okay IF you really want to go this route, you might convince me that Rome and Babylon are one in the same. This of course has nothing to do with apostolic succession because the Bible contains the church offices and nothing about a bishop in Rome being a successor of Peter.
No if I think that Babylon is Rome, I will have no choice but to believe that Rome is indeed the great harlot to come.
Click to expand...
Like it has been explained here 50 million times, that Peter used the word Babylon as a code name for Rome. It says so in the bible. AND furthermore, non-Catholics will say anything in order to try and “prove” that Peter, the first bishop of Rome was never in Rome. By doing so you hope to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and then by doing so, you will attempt to deny that he was the first pope, therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart. By denying Apostolic Succession, you will then try to show that the Catholic curch is not the church Jesus founded.
BTW, if you ever reach that point (which you never will), then it would be impossible for you to fill the void of which church Jesus Christ founded if it were not the Catholic church.
Your argument really has no beginning and No end.
YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE AN OVERWHELMING DEPOSIT OF GENUINE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, AND EXPERT KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME.
 
churchcamefirst said:
Like it has been explained here 50 million times, that Peter used the word Babylon as a code name for Rome. It says so in the bible.

It does not say Rome is a codeword for Babylon. Where does it say it is a codeword?
AND furthermore, non-Catholics will say anything in order to try and “prove” that Peter, the first bishop of Rome was never in Rome.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
I cannot decide who has the correct combination of tradition and scripture. Hundreds of groups claiming to be the correct one. It will take years to go through.
Click to expand...
Yet somehow you came to accept the Tradition of the canon of Scripture. How is that? It certainly wasn’t via the Bible.
 
cfrancis said:
Yet somehow you came to accept the Tradition of the canon of Scripture. How is that? It certainly wasn’t via the Bible.
Click to expand...
I do not believe the canon was set by a tradition. I am not sure you do either. I would need the specific part of the catechism that states such.
You have never admitted there was scripture prior to the NT and by what authority. The issue of apologetics and as it specifically relates to the canon is germane. I just do not see how you and I can discuss it without knocking out the presuppositons that seperate us.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not believe the canon was set by a tradition. I am not sure you do either. I would need the specific part of the catechism that states such.
Click to expand...
Yes, the canon was set by Tradition (please see CCC 120:
It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).)
You have never admitted there was scripture prior to the NT and by what authority. The issue of apologetics and as it specifically relates to the canon is germane. I just do not see how you and I can discuss it without knocking out the presuppositons that seperate us.
Click to expand...
We agree Scripture was Scripture from the time quill met parchment/vellum/etc…
As Scripture (in the vast majority) doesn’t self-identify, the question is, how does one know what is Scripture?
You’ve referred to 2 Tim 3:16 (and surrounding verses) which point to a canon of the OT. I agree such canons existed.
The question then becomes: what was the canon to which Paul referred (as he doesn’t list it)?

Which raises the question you’ve not answered:
what was the canon in 2000 BC? in 1020 BC? in 200 BC? in 200 AD?
Was the canon automatically updated as soon as someone said, “I have produced another writing inspired by God”?
 
cfrancis said:
Yes, the canon was set by Tradition (please see CCC 120:
It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).)

We agree Scripture was Scripture from the time quill met parchment/vellum/etc…
As Scripture (in the vast majority) doesn’t self-identify, the question is, how does one know what is Scripture?
You’ve referred to 2 Tim 3:16 (and surrounding verses) which point to a canon of the OT. I agree such canons existed.
The question then becomes: what was the canon to which Paul referred (as he doesn’t list it)?

Which raises the question you’ve not answered:
what was the canon in 2000 BC? in 1020 BC? in 200 BC? in 200 AD?
Was the canon automatically updated as soon as someone said, “I have produced another writing inspired by God”?
Click to expand...
Sure lets start. It will take a little while but should be frutiful In 2000 BC there was not scripture.
Agree?
 
What does
90 Cf. DV 8 § 3.
mean?

That is the source of this belief and that means nothing to me.
 
1020 BC. That will take longer. Give me a couple of days to get that together.
Thanks
 
Rightlydivide said:
What does
90 Cf. DV 8 § 3.
mean?

That is the source of this belief and that means nothing to me.
Click to expand...
DV = Dei Verbum (The Word of God), a Vatican II document:

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
 
cfrancis said:
DV = Dei Verbum (The Word of God), a Vatican II document:

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
Click to expand...
Vatican II is not infallible. Where would I find that in an infallible document?
 
cfrancis said:
I think we covered this a few posts earlier, when you stated:
And I pointed you to CCC 120.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to make up their mind. I have been told on this board by Catholics that the catechism is not infallible.
??
 
Rightlydivide said:
Someone needs to make up their mind. I have been told on this board by Catholics that the catechism is not infallible.
??
Click to expand...
Uh, you asked for a catechism reference, and it was given to you.
I made no statement re: infallibility; I merely provided that for which you asked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top