Can a Catholic refute these?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could you quote the particular questions you want?

Of course they can be refuted. All of them. It is actually easy and basic.
 
i am sending them in small groups so that my reply doesnt exceed the word limit.
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?
Click to expand...
Ask for historical proof. i didnt know it happened.
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?
Click to expand...
not applicable - question error.
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
Click to expand...
a, they were not correct bibles
b, they did not obey.
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut or initiative in determining the canon.
Click to expand...
rome approved the canon.
 
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
Click to expand...
i emphasised the important words. at that time, they were catholic.
even after schism, catholics in those areas have catholic bishops. so eo church cant claim anything.
If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Click to expand...
catholic.com/quickquestions/did-the-church-add-the-deuterocanonical-books-to-the-bible-at-the-council-of-trent

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-the-council-of-trent-accept-some-apocryphal-books-of-the-bible-but-not-others
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
Click to expand...
the one holy apostolic **Catholic Church **.
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
Click to expand...
fisheaters.com/solascriptura.html
but be careful with that site.
 
If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
Click to expand...
cc possesses fulness of truth and others separated from it.
Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel?
Click to expand...
he didnt fail. the books were there, they just werent collected together.
Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
Click to expand...
septuagint was translated in 2nd century bc. hebrew texts were there even before that.
How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
Click to expand...
i dont know about jews, meltzerboy might be able to answer that.
If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other?
Click to expand...
the church refers to the catholic church.
b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
Click to expand...
what errors?
If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
Click to expand...
i wonder…
what if oc doesnt follow tradiion?
 
phew, that was tiring. but this must be enough to convince you that the catholic church is right. if you want more answers, let me know.
 
More info on:
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?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church began assembling the Canon very early. Certainly as time went on many writings were considered, accepted or rejected and reconsidered at a later time. This is due deliberation! Would we want them to do less?

Rather than being seen as a failure of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this should be seen as the Holy Spirit’s continuing influence on this selection process. While the Spirit guides the Church to the ultimate infallible outcome, the actions of the individual persons are NOT guaranteed. The Spirit must work with these flawed persons **with free will and reason ** struggle prayerfully with their decision-making. Eventually these people of faith, who act as a body, arrive at the collection which was the true canon in the fulfillment of God’s plan for salvation.

The Canon was not ultimately declared until the Council of Trent in 1546. This is when the list became finalized and considered closed. This is the point at which the final version can be seen as having arrived at the infallibly correct form that we know today. The early informal collections were not infallible but rather a work in progress.
 
ServantPD said:
What’s wrong with Fish Eaters? :confused:
Click to expand...
it is anti vatican 2.
(as said in the review, it lacks fidelity)
chefmomster2 said:
More info on:

The Catholic Church began assembling the Canon very early. Certainly as time went on many writings were considered, accepted or rejected and reconsidered at a later time. This is due deliberation! Would we want them to do less?

Rather than being seen as a failure of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this should be seen as the Holy Spirit’s continuing influence on this selection process. While the Spirit guides the Church to the ultimate infallible outcome, the actions of the individual persons are NOT guaranteed. The Spirit must work with these flawed persons **with free will and reason ** struggle prayerfully with their decision-making. Eventually these people of faith, who act as a body, arrive at the collection which was the true canon in the fulfillment of God’s plan for salvation.

The Canon was not ultimately declared until the Council of Trent in 1546. This is when the list became finalized and considered closed. This is the point at which the final version can be seen as having arrived at the infallibly correct form that we know today. The early informal collections were not infallible but rather a work in progress.
Click to expand...
i couldn’t agree more.
 
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
Click to expand...
I also think a Pope was involved in confirming the Canon from these Synods.
 
maryjk said:
Instead why don’t you do a couple of simply searches?
Click to expand...
yes, i educated myself about catholicism on the internet, particularly caf. i have been reading these since i was 12; (i signed in recently,not then.)

but, it would be rude to just ask op to search elsewhere and i like posting my answers. i didnt see much posts in threads in which i had posted.
 
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?
Click to expand...
If there were any disputes about particular books, this was before those Synods. One argument I always use for this (and for the deuteros) is that the Vulgate was basically the Bible of the western church from around 400 AD to the time of the Reformation. I am not aware of any changes to the books included in the Vulgate. Before 400 AD, yes, there was disagreement among the churches, which highlighted the need for a decision on what was scripture.
 
souldiver said:
It is said here that Catholic can’t refute this.
bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm
Click to expand...
I browsed through. Some of the questions will have the same or similar answers, so I will not go through each one.
1 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?..and #2 also…?
Click to expand...
Here is a short history of the Bible…this should explain it and…catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

In a nutshell…there were varying opinions in the Church, both Rome and in the East…about various writings. The question is correct, some were questioned, like Revelation, Hebrews…and there were some writings that were considered Scripture that did not make it…like Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Epistle of Clement to Corinth.

And this is why a council was formed and convened, to determine which writings…are to be read in the Church…which is one of the reasons why a canon was settled, so as to have a common list of readings during the Mass or Divine Liturgy.

The Holy Spirit indeed guided the Church, in the impetus to call a Council to settle on a set of writings. And the HS guided the council in its decision.
3If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome
Click to expand...
Because the mode of communication is quite primitive compared to today.

from the link above, answers the questions:

You may ask me, however, what was the difference between the lists of New Testament books found in various countries and different authors before 397, and the catalogue drawn up at the Council of that date? Well, that introduces us to a very important point which tells us eloquently of the office that the Catholic Church performed, under God the Holy Ghost, in selecting and sifting and stamping with her Divine authority, the Scriptures of the New Law; and I make bold to say that a calm consideration of the part that Rome took in the making and drawing up and preserving of the Christian Scriptures will convince any impartial mind that to the Catholic Church alone, so much maligned, we owe it that we know what the New Testament should consist of, and why precisely it consists of these books and of no others; and that without her we should, humanly speaking, have had no New Testament at all, or, if a New Testament, then one in which works spurious and works genuine would have been mixed up in ruinous and inextricable confusion.
7:If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Click to expand...
The common misconception on Trent. This is actually what Trent said:

the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Trent agreed with the what had previously been read in the Church…meaning, what was in the Latin Vulgate that St. Jerome put together sometime in AD 389 or so…after the Council of Jerusalem and the order of Pope Damasus in Ad 382.

But here is the difference between Trent and previous councils…Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon, it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top