Disputations on the Holy Scripture

[annem]

The problem argues the protestant is NOT with Sola Scriptura, but with sinful people. Catholics argue in response to the above that just becasue some liberal nun or priest does what they want doesn’t effect the infalliblity of the Church any more then Jews who rejected Jesus affected his divine authority. Ah, the protestant would say- that is just the point! That there is disagreement about what the Scripture says among protestants doesn’t effect the authority of Scripture. It does not take away from the fact that we are to submit to Scripture.

Dear Apologist 78, I am not sure I understand this line of discussion. Sorry for being dense.

You say, “that there is disagreement about what the Scripture says among Proestants doesn’t effect the authority of Scripture”. I think I get this part–that the truth is there, in scripture, whether or not a sinful person, and we are all sinful people, will admit it.

As I say, I THINK I understand that part, but what would a Protestant mean by it exactly? If we are all sinful people. wouldn’t our very nature lead us to ignore the parts of scripture which tell us not to do what we want?

I don’t understand how this would bolster the Protestant side. I must be confused here, because it sounds like it bolsters the Catholic side…??

Please explain, God bless you, Annem

 

[Apologist78]

Dear Apologist78, I don’t think this line of argument works very well, though, especially today with all the atheist attacks on the bible. (May God convert you, Bart Erhman!).

Take the passage of the woman caught in adultery, which Erhman went on and on about. Erhman was quite correct that this is a suspect passage. None of the earliest copies of the bible contain it. We only hear of it from a passing mention in Papias.

So should it be removed, as many Protestants have suggested? Well, who is going to decide? What is the right thing to do?

The protestant would say that Scripture decides. This kind of question (though not this example) was asked of James White in his debate with Staples. White replied in the end the Scriptures decide. The problem I think most protestants have with the RCC is that they are not open to correction- or so it would appear to them. The reason they can have “fraternal” discussions with protestants who do not agree is that at least both sides are open to correction. With the RCC, once they speak, that is it. There is no new evidence which can be entered into the debate to re-examine the teaching, etc. I think that scares the protestant.

Or maybe the Protestants should add to the bible-- the Deuterocanonicals. Paul quotes extensively from Wisdom, after all. Clearly Paul thought Wisdom was part of what he guessed was the canon. James quotes heavily from Sirach, so maybe that book should be returned.

Give the references. If they are just mere allusions, the protestant will not be impressed. From what I have read on the subject, it would appear that NONE of the Deutero-cannonicals have been directly quoted from.

 

[Apologist78]

Dear Apologist 78, I am not sure I understand this line of discussion. Sorry for being dense.

You say, “that there is disagreement about what the Scripture says among Proestants doesn’t effect the authority of Scripture”. I think I get this part–that the truth is there, in scripture, whether or not a sinful person, and we are all sinful people, will admit it.

As I say, I THINK I understand that part, but what would a Protestant mean by it exactly? If we are all sinful people. wouldn’t our very nature lead us to ignore the parts of scripture which tell us not to do what we want?

I don’t understand how this would bolster the Protestant side. I must be confused here, because it sounds like it bolsters the Catholic side…??

Please explain, God bless you, Annem

Actually that is a good point. I did not think of it that way.

But the problem is that the same argument can be turned against us. Why would sinful people be able to recognize the authority of the Church, if they cannot recognize the authority of the Bible? If they ignore God’s Word which tells them uncomfortable things, why would they turn around and listen to God’s Church which tells them uncomfortable things?

Also, that aside, I think as I said the problem is that the RCC once it speaks is not open to discussion and correction- if new evidence is found, whereas protestants are. Councils and Tradition for the protestant are always open to correction if in theory something were turned up which would overthrow the doctrine. The RCC is not.

What I cannot understand, and I would like for you to explain if you don’t mind is why the Bible for the Catholic is not the norm or norms which surpasses all other norms? In other words what is wrong with the idea that the Scriptures norm the Church and Tradition? What is wrong with subjugating the Church to the Scriptures, and allowing the Scriptures to be the Rule by which all doctrines are measured? For protestants that is the real issue- what is the SUPREME rule of Faith, the SUPREME NORM. The Church for the protestant is a norm, Tradition is a norm, the Scripture THE NORM. There is a three legged stool for the protestant it would seem, but the Scriptures would stand alone and norm the other two legs. In other words the other two legs of the stool depend on Scripture, but Scripture does not depend on them.

When I debate protestants on the subject, I tell them that the main problem with Sola Scriptura is that it denies the infalliblity of the Church, and Tradition. I tell them if all Sola Scriptura said was that the Scriptures are the supreme norm I am not so sure Catholics would have difficulty with that- after all in everything we teach, we do hold them up to the rule of Scripture to test them- even if the protestant disagrees with our interpretation of Scripture they cannot deny we utlilize it for all of our teachings.

 

[annem]

Rome has not given us an infallible list of intrepretations of Bible verses anyway. Hence why is infalliblity even necessary? Even if they did, a fallible person still has to fallibly interpret Rome’s infallible utterances! In other words it is the CATHOLIC SYSTEM which muddies the waters worse then the protestant system!

Dear Apologist 78, Again this explanation makes no sense to me. Sorry, I am just being dense.

Rome presided over church councils which the pope then agreed to, which formed the canon of the bible. Was this ‘necessary’? Of course. At the time there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of spurious ‘gospels’ leading people astray, so of course it was necessary. Ever read church history about the unending debates about the Holy Spirit in the early centuries? Yes, of course a formal canon was needed, even vital.

As for your comment, “a fallible person still has to fallibly interpret Rome’s infallible utterances” I am again perplexed. We, as Catholics, have a canon we can’t stray out of. Furthermore, we can’t simply decide for ourselves that “Thou shalt not murder” does not include abortion. We have to listen to the church’s teachings on the subject. We have to study the entire history of the problem, and read what the early church fathers taught. Since when were Catholics to fallibly decide for themselves about abortion?

But it is likely that I have not grasped your line of thinking here. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

God bless you, ANnem

 

[Apologist78]

Dear Apologist 78, Again this explanation makes no sense to me. Sorry, I am just being dense.

Rome presided over church councils which the pope then agreed to, which formed the canon of the bible. Was this ‘necessary’? Of course. At the time there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of spurious ‘gospels’ leading people astray, so of course it was necessary. Ever read church history about the unending debates about the Holy Spirit in the early centuries? Yes, of course a formal canon was needed, even vital.

As for your comment, “a fallible person still has to fallibly interpret Rome’s infallible utterances” I am again perplexed. We, as Catholics, have a canon we can’t stray out of. Furthermore, we can’t simply decide for ourselves that “Thou shalt not murder” does not include abortion. We have to listen to the church’s teachings on the subject. We have to study the entire history of the problem, and read what the early church fathers taught. Since when were Catholics to fallibly decide for themselves about abortion?

But it is likely that I have not grasped your line of thinking here. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

God bless you, ANnem

I did not say fallibly decide, I said fallibly interpret. In other words the Catholic says to the protestant “We have the Church to tell us what Scripture means, becasue what good is an infallible book without an infallible intrepreter to give us the certainty of what the book means?” Yet, when asked to produce a list of the infallible interpretations of the Bible, the Catholic can produce none! And I am saying that line of reasoning is flawed.

On the one hand the Catholic is saying “We can’t understand the infallible teachings of the Bible without the infallible Church to guide us, but we can understand the infallible Church, despite the fact that it is issued no definitive list of infallible interpretations of Scripture.” It seems like it is a double standard. If we cannot understand an infallible book, why can we understand an infallible teacher who offeres us no infallible list of teachings or interpretations?

I am surprised you have never heard these arguments. They are brought up in debates all the time. Staples, Pacqua, Madrid.

 

[annem]

The protestant would say that Scripture decides.

Dear Apologist 78, I am once again baffled. What do you think a Protestant would mean by this? Why would the Holy Spirit have allowed the adultery story to be in the bible for centuries, and then removed later? Does truth change?

The problem I think most protestants have with the RCC is that they are not open to correction- or so it would appear to them. The reason they can have “fraternal” discussions with protestants who do not agree is that at least both sides are open to correction. With the RCC, once they speak, that is it. There is no new evidence which can be entered into the debate to re-examine the teaching, etc. I think that scares the protestant.

You put this in a very interesting way. Yes, the Catholic would say that truth never changes, the Holy Spirit never changes his mind, and that the original deposit of tradition and faith that the church received was never to be altered in any way.

But it’s not as if Catholics were claiming they themselves somehow had the truth; Catholics are all fallible, and sinners. We claim the Holy Spirit gave the church truths which we, as idiots, not to mention people who are fallible and sinners, had better not touch.

God bless you, Annem

 

[annem]

Give the references. If they are just mere allusions, the protestant will not be impressed. From what I have read on the subject, it would appear that NONE of the Deutero-cannonicals have been directly quoted from.
Reply With Quote

Dear Apologist 78, Hi, the best book on the subject is Gary G Michuta’s “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”. It’s accurate and scholarly, but not so scholarly that it’s dull and you have to force yourself to finish it.

Do you need all of the quotes or can you make do with just a few?

Luke 6:31
Do to others as whatever you would have them do to you

Tobit 4:15 Do to no one what you yourself dislike.

Luke 14:13–Tobit 4:7.
John 1022-1 Maccabees 4:59

Sirah 23:2 Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.
Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive others for their transgressions your heavenly Father will also forgive you

Well, and tons of others. Machuta says:

""Most of the early Protestants were too familiar with the Deuteros to even suggest such an absurd idea (that the Deuteros weren’t scripture). Several early Protestant bibles not only included the Deuterocanon along with the New Testament but actually contained cross referencing notes pointing out…the connections between the two. The original 1611 edition of the Protestant King James Bible, for instances,. boasts eleven of such cross-reference (and 102 between the Deuteros and the Old Testament " (p 26).

And here is another one:

It is a little known fact that things have not always been as they are today. Before 1599. nearly all Protestant bibles included the Deuterocanonical books, between the years 1526 to 1631 Protestant bibles with the Deuterocanon were the rule and not the exception. It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that the tide ban to turn (p 245)God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

I am surprised you have never heard these arguments. They are brought up in debates all the time. Staples, Pacqua, Madrid.

Dear Apologist78, hi, well, I never listened to a single one of those debates. I am not worried about the Protestants of this world. Not one bit. Heavens, why be worried about people who have Jesus and the bible? What has me in a panic is the atheists. Actually, most of my family is atheist, and one of them has actually written a book attacking Christianity.

So I have read and read and read and read…but not about debates between the Protestants and the Catholics. Just about early Christianity, and the debates between theists and nontheists.

Those are arguments I am really familiar with! ’

God bless you, Annem

 

[Apologist78]

Dear Apologist 78, Hi, the best book on the subject is Gary G Michuta’s “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”. It’s accurate and scholarly, but not so scholarly that it’s dull and you have to force yourself to finish it.

Do you need all of the quotes or can you make do with just a few?

Luke 6:31
Do to others as whatever you would have them do to you

And that is supposed to impress the protestant? That is the Golden Rule and EVERY religion has it. By your logic, not only is Jesus giving Divine authority to Tobit, he is giving it to all the other religions too!

Tobit 4:15 Do to no one what you yourself dislike.

Luke 14:13–Tobit 4:7.
John 1022-1 Maccabees 4:59

Sirah 23:2 Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.
Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive others for their transgressions your heavenly Father will also forgive you

Well, and tons of others. Machuta says:

First, as you can see that is not a direct quote. That is an illusion. Second, Whenever Jesus or the apostles are quoting from Scripture, the ALWAYS preceed the statement with “For it is written” or “For Scripture says” or “Scripture has it” These phrases are NEVER utlilized for the Deutero Cannonicals.

""Most of the early Protestants were too familiar with the Deuteros to even suggest such an absurd idea (that the Deuteros weren’t scripture). Several early Protestant bibles not only included the Deuterocanon along with the New Testament but actually contained cross referencing notes pointing out…the connections between the two. The original 1611 edition of the Protestant King James Bible, for instances,. boasts eleven of such cross-reference (and 102 between the Deuteros and the Old Testament " (p 26).

Again, this is true but misleading. The protestants have ALWAYS held that the Deutero Cannonicals are useful for pious devotion- NOT doctrine. This position is historic in that it has basis in history. Many of the ECF felt this way about the Deutero’s. That the Deutero’s appear in early protestant translations is true. But it does NOT follow they utilized them for DOCTRINE, only devotion.

Cardinal Cajetan the famous Cardinal sent to talk to Luther laughed at the idea that the Deutero’s were inspired Scripture.

It is a little known fact that things have not always been as they are today. Before 1599. nearly all Protestant bibles included the Deuterocanonical books, between the years 1526 to 1631 Protestant bibles with the Deuterocanon were the rule and not the exception. It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that the tide ban to turn (p 245)God bless, Annem

As I stated above- that the protestants used them is not the point. The question is whether they were recieved as SCRIPTURE by protestants. The answer is “no.”

 

[annem]

` But the problem is that the same argument can be turned against us. Why would sinful people be able to recognize the authority of the Church, if they cannot recognize the authority of the Bible? If they ignore God’s Word which tells them uncomfortable things, why would they turn around and listen to God’s Church which tells them uncomfortable things?

Dear Apologist78, People who are away from God are never able to see the truth. I can’t agree with you more. Ever read any books by some of the more famous atheists? They are so angry, so full of malice, even hatred. Maybe I am being too harsh here, and if so, forgive me.

The church has to proclaim the truth. It has to proclaim the truth if it means some people will be killed or pilloried for holding to Catholic beliefs. THe last century had more Catholic martyrs than any time in history. It has to go on proclaiming the truth even if atheists won’t listen, if sinners refuse to turn. All we can do is pray for them.

Also, that aside, I think as I said the problem is that the RCC once it speaks is not open to discussion and correction- if new evidence is found, whereas protestants are. Councils and Tradition for the protestant are always open to correction if in theory something were turned up which would overthrow the doctrine. The RCC is not.

The Catholic would say that new truth can’t be found, that the original doctrines of faith which were passed on by the apostles were forever. Heck, if it were up to us–Catholics being noted for being fallible, idiots, sinners–wouldn’t we just LOVE to find some new ‘truth’ that allowed us to not give to charity, to lie, to cheat, to be promiscuous? But we know the Holy Spirit will not allow the church to find new ‘truths’.

God bless, Annem

 

[NoelFitz]

I read:

Yes, the Catholic would say that truth never changes.

It ain’t necessarily so.

In the early Church there were married priests, now it seems they are inappropriate.

Now it does not seem to be a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays or practise contraception. There seems no need for confession any longer.

Attending Protestant ceremonies in recent years in Ireland was a mortal sin, as was eating meat on Fridays.

Educating boys and girls together was considered wrong.

Catholics believed that* extra ecclesia nulla salus*, all not baptised were damned, hence the missionary activities of the early Jesuits. Protestants were also considered damned.

Interest (usury) was condemned.

Slavery was approved.

Freedom of religion and liberal democracies were condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.

We read in Wikipedia

The Normans had suppressed the celebration (of the Immaculate Conception), but it lived on in the popular mind. It was rejected by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (who, teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine,” indicating its association with England), and by St. Thomas Aquinas who expressed questions about the subject, but said that he would accept the determination of the Church. Aquinas and Bonaventure, for example, believed that Mary was completely free from sin, but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception.[8]

In the early Church most, especially the bishops, accepted Arian, denying the divinity of Christ,

St Paul did not agree with Peter. Paul also fell out wth James and Barnabas (apparently). He seems to have fallen out with everyone, exept Timothy.

In fact most of Jesus’ family did not support him, But in typical Jewish family they were involved in his work after the beginning.

When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, Mk 3:21 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

Recently* Et cum spiritu tuo *was translated as and also with you. Soon it will be translate as *and witrh your Spirit. *

Many other changes in th Mass will be soon introduced.

 

[Apologist78]

Dear Apologist78, hi, well, I never listened to a single one of those debates. I am not worried about the Protestants of this world. Not one bit. Heavens, why be worried about people who have Jesus and the bible? What has me in a panic is the atheists. Actually, most of my family is atheist, and one of them has actually written a book attacking Christianity.

So I have read and read and read and read…but not about debates between the Protestants and the Catholics. Just about early Christianity, and the debates between theists and nontheists.

Those are arguments I am really familiar with! ’

God bless you, Annem

I see your interest then understandibly lies elsewhere. May God bless your endeavors. My interest lies with Catholic apologetics- but high powered Catholic apologetics. It is frustrating how you can never seem to box the protestant in. They always seem to have a way out. Just when you think you nailed them, they find a way out. Just when you think you have found the one silver bullet-the protestant somehow manages to dodge it. Perhaps you find that with atheists. I am hung up on Sola Scriptura becasue if that can be conclusively overthrown, protestantism is out the window. That is why I am working so hard on that one rock solid argument that the protestant cannot refute. I have not found it yet. The Pillar of protestantism is Sola Scriptura. If that pillar can be torn down, the whole structure atop of the pillar comes crashing down.

I pray God blesses you in your defense against atheism. That is what the very Catholic apologists here on this site would argue- James White and pals they feel are not important- or as important as threats to relgion and Christianity itself: Liberal, secular humanism so prevalent today in America. I would love to read your arguments against atheism some time.

I do caution you however not all atheists are bitter and angry. Some simply do not find compelling evidence to suggest there is a God.

How do you answer the idea that “If we were not taught there is a God, we would not believe?” Atheists seem to like arguing that.

Please also understand I am not saying I agree with the arguments I present against the Faith, I am simply saying I would like to see our theologians take them on and answer them.

 

[Apologist78]

I read:

It ain’t necessarily so.

In the early Church there were married priests, now it seems they are inappropriate.

Now it does not seem to be a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays or practise contraception. There seems no need for confession any longer.

Attending Protestant ceremonies in recent years in Ireland was a mortal sin, as was eating meat on Fridays.

Educating boys and girls together was considered wrong.

Catholics believed that* extra ecclesia nulla salus*, all not baptised were damned, hence the missionary activities of the early Jesuits. Protestants were also considered damned.

Interest (usury) was condemned.

Slavery was approved.

Freedom of religion and liberal democracies were condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.

We read in Wikipedia

In the early Church most, especially the bishops, accepted Arian, denying the divinity of Christ,

St Paul did not agree with Peter. Paul also fell out wth James and Barnabas (apparently). He seems to have fallen out with everyone, exept Timothy.

In fact most of Jesus’ family did not support him, But in typical Jewish family they were involved in his work after the beginning.

Recently* Et cum spiritu tuo *was translated as and also with you. Soon it will be translate as *and witrh your Spirit. *

Many other changes in th Mass will be soon introduced.

Hold your fire there champ…

You list too much for me to go into a detailed discussion. Not that I could not- I just don’t have the willpower right now!

Let me give a summary response: When the Catholic says “The truth never changes, the Church never changed, it always teaches what has been taught from the beginning” it does NOT mean to say that the Chuch always EXPRESS the truth the same way from the beginning. The Truth is expressed differently in subsequent generations- but the ESSENCE is the same. The Acorn-Oak analogy is often used- or the fetus to a fully grown man. Protestants mock the analogy, but I don’t see what they have to mock. I think it a good one, and I along with others wonder why it took so long for someone to think of it! The analogy was first employed by Newman in the late 1800’s.

I am the very same person I was in my mothers womb- but I look and act very differently then I did when I was one, two, five, ten, etc. But the ESSENCE- that is who I am has ALWAYS been the same. It is the same with the Church. The Church did look very differently in 90AD then it does today. But the ESSENCE of the Church is the very same. The truth it preaches is the very same, though it expresses that truth differently today. Catholics are not so stupid as to say that the Church acts and looks the same today as it did then. Catholics are however smart enough to recognize that while the Church has grown and developed, the Church of apostolic times, is the very same Catholic Church today. All of the essencial elements were in place from the beginning.

 

[NoelFitz]

To me it seems that as the early Church used the Septuagint, with the deutero-canonical books, these are in the Catholic Bible.

During the Reformation the Protestants wanted to go back to the Hebrew Bible for the OT, hence the deutero-canonical books were omitted.

There were also theological reasons, but Lutherans, to their credit, did not remove James from the Bible.

 

[Ruthie]

NoelFitz, are you playing devil’s advocate?

In case you’re not, I’ll attempt to answer some of your assertions. I’ve done some snipping, including assertions I don’t have enough knowledge to refute.

• In the early Church there were married priests…*

That is a matter of discipline, not dogma. It’s a rule, not part of the Deposit of Faith.

• Now it does not seem to be a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays or practise contraception. There seems no need for confession any longer.*

Not true. Both are still mortal sins. Just because there are Catholics who don’t go to confession doesn’t mean they - or we who do go - don’t need it.

Educating boys and girls together was considered wrong.

And this was a doctrine? Where and when?

• Protestants were also considered damned.*

Not damned. You misunderstand the meaning of *anathema *in Trent.

In the early Church most, especially the bishops, accepted Arian, denying the divinity of Christ

I lack knowledge here, so it is up to you to prove it.

• St Paul did not agree with Peter. Paul also fell out wth James and Barnabas (apparently). He seems to have fallen out with everyone, exept Timothy.*

And your point is…

In fact most of Jesus’ family did not support him…

Mk 3:21, from a Greek interlinear I found here:
AND hearing-it the-ones BESIDE OF-Him OUT-CAME TO-HOLD…

The ones beside Him came out… could be friends, could be family. The 3 translations I have handy all say “friends.” (KJV, RSV-CE, YLT)

                           *Recently* Et cum spiritu tuo* was translated as *and also with you*.*  *Soon it will be translate as* and witrh your Spirit.

A correction of a bad translation is not a change in doctrine.

Ruthie

 

[NoelFitz]

Ruthie

You ask

NoelFitz, are you playing devil’s advocate?

My wife says I play the Devil’s advocate. Of course I would never do suc at hing.

I agree with all your points, om general.

Pleas see e my signature:

IN NECESSARIIS UNITAS, IN DUBIIS LIBERTAS, IN OMNIBUS CARITAS.

There must be unity in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, otherwise God would be promulgating a lie.

I would like to take up some of your other points in detail, but I have not time now.