Here is a thought

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fulloftruth

Guest
I just thought of something. If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it:clapping: :ehh: :hmmm: :dancing:
 
40.png
fulloftruth:
I just thought of something. If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it:clapping: :ehh: :hmmm: :dancing:
Click to expand...
Scripture becomes authoritive when it contradicts the traditions of man.
 
40.png
Xavier:
Scripture becomes authoritive when it contradicts the traditions of man.
Click to expand...
becomes??? what could you possibly mean by this statement??

Scripture is inspired, Tradition is Apostolic, the Magisterium is the divinely appointed teaching body

and

All three are witness to the Truth of the Catholic Church. None of the three stand alone…all of the three come from Christ, the souce of all authority.

MrS
 
Scripture becomes authoritive when it contradicts the traditions of man.
Click to expand...
And where is that in Scripture?

And define traditions of men as opposed to Scripture which tells us to hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter. (2 Thes 2:15).

And how do You decide whether it was an oral tradition we were told to hold fast to or a new “tradition of men”?
 
So, you’re saying that Scripture is *not *authoritative when it doesn’t contradict said traditions? Or are you making a snide reference to the (non-contradictory) Sacred Tradition?

Anyway, you did not answer the question. When I was Protestant, I imagined that the Holy Spirit somehow protected the Bible. I did not know, nor did I bother to study, how exactly He protected it. Obviously, He inspired a group of men to accept the Canon? Which Canon, though?

Now, the Protestants have a good point: the deuterocanonicals are named such because they were canonized “secondarily” after some debate, and some, like St. Jerome (likely from some Hebrew influence), questioned their canonicity, although he definitely thought that they had enough value to be of “ecclesiastical” use.

At the risk of turning this thread into a war zone, I think the following questions (which, I admit have already been answered in many cases) are in order:
  1. Were the deuterocanonicals used for readings in Mass?
  2. Were they quoted as Scripture indiscriminately?
  3. What were the reasons for the added debate?
  4. Did those churchmen (St. Jerome, et al.) think that the deuterocanonicals contained incorrect doctrine, and/or contradict with the rest of Scripture?
Now, this would not end the debate. Even if the Protestants did accept the deuterocanonicals as canonical, that would just mean that they would use the same Scriptures as Catholics when debating! However, it would imply that the Holy Sprit influenced the Catholic Church, at least insofar as to produce the Canon. Of course, another positive side of this is that it would make Catholic bibles cheaper, since publishers would just have to publish one kind of bible.

In Christ,

The Augustinian
 
40.png
MrS:
becomes??? what could you possibly mean by this statement??

Scripture is inspired, Tradition is Apostolic, **the Magisterium is the divinely appointed teaching body **

and

All three are witness to the Truth of the Catholic Church. None of the three stand alone…all of the three come from Christ, the souce of all authority.

MrS
Click to expand...
Scripture is inspired and inerrant and it certainly cannot be wrong it has all the authority of Gods word, for it is Gods spoken word,

Tradition is apostolic—this has no meaning to me. I understand that you are trying to say that the traditions of the RCC have been handed down from apostolic times Thus they are not traditions of man but tradition as instructed by God. I do not buy into that, I disagree. I know there is nothing I can say that will disuade you of your belief. Certainly Marionology is not handed down from apostolic times, but that is a different arguement.

The Magisterium??? dont know where to start here.

There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church—It is the Body of Christ and consists of all believers of the Lord Jesus.
 
40.png
MariaG:
And where is that in Scripture?

And define traditions of men as opposed to Scripture which tells us to hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter. (2 Thes 2:15).

And how do You decide whether it was an oral tradition we were told to hold fast to or a new “tradition of men”?
Click to expand...
The traditions of men are those things which is required by men that is not required by God.
 
The Augustinian:
So, you’re saying that Scripture is *not *authoritative when it doesn’t contradict said traditions? Or are you making a snide reference to the (non-contradictory) Sacred Tradition?
Click to expand...
It was a statement that when you decide by which authority that you should obey if the traditions of man conflict with scripture, scripture is the authority.
would
Click to expand...
imply that the Holy Sprit influenced the Catholic Church, at least insofar as to produce the Canon. Of course, another positive side of this is that it would make Catholic bibles cheaper, since publishers would just have to publish one kind of bible.

In Christ,

The Augustinian
You lost me here. Are you saying we would only have one translation in each language thus bibles would be cheaper?
I am blessed by reading several translations and comparing them.
Other than praying for the dead what doctrine can be established by the deuterocanonicals?
Catholic and Protestants agree on 66 books of which there is plenty to disagree on.
 
posted by Xavier
Tradition is apostolic—this has no meaning to me. I understand that you are trying to say that the traditions of the RCC have been handed down from apostolic times Thus they are not traditions of man but tradition as instructed by God. I do not buy into that, I disagree.
Click to expand...
So where are the oral traditions? Scripture tells us in 2 Thes 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

If Tradition according to the Catholic Church is not apostolic and those “oral words” we were told to hold fast to, where are the oral words? Scripture tells us to hold fast to the oral words as well as the written. **Where are the oral ones? **I certainly understand not “buying into” the Catholic interpretation, but what then is you interpretation and where in Scripture does it tell us, it has all been written down now?
Certainly Marionology is not handed down from apostolic times, but that is a different arguement.
Click to expand...
You’re right this is a different arguement, but look up some threads on Mary and the Ark and look at SCRIPTURE that would contradict your view.

God Bless
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
So where are the oral traditions? Scripture tells us in 2 Thes 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

If Tradition according to the Catholic Church is not apostolic and those “oral words” we were told to hold fast to, where are the oral words? Scripture tells us to hold fast to the oral words as well as the written. **Where are the oral ones? **I certainly understand not “buying into” the Catholic interpretation, but what then is you interpretation and where in Scripture does it tell us, it has all been written down now?

You’re right this is a different arguement, but look up some threads on Mary and the Ark and look at SCRIPTURE that would contradict your view.

God Bless
Maria
Click to expand...
Is the selling of indulgences scriptural? Or is it a tradition of man?

As a Christian I am the ark of the new covenant and so are you if you have allowed Christ into your heart. Christ dwells in my heart through faith. I have said “let it be done according to thy word” and Christ the Messiah lives, dwells in me in the tabernacle of my heart. Christ is being formed in each Christian to the extent that Christian says let it be done…Catholics idolize Mary yet fail to follow her in her faith.
 
40.png
Xavier:
Is the selling of indulgences scriptural? Or is it a tradition of man?

As a Christian I am the ark of the new covenant and so are you if you have allowed Christ into your heart. Christ dwells in my heart through faith. I have said “let it be done according to thy word” and Christ the Messiah lives, dwells in me in the tabernacle of my heart. Christ is being formed in each Christian to the extent that Christian says let it be done…Catholics idolize Mary yet fail to follow her in her faith.
Click to expand...
The “selling” of indulgences was an abuse and certainly wrong in and of itself. The Catholic Church condemned the practice long before Luther wrangled with Tetzel’s abuses. Indulgences themselves are scriptural. You can learn more about this at websites like jamesakin.com, catholic.com, or Dave Armstrong’s website.

You are wrong about Catholic teaching on Mary and it is an insult for you to say that Catholic’s idolize Mary. A similar insult to a non-Catholic bible Christian would be to say that they “worship” the bible. I do not believe that you would sit still for that kind of remark. I’ve even had an Evangelical Christian friend of mine say that “for Fundamentalists it’s not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but the Father, Son, and Holy Bible.” I think Fundamentalists might rightly take umbrage with this.

You would do well to read the “Assumption Thread” in these forums. You would learn a great deal about Catholic teaching on Mary and its profound biblical underpinnings. Non-Catholics are generally quite ignorant about the scriptural bases for Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, many Catholics are ignorant of this as well.

As a non-Catholic Christian you have a great deal to learn about Catholic teaching. You have come to a good place to start. Let me suggest that you only do so by taking your questions and objections to Catholic sources for answers. At least then you will know what the Catholic Church teaches and why. If you rely on anti-Catholic sources you will never learn what the Catholic Church really teaches or where it comes from.

Your presence on these forums is a testimony to your openess to learn. May the grace and peace of Jesus Christ be with you always.
 
I replied to this once, and when submitting, the internet went down…hmmmm
40.png
Xavier:
Scripture is inspired and inerrant and it certainly cannot be wrong it has all the authority of Gods word, for it is Gods spoken word,

Correct. And thankyou, Catholic Church, for the Tradition for all Christians on which books are inspired…and which are not. I think it most reasonable that the God Who inspired certain (not many, and certainly not just any) men to determine the Canon would also be the God who inspires those men to correctly interpret the Scriptures.

Tradition is apostolic—this has no meaning to me. I understand that you are trying to say that the traditions of the RCC have been handed down from apostolic times

Then it does have some meaning to you. That is good. Tradition, as opposed to disciplines and practices, does come from the Apostles. What needs to happen (in God’s time) is for your eyes to open to the Truth in Tradition.

Thus they are not traditions of man but tradition as instructed by God. I do not buy into that, I disagree. I know there is nothing I can say that will disuade you of your belief.

Certainly Marionology is not handed down from apostolic times, but that is a different arguement.

Marionology is the study of Mary… not the worship, not the idolatry which the Church condemns. You know, Mary was a central figure in every important step Jesus took. Incarnation, birth, flight, lost in the temple, “and He was subject to them”, Cana, crucifixtion…and she was surrounded by the Apostles on Pentacost, the birthday of the Catholic Church.

As an anology, consider the conception of the Church is Matthew 16, and the birth is when the Holy Spirit comes as promised to lead the Catholic Church into all Truth. I keep saying Catholic because there was (and is) no other Church founded by Jesus.

The Magisterium??? dont know where to start here.

How about Isaah and the explanation of the prime minister and his office, and the significance of the keys. Then continue with Matthew 16. When you are ready, there are a dozen or so good members here who will help you along.

There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church—It is the Body of Christ and consists of all believers of the Lord Jesus.

Correct. And this understanding helps us when we read that Saul was persecuting this body. However, Jesus asked him why he was persecuting HIM, Jesus. So…

The Catholic Church is also Jesus Christ, and in that understanding it is perfect like Jesus is perfect. The people in it, however, are not. That is why we, as imperfect, strive to be like Him, perfect.
Click to expand...
Hope this helps, and prompts more quetions.

God Bless

MrS
 
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
maybe not…
Click to expand...
Actually when I saw the remark I was quite taken aback., AFAIK ark of thcovenant is one of the names of Mary and she is addressed as such in her beautiful ilitany.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Actually when I saw the remark I was quite taken aback., AFAIK ark of thcovenant is one of the names of Mary and she is addressed as such in her beautiful ilitany.
Click to expand...
Actually, Unpronounceable was responding to Xavier calling himself the ark of the new covenant.
Xavier has a lot to learn about Catholocism. Maybe he’ll find himself along the way.

God bless
 
hi xavier,

As others answered the question about indulgences, I won’t go there. However, you did not tell me your interpretation of Scripture that tells us to hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter. Where in the Bible it tell us it has all been written down now, so don’t follow our previous instuctions of holding fast to the oral words we spoke?

It’s a pretty important question. In Mk 13:31 it tells us that the heaven and earth shall pass away, by My word won’t. In the Catholic Church we say we know where the oral word of Christ is, we call it Sacred Tradition. If we are wrong, where is the oral word and where in the Bible do you draw your interpretation from?

God Bless,

Maria
 
40.png
Pax:
The “selling” of indulgences was an abuse and certainly wrong in and of itself. The Catholic Church condemned the practice long before Luther wrangled with Tetzel’s abuses. Indulgences themselves are scriptural. You can learn more about this at websites like jamesakin.com, catholic.com, or Dave Armstrong’s website.

You are wrong about Catholic teaching on Mary and it is an insult for you to say that Catholic’s idolize Mary. A similar insult to a non-Catholic bible Christian would be to say that they “worship” the bible. I do not believe that you would sit still for that kind of remark. I’ve even had an Evangelical Christian friend of mine say that “for Fundamentalists it’s not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but the Father, Son, and Holy Bible.” I think Fundamentalists might rightly take umbrage with this.

You would do well to read the “Assumption Thread” in these forums. You would learn a great deal about Catholic teaching on Mary and its profound biblical underpinnings. Non-Catholics are generally quite ignorant about the scriptural bases for Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, many Catholics are ignorant of this as well.

As a non-Catholic Christian you have a great deal to learn about Catholic teaching. You have come to a good place to start. Let me suggest that you only do so by taking your questions and objections to Catholic sources for answers. At least then you will know what the Catholic Church teaches and why. If you rely on anti-Catholic sources you will never learn what the Catholic Church really teaches or where it comes from.

Your presence on these forums is a testimony to your openess to learn. May the grace and peace of Jesus Christ be with you always.
Click to expand...
The selling of indulgences was the starting point of Wus’ and Luthers protestations. The fact that not only theRCC allowed but condoned this practice speaks volumes.
It is because of the tolerance of this adhorent practice that there was a split.

I am fullly aware of the RCC teaching on Mary, to call her a co redeemer ( yes I know of the nuance that you really dont mean redeemer—but you do).
Mary was a women full of faith yet she did no more than is expected of you or I. To say to God let it be done according to thy word.
I was raised a Catholic went to parocial school went to STFXU studied much on Catholism. I know the teachings, but more so I know Him and Him crucified. The living Christ, the Living Word. Catholism did not teach me this.
 
40.png
Strider:
Actually, Unpronounceable was responding to Xavier calling himself the ark of the new covenant.
Xavier has a lot to learn about Catholocism. Maybe he’ll find himself along the way.

God bless
Click to expand...
I chose the board name Xavier because I admired STFX.
What I have found is Catholics know ther dogma but too few know the Christ.
 
Hey Xavier,
since you posted at about the same time I did, did you read the post right above your newest one from me?
yes I know of the nuance that you really dont mean redeemer—but you do).
Click to expand...
As someone who is not a practicing Catholic, please do not tell me what practicing Catholic do or do not believe. We do not worship Mary. If you were taught that, you were taught wrong no matter how many Nuns(?) told you this. If you did not understand the nuance and fullness of the Catholic faith and faith that rests solely on Christ while Catholic, it is better you left it in my opinion. I pray you will not let your poor teaching keep you from finding the REAL teachings of the Catholic church, the church Christ founded. The church that Scripture calls the pillar and foundation of truth.(1 Tim 3:15)

God Bless,
Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top