How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=JonNC;6630753]Just a correction, Gabriel. No English Bible that I’m aware of has “alone” added to Romans 3:28

Do you deny Martin Luther added the word “alone” to scripture, and removed 7 canonical books from the original canon of sacred scripture?

I rest my case

 

[Contarini]

Do you deny Martin Luther added the word “alone” to scripture, and removed 7 canonical books from the original canon of sacred scripture?

I rest my case

No rest for the. . . er. . . insufficiently careful not to repeat often-refuted propaganda.

Luther didn’t “add” the word–he was translating, and he thought “allein durch die glauben” was the best translation of the Greek in that particular passage, because it conveyed idiomatically the contrast between faith and works which he found in the text.

That’s how translation works–it’s not an exact science.

And no, Luther didn’t take books out of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The creative and interesting ones did. But the Donatists were a Latin group.

Your funny how you grasp for details from history to try and discredit the Catholic Church. There were many other historical heresies that came from the East that were quickly suppressed including the 40 year old dead condemned Pope Honorius I who defeated Eastern heresies when they came to the West. Your comment only confirms a Pope in existence and the Catholic Church thriving.

The fact that there have been bishops of Rome since at least the mid-2nd century (scholars are very dubious as to whether there was a monarchical bishop of Rome before then) does not prove that “Roman Catholicism” as it exists today is the sole heir of the ancient Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No rest for the. . . er. . . insufficiently careful not to repeat often-refuted propaganda.

Luther didn’t “add” the word–he was translating, and he thought “allein durch die glauben” was the best translation of the Greek in that particular passage, because it conveyed idiomatically the contrast between faith and works which he found in the text.

Luther removed 7 books from the canon of books of scripture;

Semantics? is that the new way to justify adding the word alone to scripture?

How do you justify removing 7 books from the canon? I really would like to hear your translation at work here?

 

[simspt]

It is not even proper Catholic teaching to say that the bishops determined scripture. The authority is subsequent from what occured through God according to Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church determined the canon eventually, certain scriptures were accepted or rejected. The scriptures are not synonymous with the canon to my understanding.

 

[Contarini]

Luther removed 7 books from the canon of books of scripture

Sort of. He put them in between the OT and NT and declared that they were not equal to Scripture.

But the Luther Bible did include the Apocrypha.

Given the frequent statements by theologians and scholars in the early Church and the Middle Ages that these books should not be used to prove doctrine, and given that he did approve their translation and printing as part of the “Luther Bible,” I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he took them out.

Semantics? is that the new way to justify adding the word alone to scripture?

Have you ever translated a text from one language to another?

Sorry to pull the authority card on you, but a lot of the things said about this subject are said by people who don’t have a clue what it’s like to translate a text. They imagine that every word has one exact equivalent in the other language. That is not how translation works.

I’m not defending Luther’s translation choice, only saying that it was a translation choice.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Your funny how you grasp for details from history to try and discredit the Catholic Church.

You’re funny how you seem to think history doesn’t matter except for the selected bits that fit your propaganda.

Forget your silly scholars of late

So much for being “deep in history,” I guess.

I don’t rest my salvation on the words of men but on the words of God

Do you realize that you sound exactly like a Protestant fundamentalist? You assume that your interpretation of Scripture just *is *the Word of God.

I was referring to the religious Jewish authorities who publicly declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded period.

I don’t know what you are talking about.

Sticking to the topic here; Trent did not change or add anything to the canon of scripture. Trent closed the matter of the “ALREADY CANON OF SCRIPTURE”. Vatican I and II did not change any substance of the Apostolic teachings or Traditions. Vatican I and II made the Gospel of Jesus Christ more available to the different languages, peoples and nations especially in the new world. What you misconstrue as “change” Vatican I and II defines and clarifies the Apostolic Teachings and Traditions to every people, tongue, nation and tribe just as Jesus commanded Peter and his Catholic Church to do.

Yes, of course, one person’s change is another person’s clarification.

To cut through this rhetoric, what I’m saying is that I could not be received into the Catholic Church simply on the basis of professing adherence to those doctrines on which Catholics and Orthodox agree (i.e., the doctrines professed by East and West in the first millennium)? Because I’d be happy to do that.

I have a question for you? How is that this Roman Catholic can share my faith as did the early Church fathers the same way by using the same scriptures they handed down to us unchanged? And yet you reference your truth to silly scholars of who have come to far to witness the hard physical evidence and cannot relate as evidence Apostolic Tradition.

I really don’t know what you are talking about. What is this “hard physical evidence”? And since all Christians share their faith using the Scriptures, I’m not sure what your point is.

This does not exclude the Eastern Catholic Rites who remain on communion with the Pope.

Sure, but it excludes the Eastern Orthodox churches that don’t. We’ve been over this before. You have nothing to say except the empty claim that the split is purely political.

Did Jesus founded any other one?

Sigh.

The question is whether in fact the RCC as it exists today is exactly the same as the Church Jesus founded. To all appearance it pretty clearly isn’t. There is certainly continuity, but the Eastern Churches can claim just as much continuity. Indeed, superficially I’d say that any of them look like they have more continuity in most respects.

I keep repeating this, and you keep repeating your dogmatic claims with no support.

So we’re arguing in circles.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Do you deny Martin Luther added the word “alone” to scripture, and removed 7 canonical books from the original canon of sacred scripture?

I rest my case

Hi Gabriel,
I was simply responding to what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12
Infallibility is not part of the OP. Protestants and non catholics cannot defend the canon of the New Testament, because Protestants have rejected the Canon of the bible from the Catholic church **by adding the word “alone” to the scriptures **and removed 7 canon books of the bible, which protestants excercised their own “infallibility” to reject 7 inspired books of God. Now that is incredible; How do you defend such a fact of history from protestantism which removed 7 canon books of the bible?

No Bible I own, except a copy of Die Bibel, Luther-Ubersetzung, has “alone” in Romans 3:28. I speak English, so when I read Romans 3:28, it doesn’t have “alone” in it. And the reason, as Edwin pointed out, is because, it was only necessary in a German translation. not English.
We can discuss whether or not Luther was right to do so in his translation, but the fact is “alone” is not in Romans 3:28 in any English Bible that I know of.
As for the 7 D-C books, Luther’s view was not in isolation - it was shared even at his time by many, but he did not remove them from scripture. In fact, he added a book to the western Bible. He took the time and effort - no small task - to translate and include them regardless of his view of them, not completely unlike St. Jerome.

Jon

 

[Non_Serviam]

First of all, the Quartodeciman controversy wasn’t necessarily about “setting aside Apostolic tradition,” but about a conflict between traditions in different parts of the Christian world, both of which claimed to be apostolic.

In the second place, as you note the bishops of Rome backed down. We don’t know what Irenaeus would have done if Victor hadn’t backed down.

And in the third place, Polycarp and Irenaeus were defending traditions that could legitimately claim continuity. Protestants, on many points, are not. Luther’s doctrine of justification is obviously innovative and at odds with the teachings of the Fathers, as Luther himself admitted in many places.

So no, there was nothing Protestant about what Polycarp and Irenaeus did.

Edwin

Non Serviam; Polycarp and Irenaeus “protestants”? Can you inform me who is teaching such deceptions? This is the very first I ever heard of such a ridiculous claim about two great Catholics. I almost want to start LOL, but this deception leads many astray. So please don’t make such false claims unless you can back it up with fact that ST. Polycarp and ST. Irenaeus were not Catholic.

That’s sweet that I could be a point of unity for you two.

Unfortunate that you’ve united on something wrong, but sweet nonetheless.

Both men protested the actions of a Bishop of Rome who sought to replace Apostolic tradition with his own fiat-note well that even the bishops who followed the same practice as Victor (who says there was only one Apostolic practice-each was worthy of the respect due its Apostolic origin) would not follow him in his sinful threats of schism.

Luther did follow the Apostles and Fathers in his rejection of the system of indulgences that the Pope of his day was supporting. It had no basis in the belief of the Apostles or the ANFs.

Sure we know what Irenaeus would have done-he and the other bishops that refused to acceept Victor’s threat would have continued being the church after he went into schism-the same thing that happened centuries later in the 11th century. Fortunately for him the threat of a time out brought him to his senses. It is unfortunate that by the later centuries those opposing the bishop of Rome lacked the same spiritual resolve and got entangled in political considerations.

Now I’ll let you two get back to your together time.

 

[Nicea325]

But that argument wasn’t addressing that point, but the broader question of how I can know when the Catholic Church is correct.

I’ve already said I accept the canon. Just not purely on authority. The council’s decisions on the canon were correct because they were within a few generations of the source, and had good information about which books were authentic. The best scholarship that I’m aware of supports it. And I do believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but that’s available to all Christians, not just those in the Catholic Church.

Anyway, that’s my answer. I have no idea if it’s what the OP wanted, “the typical Protestant answer”. I’m not exactly a typical Protestant.

And I do believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but that’s available to all Christians, not just those in the Catholic Church.

Yes and No. Yes we all can receive the Holy Spirit,but not the gift of determining dogma/doctrine.

 

[Contarini]

Both men protested the actions of a Bishop of Rome who sought to replace Apostolic tradition with his own fiat-note well that even the bishops who followed the same practice as Victor (who says there was only one Apostolic practice-each was worthy of the respect due its Apostolic origin) would not follow him in his sinful threats of schism.

You will not find me defending Victor.

Luther did follow the Apostles and Fathers in his rejection of the system of indulgences that the Pope of his day was supporting. It had no basis in the belief of the Apostles or the ANFs.

Or the NPNFs!

Indulgences aren’t the issue. They never were the main issue for Luther–that’s a misconception. He saw them as simply the rotten offshoot of a theology that had the Gospel wrong. And by the time Luther was done developing his understanding of the Gospel, it bore little resemblance to the teaching of the ancient Church. Luther’s complete rejection of the monastic tradition (even as found in the fourth-century Fathers such as Jerome) is an excellent example.

For Protestants to focus on the indulgence controversy, as if the evil of indulgences justified Luther, is mere subterfuge.

Sure we know what Irenaeus would have done-he and the other bishops that refused to acceept Victor’s threat would have continued being the church after he went into schism-the same thing that happened centuries later in the 11th century.

If you think the Orthodox are the true Church, why aren’t you Orthodox?

I ask myself that sometimes, but for me the answer is that I can’t persuade myself that there is anyone at this point who is not in schism. Perhaps you see things the same way.

But at any rate, Protestants need to stop hiding behind the evils of Rome. If that’s the problem, then we can all become Orthodox and the problem is solved.

I can understand why Luther made the mistakes he did. I don’t blame him. I blame modern Protestants who have the resources to know better.

Edwin

 

[Non_Serviam]

You will not find me defending Victor.

Glad to hear it-I have a tough time discussing the topic with people who try to claim that Catholicism defends the teaching of the Apostles and Victor at the same time. For me he’s the point where some of the more serious problems begin and it’s unfortunate that the bishops didn’t hold out for a “regime change” but left him in place after his calculaed about-face.

Indulgences aren’t the issue. They never were the main issue for Luther–that’s a misconception. He saw them as simply the rotten offshoot of a theology that had the Gospel wrong. And by the time Luther was done developing his understanding of the Gospel, it bore little resemblance to the teaching of the ancient Church. Luther’s complete rejection of the monastic tradition (even as found in the fourth-century Fathers such as Jerome) is an excellent example.

For Protestants to focus on the indulgence controversy, as if the evil of indulgences justified Luther, is mere subterfuge.

We see it differently. For me, Luther’s innovations developed as a result of the environment he was in, and indulgences were one of the main sources that was muddying the water. As you note it was “by the time Luther was done” that the most radical innovations were in place-and many of those caused in part by the intransigence of Rome and the political concerns that became entwined in the dispute. (as I said in my previous post, Polycarp and Irenaeus were fortunate to avoid many of the political concerns that later had an influence on Eastern and Protestant disputes.)

While we differ as to which was the cause and which was the outgrowth with Luther, I will concede that after the initial disputes things began to snowball and causes became roots and vice versa in his later developments. But it was the common Catholic understanding including indulgences that was for me the cause of Luther’s attempts at correction.

If you think the Orthodox are the true Church, why aren’t you Orthodox?

I ask myself that sometimes, but for me the answer is that I can’t persuade myself that there is anyone at this point who is not in schism. Perhaps you see things the same way.

Two things for me-one I have serious issues with claims to infallibility, and although the EO claims in that direction are fewer, they are still there. For me any claim to infallibility as needed by the church would need to be reflected in Israel, and there would need to be some sort of explicit mention in the NT to contradict the plain fact that the Apostles make more than a few errors in those pages and yet are still God’s means of leadership for the church. Note well from my first point that God has a track record of leading His chosen people in the wrong direction when it suits His purpose and then correcting the direction in the future.

I also believe that while Apostolic succession was intended to be the norm, Paul demonstrates that God didn’t bind himself to the model, and is able to deviate from it if need be. But that’s a topic for another day. So I have my reasons, but must confess that at present the Orthodox have fewer troubling points on my checklist than Catholicism.

But at any rate, Protestants need to stop hiding behind the evils of Rome. If that’s the problem, then we can all become Orthodox and the problem is solved.

I can understand why Luther made the mistakes he did. I don’t blame him. I blame modern Protestants who have the resources to know better.

Edwin

I’ve chalked it up to being led into all truth-stated in the future without a time limit-if Israel can wander for 40 years, then it doesn’t surprise that we are in our current situation. One can note the positive advances in discussion between Lutheran and Catholic, Catholic and Orthodox and posit that things will improve as time goes on, circumstances make unity more valuable than division.

 

[crazzeto]

Jon,

Sorry I haven’t gotten to respond until just now, I went on a road trip with my fiance to visit my parents for my birthday and to attend a wedding shower my sister put on for us. It took us 15 hours to get here

I’ll try to keep my comments not directly related to the OP brief, since it wasn’t actually my intention to discuss directly these issues. Rather it was more my intention to show Jon Hus exactly everything you just brought up, so thanks JonNC for helping me prove my point, the canon of scripture could only be declared by an infalible statement by the church and by no other means

With regard to Cardinal Cajetan, he never obstienatly insisted these books be removed desipite the clear mandate from Rome, again this is the difference between Luther and people like Cardinal Cajetan

Cardinal Cajetan

I believe that commentary was only in his first publishing of the NT.

I’m baffled that, if in fact he wanted his followers to stop reading the books, he took the great time and effort to translate them and include them. Seems to me if he didn’t want them read, he wouldn’t have translated them, much less included them.
Then, he regularly preaches from them throughout his life. Sounds to me like he did want people to read them, and learn from them.

Don’t be so baffled, Luther and his company didn’t just literally not include the books all at once. In fact an interesting historical note is that dispite being mistakenly called “apocrypha” by the the reformers the seven books from the OT were never physically removed from the KJV until the 1800’s. The fact of the matter is Luther did want all of those books gone, even your argumentation here doesn’t really deny it directly other than a brief comment about being baffled why he would translate them. Rather you spend time attempting to show “well it was common at the time”. It may have been common to engage in the healthy debate while the issue was not canonical, it certainly was not common to go about publishing bibles, with out Church sanction containing comments like the one I published in my post.

Luther

Sounds much like the sentiments of Cajetan above.

Actually, he questioned the canon in the same way many others did.

Jon

 

[Amy1966]

How do you know its the word of God?

Something written by a multitude of different writers over a period of 3-4 thousand years and to be in complete harmony cannot be done by man. Over 300 prophecies fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ alone predicted and fulfilled to the letter hundreds and thousands of years before the fulfillment took place. The chances of just 10 of those coming to pass would be like taking the entire state of Ohio and filling it with quarters 1 foot deep and marking one with an x, blind folding a person and telling them to pick the one with the x.

It does what it promises, which is to regenerate lives for the better. It tells the Christian how the earth and the universe and all it contains comes into existence and it also tells us how it will come to end. When it speaks of things that science discovered hundreds and thousands of years later it is correct. For the ample the earth turns as the clay to the seal; translation - the earth is a sphere and turns on an axis. The Bible describes the hydrological cycle in at least two places hundreds of years before it was understood. The Bible talks about air having weight, something science took yours to figure out. The first verse in the Bible tells us all the know elements that make up our universe, not in scientific terms because it is not a science book. (Time, Force, space, matter & motion)

Think about this for a moment; what would happen to the entire universe as we know it when “time” is removed from it? That is what is coming and it will be ugly. Global warming; not a problem Jesus will heat things up and not too distant future as the Bible predicts a one world religion and a one world government, which we can see merging as i write this. All of this will come to pass.

Israel is another reason; that tiny country should have never remained in existence given the powerful empires the Bibles said would come and go, but not Israel. Archeology continually validates time and places of ancient ruins. Some said the Bible was in error because they couldn’t find Hittites and some other “ites”, but have recently (past 50 years) discovered these cultures.

Finally, the natural man cannot understand the Word or the things of God and this is the most definitive evidence in my mind because it is true; yet the Christian has the mind of Christ and can understand and does. So if you are not a Christian, none of what i just wrote will prove anything to you or make any sense and seem plain foolish. Just as the many miracles Jesus performed and people saw them time and time again and still did not believe Him.

The Bible says the entire universe is becoming more corrupt and will eventually end; well we know this is true. The humanist will say man is improving and started as low intelligence, but the Bible says man is more and more deprived and continually evil in his thinking and we can see with the more technology, which on the surface appears to be improvement; yet the fact is that man uses it to control and corrupt his fellow man and it will continue in this direction.

 

[Contarini]

Something written by a multitude of different writers over a period of 3-4 thousand years and to be in complete harmony cannot be done by man.

But the claim that the Bible is in “complete harmony” makes no sense except to the eyes of faith, and even many believers have trouble agreeing with your statement entirely. There are plenty of ways in which the Bible can be seen to be in less than perfect harmony. You may choose to ignore these–but they are there anyway.

Over 300 prophecies fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ alone predicted and fulfilled to the letter hundreds and thousands of years before the fulfillment took place.

This sounds good, but when you go through these one by one you find that most of them fall into one of two categories:

1. They are so vague and ambiguous that they could apply to a lot of things, and Christians have chosen to apply them to Jesus (see Matt. 1:23, Matt. 2:15, and Matt. 2:23).
2. It is quite possible that Christian writers made up the fulfillment (or in some cases that Jesus deliberately set out to fulfill the prophecy–riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, for instance). Since there is almost no external confirmation of the events described in the NT, this could cover pretty much all the fulfilled prophecies. For instance, how do we know (except on the basis of faith in the truth of Scripture and the teaching of the Church) that Jesus’ bones were really unbroken? How do we know that He was actually born in Bethlehem? How do we know that He really rode into Jerusalem on a donkey? How do we know that He fled to Egypt with His parents and later returned, making Hosea’s words about calling Israel out of Egypt apply to Him personally? Only on the testimony of the Gospel writers themselves.

I don’t dismiss the argument from prophecy altogether. I think that passages such as Isaiah 53 do make even more sense when you think of them as pointing to Jesus (as well as to the people of Israel collectively). But the purely statistical argument on which you rely has no validity whatever. It’s a dishonest argument and Christians should stop using it.

It does what it promises, which is to regenerate lives for the better.

That’s certainly a valid argument, but of course it’s a subjective one. People whose lives have not been changed in this way, or who think they see reason to believe that the Bible has made people’s lives worse, are not going to be affected by it!

It tells the Christian how the earth and the universe and all it contains comes into existence

And in places Christians have struggled to reconcile it with what we now think we know on that subject.

and it also tells us how it will come to end.

Not something that can yet be directly verified

When it speaks of things that science discovered hundreds and thousands of years later it is correct. For the ample the earth turns as the clay to the seal;

This is an extremely far-fetched interpretation. You appear to be thinking of Job 38:14, which most translations render as “change,” not “turn” in the sense of “rotate.” We had better leave these kinds of arguments to the Muslims–they only discredit us.

The Bible describes the hydrological cycle in at least two places hundreds of years before it was understood.

What are these?

The Bible talks about air having weight, something science took yours to figure out.

Says who?

The first verse in the Bible tells us all the know elements that make up our universe, not in scientific terms because it is not a science book. (Time, Force, space, matter & motion)

Sure, and these are rather obvious, aren’t they?

Global warming; not a problem Jesus will heat things up and not too distant future

And there we see that your opinions are not just harmless error but are downright evil. You would teach us to abandon care for God’s creation on the basis of your apocalyptic delusions.

Israel is another reason; that tiny country should have never remained in existence given the powerful empires the Bibles said would come and go, but not Israel.

Again, I think this is one that has weight. But it’s not a conclusive proof, just something that should make people think a little. (For one thing, Israel *didn’t *remain in existence continuously–it just keeps coming back, most recently after a lapse of nearly 1900 years!)

Archeology continually validates time and places of ancient ruins. Some said the Bible was in error because they couldn’t find Hittites and some other “ites”, but have recently (past 50 years) discovered these cultures.

If this happens “continually,” why is it that the HIttites are the one example one hears cited over and over? Yes, there are cases of this–but there are many other examples where archeology either creates problems for the Biblical narrative or just fails to turn up any evidence. For instance, Jericho was destroyed several times, but none of the destructions seem to fit the Biblical chronology. There is no archeological evidence of the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, and not much evidence for a conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua. There is no undisputed contemporaneous evidence for the kingdoms of David and Solomon, even though the Bible describes them as glorious little empires.

if you are not a Christian, none of what i just wrote will prove anything to you or make any sense and seem plain foolish.

This is a convenient argument for you, because if anyone points out that your arguments don’t hold up, you can dismiss them as not being real Christians. Well, that’s the risk I’ll have to take, because you discredit the Faith by these poor arguments.

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sort of. He put them in between the OT and NT and declared that they were not equal to Scripture.

But the Luther Bible did include the Apocrypha.

 

[Contarini]

Luther’s independent selfmade infallibility to label an ancient canon (inspired of God bible of books) by Christians, Saints and Martyrs as “not inspired of God” (Apocrypha) is something to raise eyebrows about here.

Luther did not invent the designation “apocrypha,” nor was he the first to question these books.

Interesting that you should say such a thing today? Now if you can only retrain all the evangelicals and non catholics who were misinformed by protestants the past 500 years that the Catholic Church “added the 7 books to the canon”.

I can’t do that, but I can retrain my evangelical students one class at a time (and since the class limit for the Bible intro I teach is going up from 30 to 40, and since I’ll be teaching two sections of this next semester, I’ll get to “retrain” even more next year than this year!).

But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Just as it’s false to say that the Catholic Church “added” these books, so it is false to put on Luther’s shoulders the responsibility for “removing” them, when in fact he simply put them in a position within the Bible he edited that reflected the dubious status they had been assigned by many scholars and theologians throughout the centuries.

What I tell my students is that early Christians generally accepted these books, but that there were scholars who questioned them because they weren’t in the Jewish canon. That’s an oversimplification, but it’s as accurate as one can get without going into lots of detail.

If your new founded revelation

It’s obviously not a new-founded revelation. . . .

.

Thank God cooler heads prevailed from the Protestant side or else you will be trying to defend why Martin Luther called James a book of straw, and the Apocalpse of John to be never revealing. Do you think if Martin Luther had his way with the New Testament books which teach against his new thelogies, would of removed them or relabel them as “apocrypha”?

Luther wasn’t alone in questioning James–Martin Bucer questioned it for completely different reasons. Like the OT “apocrypha,” these books had been questioned many times before.

Edwin

 

[TriuneUnity]

But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Just as it’s false to say that the Catholic Church “added” these books, so it is false to put on Luther’s shoulders the responsibility for “removing” them, when in fact he simply put them in a position within the Bible he edited that reflected the dubious status they had been assigned by many scholars and theologians throughout the centuries.

And if I’m not mistaken, he wasn’t even the first to do that. I believe a Catholic edition of the Vulgate came out a few years before Luther’s Bible that placed them in a separate section. There’s also the well-known Bible of Archbishop Ximenes, which stated in their introduction that the DC books were not inspired.

Luther wasn’t alone in questioning James–Martin Bucer questioned it for completely different reasons. Like the OT “apocrypha,” these books had been questioned many times before.

Edwin

As did Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Contarini;6633233]You’re funny how you seem to think history doesn’t matter except for the selected bits that fit your propaganda.

For clarification here; What I find amusing here is that Protestants are trying to argue from afar, pretending that Protestant new man made theologies are in existence when it is only the Catholic church defending the Apostolic teachings and Traditions for last 2000 years since Pentecost. History does matter to every Catholic Because when history accurately records the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Church in existence never Protestantism.

Do you realize that you sound exactly like a Protestant fundamentalist? You assume that your interpretation of Scripture just *is *the Word of God.

Matthew 16:14-18 of Jesus building his Church upon Peter comes from Jesus and is taught for 2000 years by the Early Church Fathers, Saints and Martyrs. Only those who oppose this apostolic biblical interpretation from Jesus is a late interpretation from Protestants.

There is only one interpretation of Matthew 16 and it certainty is never my interpretation. Let us be clear here, Matthew 16 biblical interpretation comes from those canonized books of the bible as being the inspired Word of God.

Please don’t confuse or make the mistake that Catholic biblical interpretations as being mine, because I am never at liberty to interpret scripture contrary to the Early Church Fathers, Saints, Martyrs and the Magisterium of the Catholic church. Protestants on the other hand are at liberty to believe when, what and how they interpret scripture from every wind of doctrine that comes from them.

To cut through this rhetoric, what I’m saying is that I could not be received into the Catholic Church simply on the basis of professing adherence to those doctrines on which Catholics and Orthodox agree (i.e., the doctrines professed by East and West in the first millennium)? Because I’d be happy to do that.

Actually it is allot simpler than that. We Catholics hold to our profession of faith which is the foundation of our belief system in Christ crucified. Understanding the Apostolic profession of faith is the beginning. All other defined and clarified Apostolic Traditions and teachings will come into better focus, for example the doctrine of the “Trinity”, trinity was never a word used by the Apostles and early church fathers, but it was believed in. Four hundred years later when the essence of Christ came under attack, defining the “Trinity” became essential to holding to the Apostolic oral and written teachings. The Roman Catholic Church has maintained, defended the Apostolic Catholic Traditions and teachings fully intact in every age unchanged. If you take this profession of faith out of its original Catholic interpretation then you have another gospel

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I really don’t know what you are talking about. What is this “hard physical evidence”? And since all Christians share their faith using the Scriptures, I’m not sure what your point is.

The hard physical evidence is the presence of the Catholic Church in every age since Pentecost. Christians not in communion with the Apostolic successors of Peter and the Apostles in the present day Magisterium united with Peter’s successor in the Popes, must rely on a man made faith based on the misinterpretations of doctrine from the canon of bible books the Catholic Church has brought to us in every age.

Sure, but it excludes the Eastern Orthodox churches that don’t. We’ve been over this before. You have nothing to say except the empty claim that the split is purely political.

Where we disagree here comes directly from the Words of Jesus Christ. Jesus promises to remain with Peter and his Church until he returns. You and Orthodox not in communion with Peter’s successor the Pope, believe that Jesus lied, and thereby remains many Church’s and Peter’s church disappeared, leaving what is the count today over 33000 christian denominations + the Catholic Church? Here is my Apostolic view; All Eastern Catholics, and Western Catholics are in one faith, one body, one baptism and in One Lord Jesus Christ. No matter what dis grunted and or isolated member of the body of Jesus Christ protests against Peter. They can never change what God has joined together. They can only isolate their communities and or reject the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The question is whether in fact the RCC as it exists today is exactly the same as the Church Jesus founded. To all appearance it pretty clearly isn’t. There is certainly continuity, but the Eastern Churches can claim just as much continuity. Indeed, superficially I’d say that any of them look like they have more continuity in most respects.

Since the Chalcedon break, no Apostolic Catholic Church be it Eastern or Western has ever been the same. Until the Nestorian Church were ever to come back into the fold, we don’t have the exact same Church Jesus founded. What we do have are the scriptures, Apostolic Tradition which confirm the Eastern and Western Catholic Church surviving the Apostolic Traditions and teachings. For clarification the Apostolic first centuries communities took on an appearance of change, when the Apostolic Christian converted Jews (apostles themselves) changed when they allowed the Gentiles in their new forming Christian communities which came with allot of problems, councils, and corrected, clarified Apostolic teachings.

This Apostolic growth from the death of the last living apostle, has continued to today. By appearances a change may show a change, but the Apostolic teachings and Traditions remain fully intact. Paul is the apostle which taught Christians to get off the “milk” and begin to eat the meat of the Gospel. Eating the meat of the Gospel is what you see the Catholic Church maturing in clarification and defending the Apostolic Teachings unchanged.

In summary; There is never two churches from East and West, these remain one in one body of Jesus Christ, many different members yes, but remain in one Eucharistic body of Jesus Christ unchanged. Jesus can never be divided neither his bride. Now members can rot, be pruned, cutoff and burned, or chose to isolate themselves, but it never changes what God has joined together no matter how man tries to divide God’s will, it can never be done. Thus 2000 years of unbroken succession to the Apostles in the Catholic Church both Eastern and Western.

Now as far as support, which would you like? scriptural support, Apostolic Fathers written support, Secular History support or the Catechism of the Catholic church? all these support the Catholic faith negatively and positively. And could you please be clear to what subject matter you need support of ?