I Have Some (many) Questions

[Anthony_V]

I got this from www.bible.ca

• 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?

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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?

• 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)?

• 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?

• Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

• How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

• 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?
• b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

• Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”.

• Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling?

• Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox?

• Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew?

• If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head?

• If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Indeed, you have MANY questions. Any ONE of these questions could consume a 5000 character reply.

Tell ya what - why don’t you indicate exactly which question you find the MOST compelling, and we’ll concentrate on that. Name your #1 question, and we will answer it. Once that is done, feel free to create another thread for your #2 question, etc.

 

[Anthony_V]

definitely the first one-two-ish

 

[ibo]

I got this from www.bible.ca

I simply have no patience for that. Why? For there are millions af little problems in a 2000 year old church. I have got the Aquinas Summa theologica which is 14 volumes.

If you are interested, you may find all the answers here in the net.

I guess here is it more intended to debatable subjects where you may find many opinions illuminting.

Good search

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I find it strange that a Catholic (at least the poster says he’s Catholic) would be asking these questions. He obviously cut and pasted this laundry list of questions from a Protestant website. Perhaps he sincerely does not know his Faith. Well, he came to the right place.

He certainly does not that the New Testament contains 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings, for example.

As has been said, it will take a lot of ink to answer each question.

 

[Church_Militant]

I got this from www.bible.ca

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?

It’s called discernment. What’s almost funny here is that these guys accept the scriptures that the Church canonized and yet do so while accepting a much more modern version of the canon, as set forth by modern men.
*

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?

Later rejected by whom? Modern men proposing new winds of doctrine? Why would we follow them when we know what the early church accepted?
*

If the Orthodox church …

Not our problem…
*

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?

Really? What were they and when? If they refer to reformation era stuff, see my comments above.
*

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?

They really do need to get their history and knowledge of the Catholic faith straight. Councils can be held wherever the church decides to. Better question is why do they accept errant actions of modern men? Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?
*

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.

Gosh, too bad it clearly proves that they submitted the final decision to Rome. "No direct (name removed by moderator)ut? That’s almost laughably specious and makes them look either ignorant/stupid or bigoted.
*

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?

This is fairly typical ignorant a-C propaganda which has no clue that the church defended what was already the canon at Trent only because the errant reformers had attacked it You can go back and look at the lists of canonical books in the early church and see that that was already the case. 5 Myths about 7 Books There are no “apocryphal” books in our Bible just the deuterocanonicals which were canonized right along with rest of the canon.

The rest of that is largely just a-C hogwash and smoke and mirrors designed to confuse people and waste your time. What I’ve refuted so far should suffice to make you delete that site from your browser as being a load of specious a-C propaganda and lies.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

 

[TCFlanagan]

My initial response is that those objections demonstrate a misunderstanding of the notion of infallibility. It’s not that the Church asks a question and God magically answers it by whispering in the ears of the Pope. Basically, infallibility means that the Holy Spirit would not permit the Church to teach as infallible something which was in error.

As far as I can tell, the canon of Scripture was first laid out in a clear, and clearly infallible, way at Trent. Many claim that the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) did this, but that claim is hard to prove, since I believe that no official documents from that council remain (and it is not numbered among the “ecumenical councils”). Note, though, that Trent said that the canonical Scripture is the old Latin Vulgate (with no additions or deletions), so they weren’t proposing a new list. The council fathers were merely stating clearly what had been accepted for centuries until Luther started throwing things out. So, a bit of wavering on the canon of Scripture before this time does not in any way provide evidence against the doctrine of infallibility, properly understood. There is nothing wrong with questioning the authority of various books. You can’t get an answer if you don’t first question.

On top of this, I have not heard that Rome “accepted as Scripture books that were later rejected” anywhere except in your post. There are books which Rome accepted as Scripture which protestants later rejected (e.g. 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon).

 

[Church_Militant]

I find it strange that a Catholic (at least the poster says he’s Catholic) would be asking these questions. He obviously cut and pasted this laundry list of questions from a Protestant website. Perhaps he sincerely does not know his Faith. Well, he came to the right place.

He certainly does not that the New Testament contains 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings, for example.

As has been said, it will take a lot of ink to answer each question.

Aw c’mon now. Let’s not judge the guy’s motives. Not everyone is as well read as you might be, and those sites are out there and do cause some folks to wonder. That’s one reason that CAF is here, so that these kinds of propaganda can be refuted with the facts. In that your response was absolutely correct…he is in the right place.

Heck you can probably stumble onto any number of such sites by simply searching the word catholic on any search engine, so I’m not gonna be hard on him.

Sure it would take a lot to answer all that, but hey what’s new there? They’ve done nothing but throw a lot of stuff out in the hopes that some of it will stick, a fairly common a-C tactic employed by the ignorant and bigoted. They have sought to use early church references to give their remarks an air of accuracy, when in fact it will take only a few moments of research to blow it all away. wise people note that the first few allegations have no merit and once refuted, dismiss the rest as just what they are…specious misinformation designed to wast one’s time.

 

[Church_Militant]

My initial response is that those objections demonstrate a misunderstanding of the notion of infallibility. It’s not that the Church asks a question and God magically answers it by whispering in the ears of the Pope. Basically, infallibility means that the Holy Spirit would not permit the Church to teach as infallible something which was in error.

As far as I can tell, the canon of Scripture was first laid out in a clear, and clearly infallible, way at Trent. Many claim that the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) did this, but that claim is hard to prove, since I believe that no official documents from that council remain (and it is not numbered among the “ecumenical councils”). Note, though, that Trent said that the canonical Scripture is the old Latin Vulgate (with no additions or deletions), so they weren’t proposing a new list. The council fathers were merely stating clearly what had been accepted for centuries until Luther started throwing things out. So, a bit of wavering on the canon of Scripture before this time does not in any way provide evidence against the doctrine of infallibility, properly understood. There is nothing wrong with questioning the authority of various books. You can’t get an answer if you don’t first question.

On top of this, I have not heard that Rome “accepted as Scripture books that were later rejected” anywhere except in your post. There are books which Rome accepted as Scripture which protestants later rejected (e.g. 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon).

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/sign0011.gif Flanigan!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

QUOTE
*
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? *

END QUOTE

It was MARTIN LUTHER in his German translation of the Bible (1534) who rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation – not the Catholic Church.

QUOTE

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?

END QUOTE

The Catholic Church has never rejected any books of Scripture. This website takes first prize in ignorance of the facts surrounding the making of the Bible. or its history.

Jim Dandy

 

[starsmurf]

I get the feeling, from personal experience, that the Original Poster has been asked these questions by Protestants who are looking to attack the Church. Maybe we should stop criticising the OP for asking them and get on with giving answers to the questions that follow the teaching in 1 Peter 3:15:

" Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence"

I’m a convert and have had these kind of questions asked by others or wondered about them myself. Can people help with these because it would be useful to more than just the OP! Being able to give answers that follow the teaching above could help me with convincing a few people I know that the Catholic Church isn’t wrong.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

. Many claim that the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) did this, but that claim is hard to prove, since I believe that no official documents from that council remain (and it is not numbered among the “ecumenical councils”).

St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, published in 405, commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382, contains the canon of the Council of Rome (A.D. 382).

The decrees of the Council of Rome (a local, not ecumenical council), Pope Damasus I presiding, are contained in Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma. The decrees of Carthage (A.D. 397) are also listed. The decrees were approved by a Pope (Innocent I, Boniface), which makes them binding on the entire Church. The Church considered the canon settled. It has remained unchanged for centuries. It was only because of the Protestant threat that the canon of the ancient Vulgate was affirmed by Trent.

Where We Got the Bible, by Henry Graham, link:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

The book is also available from Catholic Answers and Amazon.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I find it strange that a Catholic (at least the poster says he’s Catholic) would be asking these questions. He obviously cut and pasted this laundry list of questions from a Protestant website. Perhaps he sincerely does not know his Faith. Well, he came to the right place.

He certainly does not that the New Testament contains 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings, for example.

As has been said, it will take a lot of ink to answer each question.

I find nothing attacking the OP in my post. I said, “Perhaps he sincerely does not know his Faith. Well, he came to the right place.”

If the OP or anyone thought I was attacking him/her, I apologize.

Jim Dandy

 

[Church_Militant]

I find nothing attacking the OP in my post. I said, “Perhaps he sincerely does not know his Faith. Well, he came to the right place.”

If the OP or anyone thought I was attacking him/her, I apologize.

Jim Dandy

Where We Got the Bible, by Henry Graham, link:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

The book is also available from Catholic Answers and Amazon.

Jim Dandy

A very good suggestion. I have it too.

 

[starsmurf]

It’s called discernment. What’s almost funny here is that these guys accept the scriptures that the Church canonized and yet do so while accepting a much more modern version of the canon, as set forth by modern men.

I think you meant “these guys **reject **the scriptures that the Church canonized…”?

Or am I missing something?

 

[Archangelic]

If the Catholic Church didn’t canonize them, then who did? What alternative are they proposing? They acknoledge that these councils and synods did historically happen, and that they did canonize the Scriptures. What are they trying to say?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I got this from www.bible.ca

Stay away from that site.

 

[Anthony_V]

To answer most of your concerns, I am fairly well versed in the Catechism. But I’m still learning the ropes on more definitive apologetics. I haven’t had much time to sit down and explore documents, etc. because I still have a year of high school (and band) left. I had faith that there were answers out there, but that I needed someone more knowledgeable than me to answer them!

Edit: And no, there was nothing offensive posted Just lot’s of sympathy and knowledge.

Thank you to all thus far

 

[Spencerian]

To answer most of your concerns, I am fairly well versed in the Catechism. But I’m still learning the ropes on more definitive apologetics. I haven’t had much time to sit down and explore documents, etc. because I still have a year of high school (and band) left. I had faith that there were answers out there, but that I needed someone more knowledgeable than me to answer them!

Edit: And no, there was nothing offensive posted Just lot’s of sympathy and knowledge.

Thank you to all thus far

Thanks for asking your questions!

As you can see from the many responses, there’s no lack in explanations or defense for Catholicism.

A bit of advice when speaking with Protestants: Many will be charitable. A few may not be. The key in apologetics is not to allow one side to do what they attracted you to do: Explain upteen questions all at once. Allow only 1 or 2 questions at first. Do NOT be afraid to say, “I don’t know this one–but let me research it and get back to you.”

Also, the burden of proof resides with the question giver when it comes to making a claim that 'a Pope did this" or “A group said that.” Don’t accept hearsay. Have them cite the specific documents or writings, or dismiss what they say as hogwash, and if possible, state the Catholic position from the Catechism on the subject if there is something worthy to use from it.

Lastly: Apologetics is not to “win.” Your job is to explain and give “food for thought.” From there, let the Holy Spirit take over in their minds. Thank them for their questions and invite more when time allows.

The Catholic Church helped to codify and canonize *all *of Sacred Scripture in Christianity, so there is little you will not be able to explain. Good luck!

 

[Ignatius]

I think you meant “these guys **reject **the scriptures that the Church canonized…”?

Or am I missing something?

They accept the New Testament Canon as declared by The Church in The Council of Rome (382) and confirmed by Carthage, Hippo and many others reconfirming that exact same Canon down through the millennia.