If the Bible is a 'Catholic book', are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

[JustaServant]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

 

[Wannano]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

To me it is a play on words. “If the Bible is a Catholic book”. One of our local restaurants successfully sells “Mennonite Sausage”, if a sausage is a Mennonite sausage does that mean it is made from ground pork or ground Mennonites?

 

[onenow1]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

Hi

Analogy; I own a camel, you want to by a camel you go to the camel owner for info, not the horse farm.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Well, first it was the Jewish Scriptures, and then Christians added to it. I would say it belongs to a number of communities.

 

[alwayswill]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

The** Bible is a collection** of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

The Books of Moses, the Book of Isaiah, The book of Acts, The Book of Revelation, etc are not Catholic books

 

[Reuben_J]

The** Bible is a collection** of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

The Books of Moses, the Book of Isaiah, The book of Acts, The Book of Revelation, etc are not Catholic books

So are Vedas and Bhagavad Gita not Catholic books but considered divine revelation by those who believe in them. So who decided that they are God breathed or not?

 

[susanlo]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

How is it a Roman Catholic book? Moses and King David certainly would not be considered Roman Catholic. The Apostles and Gospel writers wrote in the first century. They were Christians and got their authority from God, not from Rome.
Just because a council centuries later made a formal ruling about what would be NT Scripture, it doesn’t mean that the NT was invented then. The Scriptures were recognized as Scripture at the time they were written. 1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul cites 2 Scriptures including Luke. 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. There may have been a few questions, but it was largely recognized immediately as being Scripture.

 

[alwayswill]

So are Vedas and Bhagavad Gita not Catholic books but considered divine revelation by those who believe in them. So who decided that they are God breathed or not?

Belief has never made any book divine:

As an apologeticists (sp?) are you asking how we know if Scripture is of divine origin?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

What do you mean by “under Catholic authority”?

Everyone is subject to the rule of Christ the King, Who reigns on earth through His Church. In that sense, not only Catholics and Protestants, but all Monotheists generally, as well as pagans and heathens, are “under Catholic authority”. (Note I do *not *say that the Church ought to take the world by force, as some will wrongly infer.)

If you mean something like the application of canon law, it’s another story. Even if persons outside the Church somehow incurred legal censures, how would such censures be enforced?

 

[JustaServant]

Well, first it was the Jewish Scriptures, and then Christians added to it. I would say it belongs to a number of communities.

Okay, that’s a start.
However, even as an Episcopal you would admit that the Bible** as we know it today** was put together, with the Jewish Scriptures, by the predominate Church at the time: The Catholic Church.
So, does some semblance of Catholic authority remain within the Holy Writ, or did it completely vanish as soon as the Protestant Reformation came about?
The basic doctrines of the faith, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity, Communion and Baptism are retained (even the last two imperfectly) by the strident Fundamentalist. Are all Protestants still following Catholic teaching, even in it’s embryonic in nature.
I came back to the Catholic Church BY READING the Bible. What I thought was my own interpretation was in fact God leading me back to His Church.

 

[JustaServant]

To me it is a play on words. “If the Bible is a Catholic book”. One of our local restaurants successfully sells “Mennonite Sausage”, if a sausage is a Mennonite sausage does that mean it is made from ground pork or ground Mennonites?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I think the consensus is No. I agree. Catholics fall under Catholic authority.

Catholic authority proceeds from Scripture; so maybe some people pick up on that.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Moved to Apologetics for a wider response.
Be nice

 

[JustaServant]

I think the consensus is No. I agree. Catholics fall under Catholic authority.

Catholic authority proceeds from Scripture; so maybe some people pick up on that.

Okay, that is what I am trying to explore.
Catholic authority proceeds from Scripture.
Protestants accept the Bible, but reject tradition (to varying degrees depending on the denomination).
They follow Scripture Alone, which by itself is not without some kind of authority. That authority being the basic tenants of the faith. Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Catholic Church.

Does that make sense? Or do I need less flu medicine?

 

[Wannano]

Okay, that is what I am trying to explore.
Catholic authority proceeds from Scripture.
Protestants accept the Bible, but reject tradition (to varying degrees depending on the denomination).
They follow Scripture Alone, which by itself is not without some kind of authority. That authority being the basic tenants of the faith. Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Catholic Church.

Does that make sense? Or do I need less flu medicine?

Yes.

 

[alwayswill]

Okay, that is what I am trying to explore.
Catholic authority proceeds from Scripture.
Protestants accept the Bible, but reject tradition (to varying degrees depending on the denomination).
They follow Scripture Alone, which by itself is not without some kind of authority. That authority being the basic tenants of the faith. Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Catholic Church.

Does that make sense? Or do I need less flu medicine?

The Protestant view is
Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Scriptures
If the basic tenants of the faith proclaimed by the Catholic Church agree with Scripture then the Catholic Church is correct.

 

[JustaServant]

The Protestant view is
Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Scriptures
If the basic tenants of the faith proclaimed by the Catholic Church agree with Scripture then the Catholic Church is correct.

And where did the authority originate that told you the tenants of the faith proceeded from Scripture?
The Church was not a ‘Johnny come lately’ who jumped on the Bible bandwagon. The Church was in existence from the Resurrection on, it was the Apostles of the Church who penned the New Testament. It was the Church who put it all together in a Book we call the Bible.

 

[JustaServant]

Yes.

To which?

 

[Church_Militant]

The** Bible is a collection**

of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

The Books of Moses, the Book of Isaiah, The book of Acts, The Book of Revelation, etc are not Catholic booksYou can say that but who and when were the canonical books finalized and by what authority?

Look at your authentic Christian history. It was the Catholic Church in 382 AD and no one else. You n-Cs weren’t anywhere around at that point.

The OT was never canonized until we did it in the 4th century. Don’t waste time offering Jamnia, because it didn’t happen and the Jewish canon is still an open matter of debate among them. (See The Council That Wasn’t)

So are Vedas and Bhagavad Gita not Catholic books but considered divine revelation by those who believe in them. So who decided that they are God breathed or not?

…for Christians anyway…

How is it a Roman Catholic book? Moses and King David certainly would not be considered Roman Catholic. The Apostles and Gospel writers wrote in the first century. They were Christians and got their authority from God, not from Rome.

If they got their authority from God then why don’t all n-Cs obey them since they were the ones who were told to hear confessions with the power to forgive or retain sins. They were the ones who baptized whole families which included infants, who celebrated the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and they were the ones who, and until the 4th century, paid in blood for the faith that Christ established in the apostles and that those same apostles passed on to the ECF who have verifiably documented what they taught. If they had teh authority from God then why do you n-Cs refuse to follow what they taught?

Just because a council centuries later made a formal ruling about what would be NT Scripture, it doesn’t mean that the NT was invented then.

Oh…so you wouldn’t have cared if there had been no authority at that time and so you’d be fine with sorting through all the spurious texts like the Gnostic gospels and their non-Christian doctrines. If n-C Christianity is a doctrinal mess now (and it often is) one can only imagine the chaos this thinking would bring about.

The Scriptures were recognized as Scripture at the time they were written. 1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul cites 2 Scriptures including Luke. 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. There may have been a few questions, but it was largely recognized immediately as being Scripture.

Really? Then why did Luther reject not only the Deuterocanonical books but Esther and even Revelation and James in the NT just because there was discussion and controversy in the 4th century? I realize not all of you are big on Luther, but hey he started this wreck and again…we have someone who refused to obey legitimate Christian authority. Setting a pretty bad example for all of you over the last 400+ years.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Protestant view is
Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Scriptures

If the basic tenants of the faith proclaimed by the Catholic Church agree with Scripture then the Catholic Church is correct.Which was never the case even in the early church. Until the 4th century the New Testament canon did not exist as we have it today, so your appeal to scripture cannot be valid since the church had to discern and decide what was authentic Christian divinely inspired (hence the rejection of the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas [sp?]which are Christian but not inspired) and the rejection of all the Gnostic writings.

C’mon…your argument just doesn’t wash. Accept the facts of history and embrace the truth, okay?