Matthew's Gospel in Protestantism

[teachccd]

You can say that Jesus gave it authority but how can you prove it except by saying that is what the Church told you?

How can you say that Saturn exists except by saying that is what the scientists told you. That is a straw man . The Church preached before Scripture and we can use Scripture to back that up because it does say so. See 2 Thessalonians 3:15. How can you prove in the year 46 A.D. that Crhistianity existed if you lived then?? There was no New Testament. So without Scripture, when exactly did Christianity begin??..

 

[Janet_S]

Sola scriptura doesn’t rule out all tradition. It just rightly places tradition below scripture.

It’s the old “what came first? the chicken or the egg?” conundrum.

Without tradition, you could never identify what is authoritative scripture.

Scripture and tradition are inextricably linked as Dei Verbum explains:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed./

 

[Janet_S]

What protestants are saying is that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. They believe that God does reveal himself through nature, church tradition, pastors/priests, and even dreams and visions. But these will never contradict the clear teaching of Scripture since God does not contradict himself. When a doctrine or teaching disagrees with Scripture it is wrong.

The church’s traditions and councils have been very helpful in determining what books belong in Scripture and the meaning of various passages. We do value tradition, but reject it when it goes against the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

No Catholic teachings go against Scripture.

 

[Janet_S]

I have repeatedly asked this question and have never really been answered. How do we know that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims? Don’t quote the Bible since according to you we don’t have the Bible until we have the authority of the Church first. Using the Bible to establish the authority of the Church would be like me writing a letter saying I have been appointed head of the Church and then using that letter as proof that I was appointed. There is nothing to establish the Church as having authority except that the Church says it has. You can say that Jesus gave it authority but how can you prove it except by saying that is what the Church told you?

What kind of proof are you looking for?

What evidence would you accept?

I can tell you why I accept the Catholic Church has divine authority.

Why I accept that the Catholic Church has divine authority is the historicity of Catholicism. If Christ started one Church, it is the Catholic Church that has the lineage back to the Apostles. (The existence of the Orthodox churches complicates this issue, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.)

Another reason I accept that the Catholic Church has divine authority is that she does not error when teaching faith and morals. An example of this is how the Church continues to take a stand on the tough moral issues of the day–particularly her stand against artificial birth control. Before the 1930’s, all Christians considered artificial birth control “intrinsically evil.” In the years since, other Christians have caved in to popular opinion, but not so with the Catholic Church. She alone has the courage to proclaim what is true.

You would certainly expect the “true” Church to take an unpopular stand against this and other evils in our culture. Our founder, Jesus Christ, never hesitated to take an unpopular stand.

(Why birth control is so devastating to our current culture is beyond the scope of this thread, but , if you are interested, you can search other threads that deal with this subject.)

 

[Janet_S]

How does someone who believes in Sola Scriptura know that “The Gospel according to Matthew” is really written by Matthew?? What scriptural proof is there and if one cannot find any then why wasn’t the uninspired title removed from Protestant bibles since Apostolic Tradition does not apply??

Some scholars question whether Matthew wrote Matthew. This is from the NAB introduction:

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

 

[teachccd]

Some scholars question whether Matthew wrote Matthew. This is from the NAB introduction:

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

Yes, while this in house debate indeed exists, my contention is that protestants should not have anything written above the four Gospel accounts as to their authorship. These are still traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and if one adheres to Sola scriptura then why would they accept the Church’s opinion as to the authorship of the Gospels? I’m merely stating that as much as protestants wish to believe in Sola Scriptura, they continue to hang on to our Church teachings. In other words, when they threw out the Sacrifice of the Mass, the sacramental life of the Church, some liturgical worship, statues, praying to saints, honoring our Blessed Mother and the many other Catholic practices then why didn’t they erase the names of the Gospel writers which came from the same Church?? Perplexing but not surprising since many non Catholic denominations copy Catholic theology in one form or another while maintaining their independance. Jehovah’s Witnesses are Sola scriptura and look where it got them yet they maintain a heirarchy similar to ours.

I’m so glad and thank God daily that I am in the Church that Jesus founded and that I can find every answer in the one Church that offers the fullness of Truth. Thanks be to God…teachccd

 

[Johenz]

An awesome argument for the priority of Matthew is available online at www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf.

 

[JIMMY68]

If one doesn’t want to hold to all the doctrines held by Catholics regarding Sacred Tradition–they should be able to state why the Catholic Church which does believe in those sacred traditions-- told the truth about some–lied about others–and why there is no record of Protestants back there at that time disputing what was held by the Catholic Church.

See I don’t see how they can be exact liars that only lie about things that Protestants 1500 years would believe in!

Now while it would theoretically be possible that this 100% coincidence of alleged Catholic lies and Protestants beliefs could be possible the chances of it happening and the Lord not inspiring anyone to espouse the Protestant view for 1500 years is Laughable!

That’s where the whole house of cards falls.

See if there was a Protestant church in the first four centuries that held to the Protestant Canon of scriptures–that didn’t believe in the body and blood being present in the eucharist and who publicly declared that they had it on authority form some of the disciples themselves that the Bishop of Rome had no preeminence–then Protestants could claim that a church like that had existed from the beginning and that that was the church that Jesus founded.

There is no record of anything like that!

Just like there is no record of Protestants protesting the Canon of scripture at any of the councils.

Now don’t insult anyone’s intelligence. If God did want to give the church a Genuine book of Scriptures called the Bible are you going to tell me that He wouldn’t be able to inspire just one person to address those Councils and espouse the Protestant viewpoint?

Now Satan may want people to believe that God is that weak but we know that Jesus said “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My church”.

If you believe that the Catholic Church got the scriptures wrong–and if you can not point to any church that got the scriptures right in those first centuries of the church–then how can you prove anything?

Sola Scriptura as an authority absent the magisterium makes absolutely no sense because the “Sense” of that notion was not seen anywhere in Actual History in Actual Churches!

And the more that someone tries to prove that–when there is no proof–the more laughable the whole system becomes.

The Catholic Church always makes sense for a reason. It is the Truth!

Now can The Truth always be disputed? Of course!

Satan has been diputing the Truth since the beginning of time.

But listen folks–if something does make sense–if it does fit with Actual history–it’s because it is the Actual Truth abouth the Actual Jesus and His Actual Church exercising the Actual Authority that He Actually gave it!

That’s why you can find that church even in the history of pagan Romans who had no reason to believe in it.

That’s why you also Don’t find the Protestant church in the history of Pagan Romans who didn’t have any reason to believe in it either.

When Catholic historians and Pagan historians agree about the Actual history and reality of the Catholic Church just do this–

Quit fighting a losing war!

God gave you a brain! God is Infinite! God is not as small as narrow minds would like you to believe He is!

Millions have converted to the truth of the Catholic faith and millions and believed it from birth.

If All those people were Liars–if all those people didn’t have the truth in them before the Reformation happened 1500 years later–do you really think that a bunch of liars would consistently preach the same lies for all those centuries without God ever raising the Protestant church in all those centuries?

When you answer that question you can either use the brain God gave you or cling to what is comfortable and what you have been taught.

But as you wallow in your comfortableness–when you wallow in Blessed Assurance’s promise of Once Saved Always Saved ask yourself “Is this the rocky road that Jesus says leads to Eternal life?”

Is this what Jesus means by “Taking up your cross and following me?”

Do you think that Catholic Liars about the truth went to their deaths in the Roman Arenas while No Protestants did?

And if you think they were christian and not Catholic read what any of them said in the first centuries after Jesus. Ask yourself if they sound like Protestants or like Catholics.

If you do truely do this you will come to the Catholic Faith.

If you won’t truely do this you heart is as closed and hardened as Pharoh.

The choice is yours! All of us Catholics are praying that you will come home to the Fullness of the Faith that testifies of the Real Jesus and His Real Historical Catholic Church!

Nice and well said. Amen Brother! :clapping:

 

[JIMMY68]

What kind of proof are you looking for?

What evidence would you accept?

I can tell you why I accept the Catholic Church has divine authority.

Why I accept that the Catholic Church has divine authority is the historicity of Catholicism. If Christ started one Church, it is the Catholic Church that has the lineage back to the Apostles. (The existence of the Orthodox churches complicates this issue, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.)

Another reason I accept that the Catholic Church has divine authority is that she does not error when teaching faith and morals. An example of this is how the Church continues to take a stand on the tough moral issues of the day–particularly her stand against artificial birth control. Before the 1930’s, all Christians considered artificial birth control “intrinsically evil.” In the years since, other Christians have caved in to popular opinion, but not so with the Catholic Church. She alone has the courage to proclaim what is true.

You would certainly expect the “true” Church to take an unpopular stand against this and other evils in our culture. Our founder, Jesus Christ, never hesitated to take an unpopular stand.

(Why birth control is so devastating to our current culture is beyond the scope of this thread, but , if you are interested, you can search other threads that deal with this subject.)

Go Janet Go!!!