Probably because this tradition you speak of is part of the common Christian tradition, not Catholic or Protestant or other. So it’s really no big deal that all Christians use the same name for authors of New Testament books.
,
Hey digger, I was addressing the question to those sola scriptura advocates who reject tradition and defer to the bible alone. I did not know that the CC no longer views Paul as the author of Hebrews. Interesting…
There was no such thing as a common Christian Tradition before the 16th century. Therefore, anything known prior to that time was frankly Catholic (or Orthodox) in tradition. As such, non-catholic Christians necessarily had to adopt Catholic Tradition/tradition in some respects–they simply don’t acknowledge that fact (I.e. Sunday as day of worship, the Canon of Scripture, Christ
).Nonsense. There was certainly a common Christian tradition with Jesus. Right?There was no such thing as a common Christian Tradition before the 16th century. Therefore, anything known prior to that time was frankly Catholic (or Orthodox) in tradition. As such, non-catholic Christians necessarily had to adopt Catholic Tradition/tradition in some respects–they simply don’t acknowledge that fact (I.e. Sunday as day of worship, the Canon of Scripture, Christ
While Hebrews is not specified as coming from Paul, it is suspected to be so because, as it was mentioned earlier in a post, the language is very Pauline.
Just because the Lector does not introduce it as such does not forbid us from adhering to that tradition.
Better choice of words:Hi Joe,
perhaps you shouldn’t have used the word anonymous as that is used by many non Christians (badly) to insinuate that nobody really knew who wrote the Gospels in the first century. This is of course, pretty stupid when you think about it.
Perhaps you should have said that there was no internal claim of authorship in the gospels and so it was the contemporary and then continuing Christian community and their subsequent traditions that we go to in order to know who wrote them.
Not sure of your point here. Orthodoxy broke from Catholicism because of their deficiency in understanding the primacy of Peter in the Church, and the definition of the Third Person of the Trinity in 1054. As such, their ability to further define doctrine was arrested at that point in time. But their doctrine up to then was Catholic, and any truths that are accurate currently is frankly so because of their Catholic pedrigree. But if you can point to a non-Catholic Christian sect prior to that time, please enlighten us.
No, of course not. But it was a conscious decision by the Church, so the Church obviously teaches that Paul’s authorship of Hebrews is not a matter of Catholic faith.
Thanks. Yeah, the Church does not consider Paul the author, though if some Catholics choose to believe such well I guess that’s ok too.
No, for a long time there was a consensus. That consensus fully believed Paul wrote Hebrews.
Obvious. By definition, ALL (not most) Protestants reject parts of the Catholic Tradition.
The break was much more complicated than that. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches today agree there are no theological differences separating them regarding the Holy Spirit. And they don’t refer to a “deficiency” regarding the understanding of the primacy of Peter in the Church (in fact, they both agree on Peter, they differ on the role of the Bishop of Rome).
Certainly the break from Rome was more complicated. The Bishop of Rome is de facto the Pope, and as such, Orthodoxy certainly does have a deficient understanding of his role in the Church (but if you’re talking about Peter himself, then I would agree with you). They certainly wouldn’t refer to themselves as having had a deficiency if they didn’t believe they had one.
Non-Catholic Christian belief prior to this time? No, such a thing is self-contradictory.
Prior to Christian divisions there was simply the Catholic faith.
There was never a consensus among the fathers, and how can you deny the