PROTESTANTS! Answer me this....

[julebenn]

You are again incorrect in your understanding of Catholicism.

Papal Authority:

scripturecatholic.com

Thanks for the links!

Is Apostolic succession a guarantee that the modern Catholic Church teaches the pure doctrines of Christ?
If this is the rule, then the Eastern Orthodox Church can also claim pure and false doctrines and yet they contradict the Roman Church on the fundamental question of the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

Lineal succession of bishops does not in itself guarantee
purity. Jewish leaders who were often bragging that they had Abraham as their father. John the baptist rebuked them,

And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” (Matthew 3:9).

 

[mercygate]

It’s not called God breathed is it?

If all of Scripture is God-breathed, and Scripture tells us to adhere to the traditions we have received, then yes: the adherence to sacred Tradition is a Scriptural admonition.

 

[santaro75]

Hi,

Thanks I must be having help from the Holy Spirit because I surpringly dont feel overwhelmed.

I would suggest they do not have the Holy Spirit. I will even go further and say if God called a JW or Mormon to salvation He would also pull them out of those churches.

Ministers who are filled with the Holy Spirit are the shepards. Your right Im just a sheep. Peter and the Apostles cannot feed us anymore as they are in heaven. It is Jesus Christ that is feeding us. Actually it has been Christ feeding us all along.

JW’s and Mormons would say the same thing about you!

Ministers ordained by Jesus were the shepards in the bible. I have to believe they ordained their successors in the same way Christ ordained them. Christ said as the father sent me I send you. To me that establishes authority based on who sent you. So peter could say Father sent Son. Son sent me. I send you to his succesor and so on.

 

[justasking4]

If all of Scripture is God-breathed, and Scripture tells us to adhere to the traditions we have received, then yes: the adherence to sacred Tradition is a Scriptural admonition.

here is the passage— So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Paul is very specific in what he is referring to here. Its those traditions that “he and others” were giving them. There is no hint or exhortation that other traditions were to be passed on as binding.

 

[mercygate]

here is the passage— So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Paul is very specific in what he is referring to here. Its those traditions that “he and others” were giving them. There is no hint or exhortation that other traditions were to be passed on as binding.

The point here is that Paul has the authority to pass on traditions.

We believe that the Church has the authoritiy to pass on traditions and, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to establish traditions that guard and build up the faith.

Though suggested in Scripture, the dogmatic definition of the Holy Trinity is just such a tradition – the delineation of three Persons, co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial, is entirely the product of tradition, hammered out in the councils of the early Church.

It is not that no traditions not already presented were to be accepted but a question of who had the authority to determine when and whether they were needed. It is a question of the legitimate development of doctrine under the assured guidance of the Holy Spirit. Speaking to the eleven, Jesus promised to send the ‘comforter’ to guide you into all the truth. Ergo, he knew that they did not then possess it and that they would need a guide until he comes again.

The Catholic Church does not pluck things out of thin air and promote them as dogma.

 

[MrS]

here is the passage— So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Paul is very specific in what he is referring to here. Its those traditions that “he and others” were giving them. There is no hint or exhortation that other traditions were to be passed on as binding.

Okay let’s do this the protestant way… make it say what you want it to say:

“So then, brethren, stand at ease, and hold loosely to the traditions which you were only told about, whether by word of mouth of by a letter from anyone.”

now I get it… Traditions are of no importance nor are those who held them fast.

.

.

 

[Reformed1]

Okay let’s do this the protestant way… make it say what you want it to say:

“So then, brethren, stand at ease, and hold loosely to the traditions which you were only told about, whether by word of mouth of by a letter from anyone.”

now I get it… Traditions are of no importance nor are those who held them fast.

.

.

The issue is what exactly are those traditions?

 

[Reformed1]

let’s overlook for the time being that your statement obviousely shows you do not know what the Holy Spirit’s give of infallibility means.

Actually we did quite well…
survived the persecution in the first 300 years…
survived the hugh heresies thru the centuries…
survived the apostasy of the Reformers as they pulled uncathecized Catholics out of the Church…
survived even the priests and prelates of the Church and their attempts to destroy from within…

Now, let’s see… yours and other manmade theologies did not even survive 50 years after 1517…

there is not one non-Catholic so-called Christian denomination that has existed since Christ… all have come in the last 500 years (or much less)

As for Trent… it simply re-affirmed the Canon… read it.

It also re-affirmed the Catholic teaching on Justification, sanctification etc etc etc… all was necessary to answer the upstarts that today claim to be the Church Jesus started.

now that… is SAD

.

What am I missing in regards to Trent. I believe in another thread you said you are a “fan” (not sure if that’s the right word) and a few months ago I thought he posted that the issue of the canon wasn’t settled until Trent. Pacwa in one of his debates with James White seemed to believe that it was Trent that infallibly defined the canon. In one of the previous posts Fr. Most was shown to believe that it was Trent that settled the canon…I believe he use the term “finally”.

I’ll go to his site, as you too will likely do, and see what I can find.

 

[Reformed1]

The three councils of Rome, Hippo in Carthage were infallible because all the Church leaders were gather and were in union with the Pope are part of what we Catholics called the Magisterium of the Church. When decree is set like canonizing Scripture all the bishops in union with the Pope is infallible. The subject here was what Books are inspired by God.

To find which Scripture is inspired. It must be used in the Liturgy, have to be written by the Apostles, or their successors, and does not contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Pope Gregory as a person is not infallible. Just because he didn’t realized that Maccabees 1 is inspired, nor that St. Jerome had doubts with the deutorocanonical Bible should be used does not make those books useful.

Just because Catholic leaders did not realized they were canonical doesn’t prove anything of this issue. I myself doubt (at one time) Maccabees 1 and 2 but I trust the Church made a good judgement in its decision and I believe Jesus gave the Church authority. Of course now I realized they are canonical or inspired.

The Church itself made the final decision what Books were acceptible. Once the Church itself makes a proclamation on moral and faith, it cannot reverse its decision. The issue proclaim here was faith, which is the Scripture itself.

If you read Fr. More, he said the the Council of Trent had the same list of Scripture as the African Councils, which is Council of Hippo, and Carthage. The council of Rome first made the list.

The Council of Trent only reaffirmed those Councils as well as others before it. Like Council of Florence in late 1400s.

I’m still not sure if you are correct about the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo being infallible. But, admittedly, I am certainly no expert on this issue.

Father Most said that the council of Trent finally decided the canon. If the canon had been infallibly declared Trent woudn’t have “finally” decided the issue. It would have “finally” been decided a millenium earlier.

Now regarding Pope Gregory (it was Gregory wasn’t it?), if he denied an infallible truth of the church, wouldn’t that make him a heretic?

I have listend to several debates on this issue and there are several Catholic apologists that, unless I am mistaken, have admitted that the earlier councils were not in fact infallible or at least the declaration regarding the canon was not defined infallibly. I’ll see what I can come up with in support of this.

 

[PauloFreire2]

The Church views herself in the following ways:

Body of Christ
Institution
Sacrament
Herald of God’s Word
Servant

Where does the Church actually state that she ***IS ***Christ?

 

[Reformed1]

Mr. S,

Here is what Robert Sungenis has to say back in 2005…I think it was April or May. You can do a search and verify for yourself.

Question 11 - Catholic versus Protestant Beliefs from Scripture, 2

**Mr. Sungenis,
So far so good. I don’t have any major complaints on this belief so far. But can you explain about the Council of Trent in 1563?
Thank you,
Cheryl

R. Sungenis: Yes. In regard to the canon of Scripture, the Council of Trent produced the final and definitive infallible decree regarding the contents of Scripture. This meant that no more discussion or objections to the canon could be submitted, under pain of discipline. Prior to that, the Fathers, Popes and Councils had decreed the contents of the canon in 380, 393, 419 and 1440. The reason the Council of Trent issued the final decree is that Cardinal Cajetan in the 1600s had some reservations about the deuterocanonical books of the OT, and those reservations were answered by Trent. The Tridentine canon matches, book for book, the canon that was accepted in 380-419, including the deuterocanonical books (or what Protestants call “The Apocrypha”). In fact, Trent declared that, in making their final infallible decision, they were bound by the Tradition passed down to them by the early Church. **

I may have been thinking about this post, which certainly wasn’t in the past few months earlier, but look at Robert’s words. It just doesn’t appear to me that the earlier councils who gave a canon did so infallibly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for the links!

Is Apostolic succession a guarantee that the modern Catholic Church teaches the pure doctrines of Christ?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m still not sure if you are correct about the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo being infallible. But, admittedly, I am certainly no expert on this issue.

Father Most said that the council of Trent finally decided the canon. If the canon had been infallibly declared Trent woudn’t have “finally” decided the issue. It would have “finally” been decided a millenium earlier.

Now regarding Pope Gregory (it was Gregory wasn’t it?), if he denied an infallible truth of the church, wouldn’t that make him a heretic?

I have listend to several debates on this issue and there are several Catholic apologists that, unless I am mistaken, have admitted that the earlier councils were not in fact infallible or at least the declaration regarding the canon was not defined infallibly. I’ll see what I can come up with in support of this.

The Council of Trent would not be valid if the other Council proclaiming the Canon of Scripture had already been set. Councils are made to affirm a long held belief, Reformed.

Like I said, the Council of Trent only reaffirmed the other Councils like the Council of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in 787 A.D, Council of Florence in 1442, and finally the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

You must take into account at the time Trent was convene. There was the Protestant Reformation which challenged the CC authority, and the Protestants like Martin Luther who removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. He also remove the Deutorcanonical books from the Septuagint like the Book of Maccabees 1 & 2, Sirah, Book of Tobit, etc.

The Catholic Church didn’t remove any books but added 27 Books of the NT into the Bible. This is fact, this is history. The CC gave us the Bible period. Protestants can’t find a way out of it.

 

[Reformed1]

The Council of Trent would not be valid if the other Council proclaiming the Canon of Scripture had already been set. Councils are made to affirm a long held belief, Reformed.

Like I said, the Council of Trent only reaffirmed the other Councils like the Council of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in 787 A.D, Council of Florence in 1442, and finally the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

You must take into account at the time Trent was convene. There was the Protestant Reformation which challenged the CC authority, and the Protestants like Martin Luther who removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. He also remove the Deutorcanonical books from the Septuagint like the Book of Maccabees 1 & 2, Sirah, Book of Tobit, etc.

The Catholic Church didn’t remove any books but added 27 Books of the NT into the Bible. This is fact, this is history. The CC gave us the Bible period. Protestants can’t find a way out of it.

If you are right and Rome, Carthage and Hippo were infallible, what of the issue of a pope setting himself in opposition to a infallibly defined dogma?

 

[MrS]

** The Tridentine canon matches, book for book, the canon that was accepted in 380-419, including the deuterocanonical books (or what Protestants call “The Apocrypha”). In fact, Trent declared that, in making their final infallible decision, they were bound by the Tradition passed down to them by the early Church.**

I may have been thinking about this post, which certainly wasn’t in the past few months earlier, but look at Robert’s words. It just doesn’t appear to me that the earlier councils who gave a canon did so infallibly.

“…bound by the Tradition…”

Just like the method we used for the words we find in the Scripture…

They first were oral Tradition, and when written down by Catholic human authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they were bound by the Tradition passed down…

as for infallibility… the gift of infallibility is a negative protection … The Holy Spirit will prohibit the Catholic Magisterium from teaching error in matters of Faith and Morals. There are conditions of course, so that the world will see easily that the Magisterium is or is not declaring something to be infallible.

By the way, it the Pope and/or the bishops in union with him do declare some Truth as infallible (life the Immaculate Conception for instance)… they are stating that that Truth has been Truth for all time, for all people, in all ages…

and that would obligate you to believe also… although you could exercise your free will to choose to not believe… and reject.

Kind of like knowing that Jesus is the Truth, and has always been… but the world was not introduced to Him until His birth, nine months after the Word became Flesh.

Merry Christmas… May Christ tug at your heart always.

.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you are right and Rome, Carthage and Hippo were infallible, what of the issue of a pope setting himself in opposition to a infallibly defined dogma?

Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome (382 A.D) started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches.

Can you be more specific as to why you think the Pope (which Pope) set himself in opposition to infallible defined dogma?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Reformed1,

Mr.S answered your question about Infallibility.

 

[Mannyfit75]

“…bound by the Tradition…”

Just like the method we used for the words we find in the Scripture…

They first were oral Tradition, and when written down by Catholic human authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they were bound by the Tradition passed down…

as for infallibility… the gift of infallibility is a negative protection … The Holy Spirit will prohibit the Catholic Magisterium from teaching error in matters of Faith and Morals. There are conditions of course, so that the world will see easily that the Magisterium is or is not declaring something to be infallible.

By the way, it the Pope and/or the bishops in union with him do declare some Truth as infallible (life the Immaculate Conception for instance)… they are stating that that Truth has been Truth for all time, for all people, in all ages…

and that would obligate you to believe also… although you could exercise your free will to choose to not believe… and reject.

Kind of like knowing that Jesus is the Truth, and has always been… but the world was not introduced to Him until His birth, nine months after the Word became Flesh.

Merry Christmas… May Christ tug at your heart always.

.

Good answer.

 

[Reformed1]

“…bound by the Tradition…”

Just like the method we used for the words we find in the Scripture…

They first were oral Tradition, and when written down by Catholic human authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they were bound by the Tradition passed down…

as for infallibility… the gift of infallibility is a negative protection … The Holy Spirit will prohibit the Catholic Magisterium from teaching error in matters of Faith and Morals. There are conditions of course, so that the world will see easily that the Magisterium is or is not declaring something to be infallible.

By the way, it the Pope and/or the bishops in union with him do declare some Truth as infallible (life the Immaculate Conception for instance)… they are stating that that Truth has been Truth for all time, for all people, in all ages…

and that would obligate you to believe also… although you could exercise your free will to choose to not believe… and reject.

Kind of like knowing that Jesus is the Truth, and has always been… but the world was not introduced to Him until His birth, nine months after the Word became Flesh.

Merry Christmas… May Christ tug at your heart always.

.

This may be worth a thread of its own. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Reformed1]

Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome (382 A.D) started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches.

Can you be more specific as to why you think the Pope (which Pope) set himself in opposition to infallible defined dogma?

Pope Gregory didn’t think the first book of Maccabees was canonical, at least he didn’t according to this quote.

Gregory the Great - “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

The incident with the elephant occurs in chapter 6 if memory serves me.

It just struck me that it is possible that this was written before he became pope and therefore wouldn’t matter one way or the other.

However, if he wrote this when he was pope, and it is obvious that he didn’t regard 1 Maccabees as canonical, he would be denying a dogmatic decree from the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hipo, if in fact these councils were dogmatic or infallible, whatever the term is.

I know I keep beating this drum but I thought Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were regional councils and therefore wouldn’t meet the requirements of being infallible councils.