protestants reading the bible are taking the catholic church's word for it.

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

traillius

Guest
Since the new testament writers adhered to what is fundamental catholic teaching, and the church fathers who approved the bible, at least as all bibles were before the 16th century, adhered to what is fundamental catholic teaching, any non-catholic who follows the bible is taking the catholic church’s word for it.
 
traillius said:
Since the new testament writers adhered to what is fundamental catholic teaching, and the church fathers who approved the bible, at least as all bibles were before the 16th century, adhered to what is fundamental catholic teaching, any non-catholic who follows the bible is taking the catholic church’s word for it.
Click to expand...
??? That’s a flawed statement.
 
You make a very good point. They won’t agree with you…they’ll say something like, “It’s the Holy Spirit that inspired those “early guys” to choose the books.” So, in essence, the leadership of the Church/Bishops was only necessary UNTIL the books of the Bible were chosen. I know, I was a protestant myself. They also need to concede that the original canon of scripture included the “Apocrypha”…if they disagree they can check the 1611 version of the King James version. Interesting stuff that I discovered (thanks to the work of Catholic Apologists) on my way Rome! Blessings!👍
 
Proallen said:
That’s inherantly incorrect. The original synods who were responsible for the Canonization ultimately were Orthodox, not Roman.
Click to expand...
Ha! They didn’t have these distinctions back then silly.😛
 
Proallen said:
So? Then who gave us the Bible?
Click to expand...
I think the point is this :

If you plot the development of Christian doctrine on a timeline, by the time you get to the full canon of the Bible as it appears today the Church already believes in the necessity of episcopal governance, has a doctrine of the Real Presence, and a cult of saints. Which raises the question of why the Church is trustworthy when it comes to choosing texts which are canonical, but not on other dogmatic/doctrinal issues!
 
Proallen said:
That’s inherantly incorrect. The original synods who were responsible for the Canonization ultimately were Orthodox, not Roman.
Click to expand...
If they were Orthodox, then they weren’t Protest-ant. You stuck that one up your own nose 😉
 
dnu said:
If they were Orthodox, then they weren’t Protest-ant. You stuck that one up your own nose 😉
Click to expand...
You are correct. Of course, then they weren’t Cathol-ic either. :rolleyes:

Actually, it is a silly point. The NT canon was compiled by the undivided Church Catholic.
For us in the west who are non-catholic, we owe Rome a debt of gratitude for preserving the canon. Even Luther said as much.

Jon
 
traillius said:
Since the new testament writers adhered to what is fundamental catholic teaching, and the church fathers who approved the bible, at least as all bibles were before the 16th century, adhered to what is fundamental catholic teaching, any non-catholic who follows the bible is taking the catholic church’s word for it.
Click to expand...
Actually the credit belongs to the Holy Spirit. It has little to do with human endevours. It is a God endevour.
 
Dokimas said:
Actually the credit belongs to the Holy Spirit. It has little to do with human endevours. It is a God endevour.
Click to expand...
Catholics believe the same thing. But they accept it as a package, not filtered through innovations of the 15th century that just happen to have coincided with the advent of certain political and economic interests.
 
Palaeologos said:
Catholics believe the same thing. But they accept it as a package, not filtered through innovations of the 15th century that just happen to have coincided with the advent of certain political and economic interests.
Click to expand...
It’s just hard to take hearing the CC did this and the CC did that while not mentioning the Holy Spirit at all. ALL the credit goes to the Holy Spirit, IMO, so at the very least, He should get the ‘top billing’ and not you or I or any church including the CC.
 
oh my goodness the original poster is right!! quick let me get my conversion cap and join you!

Honestly what is the point of this thread other than some attempt to remind others of Roman Catholicism’s feigned superiority.
 
The Church was undivided through the time of the ORIGINAL formation of the canon of scripture…call THE CHURCH what you like. The only designations that I know of was in the names, “Church of Rome”, “Church of Antioch” etc. We didn’t have designations such as “Roman Catholic” or “Orthodox” as we now know them. The DE-formers such as Luther did his own little edit job on scripture…but before his editing project the canon was the “long Catholic Version” as it exists now…not the “slimmer Protestant Version.” But we all love the Lord and it is my prayer that we can all reconcile and be good neighbors. I think the Lord wants this too. “That they may be ONE Father as You and I are One.”
 
robdaddyf said:
The DE-formers such as Luther did his own little edit job on scripture. But we all love the Lord and it is my prayer that we can all reconcile and be good neighbors. I think the Lord wants this too. “That they may be ONE Father as You and I are One.”
Click to expand...
Right because nothing seems more truly genuine than a slap in the face then a prayer for ecumenism.
 
Also, the Holy Spirit did what? Formed the Church on Pentecost…yes? Giving the Church credit is, likewise, giving the Holy Spirit credit. It’s not a snub to the artist if you like his painting…know what I mean?👍
 
nhylan said:
Right because nothing seems more truly genuine than a slap in the face then a prayer for ecumenism.
Click to expand...
Ha! The truth hurts…call it what you will. And it is truth that would bring about true reform. No?👍
 
=robdaddyf;6389115]The Church was undivided through the time of the ORIGINAL formation of the canon of scripture…call THE CHURCH what you like. The only designations that I know of was in the names, “Church of Rome”, “Church of Antioch” etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. I said that above.
We didn’t have designations such as “Roman Catholic” or “Orthodox” as we now know them.
Click to expand...
And these came 500 years before the reformation.
The DE-formers
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is so clever. :p:rolleyes:
such as Luther did his own little edit job on scripture…but before his editing project the canon was the “long Catholic Version” as it exists now…not the “slimmer Protestant Version.”
Click to expand...
Luther’s version was one book longer than the typical western Bible.
But we all love the Lord and it is my prayer that we can all reconcile and be good neighbors. I think the Lord wants this too. “That they may be ONE Father as You and I are One.”
Click to expand...
This I completely agree with. So, why the divisive “de-former” remark, if you actually feel this way? Do you think that will bring us closer together?

Jon
 
robdaddyf said:
Ha! The truth hurts…call it what you will. And it is truth that would bring about true reform. No?👍
Click to expand...
You know, its funny you have Pope John Paul II as your avatar because those words would have NEVER EVER come out of his mouth. He was a great man, you seem to be arrogant and ignorant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top