Questions Catholics "cannot" answer

[CathCountryMan7]

I overheard a caller ask John Martignoni about questions from Protestants that “stumble” Catholics. Steve Rudd poses questions that he wrongfully assumes that we Catholics cannot answer. See www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

I leave the answers to you fellow Catholics. Of course, academics and clergy are more than welcome to answer.

 

[ERose]

I overheard a caller ask John Martignoni about questions from Protestants that “stumble” Catholics. Steve Rudd poses questions that he wrongfully assumes that we Catholics cannot answer. See www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

I leave the answers to you fellow Catholics. Of course, academics and clergy are more than welcome to answer.

These questions i have seen here before and have been dealt with before. One question I have for you is why do you want to discuss these questions? Are you being approached by someone and being challenged? Or are you considering if these questions have merit?

Right off the bat these questions are ridiculous for the most part, but if there is a specific need on your part that would merit my time please let me know.

 

[ERose]

Just for an example:

Q1) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?
Q2) If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple?
Q3) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Q4) Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut or initiative in determining the canon.
Q5) Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

All of these questions display that the writer of them is ignorant of history of the Bible and the Church. One simple point during this time there was not Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches but one Church the Catholic Church. Right off the bat the writer displays his ignorance of what he is trying to ask. So why give him the time of day for being stupid?

My answer would be get you a book concerning the history of the Church and another on the history of the Canon of the NT and OT. Then come back and ask your questions.

 

[JohnCS]

It only takes a few seconds to see that this page has tons of misinformation, misunderstanding, and things taken out of context. I have seen much more difficult questions than those, and I am not even a novice scholar or apologist. If you posted this because you think they are valid questions that you can not answer, then I suggest that you start asking them here somewhere one at a time where they can be answered to your understanding. If you just posted it here to show an example of another anti-catholic zealot with a website, then okay =) I agree, it is another one. God bless,

John

 

[ERose]

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx

Here is you a good link concerning the history of the Bible.

 

[CathCountryMan7]

I am in an interfaith group where I am the only Catholic; 90% of the members are Protestant. Thus I am often situated where I must defend The Faith.

One of the most common I get asked is “why don’t you confess directly to God? You do not need a priest!” Then the Protestant typically follows-up with “Your feelings will tell you that the Holy Spirit enters you to say that you are forgiven.”

As for confessing to God directly, I answer, “you know that God is omniscient. Why would you say to God your sins directly? The priest is needed because 1. he is authorized to forgive sins (Mattm, two instances, and Acts) 2. although the priest acts in persona Christi, he cannot read a person’s mind; he listens to the person so he can know what penance to offer 3. the priest is authorized to bestow grace upon the sinner as well as advise the person how to avoid the sin.” Each time I use an answer like this, the Protestant who asked the question is either stumbled or highly disagrees.

The Protestants in the group may ask me questions but they will not like that I will ask them questions they cannot answer esp. if they follow sola scriptura.

 

[catholictiger]

I overheard a caller ask John Martignoni about questions from Protestants that “stumble” Catholics. Steve Rudd poses questions that he wrongfully assumes that we Catholics cannot answer. See www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

I leave the answers to you fellow Catholics. Of course, academics and clergy are more than welcome to answer.

if i where to get asked these questions i would be honest and say i have no idea, but i would say why would this be your argument against the cathoic church, that would be like me going and finding some random fact in your history asking you a question about it and saying well if you can’t answer this question then your faith is false. If you really want to show me why the catholic church is bad or what ever you think lets talk about dogmas of the church and theology of the church cause even the most faithful people in faiths are not going to know these crazy specific questions that almost no one knows the answer to.

before i go get in line for confession ill just post a couple questions that im like what? or thats a question people can’t respond to

If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?​

we say paul didn’t write hebrews thats funny

If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

I would turn this question on them if someone didn’t know how to read how could they know any truth of Jesus Christ?

When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: “the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh” Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

i would through the end of john on them, and explain that there is more to jesus teachings then the bible meaning that you can’t just read the bible and expect to get the full truth of Jesus Christ there is more to Truth then the scriptures.

If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

I would first bring in the mulitple interpretations of the same word issue and explain how even though you hear one thing what you say it means could mean alot of different things.

I must go now be back in 30 min

 

[SonCatcher]

kind of an odd the charge that Catholics don’t keep the baptism “traditions” described in #16. I’ll see about addressing them:

• “disown the devil before baptism” CHECK (the author falsely says we don’t. The Rite of Baptism plainly asks the convert (or his guardians), “Do you reject Satan?”)
• “thrice immersed” CHECK (water flows over the convert’s head three times - though the author erroneously disallows pouring)
• “Drink milk and honey after baptism” IRRELEVANT - this was a local custom only
• “don’t bath for a week after baptism” IRRELEVANT - local custom (remind me to schedule my vacation to those locations for a different week)
• “kneeling in worship is forbidden” IRRELEVANT - local custom
• “Sign of cross on forehead” CHECK

Thus, we can conclude 2 things. First, the author has never witnessed a Catholic or Orthodox baptism (or at least did not understand what he saw). Second, the author is unable to distinguish between Tradition and tradition. We have the Church to help us distinguish between the two.

Also, the author is ignorant of or spitefully discounts the constant teaching that the only REAL requirements are water and the Trinitarian formula.

 

[Alan55]

I am in an interfaith group where I am the only Catholic; 90% of the members are Protestant. Thus I am often situated where I must defend The Faith.

One of the most common I get asked is “why don’t you confess directly to God? You do not need a priest!” Then the Protestant typically follows-up with “Your feelings will tell you that the Holy Spirit enters you to say that you are forgiven.”.

A better question: why don’t your Protestant friends follow the biblical mandate to “confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16)? I think confession to a priest fulfils that biblical mandate adequately and wisely (since not every Christian is good at keeping private things private).

 

[catholictiger]

now before mass i answer some more questions

Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

do you have proof that he did, cause i really don’t know the answer, but still can you show me proof that God gave us the bible and what books to use in the bible before 70AD or after i don’t think i can find one

If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

first of all this is a complete and flat out misinterpretation of catholism, catholics are encouraged to read scripture. Id love to see you give some church document that says what you claim i don’t think it exist.

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

the church was given the scriptures from the apostles and we are connected to them through the bishops, I would personally believe the roman catholic church interpretation because I believe that is the truth, but there is very few differences between our doctrine and the orthodox doctrine.

thats all i could answer

but one thing i suggest is try and aswer their question with a question, it makes them think instead of them just asking you alot of questions, but don’t use it to refuse to answer the question.

 

[ryanoneil]

If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it?

Because they perceived it as premillennialist, and vehemently repudiated any notion of a corporal kingdom of earth distinct from the Church. It was only when the Western part of the early Church succeded in convincing the East that premillenialism was not intergral to this book that is was universally accepted as cononical

 

[diggerdomer]

I overheard a caller ask John Martignoni about questions from Protestants that “stumble” Catholics. Steve Rudd poses questions that he wrongfully assumes that we Catholics cannot answer. See www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

I leave the answers to you fellow Catholics. Of course, academics and clergy are more than welcome to answer.

Anyone wanting to know the Catholic response should read the Catechism para 50-141.

 

[catholictiger]

A better question: why don’t your Protestant friends follow the biblical mandate to “confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16)? I think confession to a priest fulfils that biblical mandate adequately and wisely (since not every Christian is good at keeping private things private).

my guess would be that thye would say that doesn’t say confess your sins to a priest, it says to one another so they would think that telling any joe bob would fulfill that requirement

but i think they need to understand, and us too, that confession is not the only way your sins are forgiven, but confession is the only guaranteed way to have your sins forgiven you can ask God to forgive you but you won’t ever know for cretin if he has so its best to go to confession to make sure you are forgiven.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

This is just a revival of an old topic.