Serious Problem on my journey to Catholicism

[BigTurkey]

Hey guys,

I know all of you are probably tired of me asking so many questions. I also know that you are tired of unlearned Protestants questioning the validity and the veracity of Sacred Tradition, but I have some serious questions that are retarding my journey to Catholicism…

Well, I hve been reading more and more Protestant works on the origins of the bible. They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

I understand that this does not destroy the Catholic claim, but it certainly takes away one of the main reasons that I started questioning my Protestantism.

Also, how does the Catholic Church define Tradition? I mean, I know it is the oral teachings of the apostles that were passed down orally. I understand material sufficiency, but if that is true what did the Fathers pass down? The apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures?

But why should I accept the Fathers? What reason do I have to believe that they infallibly passed along the oral Apostolic teachings? I mean, I have no problem ascribing some form of authority to them, but the authority on the same level as Scriptures?! I don’t know if I can do that, especially if, from what i have read of them, they don’t seem to say that their writings (or at least taechings that they all agree on) are on the level of Scriptures. If we don’t accept their writings or all the teachings they agree on as equal to Scriptures, then what is Sacred Tradition?

Also, if the Scriptures are materially sufficient, then why do we need infallible Tradition and Magisterium? I mean, I know that we need an interpretation of the Scriptures, but don’t we need an interpretation of the teachings of the Church? (Am I mistaken in saying that there is substantial disagreement among the laity about the ethics and teachings of the Church.) So, it seems like at some level fallibility has to enter in. So, why am I to assume that the Church’s interpretation is infallible?

Also, I know that there are Scripture that the Catholics point towards (1 Tim. 3:15, etc.), but, from these verses, how do we get the specific Catholic teaching of infallibility? (Yes, I know that the catholics do not believe in formal sufficiency or in sola Scriptura; but should I be able to see the building blocks of the principle?) The way I understand it, not every Papal Bull is infallible? The consensus of Bishops aren’t infallible. Where do the early Church Fathers say that they Pope, only when speaking ex cathedra is infallible?

Also, is infallibility considered a form of revelation? If not, then what is it? God guiding us into truth? Isn’t that a definition of revelation? If God isn’t revealing information to us through the ECF’s and the Magisterium, then why should I believe that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are infallible? But, if it is new revelation, isn’t that a contradiction of the CCC which teaches that public revelation ended with the apostles? CCC 66& 67.

Anyway, I am so sorry that I just rambled on. I figured it would be easier for me to have my questions answered if I posted them all at once, since they are all interrelated (at least in my mind). Thanks in advance.

-Micah

 

[CollegeKid]

Which protestant authors are you reading? There are some good ones (chadwick brothers I believe are protestant) and there are many who are simply out to discredit the Catholic Church. I realize that this kind of oversimplifies the matter and isn’t exactly a compliment to protestants, but part of the problem might be in placing to much trust in protestant sources on the origins of the Bible.
I think the best way to get sort of a general, working knowledge on some of the basics of Church history and the Bible is by consulting the sources that are most likely to be more neutral, like encylopedias (columbia encylopedia, britannica, wikipedia, etc.) Whenever I’ve looked for information on the canon of the new testament with some of those sites I just mentioned, the info I’m presented with more or less states that it was the Catholic Church that determined the canon, specifically in the late 300s at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, under Pope Damasus I. Bear in mind that this didn’t only involve officially approving certain books, but officially rejecting certain others. I’d say that an official stamp of recognition for the books we consider inspired by God and an official rejection of those we do not is pretty important, otherwise, how could be secure in one of our most important rules of faith, Sacred Scripture?

 

[jimmy]

BigTurkey:

…So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

If the Catholic Church hadn’t recognized which books were scripture, do you think a 20th century band of people would recognize them? Consider the fact that some people accept the gnostic gospels on equal footing with the four true gospels. The fact that the Catholic Church recognized them shows the authority of the Church because it was a matter of necessity that someone recognize what books were inspired. It’s not like there was some list that fell from the sky that said “these are the inspired books”. It took the Magisterium of the Church and sacred Tradition to determine which books were scripture. The canon itself is a matter of Sacred Tradition.

…Also, how does the Catholic Church define Tradition?..I understand material sufficiency, but if that is true what did the Fathers pass down? The apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures?

The Sacred Tradition is the continuous teaching of the Church handed down by epistle or by word of mouth. The Fathers handed on both the true understanding of Christ and the authority to maintain the unity of the Church.

But why should I accept the Fathers? What reason do I have to believe that they infallibly passed along the oral Apostolic teachings?..If we don’t accept their writings or all the teachings they agree on as equal to Scriptures, then what is Sacred Tradition?

Scripture exhorts you to accept the Church in Matt.18 and in 1Thes.2;14. Matt.18 mentions the Church as being authoritative and making decisions. The Fathers can trace their authority straight back to the apostles. See Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III Chapter III.

Without the Fathers of The Church you would have no knowledge of the Sacred Scrpitures because it is them that recognized the Scriptures. Without looking at Irenaeus, the council of Laudicaea, the council of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo and other saints you can not know what the New Testament is composed of. Therefore it is necessary that the continuous teaching of what is Sacred Scripture must be put on an equal level with the actual Sacred Scriptures. The Canon of Scripture is just as important as the actual texts.

Also, if the Scriptures are materially sufficient, then why do we need infallible Tradition and Magisterium? I mean, I know that we need an interpretation of the Scriptures, but don’t we need an interpretation of the teachings of the Church? (Am I mistaken in saying that there is substantial disagreement among the laity about the ethics and teachings of the Church.) …

The Church’s teachings are stated in plain terms. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Christ is two natures in one person and this is called the hypostatic union. Abortion is inherently evil. There are no metaphors telling the Church doctrine. It doesn’t matter what the laity say, the bishops are the official teaching authority of the Church

There may be disputes at times but they are solved by councils like the council of Trent. These councils state doctrines in clear terms like anathemas. “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.” [Council of Trent Session 6]

Also, I know that there are Scripture that the Catholics point towards (1 Tim. 3:15, etc.), but, from these verses, how do we get the specific Catholic teaching of infallibility? (Yes, I know that the catholics do not believe in formal sufficiency or in sola Scriptura; but should I be able to see the building blocks of the principle?) The way I understand it, not every Papal Bull is infallible? The consensus of Bishops aren’t infallible. Where do the early Church Fathers say that they Pope, only when speaking ex cathedra is infallible?

These verses show that there is more than just scripture and that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. They show that the Church had authority to decide disputes among its members(That is one of the benefits of accepting the authority of the Church.)

Not every papal bull is infallible, infact very few are.

Also, is infallibility considered a form of revelation? If not, then what is it? God guiding us into truth? Isn’t that a definition of revelation? … But, if it is new revelation, isn’t that a contradiction of the CCC which teaches that public revelation ended with the apostles? CCC 66& 67.

Infallibility is the idea that God will protect His Church from teaching as dogma something that is erroneous.

No problem. I hope this helps a little.

 

[BigTurkey]

Infallibility is the idea that God will protect His Church from teaching as dogma something that is erroneous.

But, how does this happen? Is God revealing some new truth to them? Or are they just recognizing what has always been taught among the church? But, the question is, taught by whom? Do all the early Christian writings agree on everything? (I’m really asking, haven’t read enough of them) If not, how does the Church decide which of them taught the truth? Reason, majority consensus, etc? Not of those are in and of themselves infallible. Is God ‘revealing’ the fact that such and such doctrine is the truth, therefore the Church can’t be infallible?

Sorry to be so skeptical.

-Micah

 

[I_A]

Micah,

These are my ramblings, proably not of much use to you so I apologize in advance. These are also my understanding of them so they may be wrong.

I don’t think the writings of the early church fathers carry the same weight as scripture. Its the sacred Tradition that is important here, often the fathers are cited in order to explain it, but its not the fathers that are protected by the Holy Spirit, its the holy Tradition. (Not to be confused with the tradition, the customs of man.)

In regards to the canon of the bible it was both a recognition of the sacredness of the bible and a decision (led by the Holy Spirit) to which books are in it. Keep in mind Pope Clement I of Rome wrote in 97 AD and Ignatius of Antioch wrote between 100 and 110 AD (the exact dates escape me now.) Maybe other works too, but I’m reading those two authors now. Many regarded these works as part of sacred scripture too! It was up to the Holy Spirit to lead the church into recognizing which ones belonged in the canon.

Now one writing that explained the idea of *papal *infalliblity to me was:
cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm
I could parrot it if you’d like, but I don’t think you’d like that very much.

Basically infallibility isnt here to make up anythign new, or isnt an active power to make stuff happen, rather its a defensive act of the Holy Spirit, protecting the office, preventing him from saying something false.

Also there is never new revelation. Whatever is declared is holy Tradition that has not been defined. The Church doesn’t define stuff until people start to need a definition as in commiting heresy. God has always been triune in nature, but he wasn’t declared triune by the church until people started saying he wasn’t, like the Arians. The church called the Council of Nicea in the 300s, thus the Nicean Creed, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, etc. Remember, worry not about tomorrow, for today has enough troubles for itself.

Why do we need the Magesterium and Tradition? Cause God made it for us cause he knew what we would do. With just the bible people read what they want, making stuff up, with just tradition people start adding human traditions, making stuff up, with just the magesterium the pharasees start adding what they want, making stuff up (unless the fear of God is in them, but they arn’t all perfect).

Now if you read many of the documents that come out of the Vatican you’ll realize they don’t need much interpretation at all. I was listening to an interview of Cardinal Arinze:
familylandeurope.com/arinze/
and he was asked should a pro-abortion politician recieve Holy Communion and his response, “You need a cardinal to answer that?” I have found that most (not all) documents I’ve read don’t need much interpretation, just the backbone to carry them out.

Sorry, I just rambled on too. I don’t read as many books as most of yall so this proably isn’t the most eloquent (if even correct) explanation, but I’m trying. I should pray more, so please pray for me to do so. Thank you.

 

[jimmy]

BigTurkey:

But, how does this happen? Is God revealing some new truth to them? Or are they just recognizing what has always been taught among the church? But, the question is, taught by whom? Do all the early Christian writings agree on everything? (I’m really asking, haven’t read enough of them) If not, how does the Church decide which of them taught the truth? Reason, majority consensus, etc? Not of those are in and of themselves infallible. Is God ‘revealing’ the fact that such and such doctrine is the truth, therefore the Church can’t be infallible?

Sorry to be so skeptical.

-Micah

Not all the fathers agree 100%, otherwise there would have been no need for councils. The teachings are consistent through the fathers. There are some slight variations with a few fathers on some doctrines but there are consistent teachings that are held by almost every one of the fathers.

The teachings have always been taught, they are just recognized by the bishops.

 

[sententia]

Big Turkey-

I know all of you are probably tired of me asking so many questions. I also know that you are tired of unlearned Protestants questioning the validity and the veracity of Sacred Tradition, but I have some serious questions that are retarding my journey to Catholicism…

NEVER worry about us getting tired of your questions! Keep on asking them until you are satisfied.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

The Church oversaw the the collation or collection of the Bible. It did not CREATE the Bible. To suggest that the Catholic Church CREATED the Bible seems to imply that some books could have been included or excluded on a whim. Unless the NT documents were of canonical quality, they could not be included in the canon–and if they were of canonical quality, they could not be excluded from the canon.

The books that God intended to be in the Bible are the ones that are included in the Bible.

Blessings
Richard

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BigTurkey:

I have some serious questions that are retarding my journey to Catholicism.

In Catholicism, questions actually have answers. Scripture is part of the truth, but Scripture is not the complete truth. The complete truth is the revelation found in Tradition (with a capital T not a small t) *and *Scripture. Here is some background reading on Tradition and Scripture.

Apart from writing in the sand when the woman was taken in adultery, Jesus left nothing in writing for us – at least not according to Scripture and Tradition. He was most certainly literate as evidenced by his ability to teaching on the Torah to the rabbis. His own teachings were not only oral – and not written – but personal in that they took place in His Real Presence. In this respect, His teachings were transformative not merely informative.

Consider these passages:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(Matt 16:18 DRC).

I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you. (Jn 14:18 DRC)

From New Advent:

From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.

From New Advent:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process… which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

From New Advent:

[The Church] is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

Now please consider the following:

1.0 If Jesus did not abandon us and

2.0 if the Canon was not established until the second century and

3.0 if approximately 90% of the Church was illiterate for most of Her history and

4.0 if the Guttenberg press was not invented until 1450 and therefore even if 100% of Christians could read (which they could not), then they could not afford to read the precious illuminated Bibles which were kept chained to the front of the Church to safeguard against theft,

then in what form did Jesus instruct his Church for 15 centuries? Hint: it could not have been in written form.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Richard_Hurtz:

The Church oversaw the the collation or collection of the Bible. It did not CREATE the Bible. To suggest that the Catholic Church CREATED the Bible seems to imply that some books could have been included or excluded on a whim. Unless the NT documents were of canonical quality, they could not be included in the canon–and if they were of canonical quality, they could not be excluded from the canon.

The books that God intended to be in the Bible are the ones that are included in the Bible.

Blessings
Richard

The Catholic Church’s claim isn’t that it created the Bible, of course it didn’t. There was the Hebrew Bible around before the Catholic Church existed. Our founding fathers (the apostles if you will), were the ones who wrote Sacred Scripture with inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Before there was a canon of the Bible though, and before a lot of the NT writings were even available, we relied on Sacred Tradition to pass down Christ’s words. Christ did not command any of the apostles to write anything, except for the Revelation of St. John. The Catholic Church can claim that the New Testament comes from Her, because we claim an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession back to the Apostles. And another thing, the Church really isn’t an institution, no, it is a Body. And you are correct that the books that God intended to be in the Bible are in the Bible, but this is only after councils which the Catholic Church decided on. So, by accepting the canon of the Bible, you accept Sacred Tradition and the infallibility of the Catholic Church to an extent.

God bless,

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BigTurkey, let’s also take a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Saint Paul says:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Sacred Scripture itself denies Sola Scriptura.

Traditions in this verse can also be translated as Truths. Where are those truths if they’re not in the Bible? They’re in the Catholic Church!

God bless,

 

[BigTurkey]

Just to make it clear, I understand the problems with sola Scriptura. I have read Sungenis’s Not By Scripture Alone book along with several other books by Catholics defending the Catholic faith, which touch upon the problems with sola Scriptura. But my rejection of sola Scriptura does not mean that I have no other choice but to be Catholic. There is still the via media of the Anglicans (of course, Newman might would eliminate that option for me…I have Essay concerning the Development of Christian Doctrine, but I haven’t gotten around to reading it.).

I will summarize my aforementioned problems in an easier to understand and concise manner:

1. What proof is it that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into truth in the way the Catholics mean it?
2. What proof that the ‘word of mouth’ of 2 Thess. 2:15 is the teachings of the ECFs?
3. What proof from Scriptures and Tradition are there to warrant the catholic doctrine of infallibility? After all, Jesus said the HS will guide us into truth, not guide us away from error. In a subtle way, those two are different things. Why is infallibility limited to certain forms of teachings of the church?
4. Why shouldn’t I think that the ECF’s accepted the authority of the NT Scripture, but did not apostasy in other doctrines? Maybe their interpretation was wrong, but they didn’t question the canon. (Similar to Protestantism)

Anyway, if I can clarify a question for you, please make a post asking me to do so.

BigTurkey/Micah

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BigTurkey:

I will summarize my aforementioned problems in an easier to understand and concise manner:

And I will summarize my aforegiven response in an easier to understand and concise manner:

I have already answered your question.

Is it the reasoning which eludes you? If so this might help:

Fides et Ratio

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BigTurkey:

Just to make it clear, I understand the problems with sola Scriptura. I have read Sungenis’s Not By Scripture Alone book along with several other books by Catholics defending the Catholic faith, which touch upon the problems with sola Scriptura. But my rejection of sola Scriptura does not mean that I have no other choice but to be Catholic. There is still the via media of the Anglicans (of course, Newman might would eliminate that option for me…I have Essay concerning the Development of Christian Doctrine, but I haven’t gotten around to reading it.).

I will summarize my aforementioned problems in an easier to understand and concise manner:

1. What proof is it that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into truth in the way the Catholics mean it?
2. What proof that the ‘word of mouth’ of 2 Thess. 2:15 is the teachings of the ECFs?
3. What proof from Scriptures and Tradition are there to warrant the catholic doctrine of infallibility? After all, Jesus said the HS will guide us into truth, not guide us away from error. In a subtle way, those two are different things. Why is infallibility limited to certain forms of teachings of the church?
4. Why shouldn’t I think that the ECF’s accepted the authority of the NT Scripture, but did not apostasy in other doctrines? Maybe their interpretation was wrong, but they didn’t question the canon. (Similar to Protestantism)

Anyway, if I can clarify a question for you, please make a post asking me to do so.

BigTurkey/Micah

1. Asking for proof of the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church is like asking for proof of God. You have to rely on Faith to an extent and the writings of the early church Fathers which knew the Apostles, so they would have a better grasp than we would on what the early church believed.
2. I don’t understand your question? Sacred Tradition is not just oral or written teachings of the ECFs, it is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium (the bishops of the church united with the bishop of Rome) which guide us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
3. Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the matter of infallibility, as I believe you have it confused. Saint Paul says the church is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Christ Himself said that the “gates of hades will not prevail against my church”. If there is one error in the Catholic Church (regarding faith and morals), then Christ is a liar, and not the Savior of mankind.
4. ECFs can have differing views, just as we today can have differing views (i.e. some “Catholics” view abortion and birth control as okay, but the church has already stated its opinion, so the matter is settled). Whenever the ECFs had differing views, they asked Rome to call a council to decide the matter and did it in union with the whole church. This is how the Magisterium works today.

Sure, you could become Anglican if you want. But Anglicans are still protestants. The only problem with that though, is that they now ordain women and openly gay bishops. There is no Tradition or Scripture which leads us to believe that openly gay bishops or the ordination of women is supported by the early Church. This is a major theological error on the part of the Anglican communion.

Hope this helps.

 

[LittleDeb]

BigTurkey:

Just to make it clear, I understand the problems with sola Scriptura. I have read Sungenis’s Not By Scripture Alone book along with several other books by Catholics defending the Catholic faith, which touch upon the problems with sola Scriptura. But my rejection of sola Scriptura does not mean that I have no other choice but to be Catholic. There is still the via media of the Anglicans (of course, Newman might would eliminate that option for me…I have Essay concerning the Development of Christian Doctrine, but I haven’t gotten around to reading it.).

I will summarize my aforementioned problems in an easier to understand and concise manner:

1. What proof is it that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into truth in the way the Catholics mean it?
2. What proof that the ‘word of mouth’ of 2 Thess. 2:15 is the teachings of the ECFs?
3. What proof from Scriptures and Tradition are there to warrant the catholic doctrine of infallibility? After all, Jesus said the HS will guide us into truth, not guide us away from error. In a subtle way, those two are different things. Why is infallibility limited to certain forms of teachings of the church?
4. Why shouldn’t I think that the ECF’s accepted the authority of the NT Scripture, but did not apostasy in other doctrines? Maybe their interpretation was wrong, but they didn’t question the canon. (Similar to Protestantism)

Anyway, if I can clarify a question for you, please make a post asking me to do so.

BigTurkey/Micah

I will try to answer question 3. I think you might be asking two different questions here. Yes, please read up in the catechism on the definition of infallibility.

As to the section on The Holy Spirit. Yes I totally agree with you that The Holy Spirit will lead us into Truth and not “away from error.” This would be one of my problems with the Protestant Deformation, pardon–reformation. It broke away. Even IF The Catholic Church were in error on the one thing Luther was complaining about (indulgences) The Holy Spirit would still lead INTO Truth. The other Truths were still present in The Church so IF it had been The Holy Spirit guiding Luther, The Spirit would lead toward Truth NOT away from error. In other words, Truth is The Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants CLAIM that they were lead “away from error” that was the The Catholic Church. I agree, a subtle difference but very important. Infallibility has the claim of “free from error,” not “away from error.”

What you’re talking about is right vs. wrong. What infallibilty is addressing is right vs. not right. It applies only to faith and morals because that is where its authority was given. It doesn’t apply to science because that is a case of “right vs. wrong.”

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Semper Fi:

Sure, you could become Anglican if you want. But Anglicans are still protestants. The only problem with that though, is that they now ordain women and openly gay bishops. There is no Tradition or Scripture which leads us to believe that openly gay bishops or the ordination of women is supported by the early Church. This is a major theological error on the part of the Anglican communion.

Yes, ordination of homosexuals is a problem but keep in mind that only a small percentage of the Anglican Communion supports this. Further, no denomination has ordained more homosexuals than the Catholic Church. I think we need to be aware of what our own shortcomings are while pointing out the error of others.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Mickey]

Semper Fi:

Before there was a canon of the Bible though, and before a lot of the NT writings were even available, we relied on Sacred Tradition to pass down Christ’s words.

Yes. And the Church also had to sift through many uninspired gnostic texts.

 

[Sherlock]

Richard_Hurtz:

Yes, ordination of homosexuals is a problem but keep in mind that only a small percentage of the Anglican Communion supports this. Further, no denomination has ordained more homosexuals than the Catholic Church. I think we need to be aware of what our own shortcomings are while pointing out the error of others.

Blessings,
Richard

The Catholic Church certainly does have homosexuals in her priesthood—we would all agree there. However, the Church expects those to live chastely—no homosexual acts. Those who do so are breaking their vows. That is VERY VERY different from the Anglicans ordaining an openly active homosexual—the Anglican church, by doing so, is making a theological statement about the acceptability of homosexual acts in clear violation of Scripture (which it is treating as “living document” that can be “updated” to suit the particular whims of the age). Whether or not a “small percentage” of the Anglican communion agrees with this is NOT relevant to the seriousness of this action.

 

[BigTurkey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTurkey
I will summarize my aforementioned problems in an easier to understand and concise manner:

And I will summarize my aforegiven response in an easier to understand and concise manner:

I have already answered your question.

Is it the reasoning which eludes you? If so this might help:

It’s probably not a good idea to insult the intelligence of someone who is sincerely searching for the Truth and looking at the Catholic Church. I don’t know if you intended them to be, and I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but your response sounds a little sarcastic. It’s not that I don’t get the reasoning, its that your post doesn’t answer my question. I was restating my questions not because I think others are too dumb to unerstand, but because the questions were just ramblings and not systemized. So, many people were misunderstanding my questions, which is my fault, not anyone elses.

Apart from writing in the sand when the woman was taken in adultery, Jesus left nothing in writing for us – at least not according to Scripture and Tradition. He was most certainly literate as evidenced by his ability to teaching on the Torah to the rabbis. His own teachings were not only oral – and not written – but personal in that they took place in His Real Presence. In this respect, His teachings were transformative not merely informative.

Consider these passages:

From New Advent:

From New Advent:

From New Advent:

Those are some good quotes. I haven’t done much reading on the New Advent site. For the most part, my online reading has been done on this post or on Dave Armstrong’s website. Thanks for these quotes. However, my problem is that Protestant Scholars (F. F. Bruce, Ferguson, Greg Boyd, James White, and others that I am reading) all claim that the canon was recognized by the church early on. The Catholic Church didn’t define the canon, they only recognized the canon, so they say. Lots of people have helped me out on this thread about this specific issue. Your quotes help also.

Now please consider the following:

1.0 If Jesus did not abandon us and

2.0 if the Canon was not established until the second century and

3.0 if approximately 90% of the Church was illiterate for most of Her history and

4.0 if the Guttenberg press was not invented until 1450 and therefore even if 100% of Christians could read (which they could not), then they could not afford to read the precious illuminated Bibles which were kept chained to the front of the Church to safeguard against theft,

then in what form did Jesus instruct his Church for 15 centuries? Hint: it could not have been in written form.

I think you might misunderstand the normal, intelligent, non-Fundamentalist understanding of sola Scriptura (which is easy b/c there are as many definitions of sola Scriptura as there are Protestant churches). It’s not that they say that theonly thing anyone could ever read or consult to find truth is Scripture, but that the final authority is scripture. So, while there aren’t printing presses or many literate people, that doesn’t destroy the sola Scriptura principle. It just means that teachings on the Scriptures need to be oral for most people, but the Scriptures are still the final authority, not the oral teachings. Your argument above isn’t conclusive. It does not definitely prove Catholicism, and it still leaves open my questions that I re-posted.

Thanks though for your willingness to help me out. I’m so confused about what I believe these days Some days I’m about ready to join the CC any day now, and others I think I will never join the CC and that I will remain Protestant. Any help I can get I will use.

Oh, and sorry if my reply doesn’t make sense. I’m late for class ( Just for whoever’s interested, I’m a philosophy major at Auburn University.) and am trying to type this out, so there isn’t much time to explain my thoughts thoroughly or to proofread the post and make sure there are no mistakes.

Micah

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Not every papal bull is infallible, infact very few are.

I’d just like to clarify that papal encylicals and bulls are, in fact, exercises of the infallible ordinary magisterium and hence are in fact free from error.

Love, Jaypeeto3