Some questions about the Bible

[Tranc7]

Hello,

I have come across some questions of interest that I am considering how to defend. I was wondering how to provide some answers. Thanks for the help!

"-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

-Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

-Provide proof these doctrinal traditions are apostolic in origin.

-Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?"

Sorry it’s a lot…you don’t have to answer all of them.

 

[Crumpy]

You’re new here. Nice to have you around.

If you notice, the threads are usually limited by the author to a single subject – a general rule. Some will undoubtedly take a stab at all your questions.

I think it’s fair to explain your questions a bit more. You have something in mind but you’re not saying what it is.

These questions seem to be right out of a Lutheran play book that I’ve seen that is used for attacking the Catholic Church.

Certainly you deserve an answer. but, I find that it takes years to find the answer to my questions.

As to which books belong to the Bible, it is an enormous blessing that the Holy Spirit guided the early church towards the truth. Recall that Jesus said that the Spirit would come to guide the Church and that things would be understood better later on.

A book that slices through a number of your questions is Tradition and the Church by Msgr George Agius. As your questions imply, the spread of the gospel was in progress while the books of the Bible were being finalized. He makes the point that the Bible was an extra blessing from God, and that it wasn’t needed for the Church to spread far and wide.

I think that it’s fairly obvious in anything that people do that building a consensus is a more successful route in many things, especially in development of the canon of scripture.

Historically, the Church is slow on some things, to study and pray over the questions and to use every one of God’s gifts in making a decision.

I’m not familiar with al lthe reversals that you are referring to. Sure, different groups of Christians ended up with different canons of scripture. Again, I refer you to Agius. Sure, the Church was still issuing pronouncements into the sixteen century (Council of Trent) on the contents of scripture. But, at the same time, many of those decisions were restatements of positions taken earlier. When challenges arise (like the Reformation) the Church works to answer the latest challenges.

 

[jcrichton]

Hello,

I have come across some questions of interest that I am considering how to defend. I was wondering how to provide some answers. Thanks for the help!

"-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

-Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

-Provide proof these doctrinal traditions are apostolic in origin.

-Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?"

Sorry it’s a lot…you don’t have to answer all of them.

…as it been said… it seems that you have a laundry list… perhaps you should restate your queries in single question (or no more than 2 or 3 pertinent queries) to allow for better flow.

…from my quick scan I believe that you are compiling both Catholic and Protestant views as a single event… I’m not versed in historical accounts but from your “provide proof” I would suggest that you make a statement and provide the proof of that statement as to clarify how to respond:

i.e: Scriptures state that there exists both a Written and Oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition); this goes back to the Old Testament as there existed both the Oral and Written Traditions (Inspired Word of God); during Jesus’ Ministry there existed not a single tract that was passed among Jesus’ disciples and even during the early Church the preaching of the Gospel (Good News) did not take place from a written source–it was only decades after Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension that the first Sacred Writing of the New Testament was put into print.

I look forward to your redirected queries… the challenge is welcomed as I’ll be forced to do research into areas that I’ve not bothered to explore.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

My recommendation, with respect: Just love God and love neighbor. All this is too complicated. Be grateful for the Bible. Read it and put it into practice as best as you can. Leave all these technical, theological and historical issues to old professors with gray hair and fancy degrees. Life is just too short! Best wishes to you!

 

[Tranc7]

Thank you for the kind replies . My main concern is how to answer what doctrines that the Church claims to have been passed down (that aren’t stated in the bible). Since we claim that some of our doctrines do not need to be proved through scripture, I was wondering which ones were the case. To make my position easier, I’ll stick to these two questions…

-Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

-Provide proof these doctrinal traditions are apostolic in origin.

Bartolome,

you’re answer is exactly how I feel. I wish that all of this theological stuff was not necessary and that we could have a universal doctrine that is followed in the apostle’s creed. However, I am considering the seminary in the future and I just want to have some ground in defending that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. Sometimes I feel that all of this doctrine is kind of overwhelming, and that it is irrelevant, but then the early church fathers had to defend heresy somehow.

 

[De_Maria]

Hello,

I have come across some questions of interest that I am considering how to defend. I was wondering how to provide some answers. Thanks for the help!

"-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?

Individual Catholics did so. But the Magisterium never did.

-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?

Again, certain individual Churches accepted certain books which were later discovered to be “apocryphal” or “heretical”. The Church investigated the matter and rejected all those whose authorship could not be ascertained and those which contained heretical material.

-If the Orthodox church…

I’m not Orthodox.

-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?

Many reasons. Not the least of which is the lack of modern means of communication. News didn’t traverse the world in seconds as it does today.

-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?

1st I think this fellow needs to address the lie he has begun to believe. The Catholic Church is known informally as the “Roman Catholic Church” because Martin Luther and the Catholic Church’s enemies employed it in a pejorative sense to insinuate that the Catholic Church had not jurisdiction outside of Rome. The name stuck in Protestant circles and even many Catholics will use it not realizing its history.

However, the Catholic Church, is the true Church of Jesus Christ and has authority all over the world. Including Africa.

2nd. The councils of Hippo and Carthage were convened with the knowledge and approval of the Pope in Rome.

-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?

No. But it shows that the council of Carthage knew that their findings had to be approved by the Pope.

-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?

Did you not just quote them as having sent their conclusions to the Pope to be “confirmed”?

-Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

They all do. Don’t you realize that the entire New Testament was written from the Traditions? Jesus didn’t write a letter in the New Testament. He sent the Church out to the world to teach all which He commanded (Matt 28:20). The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. Every single doctrine originated with Jesus Christ.

-Provide proof these doctrinal traditions are apostolic in origin.

Read the New Testament. They are all there implied or explicit.

-Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?"

They don’t. The Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church include the New Testament. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are one Word of God.

Sorry it’s a lot…you don’t have to answer all of them.

I recently responded to a challenge on the Scriptures here.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Tranc7]

Thanks so much! You’ve been a great help, De Maria.

 

[Tranc7]

Funny thing is, I recently came across that link you gave me a little while after I posted this thread!

 

[pablope]

Thank you for the kind replies . My main concern is how to answer what doctrines that the Church claims to have been passed down (that aren’t stated in the bible). Since we claim that some of our doctrines do not need to be proved through scripture, I was wondering which ones were the case. To make my position easier, I’ll stick to these two questions…

-Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

 

[jcrichton]

Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

-Provide proof these doctrinal traditions are apostolic in origin.

Bartolome,

you’re answer is exactly how I feel. I wish that all of this theological stuff was not necessary and that we could have a universal doctrine that is followed in the apostle’s creed. However, I am considering the seminary in the future and I just want to have some ground in defending that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. Sometimes I feel that all of this doctrine is kind of overwhelming, and that it is irrelevant, but then the early church fathers had to defend heresy somehow.

I think you are beginning to answer your own queries… the Church had to battle heresies right from her inception… the problem is not in finding doctrinal traditions that are apostolic in origin… the problem is that those who deny the authority of the Church reject it.

When we read through the Epistles and other of the New Testament books we find that:
a) in the founding of His Church Jesus did not employ the services of scribes to set His Teachings in writing
b) He left no manuals behind since He, at His Ascension, would send the other Paraclete Who would reveal the fullness of Truth (St. John 14, 15, 16)
c) It is through the actions/Inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Church began to evolve beyond the Twelve and that Church’s Doctrine (inclusive of the Oral Teachings/Traditions and the Written Teachings/Traditions) began to shape the Christian Faith

Now, Bible being silent about Apostolic Teaching/Tradition… it is wrong to follow the lead of anti-Catholics or atheists when determining what is Church Teaching and where the authority of the particular Teaching can be found since the New Testament Writings did not emerge till at least a couple of decades (AD 52) after Christ’s Ascension… this necessesitates/proves that the Oral Traditions/Teachings existed way before the first draft of the first Written Traditions/Teachings… further, we find in the New Testament Scriptures themselves the very allusion to both Oral and Written Teachings/Traditions.

What I truly find interesting is that those who deny Apostolic Traditions cannot explain the existence of such proof… ie: the Jews refused to use the Name “Jesus” so the reference to His disciples (followers) would be “the Way.” As the Church developed the Way was the only reference found… yet, during St. Paul’s early Ministry “the Way” ceased to be the only reference to Jesus’ disciples/Church as “Christian” was coined:

25 Barnabas then left for Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him he brought him to Antioch. And it happened that they stayed together in that church a whole year, instructing a large number of people. It was at Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’. (Acts 11:25-26)

…we can see from this passage that there are developmenst taking place and that very little is put in writing since the Church does not exist in a vacuum but she is very organic (Oral Traditions/Teachins are the constant in Church’s Doctrines and development).

Christians are called a Priestly Kingdom… this necessitates that every man and woman (I would include children) who are disciples of Christ must be members of that Priestly Kingdom (1 Corinthians 12:4-30)… but it is clear that not every single person is Called by God to the Vocation of the Priesthood as it pertains to the Priestly Office… we also see very little of this development in Scriptures… with the exception of a few passages (1 Timothy 3:1-16); some would even question the titles (Priest, Bishop) as not Biblical… they choose to ignore, as in most cases, the history of the Church which includes the Oral and Written Word (Traditions/Teachings) and the Succession of the Apostles (which began within the pages of the New Testament (Acts 1:15-25).

Incidentally, it is St. Peter that pronounces, excatedra, that St. Paul’s Writings are Scriptures:

15 Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved; our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that he was given. 16 He makes this point too in his letters as a whole wherever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture–to their own destruction. 17 Since you have been forewarned about this, my dear friends, be careful that you do not come to the point of losing the firm ground that you are standing on, carried away by the errors of unprincipled people. (1 Peter 3:15-17)

There are, of course, the early Church writings which put into text Doctrinal and Apologetic Teachings that were developed from Oral Apostolic Teachings (again, Apostolic Succession).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Uzziah1]

Hello,

I have come across some questions of interest that I am considering how to defend. I was wondering how to provide some answers. Thanks for the help!

"-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

-Provide a some examples of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?

-Provide proof these doctrinal traditions are apostolic in origin.

-Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?"

Sorry it’s a lot…you don’t have to answer all of them.

I would like to see a detailing of the accusation that the Church initially accepted, and then later rejected, non-canonical books, and that the Church initially rejected, and then later accepted, canonical books.

What I am interested in is the infallibility process. The folks here frequently give themselves pleasure by uncharitably BLASTING another member with the “heretic” judgment – they cite a decree of the Church on a particular issue – which is good, if they stop there – but then they uncharitably add, “Therefore, you are a HERETIC, guilty of HERESY!”

If it turned out that, in developing doctrine, the Church position only gradually evolves, so that sometimes a higher-level declaration of the Church actually reverses a lower-level declaration or decree, then those nasty “heretic” accusers here might sometimes find themselves on the “heresy” side.

 

[Todd_Easton]

…
"-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?

-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?

-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?
…

The assumption underlying these questions seems to be that all pronouncements by popes or church councils, ecumenical or local, are to be considered infallible but this assumption is wrong.

The fact that Christians in good standing sometimes disagree on unsettled matters of faith and morals does not undermine the fact that popes and ecumenical councils can and sometimes do make infallible and universally-binding pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church did not make such an infallible and universally-binding pronouncement concerning the canon of Sacred Scripture until the Council of Trent.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hello,

-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?

-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?

-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?

-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?

It’s pretty clear that this person doesn’t even realize that (to this day) the Latinate Church has a biblical canon that differs from the various biblical canons of the various Orthodox Churches. I would ask them to do a little history review first.

 

[De_Maria]

Funny thing is, I recently came across that link you gave me a little while after I posted this thread!

Sounds like Providence had a hand in my responding to your question. I’m glad I could help.