SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[guanophore]

I don’t have any problem giving credit to the Catholic church. I do believe your church has some errors but not everything is in error.

Does finding the truth come from stumblijng around in the dark, feeling her way?

Acts 17:27
27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him.

papal infallibility, denying justification by faith alone, …

I am curious what is your understanding of “papal infallibility”?

I am also curious about your understanding of justification, and how your dispose with certain scriptures.

 

[VociMike]

This is a shocking statement. I wonder if other catholics believe the samething as you do.
Do you think other catholics would agree with you?

They had better, since it is what the Church teaches. The Catholic faith does not rely on scripture to know the doctrines of the faith, but on the entire deposit of faith which she has received, preserved and taught from the time of the apostles.

If what you say is true then why does the NT use the OT so much? We would not have the NT without the OT.

How much is “so much”? The Jews had been prepared for centuries for the coming of Christ, so it’s hardly surprising that Christ would attempt to link himself in their minds to that preparation. This has nothing to do with your incorrect and misleading claim that Christianity is a religion of the Book.

 

[guanophore]

I belong to the church that Christ established.

How do you know?

The one that lives by His teachings as He gave us through His apostles.

If you reject the Apostolic succession, then how can you be sure?

If it isn’t in Scripture, then I don’t believe it regarding faith and morals.

The problem with this is that everyone interprets what they read. how can anyone know that what they are reading is what was meant?

This is the same church that existed for the first few hundred years before the Romans took control of it.

How and when did “the Romans” take control of the Church? How can we distinguish the 'true" church from the one the “Romans” hijacked?

Are you actually speaking against the Holy Spirit? Do you really think the Holy Spirit got it wrong? I’d be a little careful about that!

OK. this post seems to indicate that it was the HS that chose the canon. How did that happen? We are in agreement that it did not fall out of the sky…

The gospel of John was never “added” since it was always inspired.

All the books were inspired when they were written. And there were many books/letters that were also floating around. The question is, how did the Fathers decide which ones belong in the canon? Catholics believe they were guided by the HS. It is disingenous to say that the gospel of John was “never added”. Of course it was! There WAS no NT!!! ALL the books were “added”.

 

[Church_Militant]

It is relevant for the mere fact that even with a magisterium you don’t have have any certainty what passages or verses of scripture mean since they have never interpreted most of them. Just as i can have errant interpretations so do all catholics. This means also you must interpret and be your own authority.

No… actually I don’t. The fact is that that the proponents of SS actually have to admit that every single random Catholic’s interpretation is just as valid as yours, your preacher’s, or any other n-C, because that is the way that SS will have to work.

This applies only to this discussion though.

There is something like over 30,000 verses in the protestant scriptures. More in the catholic bible. Claiming 20 verses gives you no advantage in those areas where verses have not been infallibly interpreted.

My point is that this is a specious allegation against the Catholic Church from people who are seeking any grounds to indict the Catholic Church for anything at all.

As for your allegation, it’s wrong anyway…the Catechism is LOADED with scripture that the church says applies to every different topic that it covers in there and their citations of scripture, (often found in the footnotes of the catechism) would, (in the context of Sola Scriptura) be as definitive and authoritative as any that any n-C has offered or ever will. If you believe that the Bible is the sole authority and that every person that reads it can properly interpret it, then you have to extend the same authority to the scriptural interpretations of Catholics, and so no matter what you will be in the same essential situation.

What I’m getting at is that SS simply leaves you with a host of differing opinions as to interpretations and you’re still lost so far as interpretations.

I know your church tries to do this but it fails when it comes to the marian doctrines.

Not really. The perpetual virginity is supported from scripture as is the Immaculate Conception.

The Assumption has more than ample precedent in the Word of God and since there are historical sources that record it, I don’t see a problem with it.

Are you aware of the date for these claims? From my understanding it was made centuries after it supposedly happened. The other more serious issue is your church is dogmatic about this that it did happen even though there is no evidence for it from the 1st century. It is a speculative claim.

I don’t see anything “speculative” about it. If the church is satisfied with the evidence…and the church has the preponderance of scholarship and wisdom (especially compared to the modern post reformers) and I am comfortable with that.

It should not sadden you but trouble you deeply about the claims your church makes about this. Not only is it not in scripture but there is no real historical evidence for it.

Absolutely not…I do not believe that everything that we believe has to come from the text of the Word of God, nor do I believe that the Word of God teaches such a thing.

No… there is historical evidence. There is the weight of the widespread belief in the Assumption throughout the Catholic Church, long before it was dogmatically defined.

I see it this way. I will believe in this before I believe in the errant doctrines of men of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Believer’s Baptism, Once Save Always Saved (Eternal Security), and the Rapture.

Not so. The Trinity doctrine can be well grounded in the Scriptures. To compare the marian proof claims is not an equal comparison for the mere fact the Scriptures never make such claims about her.

But you pass it off as if it was something dogmatically defined from the outset and that is far from the case. In appealing to the later dogmatic definition of the Assumption or other Marian doctrines, you open valid doctrines like the Trinity up to that same indictment.

What do you mean by “the more fanciful propaganda concerning the Catholic Church”?

Oh gee…I’m sure that you’ve seen some of the “historic” accounts of the Catholic Church like “Trail of Blood”, and so many other such things. Hopefully, you aren’t one to believe that rubbish.

 

[guanophore]

It is a fact that none of the deutero’s are quoted in such a way as to indicate that any of the NT writers thought they were inspired. In other words, there is no “thus sayeth the Lord” or any other indicator of their being considered inspired. Simple quotation does not equal canonocity as the NT quotes books that are pagan in origen and not considered inspired by either your church or mine.

Why would they be quoting them, then? All it shows is that there are some inspired concepts found even in Pagan literature.

Are there allusions to the deutero’s in the NT?

Yes, many. I posted one here a minute ago.

Yes there are, but as I have shown above, an allusion or even a quote does not indicate anything about the canonical status of the book in question.

It certainly does. Are you saying Jesus and the Apostles are using the profane to teach the sacred?

 

[guanophore]

If the Jews was expected to have canon and know what is Scripture and what is not then they will certainty have included the NT books in their “Scripture” status. They weren’t expected to have a canon of Scripture.

Which Jews was entrusted with the oracles of God?

Good question!

Rom 3:1-3
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Were the Oracles given to all Jews?

 

[Pier]

Since I reject the notion of infallibility, how else could I describe it?

May I ask a question?

What do you believe Jesus meant when he told Peter he would bind or loose those in sin whom Peter held bound or forgave?

If the seat of Moses gave it’s holder the charism of infallibility, why didn’t they recognize Jesus as who He said He was?

This was addressed in the New Testament, when we were told the original olive branches would be removed (to be re-grafted back on at a later date), and we would be grafted onto the tree, as the adopted children of God…

And too, we were warned not to get puffed up with pride, as we could be removed as had the original branches.

 

[guanophore]

This is a shocking statement. I wonder if other catholics believe the samething as you do.
Do you think other catholics would agree with you?

As you well know, JA4, that is irrelevant. This is the Teaching of the Church, so if individuals disagree with it, they they cannot rightfully be called “Catholic”, whether they know that, or not. Why would you find it “shocking” that the Teaching of Jesus has survived as well as the Scripture?

If what you say is true then why does the NT use the OT so much? We would not have the NT without the OT.

I agree with you, but the OT canon was determined by the Church, under the inspiration of the HS.

 

[Pax]

It is a fact that none of the deutero’s are quoted in such a way as to indicate that any of the NT writers thought they were inspired. In other words, there is no “thus sayeth the Lord” or any other indicator of their being considered inspired.

…
…

Try this on for size. This comes by way of Mark Shea,

“St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.”

 

[guanophore]

You have the usual habit. Quoting only what you want to show and ignoring the rest. Read this:

Matt 17:9 *And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, **Tell the vision ***to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.[/iI

Do you think God could not make anyone He want to appear? This was a **vision and they were not looking at heaven. Those men are dead and in the ground, awaiting the resurrection.

No, OS, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. It is a 'vision" because they have not yet been joined back with their bodies, and they are in spirit form. Most people cannot see a spirit without “sight”.

 

[guanophore]

You seem to have the odd notion that teaching and preserving the faith is merely an exercise in interpreting verses of the Bible. That is very far from the truth.

I think this really does accurately describe JA4’s understanding of teaching and preserving the faith. At least, he does seem to exercise in that manner quite a bit!

 

[guanophore]

Do you deny then that the Christianity has always believed in the inspiration of the OT and Jesus and His apostles based their teachings on it?

No, just that the OT canon existed at the time. Some groups if Jews held to some collections while some held to different collections of writings. The Catholic Church bases the OT canon on the Teaching of Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

I understand an “oracle” to be an old woman who, when drugged with medicines that are thought to be “mind expanding,” tells fortunes. I don’t know what word is being translated as “oracle” from the original Greek, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a word that means “Scriptures,” or else that is certainly what they would have said.

I am also sure that when St. Paul says “Scriptures” he is including all holy writings; not only those that later ended up in the Bible.

Acts 7:37-39
This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up.’ 38 This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received **living oracles **to give to us. "

I believe it is logia

 

[guanophore]

Well if we want to start tossing fundamental views of scripture around, then technically I think we can assume that Mary was not a man either was she?

James

This is a good point, and true, of course. But it also must be noted that Mary did not ascend either. She is a creature, and could not, of her own power, go into heaven. She was assumed by the Power of her Divine Son, who, being a good Jewish boy, loved his mother!

 

[guanophore]

A full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[from the Catholic Encyclopedia]

Yes, but keep in mind that a dogmatic articulation is not the start of a belief, but the culmination of one. The articulation just defines, (usually for the sake of heretics) what the Church has always believed.

 

[geraldffff]

Hi what an interesting discussion. I find it hard to believe that any person who loves Jesus would not love and venerate his mother.

 

[guanophore]

Hi what an interesting discussion. I find it hard to believe that any person who loves Jesus would not love and venerate his mother.

A failure generally indicates unresolved mother issues.

 

[juliamajor]

They had better, since it is what the Church teaches. The Catholic faith does not rely on scripture to know the doctrines of the faith, but on the entire deposit of faith which she has received, preserved and taught from the time of the apostles.

How much is “so much”? The Jews had been prepared for centuries for the coming of Christ, so it’s hardly surprising that Christ would attempt to link himself in their minds to that preparation. This has nothing to do with your incorrect and misleading claim that Christianity is a religion of the Book.

Deposit of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Look at your Catechism -scripture is quoted constantly. scripture and tTradition work hand in Hand - they DO NOT WORK against each other-ever!:

 

[fellowChristian]

A failure generally indicates unresolved mother issues.

How funny because the same thing could be said about “protesting” papal authority.
Some have unresolved “father” issues.

 

[Jlcastagna]

Troll much lately?

I wouldn’t expect you to accept the word of a non-Catholic apologist and would try to provide either a primary source or as non-biased a source as I could. I would expect the same from you.

Yes, but I would not say you can’t give me a protestant source. I’m at least open minded enough to look at both sides objectively and respond accordingly. Your response tells me that your not willing or able to accept anything that hints of the Catholic faith.
btw… giving my opinion is not being a troll.