SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Tedster]

You lose. Pay up.

Good luck collecting this bet! You probably scared him off!

 

[Mannyfit75]

On the apostolic succession thing… I thought Catholics recognized Orthodox apostolic succession as valid and visa versa. In fact, I thought it was permissible to recieve Eucharist in an Orthodox church (provided no Catholic one was readily available). Am I wrong about that?

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eastern Orthodox Church. A Catholic may received Holy Communion with the express permission of the local pastor or bishop in the area.

The good thing about the Eastern Orthodox is that they maintain Apostolic Succession.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Here is the history one more time:

The canon was articulated at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome. The articulation of the Canon at the Council of Rome was affirmed by the Decree of Pope Damasus. This all took place in the late 4th century.

This same Canon was affirmed and declared infallible at the Council of Florence in the early 1400’s and affirmed again at Trent in the 16th century.

The Council of Florence is in 1430. I believe.

If you dispute the authenticity of the Catholic Canon or the Church’s consistency in articulating the Canon of Scripture, then the burden is on you to show even one Catholic Council that ever differed from the conclusions articulated by the Councils listed above.

I will save you the trouble of doing the research. This canon has never been changed within the Catholic Church and it has never been articulated differently at any Council of the Catholic Church.

 

[po18guy]

Why are you being dishonest? You signed on to this board in Nov. and have not asked most of these questions in any of your posts. Furthermore, I have never seen a sincerely asked question by anyone go unanswered here.

However, let’s lay that aside and start again on the right foot. Why don’t you start out on an honest footing here. Ask one question at a time and we will try our best to answer each, one at a time. Please make your next post a sincere question rather than a sarcastic remark.

Your servant in Christ.

He wants Protestant answers. He is on the wrong forum. I love how he has corrected thousands of years of saints, scholars and deep thinkers all with his lively post. He and the one he addresses should form their own forum.

 

[VociMike]

And if the RCC gave us the Bible, then why didn’t it get it right the first time. It added the apocrypha in 1546 at the Council of Trent.

I’m just gonna focus on this one aspect of the current rant. This assertion is not only false, but astonishingly, embarassingly false (especially given your screen name). I defy you to demonstrate that the apocrypha (a scholar would use the correct term, “deuterocanonicals”) was added at Trent. The only way that you can maintain that the deuterocanonicals were added at Trent is to also maintain that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, Romans, etc, etc were also added at Trent.

 

[po18guy]

Here is the history one more time:

The canon was articulated at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome. The articulation of the Canon at the Council of Rome was affirmed by the Decree of Pope Damasus. This all took place in the late 4th century.

This same Canon was affirmed and declared infallible at the Council of Florence in the early 1400’s and affirmed again at Trent in the 16th century.

If you dispute the authenticity of the Catholic Canon or the Church’s consistency in articulating the Canon of Scripture, then the burden is on you to show even one Catholic Council that ever differed from the conclusions articulated by the Councils listed above.

I will save you the trouble of doing the research. This canon has never been changed within the Catholic Church and it has never been articulated differently at any Council of the Catholic Church.

Can we expect him to actually listen to reason and logic? Because, his pastor says…

He has clearly been influenced by the spirit of antichrist. That spirit leads one to doubt the authority of Christ’s church, the perfection of the founding of Christ’s church, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yes, the spirit of antichrist is, unfortunately, alive and well. Pray for him.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Church_Militant]

Good luck collecting this bet! You probably scared him off!

I hope not. Besides, I could use a couple of bucks…

Can we expect him to actually listen to reason and logic? Because, his pastor says…

Maybe… let’s hope so and give the man the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, the questions have been answered by Catholics.

The real test is if he can offer anything other than unsubstantiated propaganda and rhetoric to make his case from facts.

He has clearly been influenced by the spirit of antichrist. That spirit leads one to doubt the authority of Christ’s church, the perfection of the founding of Christ’s church, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yes, the spirit of antichrist is, unfortunately, alive and well. Pray for him.

Christ’s peace.

Possibly…however, this is not something that one can say definitively, nor is it something that I personally would allege without far better evidence than this particular post.

In addition, the object here is dialog, not diatribe, and this type of allegation 1. brings nothing substantive to the discussion or debate, and 2. because it is essentially rhetorical it may actually discourage a sincere person from further queries, and that is not good.

I think most people on here know I have a low tolerance for a-C propaganda and rhetoric, but I also avoid inflammatory rhetoric that IMHO does not further the dialog and lead the person to the truth. I think it’s very important that we never sink to the level of many of our a-C opponents, though I readily admit that the temptation is very strong to give as good as one gets. The bad news is that that gets us nowhere.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread is a split off post from OS that was off topic elsewhere and I felt deserved a decent shot at the answers he is looking for.

I did fail to put the usual “SPLIT” in the title and the title is my own, taken from his post without consulting him and for that I owe all of you and OS an apology.

I’m sorry about that.

Please endeavor to answer his questions without presuming the worst of motives.

Again my apologies OS.
Very sincerely,
Michael Francis
Apologetics Moderator

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Point of clarification to my post:

It did not add the apocrypha in 1546. The Deutero’s date back to the Council of Rome in 382. It was Martin Luther and company that removed these books upon their own authority.

The Deuterocanonical books obviously existed prior to the council of Rome. My point was the Council of Rome included these books in its list of OT scripture. I did not mean to imply that these books came into existence at the Council of Rome.

 

[po18guy]

I hope not. Besides, I could use a couple of bucks… Maybe… let’s hope so and give the man the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, the questions have been answered by Catholics.

The real test is if he can offer anything other than unsubstantiated propaganda and rhetoric to make his case from facts.Possibly…however, this is not something that one can say definitively, nor is it something that I personally would allege without far better evidence than this particular post.

In addition, the object here is dialog, not diatribe, and this type of allegation 1. brings nothing substantive to the discussion or debate, and 2. because it is essentially rhetorical it may actually discourage a sincere person from further queries, and that is not good.

I think most people on here know I have a low tolerance for a-C propaganda and rhetoric, but I also avoid inflammatory rhetoric that IMHO does not further the dialog and lead the person to the truth. I think it’s very important that we never sink to the level of many of our a-C opponents, though I readily admit that the temptation is very strong to give as good as one gets. The bad news is that that gets us nowhere.

Inspiration for my post came directly from the EWTN homily given last week regarding 1 John 3 and 4. What else would you call it? Did Christ soft-sell the truth? Look at the repetitive anti-Catholic tone in the OP. He publicly posted what should have been a PM to another member who is alleged to be a tr*ll. I pray for their hardness of heart. The Holy Spirit can convince them. The rest of us have tried and failed.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Church_Militant]

Inspiration for my post came directly from the EWTN homily given last week regarding 1 John 3 and 4. What else would you call it? Did Christ soft-sell the truth? Look at the repetitive anti-Catholic tone in the OP. He publicly posted what should have been a PM to another member who is alleged to be a tr*ll. I pray for their hardness of heart. The Holy Spirit can convince them. The rest of us have tried and failed.

Christ’s peace.

Sounds almost identical to somethings that I’ve heard anti-Catholics say to me and other Catholics when we have posted on their forums.

I’d recommend that you read the passages on the woman at the well, the sermon on the mount, just to name a couple. Then perhaps 1st Peter 3:[14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
[16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

There’s always a balance my friend…

 

[guanophore]

justasking4

** You don’t really expect to get answers to your questions do you?

I’ve been asking some of the same questions for quite some time but the answers just don’t come, because they can’t answer them.

If the Roman Catholic Church really gave us the Bible, then why did it get it so wrong? Specifically rejecting James and Hebrews and then later accepting it? Isn’t the church infallible? This proves it is not!******

How do you figure that? What major Church decision did not take time, deliberation, debate, prayer and illumination? How does the engagement of any and all of these “prove” that the Church is infallible? How is it that the Church was able to come up with an infallible collection? Was that just a brief Holy Spirit fluke?
Old Scholar;3207632:

** The Orthodox Church also claims to be the only true church and also claims to have given us the Bible but it rejected Revelation and then later accepted it. Infallible??? The church also accepted several books as Scripture and then later rejected them. So much for infallibility and being guided by the Holy Spirit.**

I still don’t understand how this procedure negates infallibity. Look what God had to do to Peter to convince him that the gospel was for the Gentiles! Does that mean Christ is not infallible?

The RCC claims to have given the church the Bible in 397 AD, yet many different versions of it were still being accepted and circulated long after. Why? Isn’t the church infallible?

The presence of error does not negate infallibility. The Jews thought Jesus was a child of the devil. Does that make HIm fallible?

**
And if the RCC gave us the Bible, then why didn’t it get it right the first time. **

Your question seems to indicate that you don’t believe the Church produced the Bible. Do you think it fell out of the sky?

God uses fallible men to do His infallible work. The ten commandments are no less fallible, just because Moses lost his temper and broke the first set.

** It added the apocrypha in 1546 at the Council of Trent.**

Actually, this canon was the one used by Jesus and the Apostles, and was always used by the Church. The contents were reiterated as a result of the Reformation. No books were “added” by Catholics. Books were subtracted by Protestants because they supported doctrines they didn’t like.

** Just a popularity contest, the same way they elect a pope.**

A statement like this indicates that the speaker has very little understanding of the process of spiritual discernment.

**

Both the RCC and The Orthodox claim to have given us the Bible**

There was no “Roman” rite as distinct from the others when the canon was formed. There was only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[guanophore]

** If Catholics are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do they know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the RCC, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, as they all three teach that the organization alone can interpret Scripture correctly, to exclude individuals?**

I do not know if you are bearing false witness against the Catholic Church with this statement, or you are just ignorant. I am going to hope for the latter.

The Catholic Church does not teach that private interpretation of scripture is not permitted. On the contrary, private reading, meditation, and application of scripture is encouraged. Furthermore, the right of the Church to interpret the scripture, by virtue of authorship and the holder of the Sacred Traditions from which Scripture was produced, does not “exclude individuals”.
Old Scholar;3207632:

Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why did He provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D.?

I guess by this question you are attempting to impugn or mailign the Catholic Church? I think Jesus knew what was inspired, being the very Word Himself. I think He used the inspired scriptures throughout His life on earth, and taught HIs Apostles to use them, because they speak of HIm. He revealed to them which ones belonged in the canon, and which did not.

** Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Biblical proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic Church? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession, then this proves that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of that succession.
**

On the contrary, it only proves that the Orthodox are part of the same succession. Do you imagine that Ephesus is the only place this happened?

How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?

They don’t.

If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the RCC question this tradition even to this day?

Not all tradition is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

Ask them to name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. Make sure however that the same method cannot apply to the Orthodox Church, else it can’t be true.

Actually, the opposite is true. The four marks of the Church, One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic also apply to the Orthodox, the lack of unity with Rome notwithstanding. The truth is that there IS ONLY ONE CHURCH, and all who are in Christ are part of it. I know it must gall you to think that you might secretly be Catholic, but Jesus did not come to found “churches”, but a Church. He does not have “bodies” but One Body. There is One FAith, One Lord, and One Baptism.

 

[guanophore]

** If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach,**

The reason this is not valid has nothing to do with the fact that many use it. The problem is that infallibility was not guaranteed to individuals, but only to the Church. It is great to read and seek the illumination of the HS. But if one is led away from the Truth revealed by Jesus,then it is the individual that has strayed, not the Teaching of Jesus.
Old Scholar;3207632:

then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the RCC and Orthodox Churches are two denominations that use this method, yet are not in agreement on doctrine?

Actually, the Catholic and Orthodox are in agreement on far more doctrine than either of them with Protestants. And that agreement grows daily. Arrogance and misunderstanding caused this split, and humility and acceptance will heal it, by the grace of HIm who desires that we all be one.

** Does this prove that both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
**

No. A statement such as this seems to suggest that you believe the Apostolic Church cannot be found in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Is that because you are antisacramental?

** If *Sola Scriptura ***

cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use Sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the RCC and the Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are also divided?

No. The lack of unity is the fruit of error, not so much the cause of it. Sola Scriptura is not correct because Jesus taught otherwise. Division is the result of rebellion against Christ.

Ask Roman Catholics these questions and see how many answers you get. I’m betting you get ignored…

Justasking4 is ignored because he has ulterior motives. He is not hear to learn anything, but to defame Catholicsim and make converts. In this matter he violates the forum rules.

 

[DarkMark]

Old Scholar got “his” questions from a very very very Anti-Catholic website—>bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

No wonder Old Scholar is getting misinformed, instead of going to the facts, he rely on this anti-Catholic person. So these questions are not Old Scholar own questions, but a simply a “copy-and-paste” from a anti-Catholic person who saids no Catholic will answer these questions. So I’m guessing Old Scholar got very excited when he read this on His website.

Old Scholar needs to check the facts, read the Early Church Fathers, then he will see why the Catholic Church is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH!

But since Old Scholar said the some Early Church Fathers believed in Sola-Scriptural (which all know no Church Father believed in this 500 year old doctrine), how can we expect him to do a scholarly research on his own?

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m really disappointed.

He didn’t even cite his source as he should have, and that is plagiarism.

And since he hasn’t made any effort to respond…

At least all the lurkers and the people who just come by and read this thread will see that his copied materials were soundly refuted and that he apparently is the one who “cannot and will not answer”.
That should tell any mute readers out there something important.

 

[Pwrlftr]

…the Alexandrian text of the Old Testament was in fact the translation of the OT used in Christ’s own time.(Link to source

Hey CM,

This question is based on your above statement but I would like anyone here to answer this.

Often times it is said that the apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon but no evidence is given as to what the Alexandrian canon is.

Do we know anything about the supposed Alexandrian canon?

a.) Are there any extant manuscripts of the Alexandrian canon?
i.) If so, what are the manuscripts entitled?
ii.) If so, when do the manuscripts date to?

b.) Does any Jewish source (rabbi, historian, philosopher, etc.) roughly of the same time period we are talking about list the books of the Alexandrian canon?

It’s interesting that people often make the claim that Jesus and the apostles used this canon but the earliest mansucripts of the septuagint we have only date back to around the 4th century and they were Christian copies of the septuagint.

We know Melito who lived in the middle of the second century listed the canon he received from the Jews and didn’t include the deutero’s. We know that Philo lived in and among the Alexandrian Jews and he didn’t ever list the deutero’s. We know that Josephus didn’t include the deutero’s in what he listed the canon of the Jews being.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if anyone can provide proof tha the Alexandrian canon ever existed.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Here is the history one more time:

The canon was articulated at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome. The articulation of the Canon at the Council of Rome was affirmed by the Decree of Pope Damasus. This all took place in the late 4th century.

This same Canon was affirmed and declared infallible at the Council of Florence in the early 1400’s and affirmed again at Trent in the 16th century.

If you dispute the authenticity of the Catholic Canon or the Church’s consistency in articulating the Canon of Scripture, then the burden is on you to show even one Catholic Council that ever differed from the conclusions articulated by the Councils listed above.

I will save you the trouble of doing the research.** This canon has never been changed within the Catholic Church and it has never been articulated differently at any Council of the Catholic Church**.

This isn’t true. Trent passed over in silence and did not include 1 Esdras in its proclamation of the canon and 1 Esdras was included in the earlier canons.

Obviously if Trent leaves something out of it’s canon that was included in the earlier canons than the canons can’t be the same and therefore a change has occured.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Trent merely affirmed what had always been held.

Often I hear this claim but I am never quite sure what it really means.

First, as I mentioned earlier, Trent passed over in silence 1 Esdras which was included in the earlier canons declared at various places such as Hippo and Carthage. Secondly, at Trent the council fathers cast a vote as to which books to accept as canonical and which to reject. We find only 44% of the fathers voting to accept the deutero’s.

If Trent was merely “affirming” or as I often hear it, “reaffirming” what the earlier councils already “settled”, why was there a vote and why on earth would only 44% of the council fathers vote in the affirmative to include the deutero’s?

The source for the information on the vote can be found at:
amazon.com/gp/reader/0198269544/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7789752-0196739#reader-link (p246)

 

[Pwrlftr]

How can you put faith in Sola Scriptura when it was formed 1500 years distant from the Catholic Church’s formation of the bible and cannon?

James

James,

If SS showed up relatively late on the scene I wouldn’t think that would be an issue for a catholic since your church clearly believes in the development of doctrine.

It’s not like you can search the ECF’s for every doctrine you have and get a trail back to either Jesus or the apostles.