SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Old_Scholar]

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!

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.

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?

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

Both the RCC and The Orthodox claim to have given us the Bible and if they did, why are the Bibles different?

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?

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.?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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, 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? 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?

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?

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

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

So say you…however, that is about to change.

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!

Please cite documentation of this, as although I know there was always some discussion of some writings, I know of no authoritative place where the church rejected these books.

The discussions are simply the efforts of the ECF to insure that the canon was indeed correct.

It is interesting to further note that the Canon of the New Testament was never seriously challenged after that point until Martin Luther came along and not only removed the 7 books of the DCs from the OT but also ought to reject James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation as well. Talk about not infallible!

In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia traces the history of these books to their acceptance in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in Africa in 393 & 397 and finally in 405.

1. Fixation in the African and Gallican Churches

It was some little time before the African Church perfectly adjusted its New Testament to the Damasan Canon. Optatus of Mileve (370-85) does not used Hebrews. St. Augustine, while himself receiving the integral Canon, acknowledged that many contested this Epistle. But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor’s view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals–Hippo, Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419–found it necessary to formulate catalogues. The introduction of Hebrews was an especial crux, and a reflection of this is found in the first Carthage list, where the much vexed Epistle, though styled of St. Paul, is still numbered separately from the time-consecrated group of thirteen. The catalogues of Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon of the present. In Gaul some doubts lingered for a time, as we find Pope Innocent I, in 405, sending a list of the Sacred Books to one of its bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.

So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the New Testament In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approximate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the New Testament was definitely fixed, and the discussion closed.

The final process of this Canon’s development had been twofold: positive, in the permanent consecration of several writings which had long hovered on the line between canonical and apocryphal; and negative, by the definite elimination of certain privileged apocrypha that had enjoyed here and there a canonical or quasi-canonical standing. In the reception of the disputed books a growing conviction of Apostolic authorship had much to do, but the ultimate criterion had been their recognition as inspired by a great and ancient division of the Catholic Church. Thus, like Origen, St. Jerome adduces the testimony of the ancients and ecclesiastical usage in pleading the cause of the Epistle to the Hebrews (De Viris Illustribus, lix). There is no sign that the Western Church ever positively repudiated any of the New Testament deuteros; not admitted from the beginning, these had slowly advanced towards a complete acceptance there. On the other hand, the apparently formal exclusion of Apocalypse from the sacred catalogue of certain Greek Churches was a transient phase, and supposes its primitive reception. Greek Christianity everywhere, from about the beginning of the sixth century, practically had a complete and pure New Testament canon.

(Link to source)

(Cont’d)

 

[1ke]

This question has been asked AND ANSWERED millions of times.

Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean Catholics do not or cannot answer your questions. Your rejection of the Truth doesn’t make it the facts any less true.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

You’ll have to take that up with an Orthodox apologist, however, the article that I linked above covers the discussion of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache which I have to presume you are referring to.

As I said before, and Catholics (and even n-C scholars) will readily remind you, the discussions that your refer to predate the final decision of the Canon, so they do not by any means indict infallibility.

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?

Gee…couldn’t possibly have been that we didn’t have the speed of communication that we have today could it? Do you suppose that they just bopped down to the Rome Kinko’s and faxed their copies off to Carthage and Hippo and Constantinople as we might today? Or did they just take them in hand an jump a jet at the Roma International Airport and set down an hour or so later in Carthage? I think not. Travel and communication were still very slow at that time and so one has to allow for that as well as whatever period of time they took to study, pray, and discuss all this.

Sadly, you cannot offer a single authoritative evidence for the inspired canon that you hold dear today, (no doubt an errant 66 book one) that has anywhere near the authority or scholarship that the Catholic & Orthodox Churches can. Faced with that deficiency. I would strongly advise that you abandon said 66 book Bible for an accurate and authoritative 73 book one like that the ECF decided on.

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

This is a gross historical inaccuracy. The DCs had been part of the canon of scripture from the time when the rest of the Canon was accepted.Trent merely affirmed what had always been held.

Cyprian of Carthage

“In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, “Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . .”’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]” (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

“So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]” (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Council of Rome

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

(Link to source)
(Cont’d)

 

[Tomster]

I would like to hear what OS’s conception of “Church” is. I am sure that I have read it a million times before on these threads. One more private interpretation can’t hurt though.

 

[po18guy]

I would like to hear what OS’s conception of “Church” is. I am sure that I have read it a million times before on these threads. One more private interpretation can’t hurt though.

All we can do is pray for these hardened hearts that are apparently afraid to place their faith and trust in the Lord via the church He founded. Just pray for them. They cannot resist the Holy Spirit.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

If Trent added the deuterocanonicals to the Bible, as the OP claims, then how is it possible that Martin Luther removed them from the Bible about 20 years before the council? If they weren’t in the Bible before Trent, then how could he have taken them out?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Tomster]

All we can do is pray for these hardened hearts that are apparently afraid to place their faith and trust in the Lord via the church He founded. Just pray for them. They cannot resist the Holy Spirit.

Christ’s peace.

(I still wanna read his spin.)

Et cum Spiritu tuo.

Tomster

 

[Mannyfit75]

All we can do is pray for these hardened hearts that are apparently afraid to place their faith and trust in the Lord via the church He founded. Just pray for them. They cannot resist the Holy Spirit.

Christ’s peace.

I must confess these Protestants who’s zeal are strong clearly have hardened hearts to listen to the Truth. The Truth is not some abstract thing; rather the Truth is a Person. The Eternal Word, Jesus Christ. The Truth is uphold by the Pillar which is the Catholic Church (see 1 Tim 3:15).

The OP questions has already been answered numerous times. He just willingly decide not to accept the answer, and ignores it completely.

If he really wants to go in depth into the formation of Scripture, he needs to do some research on it not from Protestant sources, but those of Catholic and Orthodox sources, which are in agreement with that it was the Church who form the canon of Scripture.

Keep in mind that the Bible was canonized by the Church before the East-West Schism in 1054 AD.

 

[juliamajor]

actually martin Luther would have put Hebrews and James,revelation in the Apocrypha.He hated Ecclesiastes and Esther and would have really done a hatchet job on the Bible. Other reformers told him to back off.Ah yes,sola sciptura-so clear-NOT!

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

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?

 

[Church_Militant]

Both the RCC and The Orthodox claim to have given us the Bible and if they did, why are the Bibles different?

Are they? I don’t think so…

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 … churches, as they all … teach that the organization alone can interpret Scripture correctly, to exclude individuals?

You’ll never know since you recognize no authority (except possibly your own or perhaps your denomination or non denom…). The better question is, why do you reject the canon of scripture that history plainly shows was the documented and authoritative choice of the early church in favor for a Bible that does not conform to any that they canonized.

Oh and don’t waste time bringing up Jamnia (or Javnia) since it was not an authoritative council in any way and was held by the same Jews who rejected Christ to begin with. Why would any believer base their canon on such a group?

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.?

Again, this is not at all true. the Alexandrian text of the Old Testament was in fact the translation of the OT used in Christ’s own time.

Recensions

The Greek version, known as the Septuagint, welcomed by the Alexandrian Jews, spread quickly throughout the countries in which Greek was spoken; it was utilized by different writers, and supplanted the original text in liturgical services. Philo of Alexandria used it in his writings and looked on the translators as inspired Prophets; it was finally received even by the Jews of Palestine, and was employed notably by Josephus, the Palestinian Jewish historian. We know also that the writers of the New Testament made use of it, borrowing from it most of their citations; it became the Old Testament of the Church and was so highly esteemed by the early Christians that several writers and Fathers declared it to be inspired. The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).

(Link to source)

It would appear to me that if one wants to remain faithful to the scriptures that Our Lord used then one would use the same basic translation that He did.

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.

2 Timothy 2:2 reads, And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. while 3:14 reads, But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and this is a very weak argument. The fact that this was written to Timothy and that there is now a separation between Catholics and Orthodox has little to do with it and nothing whatever to do with both this topic of the canon of scripture or infallibility.

Moreover, this does not support your conclusion, especially coming from someone who rejects the same canon that the early church affirmed. Worse yet is the glaring fact that your own faith community has no link whatever to any semblance of apostolic succession or authority.
(Con’t’d)

 

[Ignatius]

justasking4
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.

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.

 

[Pax]

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 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?
…
…

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

Actually, Catholics are are allowed a certain amount of freedom in the interpretation of scripture. The Church rightly sets the boundaries and guidelines for this interpretation. One cannot interpret scripture for themselves and go outside of the boundaries of Christian teaching. The Judaizers, the Gostics, the Donatists, the Nestorians, and others did this very thing. They were refuted and condemned for doing it.

Scripture even tells us that private interpretation in the fashion discouraged by the Church is wrong.

The apostle Peter says the following:

2 Peter 1:20-21
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 2:1-2
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

These are not the only verses of scripture that can be brought to bear on this topic, but they should be sufficient to give any person arguing “sola scriptura” food for thought and reflection.

Every non-Catholic Christian Church has traditions that guide them in their understandings of scripture even if they are not willing to admit it. Non-Catholic Christian fellowships did not get their understanding of the “Trinity” strictly from their personal reading of scripture. You need to choose your teachers carefully and you need an authentic teacher.

The apostle Paul has this to say about teachers:

2 Timothy 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

1 Timothy 3:1-2
THE SAYING is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,

Titus 1:7-9
For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

2 Timothy 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, **knowing from whom you learned it **

These passages show who our teachers are in doctrine and in the word of God found in scripture. These teachers are the bishops who are the successors of the apostles. We are not self taught by simply reading scripture on our own. Likewise, “we are not to have **itching ears **and seek out teachers to our own liking.”[2 Timothy 4:3-4]

I hope this helps to answer a couple of your unanswered questions.

 

[CentralFLJames]

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!

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?

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

Any other Catholics starting to see a pattern in all the Protestant frothing in this forum lately? It gives me the impression that to get baptised and accepted into some of these Protestant churches they have to first come over to this Catholic site, toss a gauntlet of absurdity and prove that they can take a beating of truth as an act of sacrifice to God!.

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? Protestants simply reinvented scripture by tossing out things that did no agree with what they wanted to believe and supported their human thesis. Scripture alone is not the end all and its certainly not like a sort of all you can eat, self-serve Christian buffet where you leave the okra, peas and carrots in favor of the plain vanilla ice cream and apple pie. It takes tradition and a respect for the early fathers to know that one should be taught on how to understand rather than presuppose one knows more than their parents. Geeze, this sounds like the typical sort of rebellion and disrespect we see in today’s teenagers against their parents…

Relying on a philosophy like Sola Scriptura is like buying Webster’s dictionary to self learn how to read. The problem there is you can only do it one word at a time but will always lack enough knowledge to have the necessary critical mass to be ability to read with comprehension the definitions of the meanings of the words. Furthering the analogy, it becomes not only absurd but patently offensive and disrespectful to then string along enough insight to have the gall to write Webster letters of admonition telling him he does not understand what he wrote!! Be at least grateful that The Catholic Church made it possible for you to even have a compilation of early church writings.

Sola Scriptura is not only laughable its insanity as well as condescending to the respect of the elders (fathers) of the Church and axiomatically non-scriptural itself.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

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?

Actually…we do there are a tremendous number of sources for us to read these things. Not the least of which is The Vatican website.

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?

It does not and if you take the time to read the link I offered in my first post you’ll see that that is so. The style and composition of Hebrews is drastically different from St. Paul’s writings and it nowhere even purports to be from him. Just because the closing mentions Timothy does not mean that this wasn’t written by Barnabas or even possibly by St. Luke.

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.

That’s actually easier than one might think. In reading the ECF one will come to discover that quite clearly, and I doubt very seriously that you can cite any proofs to the contrary. But if you can, then by all means do so.

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, 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? 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?

This is so grossly twisted as to be difficult to follow. The Orthodox will of course refute you from their own position, and I would welcome one to do so, as I readily acknowledge, as the Catechism says,

838
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.

"324

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?Wrong! It cannot be valid because it contradicts the Word of God which it purports as it’s own authority. The myriad divergent doctrines or the modern post reformation step children is merely a (very indicative) fruit of that.

You cannot use the Orthodox as your case, since you are as greatly divided from them as you are from us Catholics. Your doctrine is errant even by their standards and I dare say that if we do get a good Orthodox poster to address that here in this thread, you will appreciate his responses about as much as I’m sure you do my own.

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

…You lose. Pay up.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

If the Roman Catholic Church really gave us the Bible, then why did it get it so wrong?

What it is wrong? The Church? According to who is it “wrong”?

Specifically rejecting James and Hebrews and then later accepting it? Isn’t the church infallible? This proves it is not!

Source please? Not that individuals of the Church rejected James and Hebrews but that the Church made a definitive pronouncement rejecting James and Hebrews and then reversed itself.

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.

Infallibility was promised to only one Church.

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?

Gee, maybe it was because they didn’t get the email? Seriously, do we really think things moved as quickly in the ancient world as they do today?

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

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.

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?

Loaded question… of course, Catholics can engage in private interpretation. As long as their personal interpretation of a particular verse does not violate the teaching of the Church. In other words, I can take a look at John 21:11 which talks about the net of Peter not being torn (the greek here is translated to schizo upon which the word schism is derived) and I can interpret that to mean that Peter’s net is the Church and that it will never schism. That is my personal interpretation. It does not conflict with any teaching from the Church so I am able to maintain my interpretation. However, if I look at Matthew 26:26 and think that Jesus is talking symbolically and that the Last Supper is purely symbolic, then I am not free to engage in that interpretation. How do we know which organization to listen to? The one that was given the authority of Christ— the one that was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and earth. The Catholic Church.

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.?

Are you talking about the Jewish canon? If so, then I would have to say that He didn’t provide them with a list at all. They (the Jews) made up their own list, probably in response to the destruction of the temple and the conversions to Christianity. Since their canon does not include Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc, we know that their list is not infallible.

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.

Can’t say I follow the logic here. At the time Timothy was alive there was only one Church. What happened a thousand years later does not affect the meaning of the scripture. By the way, the Catholic Church fully acknowledges that the Orthodox has valid apostolic succession through the various Apostles.

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?

Who says we don’t possess copies of the documents? True, the Catholics of the middle ages didn’t have access, but then again, most of them couldn’t read anyway.

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?

tradition with a small t is not authoritative.

 

[SPH1]

Question for Old Scholar,

What Protestant group do you belong to or more closely identify with, and how did you arrive at it being the truth?

 

[SPH1]

If the Roman Catholic Church really gave us the Bible, then why did it get it so wrong?

Well, if it wasn’t the Catholic Church that gave us the bible, then WHOEVER did give it (Protestantism, Holy Sprit, etc.) was the one who got it wrong?

 

[Pax]

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.

…
…

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?

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

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

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.