SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Pwrlftr]

The question has never been what I believe, so don’t muddy the waters. The question is, how can Christians possibly have an inerrant canon of scripture without “popes, councils or magisterium,” to use your construction?

So tell me, how can Christianity know for certain it got the canon right without “popes, councils or magisterium”?

I don’t believe one can have infallible certainty. Remember, you are the one with the fixation on infallibility, not me.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The question has never been what I believe, so don’t muddy the waters.

I have noticed you would rather ask a bunch of questions than answer them.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The question has never been what I believe, so don’t muddy the waters. The question is, how can Christians possibly have an inerrant canon of scripture without “popes, councils or magisterium,” to use your construction?

So tell me, how can Christianity know for certain it got the canon right without “popes, councils or magisterium”?

I keep noticing “things” in your post. I need to read them more carefully.

If it takes infallibility to recognize the canon, why did it take your church 1500 years to infallibly declare the canon?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t know what you are saying.

That which was inspired by God is inerrant or infallible because it is God breathed. The nature of scripture is independent of you, me, or your church recognizing it as such.

It was the Church who declared so guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not a field manual or technical manual. You Protestants have degraded the Word of God by your Sola Scriptura doctrine.

We were required to be circumcized at the council of Jerusalem?

The trinity is found within the scriptures. Go to a non-catholic seminary and you will find volumes of works all on the trinity and all based on nothing but the scriptures.

And it was St. Anathasius and the ECF and the Church Council who affirmed it. They didn’t base this doctrine on Scripture Alone.

I’m assuming you mean my claim that your church isn’t infallible.

Your church’s ecumenical councils are thought to be infallible but not every council has the charsm of infallibilit protecting it.

The Church when she teaches on Moral and Faith, is infallible. PERIOD.

For example, the councils of Carthage and Hippo were provinicial councils and did not declare the canon infallibly.

BTW, typing in bold overlarge font doesn’t do anything to help you prove your point.

Those Councils were only affirmed in the Council of Florence which is recognized the Canon of Scripture by both East and Western Churches. The same canon that was in the African Synods. The Council of Trent only affirmed what was already been said.

You Protestants stop corrupting the Bible by turning it into your Field Manual or Technical Manual. The Bible is much more than that. Second, Christianity is not the religion of the Book. It is the religion of the Word of God, incarnate.

(Edited)

Second, I bolded and enlarge the text because of your persistence of spreading lies about the Truth. You *deny the authority *of Jesus Christ, whom he granted to his Church.

Here is what Jesus said concerning his disciples.

Luke 10:16

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

This was the instruction he made after he appointed seventy others to be his disciples.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Early church…how about we go with the first few centuries.

I don’t know why you bring up the Marcionites as I never said there was 100% agreement. As a matter of fact we still don’t have 100% agreement on the canon between protestants, catholics, and the orthodox do we?

I thought you said John was considered “canonical” by the “early church”, but I have no idea what that means.

If we go by your definition of “early church” then it’s not clear how John was considered “canonical” by them. By some of them, maybe. Does it matter who accepted them or just any Christian group accepting them?

Because if the “early church” is all set of Christian sects in the first few centuries and the canon is defined as “the books accepted by them as canon” then the canon swells to include the Gnostic gospels and all sorts of other writings.

But this is sort of beside the point. I conced that, by your definition of “early church” (meaning any Christians of the first few centuries), the Gospel of John is canon. But so is the Gospel of Thomas. Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas as canon?

 

[Mannyfit75]

He is just another idiot like Fred.

 

[DarkMark]

I don’t believe one can have infallible certainty.

Yet both Christ and St. Paul said that the Church is the pillar of truth and Christ himself will guide the Church so that the “gates of Hades will prevail agaisnt it”. So yes, Christians have infallible certainty due the promise of Jesus Christ. The Church, not the Bible, is the pillar of truth. When she talks about faith and moral, she is infallible.

Is you and other Protestants that insist Jesus is wrong and that the Church is not infallible.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yet both Christ and St. Paul said that the Church is the pillar of truth and Christ himself will guide the Church so that the “gates of Hades will prevail agaisnt it”. So yes, Christians have infallible certainty due the promise of Jesus Christ.

Is you and other Protestants that insist Jesus is wrong and that the Church is not infallible.

Sheesh, I like how you say that I insist Jesus is wrong. Is that a standard cathoilc e-pologist polemic?

The church is the pillar of truth but a pillar holds something up, it isn’t, in this case, truth itself.

As to the “gates of hell prevailing against it”…why do you think that the only interpretation of this verse is that the church is infallible, outside of course your church telling you it is?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I thought you said John was considered “canonical” by the “early church”, but I have no idea what that means.

If we go by your definition of “early church” then it’s not clear how John was considered “canonical” by them. By some of them, maybe. Does it matter who accepted them or just any Christian group accepting them?

Because if the “early church” is all set of Christian sects in the first few centuries and the canon is defined as “the books accepted by them as canon” then the canon swells to include the Gnostic gospels and all sorts of other writings.

But this is sort of beside the point. I conced that, by your definition of “early church” (meaning any Christians of the first few centuries), the Gospel of John is canon. But so is the Gospel of Thomas. Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas as canon?

Ignatius,

Is it your centention that only an infallible body can recognize the scriptures?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sheesh, I like how you say that I insist Jesus is wrong. Is that a standard cathoilc e-pologist polemic?

The church is the pillar of truth but a pillar holds something up, it isn’t, in this case, truth itself.

As to the “gates of hell prevailing against it”…why do you think that the only interpretation of this verse is that the church is infallible, outside of course your church telling you it is?

Because (Edited) this has always been believed for 2,000 yrs before you Protestants showed up in the 1500s with your (Edited) Reformation and come up with new doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. Doctrines complete foreign and alien to ancient Christianity.

What do you suppose Jesus mean when he gave Peter and His Apostles to bind and loose? Why did he bother to tell his disciple to take it to the Church when one or two brother sins? He didn’t say take it to Bible.

 

[DarkMark]

Sheesh, I like how you say that I insist Jesus is wrong. Is that a standard cathoilc e-pologist polemic?

The church is the pillar of truth but a pillar holds something up, it isn’t, in this case, truth itself.

As to the “gates of hell prevailing against it”…why do you think that the only interpretation of this verse is that the church is infallible, outside of course your church telling you it is?

If you believe that the Church is not infallible then you believe Jesus is liar. This has been believe for 2,000 years. The idea that Bible is the pillar of truth is a 500 years old doctrine my friend.

St. Paul calls the Church the pillar of truth, not the Bible. Why do you suppose Jesus meant when He gave the key to St. Peter? Sorry you just can’t go around this.

Jesus said that the “gates of hell shall not prevail agaisnt it”. This is clear, the Church will not uphold lies because Hell will not conquered her. The only way you run around Jesus words is to say that the “gates of Hades” does not mean untruth, which doesn’t make sense. That is what Jesus meant. One doesn’t need the Church to explain to this to you.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

The Church is the foundation of truth. Thereby, the Church cannot err. You trying to downplay the Church infallibility which Jesus and the Apostles uphold.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Ignatius,

Is it your centention that only an infallible body can recognize the scriptures?

I contend nothing. I make no claims.

I’m just trying to understand your definition of “canon”.

So far, based on your definitions, the “canon” is “all written works accepted by the early church”.

And “early church” is “any Christian sect of the first few centuries”.

The logical conclusion of these premises that you have given is that the canon includes the Gospel of Thomas and the proto Gospel of James as well as a lot of other stuff that you won’t find anywhere in the Gideon’s copy of the Bible in your local hotel room.

Perhaps you’d like to take another shot at defining your premises?

 

[Pwrlftr]

It was the Church who declared so guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not a field manual or technical manual. You Protestants have degraded the Word of God by your Sola Scriptura doctrine.

I’m not going to respond to this Manny.

And it was St. Anathasius and the ECF and the Church Council who affirmed it. They didn’t base this doctrine on Scripture Alone.

Who on this thread said the canon was based on scripture alone? Can you please give me the post number or quote the post for me?

The Church when she teaches on Moral and Faith, is infallible. PERIOD.

No Manny, this isn’t correct. As you know there are certain requirements that go along with any teaching before it can be considered infallible. It’s not as simple as infallibility including any and all teaching on faith and morals.

Those Councils were only affirmed in the Council of Florence which is recognized the Canon of Scripture by both East and Western Churches. The same canon that was in the African Synods. The Council of Trent only affirmed what was already been said.

I do believe the orthodox have a larger canon than does your church. Is this correct?

Anyway, Trent didn’t just restate the canon that was proclaimed earlier. First off, they passed over in silence on 1 Esdras so the canons don’t match identically. So it is patently false to say the two canons match.

Secondly, the first vote on the canon at Trent to decide the fate of the deutero’s had only 44% of the council fathers voting in the affirmative to include the deuteros in the canon. Why would they even vote if they only were affirming or re-affirming the canon.

You Protestants stop corrupting the Bible by turning it into your Field Manual or Technical Manual. The Bible is much more than that. Second, Christianity is not the religion of the Book. It is the religion of the Word of God, incarnate.

(Edited)

(Edited)

Second,(Edited) You *deny the authority *of Jesus Christ, whom he granted to his Church.
Here is what Jesus said concerning his disciples.
Luke 10:16

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

This was the instruction he made after he appointed seventy others to be his disciples.

Other than I disagree on infallibility. (Edited) Where am I wrong? I have come to a different conclusion (Edited).

 

[Pwrlftr]

**Because my ignorant Protestant, **this has always been believed for 2,000 yrs before you Protestants showed up in the 1500s with your ridicules Reformation and come up with new doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. Doctrines complete foreign and alien to ancient Christianity.

What do you suppose Jesus mean when he gave Peter and His Apostles to bind and loose? Why did he bother to tell his disciple to take it to the Church when one or two brother sins? He didn’t say take it to Bible.

Manny,

You really don’t expect me to take you serious when you use lines like " Because my ignorant Protestant,…" do you?

Aren’t you studying for the priesthood? If so, you should learn some level of control.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If you believe that the Church is not infallible then you believe Jesus is liar. This has been believe for 2,000 years. The idea that Bible is the pillar of truth is a 500 years old doctrine my friend.

St. Paul calls the Church the pillar of truth, not the Bible. Why do you suppose Jesus meant when He gave the key to St. Peter? Sorry you just can’t go around this.

Jesus said that the “gates of hell shall not prevail agaisnt it”. This is clear, the Church will not uphold lies because Hell will not conquered her. The only way you run around Jesus words is to say that the “gates of Hades” does not mean untruth, which doesn’t make sense. That is what Jesus meant. One doesn’t need the Church to explain to this to you.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

The Church is the foundation of truth. Thereby, the Church cannot err. You trying to downplay the Church infallibility which Jesus and the Apostles uphold.

The scriptures are the truth, not the pillar and foundaton of the truth which is the church. You misrepresent what the reformation taught.

Jesus did say the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail but that does not necessarily mean what you say it does. It could be that Jesus was saying that the faith will always exist. It could be a lot of things I suppose but since your church has infallibly defined what it means it really doesn’t matter does it? Has your church “officially” defined the text and if so, where?

 

[DarkMark]

The scriptures are the truth, not the pillar and foundaton of the truth which is the church. You misrepresent what the reformation taught.

Jesus did say the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail but that does not necessarily mean what you say it does. It could be that Jesus was saying that the faith will always exist. It could be a lot of things I suppose but since your church has infallibly defined what it means it really doesn’t matter does it? Has your church “officially” defined the text and if so, where?

The Scriptures are the truth, but also Sacred Traditions like Paul said (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, etc), thereby is not Scripture alone. But since you have no authority to go to, besides your private interpretation, it really doesn’t matter what the Christ Church teaches, you will still ignore Church teachings.

If you believe that the Church is the foundation of the truth, which church is it?

Can you give a quote where Martin Luther (etc) said that the Church is the foundation of truth and that the final authority does not rest on Scriptures alone but Scriptures + Church authority? If the reformers believed that the pillar of truth and authority rested on the Church then they wouldn’t have separated from Christ’ Church to begin with.

Finally, when Jesus said that the gates of Hades will not prevail agaisnt is means everything that will destroyed the Church, which includes untruth (lies). You can twist the Scripture anyway you want, but Jesus was cleared and I believe him. Will you?

 

[SPH1]

It was recognized by the early church as being canonical. Where you and I disagree is that I don’t think any pope, council, or magesterium is infallible.

Okay. But even if not infallible, they are still the authority.

BTW, was the “early church” that recognized John infallible?

 

[fbl9]

hi Pwrlftr re post 116… thank you for your response.i was illustrating the piont that different churchs have diferent beliefs. the fact that some catholics do not hold to the truth does not mean disunity within the church. the very reason we are having this conversation is evidence of that.i am not he most articulated person please bare with me.the person who leaves the teaching of the catholic church and starts his own church is the source of disunity. the septuagint is the Alexardian text. we are in an area of limited knowledge for me on this topic. i was not comparing what individual catholics beleived,each and every catholic church does not have the ability to say that we are here and this is what we are going to beleive regardless of what anything the Bishop of Rome has to say. one catholic church can not we don’t believe this and the other one says we will believe this. this is the style in which new ncc churchs spring up.

 

[Pwrlftr]

hi Pwrlftr re post 116… thank you for your response.i was illustrating the piont that different churchs have diferent beliefs. the fact that some catholics do not hold to the truth does not mean disunity within the church. the very reason we are having this conversation is evidence of that.i am not he most articulated person please bare with me.the person who leaves the teaching of the catholic church and starts his own church is the source of disunity. the septuagint is the Alexardian text. we are in an area of limited knowledge for me on this topic. i will be editing this post right away

Well, at least you haven’t called me a heretic, ignorant, or one of several other insults.

 

[mahoneyt]

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…

lol please tell me you read one book on Church history and thats the extent of you research. Dude its clear your not an academic, your an arm-chair Theologian and that cool just come out and say it. Im only going to write one answer because you don’t care about the answers. Paul didn’t write Hebrews, the Greek doesn’t have the same style of his main letters. Unless Paul decided one day that he was going to pretend to be someone else, good try with that one.