SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Mannyfit75]

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?

You didn’t but the mere fact that you deny the infallibility of Church Councils is an insult to Christ’s authority.

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.

Infallibility statement are made based upon the writings of the ECF, Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and through prayer. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are not new.

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

They do and does our Eastern Rite Catholics.

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.

Yes it did.

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.

Cite your source. Where did you get the 44% from? I did say the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church affirm the same Canon stated in the Council of Florence in 1430.

Manny, I got to tell you, I am going to have to report this one to the mods.

Go ahead.

Calling me an agent of the Evil one is way over the line.

The Evil One distort the truth. You are doing the same thing.

Other than I disagree on infallibility. What lies have I spread? Where am I wrong? I have come to a different conclusion maybe but that isn’t lying Manny.

Because infallibility is part of Divine Revelation. It is part of the Truth established by Jesus Christ through HIS Church. To deny this fact is to deny the authority of Christ himself.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

You are ignorant. We all are. There are certains things in life I don’t know. Accept being called igorant as a good thing. It is not meant as an insult. If it is, sorry.

 

[guanophore]

Of course you would believe anything on the Vatican website. Yet you won’t believe the Bible. How strange!

This is not strange at all. The material on the Vatican website is created by the Magesterium (teaching authority appointed by Christ), whereas, your interpretation of the Bible is very far removed from that teaching authority, and in many ways, has invalidated itself as a result.

As to the writing of Hebrews, this has long been debated but the Pauline authorship definitely gives the book a Pauline cast and it would seem appropriate that it was written by Paul or more likely by Sylvanus, his constant comp anion and one who was well versed in linguistics and methodology. We know Paul did not physically write all his epistles as he brags at one time that he signed his name in his own hand. But it seems to be Pauline in its nature.

The doctrine within it is certainly compatible with his. One oddity is that Paul knows he was sent to the Gentiles, and this letter is clearly written to the Hebrews, so it seems more logical that it would have been composed by someone called to that particular ministry.

You also deny *Sola Scriptura *because you say it contradicts the Word of God. I notice you didn’t elaborate on that.

Scripture doesn’t teach this doctrine about itself. On the contrary, it states that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, and Jesus specifically instructs his disciples to take their disputes “to the church” when they can’t be settled between brothers.

 

[DarkMark]

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.

This is not his questions. He have done no research. Almost all his posts are a direct “copy and paste” from this very very very Anti-Catholic website---->bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

His questions (etc) can be find here. He plagiarized everything. He took the words of a anti-Catholic person instead of researching the matter. And when Catholic gave him the answers, all of sudden, he had to go to a 10-day “trip”

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

Exactly what are those traditions that Pauls is speaking of in 2Thess2:15?

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.

They didn’t see your church as Christ’s church.

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).

Your chuch’s infallibility dies the death of 1,000 qualifications.

According to your church there are only certain times or situations where your church is protected from teaching error. If you want to believe that the verses in Matthew mean that your church would be infallible it seems one has to wonder where the all the qualifications came from since they aren’t mentioned.

The other thing I have always wondered about is that your church is apparently not free from teaching ambiguously. It can put forth documents such as Dei Verbum where some catholics say that it teaches the scriptures can have errors in things not pertaining to faith and morals while other church documents seem to indicate otherwise. What is the real catholic teaching?

DarkMark:

You can twist the Scripture anyway you want, but Jesus was cleared and I believe him. Will you?

I don’t disagree with Jesus, I disagree with your interpretation though.

 

[Pwrlftr]

You are ignorant. We all are. There are certains things in life I don’t know. Accept being called igorant as a good thing. It is not meant as an insult. If it is, sorry.

Manny,

I am going to send you a pm.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Your chuch’s infallibility dies the death of 1,000 qualifications.

According to your church there are only certain times or situations where your church is protected from teaching error. If you want to believe that the verses in Matthew mean that your church would be infallible it seems one has to wonder where the all the qualifications came from since they aren’t mentioned.

The other thing I have always wondered about is that your church is apparently not free from teaching ambiguously. It can put forth documents such as Dei Verbum where some catholics say that it teaches the scriptures can have errors in things not pertaining to faith and morals while other church documents seem to indicate otherwise. What is the real catholic teaching?

This is exactly what I see as exchanging the truth for a LIE. Like the Father of Lies, he distorts the TRUTH.

 

[DarkMark]

Exactly what are those traditions that Pauls is speaking of in 2Thess2:15?

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

They didn’t see your church as Christ’s church.

Your chuch’s infallibility dies the death of 1,000 qualifications.

According to your church there are only certain times or situations where your church is protected from teaching error. If you want to believe that the verses in Matthew mean that your church would be infallible it seems one has to wonder where the all the qualifications came from since they aren’t mentioned.

The other thing I have always wondered about is that your church is apparently not free from teaching ambiguously. It can put forth documents such as Dei Verbum where some catholics say that it teaches the scriptures can have errors in things not pertaining to faith and morals while other church documents seem to indicate otherwise. What is the real catholic teaching?

I don’t disagree with Jesus, I disagree with your interpretation though.

First, only the Roman Catholic Church can traced their history backed to the Apostles. So only the Catholic Church is the foundation of truth. Your church was started by Martin Luther. That is a fact.

Second, the traditions that the Apostle Paul talked about are “Apostolic Traditions” that were handed down to Bishops, who in turn protected them and pass them. The Early Church writings is clear on this matter.

Third, I don’t understand what you mean by "Your chuch’s infallibility dies the death of 1,000 qualifications. "

Fourth, what some “catholics” say or believe are not important. People take passages out of context, as they do to Scriptures.

Fifth, you disagree with Jesus. You, like heretics, distort the truth. You have to deal with Jesus why you believe he was wrong.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure what you mean by the “many sources”.

Manny just gave you a bunch.

I find it interesting how catholics will claim that the trinity came from tradition when it is laid out in the scriptures.

The scriptures also came from tradition. The word “Trinity” is not found there. And our Christian notion of the Trinity is not “laid out”. You can see it because you accept it already, just like we see the Marian doctrines. But the Jehovah Witnesses don’t see it in scripture.

Worship on Sunday…same thing.

Where in Scripture does it state that God changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?

If you want to use these as examples you can but unlike certain of your church's doctrines these have are explicitly found in scripture.

you accept certain of the Sacred Traditions at your leisure, such as the Canon, the Trinity, the Sabbath, but deny the others that are inconvenient, such as the Authority appointed by Christ.

You can go to the most ardently sola scriptura seminary and you will find text after text written on the trinity all based on…scripture

Actually, I did do that, for three years. And yes, I can see the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture, but it is not “based” there. the Trinity is taught by Jesus and the Apostles, and it is found in Scripture BECAUSE it is Sacred Tradition.

Like the rest of Catholic doctrine, it is all based in the teachings of Jesus, and not in the Bible, which came long after the Teachings.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

They didn’t see your church as Christ’s church.

Then why did Martin Luther say:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

???

It’s my understanding that the Reformers did struggle with the idea that they might be in rebellion.

 

[guanophore]

The many differences and the church not being able to make up its mind about what belongs and what doesn’t.

You are not making any sense. If the Church could not make up her mind, how did we get a canon?

How many times has the church reversed itself? How many popes have reversed other popes?

A distinction must be made between disciplines (rules and regs) and Teachings (from Jesus)

. The only reason the Council of Trent declared them canon was to refute Martin Luther.(and by “real”, I mean the non-Roman Catholic Church.)

Which Catholic Church is that?

Then what you mean is that you can make your own interpretation as often as you like, just as long as it doesn’t disagree with the church’s position??? Strange!

Why is that strange? Think of it this way. Jesus tells a parable. The people go home and talk about what it meant. Or, the disciples do, since they were a bunch of dummies. They can speculate, but there is at least one Truth that Jesus intended to teach, and it is important to get that.

It is the claim of your church that Christ didn’t give the Jews the canon. The Old Testament was canonized 500 years before the books you list were written.

The Church recognizes that salvation is of the Jews, and to them were sent the prophets, and they were given the Holy Writings. Jesus used these Teachings to introduce the New Covenant, and Paul and the other Apostles taught from them, powerfully demonstrating how Jesus is the Christ.

At the time of Timothy, no church claimed authority over another. Even 3 hundred years later, there was not one church that had authority over another. It is true Rome tried to claim such authority but it never was able to until the 5th century. Most of the ECF opposed one church having authority over another.

No “claim” was needed, since this was given to Peter. The Authority was not meant to be wielded as if in a monarchy. That is why we identify those “in union” with the successor of Peter as being in commuion.

If you had copies of the “Holy Tradition” then you would be quick to present them. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Scriptures we have are accurate. Nothing in Scripture has been changed but your tradition contradicts it.

There is much more to the sacred tradition than “copies”. Yes, it has all been committed to writing at some point, but the bulk of it is praxis. Liturgy, prayers, devotions, etc.

In the days of the apostles, tradition only had a small t. Tradition to them was not the Scriptures but the tradition of how a church was formed, operated; how services were to be conducted, etc. Nothing about changing Scripture or having “hidden” Scripture was even thought of. That came much later.

I don’t agree with this statement,b ut due to the fact that the quote was embedded, I cannot tell who made it. I don’t think it was OS though.

It seem I am still not getting real answers but rather deflections.

I don’t think any answers will be acceptable to you. You have already make up your mind against the RCC.

 

[DarkMark]

Pwrlftr,

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 since you said I was misrepresenting the reformers on this issue? 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.

 

[bpbasilphx]

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

Old Scholar, that’s because your questions are on the level of “Have you stopped beating your wife and children yet?”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Pwrlftr,

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 since you said I was misrepresenting the reformers on this issue? 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.

In a previous post you said, and I quote

"The idea that Bible is the pillar of truth is a 500 years old doctrine my friend. "

Maybe I should be clearer.

Ever since Scott Hahn wrote “Home Sweet Rome” or “Rome Sweet Home”…whatever the title, catholics seem to think no one ever considered
1 Timothy 3:15:

15 but (1)in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how (2)one ought to conduct himself in (a)the household of God, which is the b)church of (c)the living God, the (d)pillar and support of the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reformers knew of the verse and didn’t “conveniently” forget it which is what I am assuming you meant in your question.

Anyway, Luther was a SS believer and wouldn’t have beleived that the final authority rested on the church.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then why did Martin Luther say:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

???
**
It’s my understanding that the Reformers did struggle with the idea that they might be in rebellion**.

I’ll post more on this later but it shouldn’t be surprising ot anyone that the reformers struggled with the idea that they might be in rebellion. I don’t know how much they wrote on the subject if any but it sounds reasonable.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then why did Martin Luther say:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

???

It’s my understanding that the Reformers did struggle with the idea that they might be in rebellion.

I don’t have the information on this quote that I thought I had.

Can you give me a source for it? Preferably not one by a catholic apologist, I am looking for a primary source.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then why did Martin Luther say:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

???

Wow, now I am really curious.

When I search on yahoo for:
+“we concede to the papacy” +luther

I get 53 hits and almost all of them are catholic sites. Could this be one of the infamous bogus quote attributed to Luther? This will be interesting.

If anyone can post the PRIMARY source for this, please do post it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Why is that? Do you think that Jesus is a weakling, or a liar? Was He either not able, or not willing to lead them into all truth, as He said He would?

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

If anyone can post the PRIMARY source for this, please do post it.

Here ya go.

orlutheran.com/html/mlsermjoh1526-1604-2.html

Martin Luther’s Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon). They have it marked as page 265, paragraph 28. You get the whole sermon here. The site is Lutheran, I believe.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Why is that? Do you think that Jesus is a weakling, or a liar? Was He either not able, or not willing to lead them into all truth, as He said He would?

G,

Do me a favor, lose the rhetoric and I’ll answer your post but don’t ever again accuse me of calling Jesus a liar or a weaking. This is getting old.