the true religion

[tkdnick]

cnderella03:

Okay and that was already explained to me, however how do you know that jesus intended for the church to be catholic? I have never heard “Catholic” mentioned in the bible

What the heck are you doing posting before 7:00 a.m.? I didn’t even think you got up that early!!!

Just to add for your reference. The term “catholic” was originally used as a descriptor term for “The Church”. “catholic” literally translated means “of the whole” or “universal”. When the word “catholic” was first used, it meant the universal church, because there was only one church (you have to search history books for this, it’s not in the Bible). The descriptor stuck, and our church is now called the Catholic Church.

And along the lines of your comment…How do you know that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit form the Trinity? That word’s not in the Bible. It doesn’t say “God the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit make up the Holy Trinity” or anything that obvious. So how do you know?

 

[cnderella03]

RobedWithLight:

In addition to the points raised above, why should we limit ourselves to strictly biblical references to prove what is the true religion?

Can you justify to us your Bible-only criteria based on strictly Biblical references ?

The first disciples in the first three centuries did not have a “Bible” as we now understand it to be.

Please do consider that what constitutes the Bible you now use, is what the Catholic Church defined it to be in 397 A.D.

Gerry

I understand what you are saying about the bible, however in th world that we live in today, if we do not rely on the bible then what do we rely upon. How do I know which traditions to trust if I can’t explore them for myself through the word of God?

 

[mercygate]

cnderella03:

I understand what you are saying about the bible, however in th world that we live in today, if we do not rely on the bible then what do we rely upon. How do I know which traditions to trust if I can’t explore them for myself through the word of God?

Cinderella, many of us have come from where you now are. For some of us it was extremely difficult, yet ultimately we were forced to see the undeniable rightness of the Catholic postiion.

In a quiet moment, review some of the links on the relationship between Scripture and the Church which people have posted here, and if you can, without prejudice, study the Scriptural verses Catholics point to in support of Christ’s mandate and foundation for his Church. You will begin to see how inextricably the Church and the Scriptures are intertwined with each other, how each testifies to the other. Let the Holy Spirit guide your heart in his peace.

 

[cnderella03]

RBushlow:

You’ve got it backwards, cnderella03. The Church came first. The Church predates the New Testament by 400 years. We know that it is the Catholic Church becaust all of the evidence available indicates it. Also, the bible says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Also you can find it by asking the Holy Spirit. Pray every day the the Holy Spirit will guide you to the Truth, then diligently seek the Truth and it will become clear.

May the Peace of Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

I want to thank you because you have given me the most honest answer that I have yet come across. I dont believe that any man could tell me the truth i need to know but i do belive prayer will help the most. God bless

 

[PaulDupre]

cnderella03:

Okay and that was already explained to me, however how do you know that jesus intended for the church to be catholic? I have never heard “Catholic” mentioned in the bible

How do you know that Jesus wants you to read the bible? I have never heard “bible” mentioned in the bible.
Paul

 

[mrS4ntA]

cnderella03:

I understand what you are saying about the bible, however in th world that we live in today, if we do not rely on the bible then what do we rely upon. How do I know which traditions to trust if I can’t explore them for myself through the word of God?

The Church, of course…

She is the Splendour of Truth, the Bark of St Peter to whom the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are entrusted.

 

[preyoflove]

cnderella03:

I understand what you are saying about the bible, however in th world that we live in today, if we do not rely on the bible then what do we rely upon. How do I know which traditions to trust if I can’t explore them for myself through the word of God?

You trust the Bible so much, why can’t you trust the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible–Old and New Testament all?

You trust the Bible so much, why can’t you trust the Catholic Church who declared with authority that these are the only books that make up the Bible?

You trust the Bible so much, why can’t you trust the Catholic Church who declared that, though the original version of the books of the Bible–those precious pieces written by the very hand of the authors themselves–are lost and all we have left with us are copies (some even copies of copies), the copies are free from error?

Perhaps this will persuade you in addition to prayer:
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html

The Word of God became Flesh through the Blessed Virgin. He is genuinely God and genuinely Man at the same time. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He built His Church upon Peter, not upon the Bible, and it is the Catholic Church.

All the others are founded by someone else.

Peace, so be it.

 

[plakamhil]

<<Originally Posted by cnderella03
Okay and that was already explained to me, however how do you know that jesus intended for the church to be catholic? I have never heard “Catholic” mentioned in the bible>>

and how do you know that jesus intended for his Word to be in the Bible? you have never heard “Bible” mentioned in the Bible either.

plakamhil

 

[RobedWithLight]

cnderella03:

I understand what you are saying about the bible, however in th world that we live in today, if we do not rely on the bible then what do we rely upon. How do I know which traditions to trust if I can’t explore them for myself through the word of God?

To begin, you may start reading the writings of the early Church Fathers, especially those who **predated ** the final closing of the canon by the Church in 397 A.D. They are highly authoritative sources of what the primitive Church practiced and believed, the **traditions ** of the Church, **before ** the Bible as we now know it, was finally defined, and then compare it to what Catholicism now believes. It is, in addition, impossible that these authorities, who wrote and lived years before the Canon of scripture was closed, would contradict the teachings of scripture which we now use.

Peace and God Bless

Gerry

 

[tkdnick]

You asked me for specific proof that it was Catholic Councils that decided what books would be included in the Bible. I’ll post them 1 at a time since some of them are long.

**

**The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
**

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**

 

[tkdnick]

#2

**

**The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393:**

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 (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.”
(canon 36 A.D. 393).

(At about this time St. Jerome started using the Hebrew text as a source for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.)

**

 

[tkdnick]

#3

**

**The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 397:**

Council of Carthage III. “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
(canon 47 A.D. 397).

(It is to be noted that the book of Baruch was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the book of Jeremiah and as such was not listed separately by them.)

**

 

[tkdnick]

#4

**

**The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils…

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
**

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, 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 * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

**

 

[tkdnick]

#5

**

**The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible…

SESSION 11 4 February 1442:
**

“We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ’s sheep’, had abbot Andrew carefully examined by some outstanding men of this sacred council on the articles of the faith, the sacraments of the church and certain other matters pertaining to salvation. At length, after an exposition of the catholic faith to the abbot, as far as this seemed to be necessary, and his humble acceptance of it, we have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine. Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.
It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.”

(The Council of Florence was held over 100 years before the Council of Trent, and about 80 years before the start of the reformation.)

**

 

[tkdnick]

#6 (last one)

**

**The Council of Trent 1546-1565, the longest lasting Council in Church history.

AD 1546:
**

The Catholic Council of Trent, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament. Some Protestant reformers who attended, tried to get the Church to accept the list of books which the Jewish rabbis had chosen at Jamnia.
The Church refused and upheld her teaching from Pope Damasus I, and the Council of Florence. As a result, Protestants have the same New Testament books as Catholics, but their Old Testament differs because it does not contain the books rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia, and much later, rejected by Martin Luther.
It is interesting that for 1500 years all Christians accepted the same canon for the Old Testament. Only in the last 480 years, since the reformation, has there been disagreement from Protestants.

**

 

[tkdnick]

There they are. The major Councils of The Church that decided which books would be contained in Scripture. Hope that’s the proof you were looking for!

Have a good weekend!

 

[tommoee]

You wrote: “and this is all very enlightening, however if the chuch is not based on the bible then it is man made.”

Please identify this requirement in the Bible. On the other hand, Jesus said, “You are BIBLE, and on this BIBLE”… oops, sorry, “…you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church…” Mt 16:18. Christ established the Church (one Church) on a man, not a book.

You wrote: “And with man being a fallen creature, how do you know that men who carry the tradition did not alter it in any way. I believe that the church that God created is still here today however I don’t believe that it is necessarily the Catholic church.”

One might ask the same thing with respect to the Bible - From where did it come? Why does it necessarily have more authority than Tradition? After all, who did select the 27 books of the New Testament? How do we know those are the right books, or in fact that we should have a Bible at all? In fact, we should have one, but it’s not because the Book says I should that I believe we should. The Book of Mormon also says it it inspired by God and we should follow it. I do not take that as evidence.

And finally, who is responsible for the interpretation of those 27 books? After all, what does Jesus mean when He says, “Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall not have life within you…” who decides what that means? It sounds pretty serious to leave to a mere fallen human being to interpret.

Christ left us a Church to guide us in all this and promised it would withstand the gates of hell. That is the true Church. Find it.

Tom

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You wrote: “and this is all very enlightening, however if the chuch is not based on the bible then it is man made.”

Please identify this requirement in the Bible. On the other hand, Jesus said, “You are BIBLE, and on this BIBLE”… oops, sorry, “…you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church…” Mt 16:18. Christ established the Church (one Church) on a man, not a book.

You wrote: “And with man being a fallen creature, how do you know that men who carry the tradition did not alter it in any way. I believe that the church that God created is still here today however I don’t believe that it is necessarily the Catholic church.”

One might ask the same thing with respect to the Bible - From where did it come? Why does it necessarily have more authority than Tradition? After all, who did select the 27 books of the New Testament? How do we know those are the right books, or in fact that we should have a Bible at all? In fact, we should have one, but it’s not because the Book says I should that I believe we should. The Book of Mormon also says it it inspired by God and we should follow it. I do not take that as evidence.

And finally, who is responsible for the interpretation of those 27 books? After all, what does Jesus mean when He says, “Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall not have life within you…” who decides what that means? It sounds pretty serious to leave to a mere fallen human being to interpret.

Christ left us a Church to guide us in all this and promised it would withstand the gates of hell. That is the true Church. Find it.

Tom

Tom: With respect, this thread is nearly SIX YEARS OLD.

It would be an excellent idea for you to start a new thread and “link” to this previous thread so that you can explore further. Many if not most of the people who posted are gone (and those still here were discussing this nearly 6 YEARS ago.)

You can still post a new thread and link as above. God bless.

 

[Doggg]

You wrote: “and this is all very enlightening, however if the chuch is not based on the bible then it is man made.”

Please identify this requirement in the Bible. On the other hand, Jesus said, “You are BIBLE, and on this BIBLE”… oops, sorry, “…you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church…” Mt 16:18. Christ established the Church (one Church) on a man, not a book.

You wrote: “And with man being a fallen creature, how do you know that men who carry the tradition did not alter it in any way. I believe that the church that God created is still here today however I don’t believe that it is necessarily the Catholic church.”

One might ask the same thing with respect to the Bible - From where did it come? Why does it necessarily have more authority than Tradition? After all, who did select the 27 books of the New Testament? How do we know those are the right books, or in fact that we should have a Bible at all? In fact, we should have one, but it’s not because the Book says I should that I believe we should. The Book of Mormon also says it it inspired by God and we should follow it. I do not take that as evidence.

And finally, who is responsible for the interpretation of those 27 books? After all, what does Jesus mean when He says, “Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall not have life within you…” who decides what that means? It sounds pretty serious to leave to a mere fallen human being to interpret.

Christ left us a Church to guide us in all this and promised it would withstand the gates of hell. That is the true Church. Find it.

Tom

It sounds like you are both agreeing and disagreeing with this:

if the chuch is not based on the bible then it is man made."

I agree, it would be good to start a new thread on the topic of how we know that the CC is the right one.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Your cooperation and courtesy in not reopening old/dormant threads is requested:

-1. the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally

-2. posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he is quoting was made a year ago).