Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[qui_est_ce]

You have been told a million times that Scripture is borne from Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is what was practiced by the Apostles and their eyewitnesses. The Church came first, then Scripture.

Would you happen to have the source for this? This is the first i have seen this. My sources tell me the Jews as a whole accepted the entire protestant OT. They rejected the apocryphal books in part because they do not claim to be written by a prophet and there was no predictive prophecy in them.

If the church came before the scriptures what of the OT? They predate the church.

*It is a fact of history that in the time of Christ the Jews were in possession of sacred books, which differed widely from one another in subject, style, origin and scope, and it is also a fact that they regarded all such writings as invested with a character which distinguished them from all other books. This was the Divine authority of every one of these books and of every part of each book. This belief of the Jews was confirmed by Our Lord and His Apostles; for they supposed its truth in their teaching, used it as a foundation of their doctrine, and intimately connected with it the religious system of which they were the founders." *
NewAdvent.org

Read about the frescoes found in the Catacombs, the beliefs and practices of the early Christians. Since I am not the answer man (girl), I’m sure you could look this up yourself.

All this tells me is what someone drew on a wall. It may have been the belief of this person but that does not mean its true.

Yes, Michealangelo and Leonardo da Vinci were just drawing on walls too. That is why millions of dollars have been spent restoring their works. MA’s works, by the way commissioned by Pope Julius II, who believed in the Real Presence, as did all Christians at that time, because MA painted in 1505, b4 the Reformation.

]What about the gospel of Thomas, Protoevangelium of James?

Rejected. Is it not true that the some of the Marian claims are based on the Protoevangelium of James which is a false book and condemned by the church?

Thank YOU!! Our parish priest, who is also a theologian at the local Jesuit University, keeps quoting these writings in his homilies as historical evidence of some Biblical teachings. Can you give me a link where the CC declared this historical evidence as false and condemned as historical truth? I know these writing were declared as not Divinely inspired, but I did not realize they were considered false history. You know those Jesuits - way out there. Originally determined to undermine the Reformation, now so liberal; they have an agenda.

 

[guanophore]

. Is it not true that the some of the Marian claims are based on the Protoevangelium of James which is a false book and condemned by the church?

Here is an example of an untruth that you try to pin on the catholic church. It is a form of slander. The Protoevangelium did not get into the canon because it was not considered inspired. that does not make it a “false book” any more than the Didache is a “false book” because it did not make it into the canon. And while the book does not always represent theology accurately, it;s value is a historical document is important.

i have answered that elsewhere. No need to go into it here.

Yes, you have consistently stated that the Sacred Tradition from which the NT canon was formed are only the “speculations of men” and are not “scriptural”. Why go into that here, when you can derail another thread where it is off topic?

Is it not true that part of the claims of the immaculate conception is that she was without sin all her life? If so, how do you get that out of the definition above if it says absolutely nothing about it i.e. being without sin all of life?

I wonder how it would change your thinking if you accepted that this dogma is true. Could you try role playing? could you just pretend that it is true, temporarily, to try to get a sense of what the consequences might be?

The question is did He and what is the evidence that He did.

I think this is, like your other questions, disingenuous. I say that because you have already stated repeatedly that you have concluded your answer, and it is “no”. You consider this teaching to be the “specualtions fo men” along with the other Catholic Traditions, and your goal in asking it is to sway Catholics from their faith.

Since there are no facts for this assertion from scripture and a unverifiable historical claim that is quite late all you have is speculation.

This statement is a confirmation of what I said above. A disingenuous question. The real curiousity for me is, what is your goal in coming to a Catholic forum and pursuade Catholics that the tenets of their faith are “speculations”? Is this a ministry that you believe was appointed to you by God?

The evidence given has not been compelling. I suspect a lot of catholics when challenged to look at the evidence find it extremely troubling.

Perhaps this is the answer to my question above? Is your goal here to trouble Catholics?

 

[guanophore]

Not sure i understand you. Are you saying you don’t accept everything your church teaches?

I have chosen to accept and believe things that I don’t understand. I have made an act of faith. I trust that God will reveal to me all the things I need to understand, and those He does not, I do not need to know.

So to be a true catholic that person must believe and accept everything the church teaches. Is this correct?

That is my understanding.

Does this mean that in the future your church could come to a deeper understanding on some issue and it could evenually become SACRED TRADITION?

Sacred Tradition is part of the Divine deposit of faith that was made once and for all. Our understanding of that revealed truth sometimes takes a long time. Nothing is in Sacred Tradition that did not come from Jesus and the Apostles. I suppose it is possible that something will become clear that had been revealed but was not previously understood. Jesus made it clear that understanding would be progresssive.

What is your defintion of the Deposit of Faith?

I am not sure why you are asking this again, unless you are deliberately trying to frustrate me. I suggest you go back and read the threads from the summer on Sacred Tradition,a nd maybe something might sink in. You could also check the Library here at CAF on Deposit of Faith. I have told you many times that people’s individual opinions are irrelevant insofar as Church TEaching is concerned. If an individual has a 'definition" of some element of doctrine that is different than what the Church teaches, then to that extent, they are not Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

What i’m trying to understand is the exact nature of Sacred Tradition and tradition. To do that, i need to know exactly what these Sacred Traditions are.

No, I don’t think so, JA4. You may be slow to learn, but I cannot imaging that you have had this many threads about it and still do not know what Sacred Tradition is. However, If I am wrong, then the appropriate course of action would be some scholarly study. Instead of posting the same question over and over again on many different threads, go to the Catechism and meditate on what it says. You have confessed already to having a Catechism which defines this concept.

It is possible that you are so wooden minded that you cannot understand this concept. If it is any consolation, I share this condition. I cannot understand a number of things about the Catholic faith, and I just have to accept that this is the case. What I see with you is not a willingness to learn, or an openness to accept things you don’t understand. Instead I see a stubborn rebellion that likes to tear at the Body of Christ. This is a very sad state of affairs.

 

[LittleDeb]

Wow, I never put together that Mary lived with John for the rest of her days together with the John that wrote Revelation. No wonder he writes so much about the Queen of Heaven and Mary!!

I never knew how Protestants interpreted this passage, and often wondered, because it so clearly is Mary.

Thanks for your insight!

You are so welcome! I learned some of the Protestant interpretations from my husband. He was an Evangelical Protestant when I met him. Now he’s a card carrying 3rd degree Knights of Columbus, die-hard, Catholic.

He first told me about the “Ark” and how it didn’t make sense to him that it was a box in heaven. His former pastor had what we here at CAF would call a ‘literalist’ approach to Revelation. When I explained that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, all of those passages that reference her suddenly made sense to him.

I can’t believe that any individual Protestants try to interpret Revelation without the wisdom of the Church. Sola Scripture has led to the “pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, Rapture trap.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

The 39 books of the OT without the apocrypha.

Why only 39?

Mark is not part of the OT

Really?

i have answered that elsewhere. No need to go into it here.

So you accept that the Bible was compiled by the CC, which relied on ST to determine which writings were divinely inspired, yet you reject ST. Logical dilemma.

how do you get that out of the definition above if it says absolutely nothing about being without sin all of life?

, Well, she was conceived without sin, she was “Full of Grace,” she was the mother of God…

The question is did He and what is the evidence that He did.

Did He what?

Since there are no facts for this assertion from scripture and a unverifiable historical claim that is quite late all you have is speculation.

Why is this claim any less verifiable than the Trinity, the very existence of Jesus as son of God? The only reason we know about Trinity, the Divinely inspired Bible and other “umbilical” Traditions is that they have been consistently practiced by Catholics and handed down via Apostolic Succession for 2,000 years.

Again, i could make the same claim about all kinds of people in the Scriptures in which we don’t have any evidence where they were buried either. Should i assume they to were assumed into heaven? Would you accept that?

When you are part of the Church of Me, you can claim anything you want, Sola Scriptura, OSAS, Mary and Joseph had children together after Jesus was born, Jesus didn’t mean what He said about His flesh being true food, Peter was not the first Pope, the Catholic Church is a an unChristian cult…

It may have been the belief of this person but that does not mean its true.The evidence given has not been compelling.

So why should I believe you? Give me evidence (only the kind I will accept, though) that what the Catholic Church teaches is untrue.

I suspect a lot of catholics when challenged to look at the evidence find it extremely troubling.

Actually, the more I look at the evidence with which I and others have repeatedly presented to you, I am less troubled than ever. In fact, many Protestant pastors, when presented with this very evidence became troubled and ended up becoming Catholic: Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Matthew Arnold, Tim Staples, Steve Wood…

 

[juliamajor]

Would you happen to have the source for this? This is the first i have seen this. My sources tell me the Jews as a whole accepted the entire protestant OT. They rejected the apocryphal books in part because they do not claim to be written by a prophet and there was no predictive prophecy in them.

What i’m trying to understand is the exact nature of Sacred Tradition and tradition. To do that, i need to know exactly what these Sacred Traditions are.

No the whole hebrew bible was not canon earlier. THe prophets,and torah were- the writings were in flux even AFTER the death of Christ. It was literally up for grabs.All kinds of reasons went into making the canon -not a few were political.One of the criteria of OT canonicity is use in liturgy. Deutros were. “sirach” was known as the Church book it was so widely used.Sirach is also mentioned in the Talmud.It’s odd but Jewish people today have respect for the Deuteros even if they don’t consider them sacred.That’s more than I can say for Evangelicals though many are starting to see the value in them.too bad-so sad.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I have chosen to accept and believe things that I don’t understand. I have made an act of faith. I trust that God will reveal to me all the things I need to understand, and those He does not, I do not need to know.

Count me in on that Act of Faith. I still don’t get the Trinity, do you? I still don’t understand why God loves us and created us. Actually, I can’t even wrap my little pea brain around the whole concept of eternity.

I suppose it is possible that something will become clear that had been revealed but was not previously understood. Jesus made it clear that understanding would be progressive.

Not only does that happen to the Church, but to me as well. I can have read a passage a hundred times, and suddenly I understand it in a whole new way. Some of the passages that this happens with had even been previously underlined by me. Lately I’ve been focused on the Incarnation. Although I have always believed in it and taken it for granted, suddenly verses are jumping out all over the place for me. John 1, In the beginning was the Word…That used to be so confusing to me - too esoteric.

I am not sure why you are asking this again, unless you are deliberately trying to frustrate me. I suggest you go back and read the threads from the summer on Sacred Tradition,a nd maybe something might sink in. You could also check the Library here at CAF on Deposit of Faith. I have told you many times that people’s individual opinions are irrelevant insofar as Church Teaching is concerned. If an individual has a 'definition" of some element of doctrine that is different than what the Church teaches, then to that extent, they are not Catholic.

Really, a lot of theses subjects are too big for posting, we are limited. Volumes have been written, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, to name a few. JustAsking4it should read them if he really wants an educated answer to his questions. Assuming of course that J4 is genuinely seeking the Truth.

It is possible that you are so wooden minded that you cannot understand this concept. If it is any consolation, I share this condition. I cannot understand a number of things about the Catholic faith, and I just have to accept that this is the case.

Me either, me too. Count me as one who needs True Faith.

What I see with you is not a willingness to learn, or an openness to accept things you don’t understand. Instead I see a stubborn rebellion that likes to tear at the Body of Christ. This is a very sad state of affairs.

:crying:

 

[D317]

Your Posting #364…

You rock.

D317

 

[qui_est_ce]

You rock.

D317

Thanks!

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3227446]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The 39 books of the OT without the apocrypha.

qui est ce
Why only 39?

That was the canon that the Jews had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Mark is not part of the OT

qui est ce
Really?

Do you have doubt about this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i have answered that elsewhere. No need to go into it here.

qui est ce
So you accept that the Bible was compiled by the CC, which relied on ST to determine which writings were divinely inspired, yet you reject ST. Logical dilemma.

What is ST? Yes I rely on the early church of the 4th century that was used by God to determine the canon. I don’t reject all that the catholic church teaches. Do you accept all that your church teaches and has done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
how do you get that out of the definition above if it says absolutely nothing about being without sin all of life?

qui est ce
, Well, she was conceived without sin, she was “Full of Grace,” she was the mother of God…

The problem is that being without sin all her life is not part of the definition. That’s reading something into the word that is not there. It misleads people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The question is did He and what is the evidence that He did.

qui est ce
Did He what?

Did God have Mary assumed into heaven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Since there are no facts for this assertion from scripture and a unverifiable historical claim that is quite late all you have is speculation.

qui est ce
Why is this claim any less verifiable than the Trinity, the very existence of Jesus as son of God? The only reason we know about Trinity, the Divinely inspired Bible and other “umbilical” Traditions is that they have been consistently practiced by Catholics and handed down via Apostolic Succession for 2,000 years.

There are a number of passages that can be used to show that the scriptures do indeed teach that God is a Trinity. There are none for Mary’s assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Again, i could make the same claim about all kinds of people in the Scriptures in which we don’t have any evidence where they were buried either. Should i assume they to were assumed into heaven? Would you accept that?

qui est ce
When you are part of the Church of Me, you can claim anything you want, Sola Scriptura, OSAS, Mary and Joseph had children together after Jesus was born, Jesus didn’t mean what He said about His flesh being true food, Peter was not the first Pope, the Catholic Church is a an unChristian cult…

This does answer my question. It is you who is claiming she was assumed into heaven not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
It may have been the belief of this person but that does not mean its true.The evidence given has not been compelling.

qui est ce
So why should I believe you? Give me evidence (only the kind I will accept, though) that what the Catholic Church teaches is untrue.

Look for the historical evidence for her assumption. Look for it in scripture. What you will find in both cases there is none. Now ask yourself; how can this be true if there is no evidence for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I suspect a lot of catholics when challenged to look at the evidence find it extremely troubling.

qui est ce
Actually, the more I look at the evidence with which I and others have repeatedly presented to you, I am less troubled than ever. In fact, many Protestant pastors, when presented with this very evidence became troubled and ended up becoming Catholic: Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Matthew Arnold, Tim Staples, Steve Wood…

I remember listening to Scott Hahn who tells about his coming to the catholic church and he said the marian doctrines were the most difficult to overcome. My question to him would be why? Why was this so difficult to overcome?

 

[qui_est_ce]

That was the canon that the Jews had.

Can you substantiate that for me, please, because my understanding is that the various sects believed in various interpretations of Scriptures. Sadduccees did not belive in life after death.

What is ST?

shorthand for Sacred Tradition

Yes I rely on the early church of the 4th century that was used by God to determine the canon. I don’t reject all that the catholic church teaches. Do you accept all that your church teaches and has done?

A loaded question, but yes. I admit I as well as Popes and priests are sinners, but in matters of faith and morals, the CATHOLIC CHURCH is without error.

The problem is that being without sin all her life is not part of the definition. That’s reading something into the word that is not there. It misleads people.

into what?

There are a number of passages that can be used to show that the scriptures do indeed teach that God is a Trinity. There are none for Mary’s assumption.

Yes, but Protestantism has called all of Scripture into question. It has turned into a yes, but what is your version? Why should I agree with you about Trinity, but not with your interpretation of John 6 regarding Real Presence?

This does answer my question. It is you who is claiming she was assumed into heaven not me.

After all, it comes to Faith, and my faith is based on the belief the the ECF’s were followers of the beliefs and practices of Jesus Christ.

:
Look for the historical evidence for her assumption. Look for it in scripture. What you will find in both cases there is none. Now ask yourself; how can this be true if there is no evidence for it?

???Why do you accept Scripture, but not the Tradition that gives us Scripture???

:

I remember listening to Scott Hahn who tells about his coming to the catholic church and he said the marian doctrines were the most difficult to overcome. My question to him would be why? Why was this so difficult to overcome?

I remember it too, and Scott Hahn answered this question in the same recording you mention. Do you remember it, since you brought it up? Because I already accept the marian doctrines, I did not pay close attention to this part of Scott Hahn’s witness. I will revisit. But I would gladly hear your underdstanding of how Dr. Hahn overcame his difficulty with the CC teachings of marian doctrines.

Thank you.

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3241582]
Originally Posted by justasking4
That was the canon that the Jews had.

qui est ce
Can you substantiate that for me, please, because my understanding is that the various sects believed in various interpretations of Scriptures. Sadduccees did not belive in life after death.

Big topic and it would take pages to demonstrate. The Palestinian Jewish orthodoxy which included all the books of the OT that is in the protestant bible. This excludes the apocrypha.
For Christians we can answer which is the right canon by what Jesus and the apostles quote from. That goes along way in answering this question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is ST?
qui est ce
shorthand for Sacred Tradition

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes I rely on the early church of the 4th century that was used by God to determine the canon. I don’t reject all that the catholic church teaches. Do you accept all that your church teaches and has done?

qui est ce
A loaded question, but yes. I admit I as well as Popes and priests are sinners, but in matters of faith and morals, the CATHOLIC CHURCH is without error.

If only that were true that the catholic church cannot err. You have just admitted that its leaders are sinners and fallen. This in itself should lead you to believe that they can and have erred. i know catholics like to claim they cannot err because they are somehow protected by the HS from doing so. The problem is that Jesus never made such a promise to the church.
Third the scriptures actually warn of the possiblity and the reality of error in the church by warning that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. If Christ had promised He would protect the church from error this warning would be unnecssary and absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that being without sin all her life is not part of the definition. That’s reading something into the word that is not there. It misleads people.
qui est ce
into what?

Teachings things about her that the scriptures never do and contradicting the scriptures clear teaching that all men are sinners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
There are a number of passages that can be used to show that the scriptures do indeed teach that God is a Trinity. There are none for Mary’s assumption.

qui est ce
Yes, but Protestantism has called all of Scripture into question. It has turned into a yes, but what is your version?

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

Why should I agree with you about Trinity, but not with your interpretation of John 6 regarding Real Presence?

Each of these doctrines must stand on its own and see what the scriptures teach by looking at verses, contexts and word meanings. All these things would help to see which interpretation is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This does answer my question. It is you who is claiming she was assumed into heaven not me.

qui est ce
After all, it comes to Faith, and my faith is based on the belief the the ECF’s were followers of the beliefs and practices of Jesus Christ.

Are you aware that Jesus and His followers never taught that she was assumned? There is not one verse to support this for her supposed assumption. What this means is that your faith is not based on what the apostles taught in this regards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
:
Look for the historical evidence for her assumption. Look for it in scripture. What you will find in both cases there is none. Now ask yourself; how can this be true if there is no evidence for it?

qui est ce
???Why do you accept Scripture, but not the Tradition that gives us Scripture???

In some cases i do in others i don’t. I reject the assumption of Mary on the grounds that the Scriptures never mention such a thing nor is there any historical support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
:

I remember listening to Scott Hahn who tells about his coming to the catholic church and he said the marian doctrines were the most difficult to overcome. My question to him would be why? Why was this so difficult to overcome?

qui est ce
I remember it too, and Scott Hahn answered this question in the same recording you mention. Do you remember it, since you brought it up?

I just remember that he mentioned it but did not go into detail.

Because I already accept the marian doctrines, I did not pay close attention to this part of Scott Hahn’s witness. I will revisit. But I would gladly hear your underdstanding of how Dr. Hahn overcame his difficulty with the CC teachings of marian doctrines.

That would be interesting. i’d like to hear how he was able to believe in it considering the case against it is so strong.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Okay, I spent an hour posting, was about to submit, and then opened a PM and every disappeared.:banghead: So I might be a little testy.

Big topic and it would take pages to demonstrate. The Palestinian Jewish orthodoxy which included all the books of the OT that is in the protestant bible. This excludes the apocrypha.
For Christians we can answer which is the right canon by what Jesus and the apostles quote from. That goes along way in answering this question.

Until the Reformation, all 73 books were considered divinely inspired. Why did Martin Luther decide this to remove books?

If only that were true that the catholic church cannot err. You have just admitted that its leaders are sinners and fallen.

I said the CHURCH cannot err, not its humble servants.

This in itself should lead you to believe that they can and have erred.

I know the Apostles were sinners, yet I accept the inerrancy of their teachings regarding teachings of Jesus.

i know catholics like to claim they cannot err because they are somehow protected by the HS from doing so.

“what some catholics say” is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches.

The problem is that Jesus never made such a promise to the church.

The Catholic Church knew it had this authority and guidance because:

1. “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17)
2. “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, as come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)
3. “… I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)
4. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19)
5. “… it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 3:5)
6. “… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

For more than 1500 years the Catholic Church has accepted and taught that these 73 books of the Bible are inspired and make up the list of sacred books.

Jesus gave His Apostles and Church the gift of the Holy Spirit when He said. “… ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:22).

It is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead the Church in an error for 1900 years. Such a promise was made to the Church alone.

So the Spirit of Truth guides the Church in all truth, not an individual person.

Third the scriptures actually warn of the possiblity and the reality of error in the church by warning that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. If Christ had promised He would protect the church from error this warning would be unnecssary and absurd.

St. Iranaeus would not agree
""Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they ***confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, ***which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. …give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils

Teachings things about her that the scriptures never do and contradicting the scriptures clear teaching that all men are sinners.

The Catholic Church does not rely on Scripture Alone
John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

The many different interpretations by individual denominations: The meaning and necessity of Baptism, the Real Presence. Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, LDS, Pentacostal have such different theologies, based on the same Bible.

Each of these doctrines must stand on its own and see what the scriptures teach by looking at verses, contexts and word meanings. All these things would help to see which interpretation is right.

That would be nice, but see above. There has to be an Authority that safeguards the Truth.

Are you aware that Jesus and His followers never taught that she was assumned?

Well, she was still alive when Jesus died…

There is not one verse to support this for her supposed assumption.

Not Sola

What this means is that your faith is not based on what the apostles taught in this regards.

I will leave this up to others who are more knowledgeable than I in this area. I love our Blessed Mother and believe all CC teachings about her on Fatih.

That would be interesting. i’d like to hear how he was able to believe in it considering the case against it is so strong.

Do not underestimate the power of faith and truth.

God bless

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

qui est ce;3244204]

Okay, I spent an hour posting, was about to submit, and then opened a PM and every disappeared. So I might be a little testy.

sorry to hear it. That drives me crazy to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Big topic and it would take pages to demonstrate. The Palestinian Jewish orthodoxy which included all the books of the OT that is in the protestant bible. This excludes the apocrypha.
For Christians we can answer which is the right canon by what Jesus and the apostles quote from. That goes along way in answering this question.

qui est ce
Until the Reformation, all 73 books were considered divinely inspired. Why did Martin Luther decide this to remove books?

Not so. The apocryha was considered deutrocanical and did not have the same authority as the other 66 books. Luther had some serious problems not only with some the theology in them but some were just plain wrong on historical facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If only that were true that the catholic church cannot err. You have just admitted that its leaders are sinners and fallen.

qui est ce
I said the CHURCH cannot err, not its humble servants.

The church is made of these fallen men though and comprise part the whole. If the parts are faulty then so is the whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This in itself should lead you to believe that they can and have erred.

qui est ce
I know the Apostles were sinners, yet I accept the inerrancy of their teachings regarding teachings of Jesus.

i do to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i know catholics like to claim they cannot err because they are somehow protected by the HS from doing so.
qui est ce
“what some catholics say” is not the same as what the Catholic Church teaches.

the catholic church does teach this though. Doesn’t it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that Jesus never made such a promise to the church.

qui est ce
The Catholic Church knew it had this authority and guidance because:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joab Anias

1. “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17)

1. “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, as come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)

1. “… I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)

1. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19)

1. “… it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 3:5)

1. “… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

For more than 1500 years the Catholic Church has accepted and taught that these 73 books of the Bible are inspired and make up the list of sacred books.

The deutrocanical books were in dispute in the church and thats why they were put in at a “secondary status”.

Jesus gave His Apostles and Church the gift of the Holy Spirit when He said. “… ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:22).

It is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead the Church in an error for 1900 years. Such a promise was made to the Church alone.

I agree the HS does lead the church into error but men do.

So the Spirit of Truth guides the Church in all truth, not an individual person.

How do you know when an individual person like the pope being led by the HS? What are the “signs”?

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
Third the scriptures actually warn of the possiblity and the reality of error in the church by warning that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. If Christ had promised He would protect the church from error this warning would be unnecssary and absurd.

qui est ce
St. Iranaeus would not agree
""Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. …give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils

i don’t see how this quote disproves my contention that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Can you show me where?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Teachings things about her that the scriptures never do and contradicting the scriptures clear teaching that all men are sinners.

The Catholic Church does not rely on Scripture Alone
John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Can you give me a couple examples of the things that Jesus did that are not in the NT?

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

qui est ce;3244204]
Originally Posted by justasking4

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

qui est ce
The many different interpretations by individual denominations: The meaning and necessity of Baptism, the Real Presence. Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, LDS, Pentacostal have such different theologies, based on the same Bible.

Lets get rid of the LDS since they are not protestant. Have you seen in this list a different belief among them Who Jesus is and what He did for mankind?

i also find the samething in catholic circles about the various things even in the catholic church itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Each of these doctrines must stand on its own and see what the scriptures teach by looking at verses, contexts and word meanings. All these things would help to see which interpretation is right.

qui est ce
That would be nice, but see above. There has to be an Authority that safeguards the Truth.

What do you do when its shown the authority of your church has erred?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Are you aware that Jesus and His followers never taught that she was assumned?

qui est ce
Well, she was still alive when Jesus died…

So you agree they never taught anything about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is not one verse to support this for her supposed assumption.

qui est ce
Not Sola

So you agree its not in scripture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

What this means is that your faith is not based on what the apostles taught in this regards.

qui est ce
I will leave this up to others who are more knowledgeable than I in this area. I love our Blessed Mother and believe all CC teachings about her on Fatih.

Let me encourage if you have not already done so but to read the NT thoroughly. See if you find anything on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

That would be interesting. i’d like to hear how he was able to believe in it considering the case against it is so strong.

qui est ce
Do not underestimate the power of faith and truth.

 

[CTA1967]

justasking4, I would like to ask why you think the Bible itself is a reliable source at all. Could you give us your reasons why you believe in Scripture, but not Tradition?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

justasking4, I would like to ask why you think the Bible itself is a reliable source at all. Could you give us your reasons why you believe in Scripture, but not Tradition?

CTA1967:

Don’t hold your breath on this guy. justasking4 NEVER answers direct questions. He just hits and runs.

Good luck

Robert

 

[justasking4]

justasking4, I would like to ask why you think the Bible itself is a reliable source at all. Could you give us your reasons why you believe in Scripture, but not Tradition?

Big topic so i will be brief. Only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant. There is a lot of support for this.

I’m not sure what is always meant by Tradition. What is it and what are all the Sacred Traditions in the catholic since the beginning? I have a seen only 4-5 so far and i’m wondering if there are more.
Would you happen to know?

 

[CTA1967]

Big topic so i will be brief. Only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant. There is a lot of support for this.

I’m not sure what is always meant by Tradition. What is it and what are all the Sacred Traditions in the catholic since the beginning? I have a seen only 4-5 so far and i’m wondering if there are more.
Would you happen to know?

Okay, forget the Tradition part. You can search that yourself. Could you please just tell us what you find to be “a lot of support” for the truth of the Bible?