Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[thetazlord]

Wrong.
You contradict the direct and literal words of scripture.
(Edited)

Since (Edited) your assertion that the community Christ breathed life into is not God-breathed (inspired) is laughable and is nothing but a transparent agenda.

(Edited)

Really? Then I guess Thomas wasn’t “God-breathed” nor part of the “Christ breathed community” that He “breathed life into” since when He did it, Thomas wasn’t there. And it doesn’t matter that Thomas was at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended when the Church was actually established, because your quote was addressing when Jesus “breathed” on the apostles - which excluded Thomas. Plus, if they were actually “God-breathed,” then that would mean that they were incapable of error, just as God-breathed Scripture is incapable of error (otherwise that would be like saying GOD is capable of error, which is impossible). And if that were so for the apostles, then Paul shouldn’t have had to “condemn Peter to His face” (Galatians 2:11-12) for siding with the Judaizers. The apostles, including Peter, were just as capable of making false statements as they were before Jesus “breathed” on them. And that’s because your example you used isn’t what Paul means by Scripture being Inspired (“God-breathed”), which I don’t think you fully understand, nor took into consideration by using that verse.

 

[thetazlord]

Fair enough.

So a member of your church can proclaim that he believes that St. Paul is demonic and his epistles are all theologically incorrect and you wouldn’t excommunicate him.

He’d be free to worship at your church.

Well, taz, that makes your paradigm the most otiose of otiose.

You profess that Bible verse “A” means “X” and a member of your church professes that Bible verse “A” means “Not X”…and that’s as far as it goes.

There is no other authority to which you can appeal to tell him that he is wrong.

It’s just a standstill. You believe X. He believes not-X.

Both of you just have to shrug and say, “You’re doing exactly what I’m doing–praying and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance–but I guess we just don’t know for sure who’s correct, since we’re both FALLIBLE, eh?”

You’re using the extremes in the essentials of the Christian faith for your example, which is strawman. By saying Paul was demonic, you have the problem of God using a demon-possessed person to write Inspired Scripture, rather than His holy elect. If Paul was truly demonic, then we couldn’t trust anything that He wrote as being God-breathed. We also couldn’t trust Peter, since he said ALL of Paul’s writings were Inspired Scripture. We also couldn’t trust Luke’s writings because Paul stated they too were Inspired Scripture. This is completely different than the “non-essentials” of the faith which grants Christian liberty, like how often a church celebrates communion, which congregants can still remain in fellowship, even if they disagree. This is a far cry from whether to remain in fellowship if a pastor declares Paul was demonic. Obviously, common sense would tell you not to worship at that “church.” No offense, but you’re not thinking through your arguments very well. Please think through them before writing them?

 

[thetazlord]

In what?

A Master’s degree in, say, Elizabethan poetry is hardly relevant here.

Actually, I have nearly 16 years of Catholic school (including college), as well as a Master in Business Administration, which taught me “how” to study critically. I have also studied Hebrew & Greek.

That’s great.

But your position is that anyone can read these manuscripts and discern whether they are theopneustos–even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages should be doing this, rather than taking the Church’s word on this–so it’s not necessary to be “well-educated in the history of the Bible”.

That’s not my position either. Plus, how can “illiterate” peasants “read”??? They would be responsible for their level of education of ability to read (or lack of it), & the church would be responsible for their teaching them the Word of God properly (or improperly). But we are not illiterate. We are responsible & have the ability to discern what is & what is not God-breathed, based on the godly criteria that makes a piece of writing Inspired or not. You’re doing it again - using strawman arguments. Please think through your arguments next time.

 

[thetazlord]

Ho,ho. Sorry, I couldn’t resist myself.

The protestant canon is a sort of jack-in-the-box. All bizarre explanation is possible

The Protestant canon has the exact same books as in the Catholic canon, minus the 7 Apocrypha books that contain errors & contradictions in them, as well as the “additions” to Daniel & Esther that weren’t written by the same writers of those two books, but hundreds of years later. So, what are you saying? That God’s Word can contain errors & contradictions in them, since the Protestant canon doesn’t have these non-inspired books that you call it “a sort of jack-in-the-box”?

 

[adf417]

oooops! you forgot to answer the rest of what I questioned on the early councils. I really would like an answer to that if you don’t mind.

Peace!!!

Bump for taz…

Or you can go to this thread to weigh in and get an opportunity to see how other non-Catholics answer this question.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=946447

I REALLY would like you opinion on this and now also your opinion of the other non-Catholics that have weighed in.

Peace!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I have nearly 16 years of Catholic school (including college), as well as a Master in Business Administration, which taught me “how” to study critically.

Ah. Business Administration.

A Master’s degree isn’t necessary to learn how to think critically. I learned how to do that way back in high school. Catholic high school. Of course, this skill was reinforced when I went to college and grad school, but I don’t need to tell folks that it’s from my Master’s degree that I learned how to “study critically”.

I have also studied Hebrew & Greek.

Well, so did the “translators” of the New World Translation.

That’s not my position either. Plus, how can “illiterate” peasants “read”??? They would be responsible for their level of education of ability to read (or lack of it), & the church would be responsible for their teaching them the Word of God properly (or improperly). But we are not illiterate. We are responsible & have the ability to discern what is & what is not God-breathed, based on the godly criteria that makes a piece of writing Inspired or not. You’re doing it again - using strawman arguments. Please think through your arguments next time.

So Sola Scriptura is only a paradigm for the literate modern man?

How does that work again, for the illiterate peasant living in the middle ages? How does she discern whether the Epistle to the Hebrews (whose authorship is UNKNOWN) is theopneustos without giving her tacit submission to the CC? How does she know that the Shepherd of Hermas is not theopneustos when she doesn’t have a Master’s degree and hasn’t learned how to “study critically”?

Is the paradigm you’ve established that you get to discern what’s inspired only for the educated?

We are responsible & have the ability to discern what is & what is not God-breathed, based on the godly criteria that makes a piece of writing Inspired or not. You’re doing it again - using strawman arguments. Please think through your arguments next time.

Curious–does your spouse also claim to have read all of the over 400 ancient manuscripts and discerned, on her own authority, what’s theopneustos?

And did she come to the same conclusion as you (and the CC), coincidentally, regarding the 27 book canon of the NT?

Is she also learned in Hebrew and Greek?

You’re using the extremes in the essentials of the Christian faith for your example, which is strawman. By saying Paul was demonic, you have the problem of God using a demon-possessed person to write Inspired Scripture, rather than His holy elect. If Paul was truly demonic, then we couldn’t trust anything that He wrote as being God-breathed.

So it does sound like you’re being the magisterium in your church.

And yet you reject the idea of any magisterium telling you what you can and can’t believe.

This is completely different than the “non-essentials” of the faith which grants Christian liberty, like how often a church celebrates communion, which congregants can still remain in fellowship, even if they disagree. This is a far cry from whether to remain in fellowship if a pastor declares Paul was demonic. Obviously, common sense would tell you not to worship at that “church.” No offense, but you’re not thinking through your arguments very well. Please think through them before writing them?

Ah. My favorite segue: the essentials vs the nonessentials.

Can you give a list of these “essentials” of the faith? And where does the Bible limn that these are “essentials”?

 

[PRmerger]

The Protestant canon has the exact same books as in the Catholic canon, minus the 7 Apocrypha books that contain errors & contradictions in them, as well as the “additions” to Daniel & Esther that weren’t written by the same writers of those two books, but hundreds of years later. So, what are you saying? That God’s Word can contain errors & contradictions in them, since the Protestant canon doesn’t have these non-inspired books that you call it “a sort of jack-in-the-box”?

Is there a reason you accept (some of) Esther but reject Sirach?

Actually, I have nearly 16 years of Catholic school (including college),

While Catholic education is fabulous for providing critical thinking skills, as well as reading, writing and good old fashioned mathematics, the Church has been notoriously ABYSMAL in her ability to provide nourishing Catholic catechesis for her flock.

So I don’t put much stock in your ability to provide apologia for Catholicism based on your "nearly 16 years of Catholic school"ing.

In fact, I doubt that you could provide an answer to this very basic question: where do we use Scripture in the Mass?

(without seeking succor in Father Google )

Can you answer the above question simply based on your nearly 16 years of Catholic schooling?

And I am not talking, of course, of the Liturgy of the Word (which is the part where we read the first reading, second reading and Gospel).

I’m going by what Scripture STATES. YOU are rejected it, & “exceeding” it.

Actually, you are going by **what the Catholic Church states **is Scripture.

At least, whenever you quote from the NT you are.

You wouldn’t know it any other way, except that you are giving your tacit submission to the Church’s infallible discernment, that Hebrews is the inspired Word of God but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

 

[thetazlord]

You need to distinguish between inspired vs canon. A book not included in the canon does not necessarily mean it is not inspired.

That is conjecture on your part. You can’t back that up outside of your own personal opinion. All Scripture says is that Scripture is Inspired, not books not included in the canon. You are making are argument from silence. The canon of Scripture is Inspired, because it’s God-breathed, which is what makes it Inspired.

1 and 2 Esdras is in your Bible, aka Ezra and Nehemiah. This topic is about the Protestant canon, not how the Catholic Church got its canon. Please stay on topic. Diversionary tactics won’t work.

Although 1 & 2 Esdras is what the Catholic OT refers to as Ezra & Nehemiah. But the 1 & 2 Esdras that I was referring to that was in the Septuagint that the Catholic church removed is what Catholics refer to as 3 & 4 Esdra (since 1 & 2 Esdra) is in the Catholic OT. It can get confusing, but that’s what I was referring to. BTW, this is completely on topic, because since the OP is about the when the canon of Scripture was established, after I explained when, many Catholics on this thread have accused Protestants of “removing books from their Bible,” when in reality the Catholic church did the same thing. I was merely addressing this issue that what Catholics accused Protestants of doing, they did the exact same thing.

We have gone through the Ezra point before. I asked for evidence that the OT canon was closed then, you gave none. The OT canon wasn’t closed even around the time of Jesus. I am not arguing whether the Sadducees are right or not, I am disputing your contention that the OT canon was closed by the Jews during Ezra time or even Jesus time. You are repeating stuff that you know you can’t substantiate.

It’s obvious that the OT canon was closed by the time of Jesus, because Jesus Himself referred to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets.” And by doing so, He was acknowledging not only that it was closed, but also the canon’s Inspiration, because He referred to in in Luke 24:44-45 as Scripture, which Paul refers to Scripture as Inspired, or “God-breathed.” However, in Luke 24:44-45, Jesus “extends” the canon by referring to it as “the Law AND the Prophets AND the Psalms,” not just “the Law & the Prophets” which would have included the Psalms. Jesus does this because, unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees acknowledged the EXACT SAME books as being part of their canon as Protestants do, which Jesus doesn’t reject this in Luke 24:44-45, but affirms it. That is why when I brought up the Sadducees not acknowledging the Prophets, it was completely relevant. The problem for Catholics, is that they don’t have an answer for “why” Jesus sub-divides the OT into “the Law, the Prophets, AND the Psalms,” rather than simply “the Law & the Prophets.” Protestants do, because by separating “the Psalms” from “the Prophets,” Jesus was affirming the OT canon of the Pharisees that excluded the 7 Apocrypha books that are in Catholic OT’s, & by doing so, Jesus also rejected the Sadducees’ shorter canon the did not include “the Prophets” nor “the Psalms.” And the reason the Pharisees accepted them, was because Ezra - a writer of OT Inspired Scripture - established the canon during “The Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C. that only involved the Hebrew Scriptures, not the LATER 7 Apocrypha books in Catholic OT’s.

I accept just because the LXXX was translated does not mean every book in it is canon or inspired. And the Church identified the ones that are.

That’s right. The fact that the Septuagint translated both the Hebrew Scriptures “and” the Apocrypha books doesn’t make the Apocrypha Inspired. The fact that the Hebrew Scriptures meet ALL of the godly criteria previously mentioned & that Jesus affirmed them, while the Apocrypha doesn’t & Jesus didn’t affirm them, is what discerns the Hebrew Scriptures as being Inspired & the OT canon, while the Apocrypha isn’t.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[thetazlord]

[CONTINUED…PART 2]

You wrote a lot of verbage but none of them adequately addressed the questions I asked of you: Let me repeat.

1. How did you know or determine that the canon of Protestant Bible is inspired?
2. Who gave you the authority to determine the canonicity of your Bible?
3. When was the canon of the Protestant Bible finalised and decided by who?
4. Which Council determined the canon for the Protestant Bible? When was it held? Where was it held?
5. Did the Protestant Bible adopt the NT from the Catholic Bible?
6. Did the Protestant Bible adopt the OT from the Judaism MasoreticText Bible?

These do not require biblical answers so it should be readily answered?

Luke 24:44-45 does not discuss canonicity

Most of this is addressed above. To answer your other questions, when I read the Bible - both the Catholic version & the Protestant version, I noticed that the books in the Catholic OT that weren’t in the Protestant OT contained historical & theological errors & contradictions in them with previous & later Scripture, while the Protestant canon didn’t. And as I’ve said over & over & over again, “I” don’t have the “authority” to determine anything including the canon of Scripture, nor does anyone else, which is why I differ it to the Authority of our Lord, Who - through - Inspired Scripture in His Own Words (Luke 24:44-45) affirmed the canon of OT Scripture that the Pharisees recognized, which was establised prior to them by Ezra during “The Great Synagogue.” The canon of the Bible (forget “Protestant” vs. “Catholic” for the moment) was “finalized” by our Lord, which He revealed - first in Scripture with the OT canon, & second through the Church, which an “unofficial” NT canon was recognized as early as the second century, & most of it by Peter, Paul, & John by the first century. But it’s a mistake to “assume” because He revealed the NT canon to the Church that the Church has anymore “authority” beyond declaring what’s in Scripture, than the Pharisees did who also recognized the same books as Christians do. So, it’s a false assumption that Protestants “adopted” anything from Catholics, but instead explored the Scriptures & were able to discern 2 things: 1) the Hebrew OT Scriptures were affirmed by Jesus as being Inspired Scriptures, because they contained ZERO errors, while the Apocrypha didn’t, and 2) the Greek NT Scriptures contained the same godly attributes that the OT Hebrews have that also qualify them as being Inspired, which Paul, Peter, & John recognized most of them in their own Inspired epistles in the first century.

 

[thetazlord]

The more I read this, the more cognitive dissonance it produces.

Firstly, besides not being found in a single page of the Bible (#manmadetradition), it actually contradicts the Bible.
usccb.org/bible/matthew/23

and: Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.–Hebrews 9:17

Secondly, if you had been a 1st century Jew listening to St. Paul preach in the temple for 3 months (which, BTW, boggles the mind to think that you believe that*** everything he preached could have been written down***!), you wouldn’t have accepted it until you saw a miracle he performed?

That boggles the mind as well.

And, remember, since you’re claiming you don’t accept what others tell you, you would have had to witness this miracle first hand.

So, in summary: you as a 1st century Jew, listening to St. Paul preach, wouldn’t have believed his testimony until you saw him perform a miracle, first hand.

#astonishing

Actually, the NT does state that when Jesus & the apostles performed miracles, many of them believed. That’s “one” of the reasons we can trust the NT books is because many of them were written by apostles who performed these miracles.

And as far as “obeying your leaders,” in context, Paul is addressing obeying one’s government leaders, & addressing not purposefully rebelling against them, because God was the One Who placed them over us. But that doesn’t mean that we should blindly follow & obey what they say if it goes against the Word of God. Otherwise, you are advocating a government, or religious authority, who could potentially command you to “obey” their command to reject the Word of God. A government or religious authority is only as binding & true as it “obeys” to Word of God. So, whether I was a First Century Jew, or a 21st Century Christian, it would unwise of me to simply “accept” & “obey” anyone unless they were able to prove to me that their “authority” was actually from God. Doing otherwise is how false forms of Christianity, false religions, & cults form. (Edited) Plus, if you read Acts, you do find examples of people believing in the apostles, but only after they were able to back up their claims, such as when they began speaking in tongues (known human foreign languages the apostles couldn’t previous speak). As a 21st Century Christian, I don’t need to see miracles today to believe in the Authority of Scripture, because the miracle “of” Scripture is all I need accept, not the man-made “traditions” of fallible men, whose teachings conflict with it.

 

[thetazlord]

PRmerger:

While Catholic education is fabulous for providing critical thinking skills, as well as reading, writing and good old fashioned mathematics, the Church has been notoriously ABYSMAL in her ability to provide nourishing Catholic catechesis for her flock.

That’s one of the many reasons I left the Catholic church - that & the fact that they “assumed” that just because the Apocrypha was in the Septuagint then it “must” be Scripture as well, while at the same time removed books from the Septugint in their OT canon, while hypocritically condemning Protestants for doing the same thing with the uninspired Apocrypha.

In fact, I doubt that you could provide an answer to this very basic question: where do we use Scripture in the Mass?

(without seeking succor in Father Google )

Can you answer the above question simply based on your nearly 16 years of Catholic schooling?

And I am not talking, of course, of the Liturgy of the Word (which is the part where we read the first reading, second reading and Gospel).

Actually, Scripture is sung during songs & hymns during the Mass, as well as during communion, as well as other times during the Mass. The part that I notice Catholics completely miss is Scripture that is sung that says, “he who comes to Me shall not hunger; he who believes in Me shall not thirst,” which comes directly from John 6:35, which is the key passage that proves that Jesus is speaking figuratively about the bread & wine spiritually “nourishing” us, not that Jesus is speaking about literally eating & drinking His literal flesh & blood, because that would violate Levitical law (Leviticus 17:10-14).

The bolded section: very Catholic!

As far as Mary not being the Mother of God, but just the mother of Jesus, well, you put yourself in a precarious position when in dialogue with non-Christians.

All they have to do is say: “The Catholics call Mary the Mother of God because they believe Jesus is God. You refuse to do that…you don’t really believe Jesus is God, then?”

Also, it’s not a coincidence that Mary was declared theotokos at the same time that Jesus’ divinity was being questioned and denied by some. #Nestorianism.

Thus, an inability to call Mary the Mother of God translates to an inability to call Jesus God. #logic

What’s obvious from your numerous points is that you even admitted to only referencing “part” of what I wrote, only bolding that part & ignoring the rest. And by doing that you take what I say completely out of context, much like you do with Scripture - quoting a SINGLE verse (& sometimes not even that, but a “part” of a verse, completely out of context). If simply calling Mary, “mother of Jesus” & “mother of my Lord,” and not “Mother of God” means that I don’t believe that Jesus is God, then that would mean the apostles didn’t believe that either, because none of them called Mary “Mother of God.” ZERO! As a Catholic, you “should” be able to explain - Scripturally - how Jesus can be God, but that Mary is not the Mother of God, since God, Who is a Trinity, is not limited to Jesus, but also the Father & the Holy Spirit. You “claim” to agree with this (“this if very Catholic!”) yet you demonstrate your inability to explain this discernment between Jesus being God, but Mary not being the Mother of God, in your example with a non-christian. BTW, Scripture never refers to Mary as “theotokos” (God-bearer). This “title” attributed to Mary - as well as Queen of Heaven & Mother of God - are later titles ALL “borrowed” from the cult of Isis from their pagan goddess & attributed to Mary. Even its temples were converted to shrines for Mary by early Catholics. In fact, the ONLY place in Scripture where “Queen of Heaven” is used is to describe the pagan goddess of prostitution - hardly a title respectful to use for the mother of our Lord Jesus, since it’s never used in Scripture to describe her.

PRmerger:

Actually, you are going by **what the Catholic Church states **is Scripture.

At least, whenever you quote from the NT you are.

You wouldn’t know it any other way, except that you are giving your tacit submission to the Church’s infallible discernment, that Hebrews is the inspired Word of God but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

And by making those bogus claims, you just proved that after 170+ posts, you haven’t understood a single word I wrote about “why” I believe in the Authority of Scripture. You think that just because that is the reason YOU believe the Scriptures are Inspired, you false attribute “your” reason for believing in them on Protestants. You couldn’t be more wrong.

PRmerger:

So it does sound like you’re being the magisterium in your church.

And yet you reject the idea of any magisterium telling you what you can and can’t believe.

Again - no! - I’m differing the Word of God that is God-breathed, not fallible men.

Ah. My favorite segue: the essentials vs the nonessentials.

Can you give a list of these “essentials” of the faith? And where does the Bible limn that these are “essentials”?

It would help if you read your Bible, because you can find them in there.

 

[JMM1957]

thetazlord:

It would help if you read your Bible, because you can find them in there.

It seems all Protestants when asked about why there are so many of their churches differ on teachings, they say because there are essential and non-essential beliefs. You have been asked this question before and have dodged it continuously. If indeed you are are a learned Protestant, you should be able to give at least a basic list of the essential and non-essential beliefs. You go to great lengths disputing all other doctrines of the Catholic church and other subjects, but won’t address this question in the least other than saying “read your Bible, its in there”. Please give us this list, if it exists.

 

[adf417]

hi taz. Remember me? You seem to do a good job addressing the points that are all too familiar with people who come here thinking they will teach Catholics something but avoid other points that may make you see the bigger picture. When you get to the point when find PR insufferable, and i haven’t seen anyone here who hasn’t, I hope you don’t forget the simpler questions asked of you earlier in this thread.

Peace!!!

 

[stewstew03]

Is there a reason you accept (some of) Esther but reject Sirach?

(one for each time taz has dodged the question)

 

[adf417]

(one for each time taz has dodged the question)

That sure is a lot of popcorn you have there stew. Remember, this is a day of fasting and abstinence.

Peace!!!

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger:

Ah. My favorite segue: the essentials vs the nonessentials.

Can you give a list of these “essentials” of the faith? And where does the Bible limn that these are “essentials”?

thetazlord:

It would help if you read your Bible, because you can find them in there.

Aw, come on, brother. Throw me a bone here.

I am curious where the Bible lists these “essentials”.

Could you please give me this list, as well as the Scripture verse that maintains that it is an essential belief?

 

[PRmerger]

I noticed that the books in the Catholic OT that weren’t in the Protestant OT contained historical & theological errors & contradictions in them with previous & later Scripture, while the Protestant canon didn’t.

But how do you know if they’re errors or not, unless you had the original blueprint already to compare it to?

It’s like saying “the Gospel of St. Mark isn’t inspired because it says that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, but it doesn’t mention the exception clause. That’s an error.”

Or like saying, “The Epistles of St. Paul aren’t inspired because he says that he can save us. Yep. It says HE saves. And it also says we can save ourselves. Yep. That’s an error.”

Check it out:

If somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.—Romans 11:14

Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. "–1 Timothy 4:16

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, the NT does state that when Jesus & the apostles performed miracles, many of them believed. That’s “one” of the reasons we can trust the NT books is because many of them were written by apostles who performed these miracles.

No doubt.

But you wouldn’t read St. Paul’s epistles until you witnessed his miracles that backed it up. That’s scary.

And as far as “obeying your leaders,” in context, Paul is addressing obeying one’s government leaders, & addressing not purposefully rebelling against them, because God was the One Who placed them over us. But that doesn’t mean that we should blindly follow & obey what they say if it goes against the Word of God. Otherwise, you are advocating a government, or religious authority, who could potentially command you to “obey” their command to reject the Word of God. A government or religious authority is only as binding & true as it “obeys” to Word of God. So, whether I was a First Century Jew, or a 21st Century Christian, it would unwise of me to simply “accept” & “obey” anyone unless they were able to prove to me that their “authority” was actually from God. Doing otherwise is how false forms of Christianity, false religions, & cults form. (Edited) Plus, if you read Acts, you do find examples of people believing in the apostles, but only after they were able to back up their claims, such as when they began speaking in tongues (known human foreign languages the apostles couldn’t previous speak). As a 21st Century Christian, I don’t need to see miracles today to believe in the Authority of Scripture, because the miracle “of” Scripture is all I need accept, not the man-made “traditions” of fallible men, whose teachings conflict with it.

This sounds suspiciously like a magisterial proclamation. Like you wrote your own mini-encyclical.

Something that, peculiarly, you permit yourself to make, but recoil when some other entity (here, read: the Church that’s been around for 2000 years) does that for you.

 

[PRmerger]

(Edited)

Firstly, the Church apparently did a poor job in catechizing you regarding the heresy of Fideism.

It is a heresy to “blindly” accept any religious dogma in Catholicism, taz.

Fides quarens intellectum is the mantra of our Catholic faith.

Now, 'tis true that I accept, for no other reason save the CC told me, that Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas is not. But if you’re going to accuse me of blind faith here, then you accuse yourself as well.

For there is no other way for you to know it’s theopneustos, and the SofH is not…except that you, too, give your tacit submission and obedience to my Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, Scripture is sung during songs & hymns during the Mass, as well as during communion, as well as other times during the Mass.

LOL!

I’ll give you a C for that answer.

The answer, taz, to “Where is Scripture in the Mass?” is this very, very simple answer: EVERYWHERE.

Practically everything the priest says in the rubrics, as well as our responses, comes straight from the pages of the Bible.

It would take me too long to cite everything…but let’s see if you can cite where you find these responses/prayers from our Liturgy in the Bible:

• “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
• “Amen”
• “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
• “Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles; I leave you peace, my peace I give to you”
• " Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb."

Remember those, taz, from the Holy Mass?