Which Bible? Whose Canon?

[_veritas]

ahimsaman72:

Do you believe in prophets? God does.
(etc etc…)

None of this in any way answered my question about just how you think you’re going to determine when a prophet is real or not. You are redirecting again.

I give up.

“…Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Sure. But, this is taught in the same way that the Church teaches that “without the church there is no salvation” – a teaching that did not change with Vatican II as some believe. NO MATTER how someone is saved, no matter whether or not they were in fact professed members of the Catholic Church, *if *they are indeed saved, they are saved through the merits of Christ through His Church… In the same way, as the vicar of Christ (the Pope) is the earthly head of the Church, ANYONE who is saved, is saved because of the merits of Christ *through His Church, *therefore, the saint in heaven, whether they believed it or not on earth, had and has a relationship to the Pope. It does not matter what you “think” – if you end up in heaven, you got there because of CHRIST (where we agree) working through His Church (where you don’t agree–yet).

Thus, all saints are Catholic, even the Protestant ones

BTW, the Catholic Church agrees with you that the Bible contains all that is necessary to know for salvation – including the granting of authority to the Church to continue cooperating with Christ in His mission of evangelization and teaching the world. Believe it or not, every single thing the Church teaches is Biblical. It’s all Biblical.

You should go find a copy of Patrick Madrid’s “Where’s That in the Bible?” You might be surprised.

You also might wish to read the Vatican II document Dei Verbum, where it is made clear the true relationship between the Church’s Tradition (capital T) and the Bible. Then come back and talk to us about what you think. Dei Verbum is online at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

God bless, you are in my prayers

+veritas+

 

[RBushlow]

Buzzard:

Is says that the church especially Rome
does not have the Authority to determine any “Canon”

Sorry, I just don’t see how you can get that from the passage. Can you please explain your reasoning in detail? Thank you.

Yours in Christ.

 

[ahimsaman72]

+veritas+:

None of this in any way answered my question about just how you think you’re going to determine when a prophet is real or not. You are redirecting again.

1. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
2. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I gave you the answer - you missed it - if the thing does not come to pass (a foretold event), then the “prophet” was not sent by God.

Sure. But, this is taught in the same way that the Church teaches that “without the church there is no salvation” – a teaching that did not change with Vatican II as some believe. NO MATTER how someone is saved, no matter whether or not they were in fact professed members of the Catholic Church, *if *they are indeed saved, they are saved through the merits of Christ through His Church… In the same way, as the vicar of Christ (the Pope) is the earthly head of the Church, ANYONE who is saved, is saved because of the merits of Christ *through His Church, *therefore, the saint in heaven, whether they believed it or not on earth, had and has a relationship to the Pope. It does not matter what you “think” – if you end up in heaven, you got there because of CHRIST (where we agree) working through His Church (where you don’t agree–yet).

Thus, all saints are Catholic, even the Protestant ones

%between%

God bless, you are in my prayers

+veritas+

God bless you too…

 

[Pyrosapien]

ahimsaman72:

I am amazed at your indifference to the greatest missionary the Christian church has ever known and an apostle of Christ Himself who was the only one to be added after the resurrection of Christ. You should check your sarcasm and indifference at the door and consider humility in light of the facts that Paul has apostolic authority in matters of the Christian faith, which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes and respects.

You state you are amazed at my indifference. If I had referred to St. Paul as “St. Paul” would you have then answered my questions to Buzzard? Paul is not the only Apostle added after Christ’s resurrection, Matthias was added to the ranks of the apostles as successor to Judas, (Apostolic succession in Scripture). Much as Karol Woityla is the 263rd successor to Cephas.

We know St. Paul, formally Saul the persecutor of Christians, after 1970 years of Apostolic teaching in both the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The question still remains, the gentiles of his time would have thought similarly to the way I phrased it: Joe Gentile “who is this Paul to tell us what to think, do, or believe.”

I’d now like to hear you, with humility, honestly answer the questions I posed to Buzzard. I apologize for offending you with my literary style. My sarcasm was not meant to be demeaning. The thread is titled “which bible? whose canon?” I was only trying to emphasize that Buzzard was using a Sacred writing and with respect to the point of this thread, I’d like to know why he, (and you) believe it is inspired Scripture.

Steve

 

[mayra_hart]

How do you know the Catholic canon is true?"

By the only way the truth of it can be known with certitude; that is through such a statement as appears in II Peter 1:21 – “the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit” – and Divine tradition, both vouched for by an infallible authority. Books cannot vouch for themselves. The writings themselves can never be proof of their being Divinely inspired; neither can reliance with certainty be placed upon our individual judgment, save God sends an angel to inform us, as He did “to His servant John.” Considering that such an infallible power does not abide, and is not claimed to abide in those churches that have rejected the Catholic canon of Scripture, they were devoid of the Divine power that is necessary to guarantee the canon with any degree of certitude.

Some years ago a Protestant professor, Dr. Marcus Dods, who came to our country from Scotland, said in his lectures, since published:

“If you ask a Romanist why he accepts certain books as canonical, he has a perfectly intelligible answer ready. He accepts these books because the Church bids him do so. The Church has determined what books are canonical and he accepts the decision of the Church. If you ask a Protestant why he believes that just these books bound up together in the Bible are canonical, and neither more nor fewer, I fear that ninety-nine Protestants out of a hundred could give you no answer that would satisfy a reasonable man. Protestants scorn the Romanist because he relies on the authority of the Church, but he can not tell you on what authority he himself relies. The Protestant watchword is: ‘The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible,’ but how many Protestants are there who could make it quite clear that within the boards of their Bible they have the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible?” (pp. 31-32, “The Bible, It’s Origin and Nature.”)

​