How did they know what belonged in the Septuagint?
Do you at least agree that Jesus left us a teacher (the Church) to reliably interpret the Scriptures?
Not everyone sees it the way you do. And in good Protestant tradition, they have the right to disagree with you and, after prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit,come to their own understanding.
Now, the Catholic Church has a response to all of the above.
It’s not nearly as simple as that. The Jewish canon of their scriptures had not been settled in Paul’s time. The Torah was definitely “in”, and had been for a long time; the Prophets appear to have been mostly agreed upon; but the other Writings were not settled as being “in”.
And I would add to interpret it as well.
All of the above is a non-sequitur, AWM.
Indeed.
And then this:
You see how that leaves us going, “Huh?” :hypno:
Well, I suppose a parallel would be to your telling a Muslim that he cannot enter heaven unless he accepts Jesus Christ and not expecting a reaction…Telling a Protestant they are giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church and not expecting a reaction …
This is a mess. Some of it I said, some of it I think could be taken from what I said, some of it I don’t know how you got there.
God gave us the canon. He used the Church to do so, and to protect it and to transmit it.
We ultimately believe the Bible is the Bible because God works faith in us that it is so.
I did not say that I did not trust anything the Catholic Church has said. I think I said that tends to be a foundation for Protestant thinking, or something like that. I think the CC has had a lot of very bright people looking at important and weighty issues for a very long time. Their answers are worth considering. That’s not the same as
which I suspect you have as a hotkey on your keyboard.
I think we are talking past each other. I don’t even know what you mean by
Telling a Protestant they are giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church and not expecting a reaction …
The two are not separated. Jesus does not have a headless body. Either His Body is animated by His Spirit, or not. It is not a matter of “worshipping” His Holy Bride, the Church, but a matter of understanding how divine revelation takes place.
You are right, we do “get” that about private revelation, but the Church as a whole is not bound by anyone’s private revelation. Public revelation, which is given to the whole Church, must be received and ratified as such. In reading your posts it seems clear that you accept the Church’s testimony to the canon, which is part of the reason that you accept it as authentic. Do you believe a bunch of fallible people made an infallible decision about it’s contents.
I can see how it might seem that way, since to us it seems that your point of view makes the Church into a headless, souless, body of Christ. To us, the Church is incarnational, with both divine and human elements, just as Jesus is incarnated. Our Head is divine, and we believe that the Soul of the Church, infused on Pentecost, is the Holy Spirit. So to us, there is no dichotomy or separation when God is working through the Church.
It is very Catholic of you to say that!
That sounds like a topic for a new thread!
You hit the nail on the head, Tomyris. It boils down to how we can deternine and rely on what is Truth.
You are right of course, I was referring rather to those ecclesial communities that reject any role of Sacred Tradition, and indeed, the entire concept. They also reject conciliar authority, usually because they don’t know and understand the history of their own faith.
Or is it more the devil is in the details ?AMEN…Could not agree more…
My very simplistic take on this is that what occurs is what I like to call the “yea but what if…” syndrome.
Jesus said forgive…Peter says “how many times”?
The Rich young man says what must I do…Jesus says to obey the commandments…the RYM replies “what else?”…and so it goes.
Likewise the Church issues some teaching, and someone says “yea but what if…” and the Church tries to explain…and then someone else asks “Yea but what if…”
This goes on for 2000 years and you wind up with a VERY fat book of teachings…
The “Yea but what if…” syndrome…
Peace
James
No I don’t truly see how or why it should leave you going “huh?”. I honestly don’t know why it would. God can use whoever He wants at any given time for His purposes. He’s God.
Again, only the CC has infallibility ? Revelations gives the picture of possible infallibility if the church listens to Him. Apparently only 2 of the 7 churches had overall good reports. It seems conditional and that the remnant maintaining in that promise may be other churches is reasonable.
You get quickly to the point, Tomy. Not all the sects accepted the Septuagint. Paul did because he was a Pharisee, but the Saducees accepted only the Pentateuch. This is why they used to argue with Jesus all the time about theological concepts not found in them, and how Paul was able to turn the Sanhedrin against itself. It is also the reason that they were “sad-you see”, since they did not accept afterlife and angels and many other concepts.
Hee Hee…Yea - something like that…LOL
I probably won’t do a very good job here, but let me see if I can help you see why we go “huh?”No I don’t truly see how or why it should leave you going “huh?”. I honestly don’t know why it would. God can use whoever He wants at any given time for His purposes. He’s God.
When you read Revelations - Do you see these Churches (Ekklesia = communities in the Greek) as being independent of each other or rather as locations of the same “Church”?
:sad_yes: