catholic answers forum BANNED

Fra Angelo

I too wish if all Christians could be united. But I don't think that Catholic Church can compromise its teachings, for it believes in the legitimacy of the Sacred Scriptures as well as the Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium. Apart from these three things there is no existence for the Church. We all agree that there are 27 books in NT., but how can we be sure that only these books are inspired? I would say, because the Church has used its authority to declare them as inspired towards the end of the 4th cent. and it is traditionally believed so. While accepting the NT books the Protestants are indirectly accepting the tradition and the authority of the Church - I mean the Catholic Church. Because Jesus has never said about the canonicity of the New Testament; neither do the Scriptures although it talks about the canonicity of the OT. Therefore we have to rely on the decision which the Church took during the Council of Rome around 380 AD.
And also the Magesterium is very important for the Catholic life. We see the difficulty of the lack of authority in the Protestant fields. All interpret the Bible as they want and we have countless no.of Churches in the world. All claim that theirs is the correct interpretation for they attribute them to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or the authority of the Bible, but I wonder how could Holy Spirit teach people the Scriptures in different way and cause disunity among the Christians, for the will of Jesus is the unity of his faithful. Catholics however have been standing united from the very beginning of its existance because we believe in the authority which Jesus performs through the apostolic succession and in the person of the Bp of Rome, the worthy successor of St. Peter.

Attejohannes · #**617** Jan 30, '13, 1:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fra Angelo

I too wish if all Christians could be united. But I don't think that Catholic Church can compromise its teachings, for it believes in the legitimacy of the Sacred Scriptures as well as the Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium. Apart from these three things there is no existence for the Church. We all agree that there are 27 books in NT., but how can we be sure that only these books are inspired? I would say, because the Church has used its authority to declare them as inspired towards the end of the 4th cent. and it is traditionally believed so. While accepting the NT books the Protestants are indirectly accepting the tradition and the authority of the Church - I mean the Catholic Church. Because Jesus has never said about the canonicity of the New Testament; neither do the Scriptures although it talks about the canonicity of the OT. Therefore we have to rely on the decision which the Church took during the Council of Rome around 380 AD.
And also the Magesterium is very important for the Catholic life. We see the difficulty of the lack of authority in the Protestant fields. All interpret the Bible as they want and we have countless no.of Churches in the world. All claim that theirs is the correct interpretation for they attribute them to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or the authority of the Bible, but I wonder how could Holy Spirit teach people the Scriptures in different way and cause disunity among the Christians, for the will of Jesus is the unity of his faithful. Catholics however have been standing united from the very beginning of its existance because we believe in the authority which Jesus performs through the apostolic succession and in the person of the Bp of Rome, the worthy successor of St. Peter.

Well, I think we agree. Catholic church cannot compromise its teachings. Neither can protestants repudiate their faith. Individual conversions occur, to both directions, but that whole denominations would "repent" and reject their most precious techings for the sake of unity is not likely and I do not see it even as a positive thing. Unity is good but not on the sacrifice of what each side consider as inspired truth.

So let us agree to stay amicably apart. It is better that the Unity that was upheld at the time of reformation, not with love and doctrinal reasoning, but force (as I have said before in one of my postings, jail and stake were the ways to treat the dissenters - among catholics and protestants alike)

Fra Angelo · #**618** Jan 30, '13, 1:19 am

Still I wish for the Christian unity and as a Catholic I pray that there may be one shepherd and one flock. Can the mystical body be torn into pieces? No. Can Christ have more than one Church as his bride? I think no. May the good Lord grant us wisdom, understanding and discernment to unite in the name of our God. Amen

Attejohannes · #**619** Jan 30, '13, 1:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fra Angelo

Still I wish for the Christian unity and as a Catholic I pray that there may be one shepherd and one flock. Can the mystical body be torn into pieces? No. Can Christ have more than one Church as his bride? I think no. May the good Lord grant us wisdom, understanding and discernment to unite in the name of our God. Amen

That we may pray, but I am at loss what else we can do.

I live in a country with very few Catholics, but with Eastern Orthodox church as a minority church. Some of my best friends and close relatives belong to that church, and when I visit their Eucharistic services (naturally as a non-communicating guest) it warms my heart, every time when the deacon prays "...for all holy Churches of God perseverance and the union of them all ..." and "may God in His Kingdom remember you, all othodox Christians and all the Christians..."

That much charity I think we owe for each other.

Porknpie · #**620** Jan 30, '13, 3:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

Well, when Einstein heard that 30 German university professors had together condemned his theory of general realtivity as erroneous and unscientific, he repsonded: "If it is erroneous and unscientific, just one professor would be enough..."

Johan -

First welcome....

If Church doctrine was in error for 100 years, 200 years, 300 years...let alone 1,500 years, it would mean Jesus words were wrong when he said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to all Truth and that the Church was the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Einstein? Smart man...not perfect...and not given by God knowledge of all Truth. Here's the first paragraph from wiki... source of some Truth.

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility."[1]

Now thanks to you I'll have to research Einstein's god "Baruch Spinoza"...

Always learning something new on CAF.

**PRmerger** · #**621** Jan 30, '13, 6:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

I try to respond to several answers addressed to me. Thank you for sending them.

Regarding my accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church because of my acceptance the Scriptures as my authority:

Luther did not come out of nothing. He was a learned Augustinian friar and a Professor of theology, and felt that he never dissented from the ancient traditions. He thought that he upheld them, when the Church had neglected them. He considered himself a conservative and not a radical. His maxim that "Church should be continuously reformed" is followed by the often forgotten continuation "according to the instructions of the Word of God". He always maintained that Catholic Church has valid Baptism, valid Eucharist (although he critizised certain practices) and valid Reconciliation. And of course he believed that the Scriptures contained the essentials of the doctrin and everything that was necessary for salvation.

In that sense he believed the continuity of the doctrin and that a necessary element of truth will alvays prevail despite all human errors and fallibility.

As in one of my previous postings I explained what we Lutherans believe when we say the creed and confess our belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To us it means that until the end of days there will be people, however few at times, who believe in Christ and put their hope of Salvation on him, while the rites and ceremonies may differ.

I am sorry. I am not following your reasoning here. How is it that you can know that canon of Scripture is inspired, except through the infallible charism given to the Catholic Church?

What other way are you offering as an explanation?

CopticChristian · #**622** Jan 30, '13, 6:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

Well, when Einstein heard that 30 German university professors had together condemned his theory of general realtivity as erroneous and unscientific, he repsonded: "If it is erroneous and unscientific, just one professor would be enough..."

Jones,

So, are you saying that Einstien is the source of all Christian thought? Explain what it is you are saying.

Attejohannes · #**623** Jan 30, '13, 6:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Jones,

So, are you saying that Einstien is the source of all Christian thought? Explain what it is you are saying.

No, Einstein is not an authority regarding religion, Christian or any other, regarding physics, he is. I just mentioned this anecdote to illustrate that the validity or truthfulness of a statement is not a majority decision. An individual maybe right (like say Luther or Einstein), while the majority is wrong. Chritians themselves were a very small minority, once, opposing the whole Jewish biblical and doctrinal learning.

Attejohannes · #**624** Jan 30, '13, 7:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

I am sorry. I am not following your reasoning here. How is it that you can know that canon of Scripture is inspired, except through the infallible charism given to the Catholic Church?

What other way are you offering as an explanation?

We accept the old testament from Jewish sources, although we do not share their views and certainly do not regard Jews having an infallible charism regarding the interpretation of the OT.

A person, or institution can be right in certain matters, wrong in others. To equate the customs, beliefs and practices of the 16th century Catholic church to the beliefs and practices of the first centuries is, on the basis of the known history, quite a leap - well, maybe a leap of faith but leap still. The desire ot Luther was go to the roots, the most original and ancient Christian witness there was and is. He found the Scriptures.

**PRmerger** · #**625** Jan 30, '13, 7:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

A person, or institution can be right in certain matters, wrong in others.

Fair enough.

How do you know, then, that the Church got it right in keeping Hebrews in the canon and excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?

You base this on what?

You cannot use Scripture here as your foundation--but must use some other criteria for declaring that the Church got it right here. What is that foundation?

Attejohannes · #**626** Jan 30, '13, 7:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Fair enough.

How do you know, then, that the Church got it right in keeping Hebrews in the canon and excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?

You base this on what?

You cannot use Scripture here as your foundation--but must use some other criteria for declaring that the Church got it right here. What is that foundation?

The Shephard of Hermas, I believe, does not claim to have any apostolic authority, clearly being from postapostolic date. Neither do we have epistles of St. Ignatius, St. Polycarpos, or the martyrio of Polycarpos, allthough they are extremely instructive to read.
Nor do we have Didache (despite it delightfully protestant flavour) etc.

**PRmerger** · #**627** Jan 30, '13, 7:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

The Shephard of Hermas, I believe, does not claim to have any apostolic authority, clearly being from postapostolic date. Neither do we have epistles of St. Ignatius, St. Polycarpos, or the martyrio of Polycarpos, allthough they are extremely instructive to read.
Nor do we have Didache (despite it delightfully protestant flavour) etc.

Where do you get the view that something must claim apostolic authority in order to be considered inspired?

What verse says that?

At any rate, where does Hebrews say that it was written by an apostle?

And was Luke an Apostle?

And who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Was he an apostle?

Attejohannes · #**628** Jan 30, '13, 7:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Where do you get the view that something must claim apostolic authority in order to be considered inspired?

What verse says that?

At any rate, where does Hebrews say that it was written by an apostle?

And was Luke an Apostle?

And who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Was he an apostle?

The Hebrews makes a reference to Timothy (hebrews 13, 26). Luke was the companion of Paul, and Markus is mentioned in the Acts (and of course you know the testimony of Papias about his association with Peter, but I restrict my points to the internal witness of the Scriptures). So the known and unknown authors are within the circle of apostles and certainly lived in the apostolic age.

**PRmerger** · #**629** Jan 30, '13, 7:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

The Hebrews makes a reference to Timothy (hebrews 13, 26).

What does this have to do with inspiration?

I could write something and refer to 1 Timothy--that doesn't make my writing inspired.

You need to come up with a list of criteria that you use to discern whether the over 400 ancient Christian texts are inspired or not.

You must create that list that is able to include 3 John, Hebrews, Philemon, the Gospel of Mark, but excludes the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Acts of Barnabas, etc etc etc.

And then provide the source for your list--does it come from Scripture? Or do you compile it based on some other rationale, like Tradition.

**PRmerger** · #**630** Jan 30, '13, 7:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

Luke was the companion of Paul,

Ignatius was a companion of St. John.

Why do you not consider his writings inspired?

Friday, May 24, 2013

Where do you get the view that something must claim apostolic authority in order to be considered inspired? What verse says that? At any rate, where does Hebrews say that it was written by an apostle?