If a Protestant Gives You a Bible

[concretecamper]

Of course it is. The problem is that the Church makes dogmatic and absolute statements. And then contradicts them with other dogmatic statements. And then claims that there is never any conflict.

There is no dogmatic statement that contradicts the one I posted about baptism.

 

[Dale]

Catholic Church has been learning from the Bible ever since they compiled it, and before - learning from the God who inspired the Bible too. Catholic Church is not, and never will be, Sola Scripturalist, because Scripture Alone ignores all of the rest of divine inspiration and revelation in nature, and in history since the First Century. The particular importance of Mary, for example, as an emissary of God, is not in the Bible, because God had not yet sent her as his emissary in the First Century. He has done that since then. Sola Scriptura is blind to whatever came in the Age of Christ, because nothing after the First Century is recorded in it.

That's a mistake that Catholics will not follow along in.

You are talking about Mary as "an emissary of God."



There are people in many parts of the world who claim to be having visions of Mary. The Catholic Church has not recognized or encouraged most of them. Incredible outpourings of nonsense are justified by "visions of Mary."



Take the appearances of Mary in Medjugorije in Bosnia. I have known Catholics who were fascinated by these events. Yet Pope Benedict XVI first disciplined, if house arrest is "discipline," a priest who was involved and later excommunicated him.



Vatican disciplines ex-spiritual director to Medjugorje visionaries
Simon Caldwell Catholic News Service | Sep. 5, 2008



[Franciscan Father Tomislav Vlasic is confined to a Franciscan monastery and not allowed to make public appearances.]


LInk:
Vatican disciplines ex-spiritual director to Medjugorje visionaries



Defrocked Medjugorje priest backgrounder
Thomas C. Fox | Jul. 27, 2009


[Father Vlasic has now left the priesthood.]

Link
Defrocked Medjugorje priest backgrounder

 

[PeaceB]

That's nice. Are you a sedevacantist?

Are you in communion with Pope Francis and the Catholic Church.

Was Vatican II a valid and binding Council of the Church?

Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church validly issued by the Teaching Authority of the Church?

Are you asserting that what the Church says NOW differs from what was said before (it does), and that THEREFORE, because of Vatican I, that the current Church is anathema? That sure seems to be what you're saying.

In which case we're already in schism.

1. Haha, to quote Vatican I is to be a sedevacanist?
2. Yes, I am in Communion with the Pope
3. Vatican II was indeed a valid council.
4. The CCC is valid.
5. I am saying your interpretation of what the CCC says and what you are promoting are both incorrect.
6. Vatican II did not define or change dogma. You MUST read VII and the CCC in light of Church Tradition.

Settle down boys, settle down. There is no good reason for two Catholics to have a dispute in front of a bunch of non-believers.

 

[concretecamper]

Yeah I know, that is why I am sticking to official Church doctrine and making succinct points.

 

[Vicomte13]

You are talking about Mary as "an emissary of God."



There are people in many parts of the world who claim to be having visions of Mary. The Catholic Church has not recognized or encouraged most of them. Incredible outpourings of nonsense are justified by "visions of Mary."



Take the appearances of Mary in Medjugorije in Bosnia. I have known Catholics who were fascinated by these events. Yet Pope Benedict XVI first disciplined, if house arrest is "discipline," a priest who was involved and later excommunicated him.



Vatican disciplines ex-spiritual director to Medjugorje visionaries
Simon Caldwell Catholic News Service | Sep. 5, 2008



[Franciscan Father Tomislav Vlasic is confined to a Franciscan monastery and not allowed to make public appearances.]


LInk:
Vatican disciplines ex-spiritual director to Medjugorje visionaries



Defrocked Medjugorje priest backgrounder
Thomas C. Fox | Jul. 27, 2009


[Father Vlasic has now left the priesthood.]

Link
Defrocked Medjugorje priest backgrounder

Lourdes is real - and look at all of the healing miracles that have poured forth therefrom.

Guadelupe is real - and was the impetus for the mass conversion of the Indians of Mesoamerica.

Marian visitations have changed the world for the better. The real ones cannot be disregarded, and their revelatory content cannot be ignored.

 

[Vicomte13]

6. Vatican II did not define or change dogma.

Well, that's the whole trouble: that is not true. Yes, the Church says it didn't, but it clearly did. For me to say it didn't is to state what is obviously not true.

It is perfectly clear that the CCC now says that unbaptized people who are not Christians and who die in that state, such as the Hindu in my example, can indeed be saved by God and go to Heaven. And that directly contradicts the doctrine you quoted.

It doesn't merely appear to, it does.

Faced with the contradiction, it does no good to say that it doesn't contradict. It is very much like those who say that there are no contradictions in the Bible in response to a clear contradiction.

What can be done about this?

A third party, another Catholic, has begged us not to dispute, so I guess the answer really has to be to just not discuss it any further.

But what that means, over time, is more withering.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The 1611 King James Bible actually has all the books of a Catholic Bible.

As for these later discrepancies, they are because the KJV uses a different text as a basis for translation, than many contemporary Bibles do. The KJV uses the Textus Receptus (which is actually closer to the text used by us Orthodox), whereas contemporary Bibles tend to use the Critical Text.

Can you see by my examples why I choose the NKJV? Does the EO have the Apocrypha or just 66 books?

There is one book that was on six lists of books that they chose from to include into the Bible. I personally believe it should have been included, but God preserved it and we can still read it today. It is the Epistle of Barnabas, and was read in all the first churches as it was believed to have been written by the apostle who partnered for a time with Paul.

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation Charles H. Hoole)

 

[Dale]

Catholics believe that those "extra" books are the inspired word of God.

Have you checked what Catholics said about the scriptures in the council of Trent and in the catechism of the council of Trent? As far as I can tell their views about scripture and about its role in Catholic teaching have not changed.

Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.​

From Session 4 of the council of Trent - source Paul III Council of Trent-4

As I pointed out in the OP, the reason that Pope Pius X wanted Protestant Bibles burned was because they don't have notes approved by the Vatican. The Aypocrypha isn't something mentioned in his catechism.


Since the subject has come up, the reason that Protestants don't include the Deutero-Canonical books is that they are supposed to be part of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, but the Jews don't accept them. It makes no sense to include a book as part of the Old Testament if the Jews never accepted them, especially since Jesus never quoted from any of them.


Take the Book of Tobit, for example. To me, it's like a cross between the Bible and the Arabian Nights. A man can't get married because a demon interferes but he finally drives the demon out using burning fish liver. I don't know anyone today who believes that the way to get the demons out of your house and your life is by using burning fish liver.

 

[Dale]

Catholics believe that those "extra" books are the inspired word of God.

Have you checked what Catholics said about the scriptures in the council of Trent and in the catechism of the council of Trent? As far as I can tell their views about scripture and about its role in Catholic teaching have not changed.

Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.​

From Session 4 of the council of Trent - source Paul III Council of Trent-4

Let me give a more precise answer to why Protestants don't accept some of the extra books in the Catholic Bible. As I said earlier, the main reason is that they are supposed to be part of the Old Testament but the Jews did not include them in their Bible, so Protestants don't include them either.


A couple of quotes from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.


Book of Judith

<< The Book of Judith does not exist in the Hebrew Bible, and is consequently excluded from the Protestant Canon of Holy Scripture. But the Church has always maintained its canonicity.

St. Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books which he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because "the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture ... It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council, but it is certain that the Fathers of the earliest times have reckoned Judith among the canonical books ... >>


Link
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Book of Judith


Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon

<< As far back as St. Jerome ... it has been felt that not Hebrew but Greek was the original language of the Book of Wisdom, and this verdict is so powerfully confirmed by the literary features of the entire Greek text, that one may well wonder that the theory of an ancient Hebrew original, or of any original other than Greek, should have ever been seriously maintained.
Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. >>


Link
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Book of Wisdom


These are clear cut cases. For some of the other Deutero-Canonical books, the original language is debatable.

 

[GingerBeer]

the reason that Protestants don't include the Deutero-Canonical books is that they are supposed to be part of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, but the Jews don't accept them.

Judaism is a religion distinct from Christianity and at times diametrically opposed to Christianity so what is accepted in Judaism ought have absolutely no significance for Christians in the matter of the canon of scripture. Judaism, by the way, is a post Christian religion created after the destruction of Jerusalem and deportation of Jews from Judah and its surroundings following the revolt of Bar Kokhba in 132-135 AD. The canon decided by Rabbis in Judaism came about after Christ and the apostles had already set the precedent for treating the LXX as Christian scripture.

 

[Vicomte13]

As I pointed out in the OP, the reason that Pope Pius X wanted Protestant Bibles burned was because they don't have notes approved by the Vatican. The Aypocrypha isn't something mentioned in his catechism.


Since the subject has come up, the reason that Protestants don't include the Deutero-Canonical books is that they are supposed to be part of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, but the Jews don't accept them. It makes no sense to include a book as part of the Old Testament if the Jews never accepted them, especially since


Take the Book of Tobit, for example. To me, it's like a cross between the Bible and the Arabian Nights. A man can't get married because a demon interferes but he finally drives the demon out using burning fish liver. I don't know anyone today who believes that the way to get the demons out of your house and your life is by using burning fish liver.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I could not care less about your personal opinions concerning whether the manner in which I read Scripture is sufficiently reverent. You know almost nothing about me. With all due respect, you can take your judgment and place it where the sun does not shine.

I know almost nothing, yes. I am only saying what I do know.

 

[concretecamper]

It is perfectly clear that the CCC now says that unbaptized people who are not Christians and who die in that state, such as the Hindu in my example, can indeed be saved by God and go to Heaven. And that directly contradicts the doctrine you quoted.

It doesn't merely appear to, it does.

I don't believe the Hindu in your example is saved according to the CCC. Therefore there is no contradiction. There is only an apparent contradiction because your premise is wrong. In your example the Hindu is saved by works only, which is not the Gospel.

 

[Vicomte13]

I don't believe the Hindu in your example is saved according to the CCC. Therefore there is no contradiction. There is only an apparent contradiction because your premise is wrong. In your example the Hindu is saved by works only, which is not the Gospel.

As I said before, and will repeat: we are reading the same text, and we are coming to different conclusions about what it says. To me, it is completely clear that it is saying that an unbaptized Hindu who followed Christ unwittingly - by being good and doing the deeds that Christ said to do - can indeed be saved, even though he is not baptized, and even though he never, in life, acknowledges Jesus, and even though the reason that he is doing the deeds is because the spirit has whispered to him what is right to do, not because he learned that directly and wittingly from Jesus.

You look at the identical text and come to a completely opposite opinion.

I've said that nothing further can come from this discussion, because we have reached a point where we are looking at the same thing and one or both of us is colorblind. We literally do not see the same thing.

I've shrugged my shoulders and walked away, but you want to return to it and tell me I'm wrong.
What can I answer, then? "No, you're wrong."

There.

Do we really need to go through a second round of this?

 

[PeaceB]

Do we really need to go through a second round of this?

Nope!

 

[Vicomte13]

Nope!

Agreed.

 

[kepha31]

Yes, I agree. Hence the Council of Trent was needed to establish doctrine for the entire Catholic Church.

Yes, that is correct. We follow the model of the infallible Jerusalem Council whose rulings were dispatched to the entire Catholic Church. Other councils followed as the Church matured. To say there would be no more councils after that is contrary to reason.

 

[kepha31]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

Read more at The Roman Catholic Church on Non-Christians and Salvation

 

[zippy2006]

That dogma, as simply stated as you have stated it, is qualified by at least two other issues.
(1) Unbaptized babies.
(2) The baptism of faith (such as occurred with the "Good Thief")

So, to state that baptism by water, without exception, is a dogma of the Catholic faith is to state error. There are dogmatic exceptions to the dogma. Simply put, it's not that simple.

There seem to be a few issues here.

First, what is the status of the dogma in question? I found the exact wording given by concretecamper here, and the source is clear that the claim is not without exception. Indeed, there seems to be no dogma which states that baptism by water is perfectly necessary--without any possible exceptions--for salvation.

Second, what is the doctrinal status of the Catechism? It is simply not possible to say that the Catechism has some sort of absolute doctrinal weight. For example, in the discussion surrounding capital punishment Ratzinger as head of the CDF explicitly said that Catholics are free to contradict the Catechism's teaching on capital punishment in a way that they are not free to contradict the teaching on abortion and euthanasia.

This example follows the general answer that the doctrinal weight of any part of the Catechism is derived from the source of that part (e.g. ecumenical council, local council, doctor of the Church, papal pronouncement, canon law, etc.). The Catechism represents the faith, but not all parts of the faith demand the same degree of assent. We can't just say, "Look, it's in the Catechism so it must be a dogma." That's simply not true.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Of course it is. The problem is that the Church makes dogmatic and absolute statements. And then contradicts them with other dogmatic statements. And then claims that there is never any conflict.
This latter claim is self-evidently false, and it causes the whole souffle to fall, leaving one with a mess.

It makes the Church sound just like Protestants when their logic fails: a retreat to authority.

And the problem with the Church's claim to absolute and unquestioned authority is that the Church murdered too many people and raped too many boys over the years to be trusted with absolute and unquestioned authority. It has lost the claim to unquestioned authority, and has to demonstrate its bona fides. Would you unhesitatingly and unquestioningly trust the babysitting of your young boy to the priests in the rectory? Not if you're a responsible parent.

So you have indeed put your finger on just exactly the problem. The Church blew itself up by murdering and raping people. It does not any longer have unquestionable authority. Its authority is questionable, and its agents are suspect, as the fruit of their own actions.

That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit is all gone. It DOES mean that simple claims of infallible and unchanging doctrine, when they collide with obvious changes in doctrine, can't be settled by an appeal to authority, because both doctrines had authority - and also because the Church has lost absolute authority: it and its agents are not entirely trustworthy or creditable.

We are thrown back upon reason, and upon our reasonable levels of trust. Had the Church not misbehaved so terribly over the course of time, this would not be so. But the Church murdered and raped tens of thousands, and so it is so.

The Church used to say in the absolute what you said.
And now it says something different.
The Church has indeed said that nothing can be changed.
But is has indeed changed things.
To claim that it hasn't is to be dishonest: it very clearly has.
What, then?
Well, most people choose the doctrine they like best, or that seems most reasonable to them, in light of SOMETHING.

In my own case, I compare everything to things that God has manifestly done in the world, and to the specific recorded words of Jesus. Whatever corresponds to reality or to Jesus (or ideally both) is the right answer, as far as I am concerned.

Other Catholics parse things differently.
Appeals to the authority of the Church don't solve things, because I don't trust the Church enough to babysit my little boy unsupervised, and that distrust and fear has been earned by the behavior of the Church. So it's not simply a matter of saying that a Pope said thus and so in 1871. A closer look at what he said, and whether or not it makes sense is required. Otherwise one ends up with the doctrine of 1871, in conflict with the doctrine of 2017 on important points, and in conflict with one's own reason and good conscience.

Ultimately, to hold the Church together people have to accept a pretty significant degree of ambiguity, because that's what we've really got.

If the Catholic Church is not guided by the Spirit of Truth, then that is not the Church Christ founded.