Protestant Traditions

[dairygirl4u2c]

don't forget the traditions of the bible being fallible as it is and which books to include, as well as the trinity and other understandings of the bible and what it means to be saved.

these are more binding to many protestants, so there are some they too require.

[sweetpea316]

[quote name='catholimaniac' post='1140375' date='Dec 12 2006, 11:14 AM']
I wonder if Lutherans believe Christ leaves the newly baptized after they have dried off, or that he leaves newlyweds as soon as they exit the church after the wedding ceremony is over?
[/quote]

That is a good point... as a former lutheran, i guess i never really thought about that. It's the same sort of thing really. And now, their belief about communion makes no sense to me. Maybe i never really understood it... but i'm sure glad to be coming into the Church where i can receive the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ!

anyways... carry on...

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1140022' date='Dec 11 2006, 08:16 PM']
Hello and peace be with you.

The argument is highly flawed. First of all, the church existed before the bible. For 300 years Christians had no bibles
Until the catholic church came together in the councils of carthage and hippo 393-397 A.D. (grab a hold of something) and put a list of writings together, and named it "the bible". This bible included the greek septuagint, 7 books from the alexandrine canon) Which Jesus and his apostles used. (which protestants reject and title "doubtful") Books, which by the way The writers of the new testament, referenced many times when writing it. :
We dont depend on men, by the way. We depend on God who works through them. It's something how protestants believe we rely on men, yet they believe their pastors are spirit led and they themselves are guided by the spirit. I sense selfishness and pride here.
[/quote]

Your statement is quite flawed also. First, the OT proceeded the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church existed before the Bible.

Second, the writings of the Apostles that made up the NT were in circulation which is why we can reconstruct most of the NT just from the writings of the early Christians. Athanasius had already put together the NT canon before the councils and many others had made almost complete canons before the councils ever met.

And if you want to be technical, your Church did not have an infallible list of Books until Trent in the 16th century so you guys were without a Bible for 1500 years according to your logic. Even people in your own Church were questioning the canon before the decision of Trent.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1140806' date='Dec 12 2006, 08:17 PM']
Your statement is quite flawed also. First, the OT proceeded the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church existed before the Bible.

Second, the writings of the Apostles that made up the NT were in circulation which is why we can reconstruct most of the NT just from the writings of the early Christians. Athanasius had already put together the NT canon before the councils and many others had made almost complete canons before the councils ever met.

And if you want to be technical, your Church did not have an infallible list of Books until Trent in the 16th century so you guys were without a Bible for 1500 years according to your logic. Even people in your own Church were questioning the canon before the decision of Trent.
[/quote]

You know I was talking about the New Testament, no one in their right mind would think the church came before the old testament.



Now we know that the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament were read aloud to the congregations of the Christians met on the first day of the week for Holy Mass (just as they are still among ourselves), one Gospel here, another there; one Epistle of St. Paul in one place, another in another; all scattered about in various parts of the world where there were bodies of Christians. And the next question that naturally occurs to us is, when were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the Old Testament to make up what we now call the Bible? Well, they were not collected fro the best part of 300 years.

So that here again I am afraid is a hard nut for Protestants to crack, viz. – That though we admit that the separate works composing the New Testament were now in existence, yet they were for centuries not to be found altogether in one volume, were not obtainable by multitudes of Christians, and even were altogether unknown to many in different parts of the world. How then, could they possibly form a guide to Heaven and the chart of salvation for those who had never seen or read or known about them? It is a fact of history that the Council of Carthage, which was held in 397 A.D., mainly through the influence of St. Augustine, settled the Canon or Collection of New Testament Scriptures as we Catholics have them now, and decreed that its decision should be sent on to Rome for confirmation.

No Council (that is, no gathering of the Bishops of the Catholic Church for the settlement of some point of doctrine) was ever considered to be authoritative or binding unless it was approved and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, whilst the decisions of every General Council that has received the approval of Rome are binding on the consciences of all Catholics. The Council of Carthage, then, is the first known to us in which we find a clear and undisputed catalogue of all the New Testament books as we have them in Bibles now.

It is true that many Fathers and Doctors and writers of the Church in the first three centuries from time to time mention by name many of the various Gospels and Epistles; and some, as we come nearer 397, even refer to a collection already existing in places. For example, we find Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, after the Council of Nicaea, applying to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, and a great scholar, to provide fifty copies of the Christian Scriptures for public use in the churches of Constantinople, his new capital.

This was in 332 A.D. The contents of these copies are known to us, perhaps (according to some, even probably) one of these very copies of Eusebius’ handiwork has come down to us; but they are not precisely the same as our New Testament, though very nearly so. Again, we find lists of the books of the New Testament drawn up by St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and many other great authorities, as witnessing to what was generally acknowledged as inspired Scripture in their day and generation and country; but I repeat that none of these corresponds perfectly to the collection in the Bible that we possess now; we must wait until 397 for the Council of Carthage, before we find the complete collection of New Testament books settled as we have it today, and as all Christendom had it till the sixteenth century, when the Reformers changed it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1140806' date='Dec 12 2006, 09:17 PM']
Your statement is quite flawed also. First, the OT proceeded the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church existed before the Bible.

Second, the writings of the Apostles that made up the NT were in circulation which is why we can reconstruct most of the NT just from the writings of the early Christians. Athanasius had already put together the NT canon before the councils and many others had made almost complete canons before the councils ever met.

And if you want to be technical, your Church did not have an infallible list of Books until Trent in the 16th century so you guys were without a Bible for 1500 years according to your logic. Even people in your own Church were questioning the canon before the decision of Trent.
[/quote]
The writings included in the OT did exist before the Church, but the Church is the one who declares them the authentic Word of God, just as she did for the NT.

Many writings were circulating in NT times, and of course there were lists made up by various Church Fathers, but the final list was ratified by the Church. Other writings while part of Sacred Tradition, were then not included in the canon, but still read and circulated but lack the authority given to the selected NT writings.

The Church didn't need to formally define the canon before the 15th century, simply because no one perviously had the audacity to challenge the books of the Bible. She only defines things when a particular dogma is attack by heretics.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1139940' date='Dec 11 2006, 06:43 PM']
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Catholic's are.[/quote]What you mistake for arrogance is simply a true statement of history.

[quote]What is your proof that your Church was founded by Christ? I am assuming your proof is from the Bible. Likewise Protestant's believe they are correct in their beliefs based on the Bible, not Luther or anyone else.[/quote]No, our proof is not from the Bible. Our proof is from history. The Catholic Church is not based on the Bible; rather, the New Testament is based on the living, dynamic, teaching Church that wrote it -- the Church first called Catholic in writing in A.D. 107, shortly after St. John the Evangelist died. The writer, Ignatius of Antioch, was a student of st. John's, a friend of St. Paul's, and was ordained Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter. He probably learned the name from the Apostles.

[quote]The big difference in our "faiths" is that yours is dependent on men while mine is dependent on God through his Word. I would hope we would both agree that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. As such, we place all our hope and trust in Him and His Word while your faith and salvation is filtered through men.[/quote]How do you know that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God? Catholics believe that because the Church that Christ founded declared it to be true. But what is your basis for believing it?

We hear this often, but the truth is that our Church was founded by Christ in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem and was taught by His Apostles. Yours and all other Protestant churches were founded by ordinary human men in or after the 16th century. Tell us the name of any non-Catholic church and we'll tell you the name of its human founder and the date of its origin. All other churches are man-made, whereas the Catholic Church is God-made.

[quote]As such, you need your men to validate God's Word while I rely on the Sovereignty of God to write, compile, and protect his Word.[/quote]The Catholic Church wrote the NT, canonized the OT and NT and compiled the Bible, and has guarded and preserved the Word of God down through the ages by copying it by hand for fifteen centuries until the invention of the printing press. A little knowledge of the history of Christianity and the Bible does a body a world of good.

[quote]And your men weren't even in full agreement until the 16th century when your Bible was finally declared by the Council of Trent.[/quote]Trent affirmed the contents of the Vulgate, which was translated by St. Jerome under the direction of Pope Damusus I. The Vulgate (A.D. 405) contained the canon first declared by the Council of Rome (A.D. 382). This same canon was reiterated by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). The canon was confirmed by Pope Innocent I in A.D. 405.

There were no changes in the canon of the Bible since it was originally formed by the Catholic Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, until Martin Luther removed 11 books and parts of Esther and Daniel from the canon of his German translation of 1532. If you're interested in pursuing this, we should start a new thread.

------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Edited December 14, 2006 by Katholikos

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1139940' date='Dec 11 2006, 05:43 PM']
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Catholic's are.

What is your proof that your Church was founded by Christ? I am assuming your proof is from the Bible. Likewise Protestant's believe they are correct in their beliefs based on the Bible, not Luther or anyone else.

The big difference in our "faiths" is that yours is dependent on men while mine is dependent on God through his Word. I would hope we would both agree that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. As such, we place all our hope and trust in Him and His Word while your faith and salvation is filtered through men.

As such, you need your men to validate God's Word while I rely on the Sovereignty of God to write, compile, and protect his Word.

And your men weren't even in full agreement until the 16th century when your Bible was finally declared by the Council of Trent.
[/quote]

Your in for a rude awakening when you die.