Ukuts gp: I have another question and the question is: why do the catholic add their traditional and tales by moonlight story book to their bible?

italo: My earlier statement regarding this is not a categorical statement meaning the principle for the Canon of the NT is not in the Bible. I said, 'if I must give you one tradition that isnt in the Bible.' I deliberately pointed that out because you Protestants expect everything "scriptural" to be explicitly spelt out in Scripture. So based on your Protestant belief, none of you can tell me that the Canon of the New Testament is scriptural, rather, it is Tradition, yet you adhere to it. That's the point I was trying to drive home.But indeed, the Principle for every Tradition can be found in scripture, to one degree or another, even the Canon of the NT.That's the contradiction in their theology we have been pointing out for ages. In sticking to the 27 books (not explicitly listed in the Bible), they put their faith in Catholic Tradition.In even accepting the authorship and authenticity of the books of the NT, they put their faith in Catholic Tradition. But in the usage and interpretation of the same books, they reject and then demonize Catholic Tradition.That is the gross contradiction and hypocrisy that we complain about.

Enigma: Ah, interesting that Roman Catholics on this thread now seem to have abandoned the claim that Damasus was the first to "canonise" the Bible at some council of Rome in 382. Of course that claim has to be abandoned because, as we have shown, it is a lie based on a forged document.

But then we still see the claim that "the canon was first decided at Hippo". This is another lie of course but the Roman Catholics have to hang onto it because otherwise the false claim that the Roman Catholics canonised the Bible in the 4th century is completely shattered. Let us set the lie in stark relief for the benefit of people genuinely interested in understanding these matters.

1. There is no canon that Roman Catholics can produce from Hippo! Some of them try to claim that they can use the later councils of Carthage to "reconstruct" what must have happened at Hippo. They are not to be trusted as it is believed that they are even tampering with the documents from Carthage!

2. Neither Hippo nor Carthage was a Roman Catholic council. They were only regional or "provincial" African councils as even leading Roman Catholics including "Cardinal" Cajetan admit!

3. If we stick to the 4th century alone, the canon and list presented by Athanasius in AD 367 came before anything that Roman Catholics can claim as a canon that they made.

4. In any event, the canon of the Bible dates back to the late first century before there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church.

italo: My earlier statement regarding this is not a categorical statement meaning the principle for the Canon of the NT is not in the Bible. I said, 'if I must give you one tradition that isnt in the Bible.' I deliberately pointed that out because you Protestants expect everything "scriptural" to be explicitly spelt out in Scripture. So based on your Protestant belief, none of you can tell me that the Canon of the New Testament is scriptural, rather, it is Tradition, yet you adhere to it.

italo:
That's the point I was trying to drive home.But indeed, the Principle for every Tradition can be found in scripture, to one degree or another, even the Canon of the NT.That's the contradiction in their theology we have been pointing out for ages.In sticking to the 27 books (not explicitly listed in the Bible), they put their faith in Catholic Tradition.In even accepting the authorship and authenticity of the books of the NT, they put their faith in Catholic Tradition. But in the usage and interpretation of the same books, they reject and then demonize Catholic Tradition.That is the gross contradiction and hypocrisy that we complain about.

truthislight:
The 27 books of the NT are not "catholic traditions" or anything remotely resembling succh. Since such a word began to be used in the 2nd ce.


And all 27 books are products of the 1st century ce.

The teaching of the NT are exclusive of the apostles of christ for christians.

Luke and Mark are disciples of christ and in close association with the apostles as can be seen from the reading of the book of 'Acts of the apostles'.

This Two individual did not angaged in 'teaching', but reported History.

When you look at the NT from hence, you know how it came about, hence completely and absolutely devoid of anything referencing it as "catholic traditions".

How this books whose writing was all done in the 1st century ce can be called "catholic tradition" when the word catholic was first ever use in the 2nd century beats reasonable reasons.

The NT then is the product of christ Apostles. QED.

If any other book or books should join in the writings of christ Apostles, you first have to prove that the writer of the book or books was an apostle of christ Jesus.

This line is a streight line.

Any that wish to confused it is only confusing himself in an effort to asign the effort of the apostles to RCC.

May the reader use decernment.

Peace.

Enigma: I wish to say one thing here about "tradition" as used by Roman Catholics. Many Roman Catholics, and even more so on Nairaland, are actually not even clear on what their denomination means by "tradition". There are also some who simply use the word "tradition" for anything they do that cannot be supported by Scripture.

On the other hand, Roman Catholic teaching is that for "tradition" to be upheld, it must be uniformly supported by the "church fathers". Thus if there is disagreement among the "fathers" the teaching is not really established

Enigma: I wish to say one thing here about "tradition" as used by Roman Catholics. Many Roman Catholics, and even more so on Nairaland, are actually not even clear on what their denomination means by "tradition". There are also some who simply use the word "tradition" for anything they do that cannot be supported by Scripture.

On the other hand, Roman Catholic teaching is that for "tradition" to be upheld, it must be uniformly supported by the "church fathers". Thus if there is disagreement among the "fathers" the teaching is not really established

adsonstone:

my answer: NO

Kindly re-read Italo's post that prompted that reply.

By the way, He has replied and his respose is quite satisfactory.

DrummaBoy: It is my hope that Pentecostals can read this thread and see what the error of General Overseerism can lead; from the way Roman Catholics have turned Christ's innocuous words to Peter to Him ordaining peter a pope with possibility of a successor. Indeed the Reformation is the greatest to Christ body following His first coming. I have heard of Catholic theologians but not read any. I praise Italo; atleast he knows what he saying... Not like these Pentecostals - I will reserve names for now.

Enigma: A propos the book of Maccabees, here are just two major Roman Catholics who state that they are not in the "Bible" or canon.


Jerome:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."


Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great

Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.”

There are still many others we can point to .............

Meanwhile the lies about Carthage have been exposed on other threads, if necessary all I have to do is copy and paste from one made earlier.

Ubenedictus: this isn't exactly true, we dont need 100% of the fathers to teach a doctrine before it is considered sacred Tradition, i only need a majority witnessing to what was recieved.

Ubenedictus: for posterity you should give links, don't just say he said, and the polite thing to do is ask why this is this not claim "they are liars".

kcjazz: Nice thread so far...

Meanwhile my question is... Since the Catholic church is regarded as the "one true "church, whats the churches stand on other Christians (secessionists) making heaven?

Enigma:
...... By the way, there is some confusion still in Roman Catholic teaching here: the teaching also suggests that those who know what Roman Catholics claim and reject it cannot obtain salvation. That is, even Moslems or people ignorant of Roman Catholic doctrine may be better off than informed people who reject Roman Catholicism! Na so!

Enigma: ..... Historically, they have held that other Christians are heretics and anathema and in effect are all going to hell. Strictly speaking this position still remains on their books and some more "traditional" Catholics say it is the only position. .....

adsonstone:

alright then.
We're moving fine so far.

If all traditions' principles are found in the bible and the only one left out is the NT itself, now, those who use the bible (applying its principles) and make use of the NT (having exactly 27 books), can it be concluded that they follow tradition?

Enigma:

...... By the way, there is some confusion still in Roman
Catholic teaching here: the teaching also suggests
that those who know what Roman Catholics claim and
reject it cannot obtain salvation. That is, even
Moslems or people ignorant of Roman Catholic
doctrine may be better off than informed people
who reject Roman Catholicism! Na so!

Ubenedictus: he is condemned if he knows d truth but freely rejects it and refuses to hold it. For those who do not know then mercy of God is there.

Gombs:

Adonblivit

Really?

I am damned then!?

adsonstone:

kindly explain your observation.

What do you mean by 'positive and negative'?

Enigma:
A "majority" --- yeah, like the majority of the "Tridentine fathers" who voted for the Roman Catholic Bible and Apocrypha by

25 in favour
15 against
16 abstained

Whereas the vast majority over more than a thousand years said that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon!

Oh and like the "majority" who did not see Matthew 16 (and equivalents) as giving Rome some "jurisdiction" or "supremacy"!