Honest questions for Catholics from an ignorant protestant

[Virgil]

From what I understand tradition is very important in Catholicism.
Can I ask.
1)Are the biblical books inspired because they are in the canon or in the canon because they are inspired?
2)Granting to you the importance of tradition-how do I know whether a tradition comes from god or whether it was made up by some random guy?
3)How do you know your traditions are correct and the traditions of the orthodox and other churches are wrong?
4)Given that the RC is supposed to be the 1 true church , I would expect them to be fairly consistent on stuff like who is a heretic and who is a saint.However they have not been. Why is this?
5)The assumption of Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible. Do you really expect me to believe that I should accept the word of some guy in 1950 as an authoritative source to the life of Mary?
I'd love to see these questions answered.Thanks .

[Rusty T]

From what I understand tradition is very important in Catholicism.

That is true. For anyone seeking to understand our perspective, I'd recommend reading Dei Verbum.

1)Are the biblical books inspired because they are in the canon or in the canon because they are inspired?

The latter.

2)Granting to you the importance of tradition-how do I know whether a tradition comes from god or whether it was made up by some random guy?

Well, one way would be to trust the Church to decide. Exactly in the same way that the Church eventually settled upon the canon of scripture. The Bishops and local churches throughout the Christian world preserved the books given to them as written by the apostles and the apostles' closest companions. They knew they were inspired not just because of what was written there, but because these were the books attested to in tradition and in liturgical practice. Similarly, the Traditions we profess as having authority in our Christian lives (such as Apostolic Succession) are so held because of what was given to the Church and what the Church has help and ruminated upon for two millennium now.

3)How do you know your traditions are correct and the traditions of the orthodox and other churches are wrong?

Well, as a Catholic, we highly regard the Orthodox and hold them as True Churches - that means they have Bishops who teach the True Faith. They are schismatically separate from us, but we do not denigrate the reality of their roots in history. This goes for the Oriental Churches as well. We pray for unity of all Christians. We hope that this is possible more quickly with those with whom we share so much.

4)Given that the RC is supposed to be the 1 true church , I would expect them to be fairly consistent on stuff like who is a heretic and who is a saint.However they have not been. Why is this?

Not exactly sure what that means. I'll take a poke at part of it. The Church isn't perfect in all things. Heck, the Church doesn't claim infallibility but for a few instances throughout history. What the Church does claim, however, is authority. If in the past, for example, the Church had a flawed or incomplete understanding of how to treat certain groups which were separate from herself, we trust that we can be taught - not only by the Holy Spirit but by history and science.

5)The assumption of Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible. Do you really expect me to believe that I should accept the word of some guy in 1950 as an authoritative source to the life of Mary?

No. For most Catholics in the 1950's this was already a deeply held belief. It wasn't anything new to them. They didn't have to accept it because the Pope declared it. In many ways, the Pope declared it because the Church already accepted it. Now, for you - so detached from that period of time, and detached from the Catholic tradition that led to that moment in history - I wouldn't expect you to accept the Assumption of Mary because the Pope said so. But someone like me, who similarly was detached from the Catholic Tradition and the period of history, may find himself gradually coming to the conclusion that the Pope does indeed have the authority to define and defend Truth in such a way as to make it binding on Catholics. Now, I didn't awaken to that understanding in one day. In fact, it was the culmination of a five-plus year process. But even then, I'm still detached in many ways from the Catholic thought and tradition that resulted in that declaration. So, I'm trying to immerse myself in the Catholic life - to be a Catholic. That's why I'm having another child.


That last part was a joke

God bless,

rusty

[lilpixieofterror]

Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

Moved thread to a more suitable forum

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Shazard]

Well, one way would be to trust the Church to decide. Exactly in the same way that the Church eventually settled upon the canon of scripture. The Bishops and local churches throughout the Christian world preserved the books given to them as written by the apostles and the apostles' closest companions. They knew they were inspired not just because of what was written there, but because these were the books attested to in tradition and in liturgical practice. Similarly, the Traditions we profess as having authority in our Christian lives (such as Apostolic Succession) are so held because of what was given to the Church and what the Church has help and ruminated upon for two millennium now.

Please eleborate on this!

What exactly is being sucessed. What is the object of succession?

And this

they were inspired not just because of what was written there, but because these were the books attested to in tradition and in liturgical practice.

Are you really ready to stick to this claim?
Because what I read and I can't believe I read correctly, is that content of the Books does not played role in decision of their inclusion into the canon?
Does inspiration comes from tradition and liturgical use or from Holy Spirit?

[furay]

Well, as a Catholic, we highly regard the Orthodox and hold them as True Churches - that means they have Bishops who teach the True Faith.

No it does not and no they don't. While they are indeed true churches, there is only one True Faith and that is Catholicism. While I have a high respect for the Orthodox Church, they are most assuredly schismatics as you noted and unfortunately some of them are even heretics. Of course the merits of the Orthodox pretty much go without saying - they have preserved the teachings of the Eastern Fathers, they have kept the Divine Liturgy undefiled by liturgical abuse, they have produced a great many saints, and they have kept the flame of Christianity alive in the East among heavy persecution. I pray for them to come into full communion with the Catholic Church soon.

St Sergius of Radonezh pray for us!

[JonLanceBarker]

St. Mark of Ephesus, pray for us!!!

[Shazard]

I think God did it very wise to priduce RCC and EO, just for all to see that The Church is not one of them, coz The Church is all believers, not some hierarhical organization.
So God did it very cleaverly to allow existence of two Organizations which both have saints, ECFs, tradition and apostolic succession and still just because they are two... it is proof that no one have rights to be The Church... God is teaching and showing his ppl that The Church and THe Body of Christ is not Visible Hierarhical Man Made organization!
It is ovious from side view, probably totally impossible to see from RCC or EO point of view!

[Virgil]

St. Mark of Ephesus, pray for us!!!

Why do you keep asking dead guys to pray for you? I'll pray for you now.

[Virgil]

Well, one way would be to trust the Church to decide. Exactly in the same way that the Church eventually settled upon the canon of scripture.

Well you see the difference is( I think you would agree with me because you affirmed the latter on the first question) The books are inspired in and of themselves. The church put them in the canon because they realised that.

Similarly, the Traditions we profess as having authority in our Christian lives (such as Apostolic Succession) are so held because of what was given to the Church and what the Church has help and ruminated upon for two millennium now.

But the thing is 'how do I know that?'.
When we look at the manuscripts of the Nt and compare and see what has been added by men (like the ending of Mark) and what is from god.I can't do this with your tradditions.

Not exactly sure what that means. I'll take a poke at part of it. The Church isn't perfect in all things. Heck, the Church doesn't claim infallibility but for a few instances throughout history. What the Church does claim, however, is authority. If in the past, for example, the Church had a flawed or incomplete understanding of how to treat certain groups which were separate from herself, we trust that we can be taught - not only by the Holy Spirit but by history and science.

But if you can't claim infallibility- how can the Catholic church make such claims of exclusivity?

God bless and thanks for answering my questions.

[JonLanceBarker]

Why do you keep asking dead guys to pray for you? I'll pray for you now.

Because they've got a better view of the Throne than I have. Thanks.

[JonLanceBarker]

I think God did it very wise to priduce RCC and EO, just for all to see that The Church is not one of them, coz The Church is all believers, not some hierarhical organization.
So God did it very cleaverly to allow existence of two Organizations which both have saints, ECFs, tradition and apostolic succession and still just because they are two... it is proof that no one have rights to be The Church... God is teaching and showing his ppl that The Church and THe Body of Christ is not Visible Hierarhical Man Made organization!
It is ovious from side view, probably totally impossible to see from RCC or EO point of view!

How's that fancy spinning chair?

[mitzi]

Why do you keep asking dead guys to pray for you? I'll pray for you now.

In the same manner when you say I'll pray for you now...what's now to those who have left us?

"But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection (Luke 20:35-36)".

There are two main points "worthy to attain to that age" and the resurrection from the dead. and they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die anymore, for the are like angles, and are sons of Gd, being sons of the resurrection....

We "ask" them to pray for us...Ask. Personally I (myself) go directly to the source however when you do read some form of prayers....it's usually mentions the ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ but also the ‘God of Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel...as to remember them and the covenant. One prayer "O Lord Almighty, that art in heaven, thou God of our fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ..." see Psalms 55:18 and 142:13.

There was a story in scripture that I found close to this point: "You remember what is told of Elijah the prophet; when the heavens were shut up, and there was no rain for three years and six months. There were many widows in the land of Israel at that time, but Elijah was not sent by the Lord to any one of them. The Lord sent him out of the land to Zarephath, a town near Zidon, to a widow there; and there he wrought his miracles.

"And in the time of Elisha the prophet, there were many lepers in Israel that Elisha might have cured; but the only leper that Elisha made well was Naaman the Syrian."

So how did the prayers get through to Gd "IF" the heavens (as noted) were shut????? and what does it mean when the Lord shuts the heavens? (cut off?)