Basis for basic catholic beliefs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseyelephant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roseyelephant

Guest
I’m nondenominational but intested in Catholicism. What I can’t seem to understand is where the basis of their ideas lie. For example, tradition over scripture…the Bible make it clear that the Bible is God’s word and He is the ultimate authority. I also see NO evidence of purgatory. The belief of a poetic Genesis also goes against what all scholars see, as it is clearly not symbolism and is referenced by Jesus may times as history. The Bible also CLEARLY states that’s salvation is by faith alone and good works will follow, but do not determine salvation (explain Jesus saving the man during his crucifixion, for ex.). And why add books to the bible? Why believe in a literal communion? Why believe Peter is the rock when the verse just says “you are Peter”…not that Peter is the rock. And what is the biblical basis for all the praise of Mary???

****THANK YOU for all of the replies. Way too many questions, sorry guys. I’m going to spend time reading through the replies and the links whenever I have free time. I may not reply to all but I appreciate the help and will bookmark this question to refer to!
 
Last edited:
I count at least 8 questions there.

It might make for a more reasonable discussion if you take it one question at a time.

Scripture & Tradition.

I’d ask you a question, where did the Bible come from and when was it codified?
 
I’ll try to answer some

a) tradition is NOT above Scripture. The two cannot contradict and both are the Word of God.

b) In my language, “piatra” kinda means rock. If I tell somebody “Simon esti Piatra iar pe aceasta piatra imi voi construi biserica” the message is clear. Jesus literally named Simon rock and then said “upon this rock I will build my church”, for somebody who gets how Peter sounds like rock this is a bit of a no-brainer.

c) Why believe in fake communion? Jesus used many metaphors, none made him loose followers but the eat my body one did. It is quite clearly literal.

d) We didn’t add books. Our Bible is older. Protestants took away books.

e) Purgatory? Tradition, common sense, Corinthians, OT.

f) Mary. Gabriel saying “Hail full of grace.” Jesus giving her to us as a mother on the cross in John’s gospel.

Read Catholic apologetics. And ask further here if anything is unclear 🙂
 
g) Yes you are saved by faith. We agree.

h) Genesis being metaphoricals is not doctrine.
 
Hey Rosey!
roseyelephant said:
For example, tradition over scripture…
Click to expand...
It’s not an either/or for Catholics. It’s a both/and.
After all, the canonization of scripture in the 4th century is part of Catholic tradition.
the Bible make it clear that the Bible is God’s word and He is the ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
We agree. But the bible is subject to interpretation, just like every writing. This is probably why Christ established a Church that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic centuries before scripture was developed by that same Church.
I also see NO evidence of purgatory.
Click to expand...
There is some, particularly on one of the books that gets left out in protestant bibles. But it has unambiguously developed over the centuries.

Essentially, when we die, protestants think Christians are instantly glorified. Catholics think glorification for Christians can be a process and that process is purgatory.
The belief of a poetic Genesis also goes against what all scholars see
Click to expand...
I’m not one of them, but there are many, many Catholics that see Genesis the same way you do.
The Bible also CLEARLY states that’s salvation is by faith alone and good works will follow
Click to expand...
“Faith alone” is nowhere in scripture. Moreover, James tells us that faith without works is dead!
Again, it’s not an either/or situation. It’s a both/and.
And why add books to the bible?
Click to expand...
We’d argue Luther took them out.
Why believe in a literal communion?
Click to expand...
It seems to support the language Jesus was using. He didn’t say “This is sorta like my body”. He said “This IS…”
Why believe Peter is the rock when the verse just says “you are Peter”…not that Peter is the rock.
Click to expand...
It’s significant because “Peter” means “rock”. He was just “Simon” until this moment. Christ renamed him and game his headship over the Church. Just like the Jewish faith we came from had a high priest, just like the Patriarchs had Adam’s prime heir.

It reads “You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church!”
And what is the biblical basis for all the praise of Mary???
Click to expand...
She’s the mother of God incarnate!

Marian veneration is as ancient as the Church. A cool attitude toward the Virgin is a protestant innovation.
 
roseyelephant said:
For example, tradition over scripture…
Click to expand...
Well, first that isn’t what the Church teaches.

Divine Revelation is composed of two parts: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition
roseyelephant said:
the Bible make it clear that the Bible is God’s word
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. It doesn’t make the claim there is no other way this is transmitted, in fact it claims the opposite. 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
roseyelephant said:
I also see NO evidence of purgatory.
Click to expand...
I suggest you start a thread on that.
roseyelephant said:
The belief of a poetic Genesis also goes against what all scholars see, as it is clearly not symbolism and is referenced by Jesus may times as history.
Click to expand...
That isn’t what the Church teaches. I suggest you start a thread on this as well. Senses of scripture, Genesis, and Catholic teaching.
roseyelephant said:
The Bible also CLEARLY states that’s salvation is by faith alone and good works will follow, but do not determine salvation
Click to expand...
Not so clearly as you assert. I suggest you start a thread on this as well.
roseyelephant said:
And why add books to the bible?
Click to expand...
You should start a thread on this as well. You have it rather backwards, since the canon of scripture historically comes from the first 4 centuries and Luther took action to use the Hebrew canon rather than the Greek Deuterocanon.
roseyelephant said:
Why believe in a literal communion?
Click to expand...
John 6 and many other reasons. Start a thread on the Real Presence.
roseyelephant said:
Why believe Peter is the rock when the verse just says “you are Peter”…not that Peter is the rock. And what is the biblical basis for all the praise of Mary???
Click to expand...
Excellent questions. I see about 10 threads here. Pick one, and let’s talk about that.

Forum rules ask us to have one topic per thread.
 
Last edited:
Lot of topics.

Regarding: Add Books to the Bible.

If you are referring to Revelation 22:18-19 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book” the writer, St. John, is only addressing what he wrote (i.e., the Book of Revelation). Please understand that the Canon of the Bible was not settled until late 4th century. So, when he says “this book” he does not mean the Bible because the Bible had not yet been settled at the time Revelation was written.
 
You hold a ton of misunderstandings.
  1. Scripture is tradition, but written tradition. By tradition we mean not tradition of men, but Sacred Tradition. There are further Sacred Traditions as well
  2. Purgatory: there’s clear evidence on this, but I suggest you start a different thread for this topic.
  3. You do not understand Church teaching on Genesis. Catholics are free to believe in a literal creation story or a more allegorical one (I am assuming that is what you mean when you say Genesis though Genesis goes through much, much more)
  4. Where? The Bible clearly says that faith without works is dead, that hope saves us, that love saves us, that regeneration saves us, etc.etc. Faith saves us, but the only time you see Faith and alone together in the Bible in a good translation there is a NOT in with it! That being said, you seem to not understand the Catholic teaching on salvation either.
  5. We didn’t add book; protestats coming over a thousand years later took them away
  6. Because it has always been believed as being literal, as that is how Christ meant it. The belief in the Eucharist has been passed on through the generations from the apostles. It was believed to be literal until about 500 years ago when protestants came up with stuff
  7. Peter means rock. Peter’s name was Simon. You are Rock, and on this Rock I shall build my Church. Consider the Jewish tradition I have heard that Abraham is the rock, then this will make clear sense.
  8. “Hail Mary, full of Grace,” “All generations shall call me blessed” +it has been this way for thousands of years, from the early Christians. God chose her to be the way for the world to come to Him, and it is still the same today
Overall you have a lot of misunderstandings.
 
Last edited:
There are several books that go into detail on basic Catholic beliefs. One that I read recently is called Why We’re Catholic by Trent Horn. Another is called Catholosism for Dummies. These and others like them go into detail.

Some quick answers:

We do not believe in Sacred Tradition over Sacred Scripture, but as equil importance. The Canon of the Bible was not formalized for over 300 years after Jesus died. Much of what was originally taught and most of the early converts were taught word of mouth fromthe Apostiles and their diciples. And the (Catholic) Church decided the Canon of the Bible.

Catholics have not added books to the Bible, Martin Luther removed books. The books of the Old Testiment that are not in Protetant Bibles are from the Septuigent translation and were in common use in the time of Jesus. He quotes several passages from them in the New Testiment. I do not remember which ones of the top of my head but it can be looked up.

There is evidence of Purgatory in 2 Macabies which is one of the books Luther removed from the old testiment. There is evidence elsewhere also although the word Purgatory is never used, but then neither is the word Trinity.

Check out the books I mentioned or just do a search on the forums here and you will find detailed answers toall your questions.

God be with you
Patrick
AMDG
 
Roseyelephant: For example, tradition over scripture.

JL: There cannot be two contradictory sources of revelation. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are one revelation and never contradict. Many Protestants go outside Scripture, inventing an oral tradition of men, teaching all oral Tradition is in the Bible. Yet there is no scripture saying all Tradition is now in the Bible. There are several Bible verses that tell us to hold Tradition.

[2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.] Unless you can find a scripture telling us All oral Tradition is now found in scripture you are not following bible alone but a tradition of men.

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

[Philip4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do.]

[Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.]

[1Tim6:20 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,]

[2Tm2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.]

[2 Tm1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.]

[2Thes3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.]
CONTINUED
 
CONTINUED
Our Lord gave us the Church as a pillar and ground of Truth. So the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, Mt16:18. That’s why Christ commissioned and sent one teaching authority, to teach the whole world till the End, Mt28:16-20. Sending the Holy Spirit to lead them into all Truth Jn16:13 not hit and miss truth.

I can’t prove the Apostles specifically taught anything or wrote anything. Not even those books of the NT. I can only give evidence from Tradition that those particular books are inspired and handed down by the Apostles. Actually all anyone can give as evidence is Tradition handed on by the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth, 2Tm3:15.

[Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]

[Eph3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God]
CONTINUED
 
Last edited:
CONTINUED
The Church was up and running, teaching the manifold wisdom of the gospel, fifteen to twenty years or so before the first word of the NT was even penned and almost four hundred years before the canon was officially listed. By what authority then was the gospel taught? What authority decided which books were inspired and which were not inspired?

[CCC85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.]

[CCC95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls] CONTINUED

[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.] Paul went by revelation to check his teachings with that Apostolic Fellowship to be sure he was not running in vain.

Apostolic Traditions are those Traditions handed on by the apostles whether by word (oral) or epistle (scripture) 2Thes2:15. There are also traditions (disciplines), which can be called traditions of men. They can be changed as the Church sees fit. Such as not eating meat on Fridays, kneeling for communion, etc… Christ didn’t condemn traditions of men except when those traditions of men nullify or override the Word of God. [Mk7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.] see Mk7:8-13, Mt15:1-9.

Examples of Protestant traditions of men, made a doctrine, which overrides the Word would be. All oral Apostolic Tradition now in scripture, faith alone saves, born again the minute one believes, believers only baptism, baptism profession only, once saved always saved (OSAS), sola scriptura, scripture interprets scripture, invisible church, irresistible grace, dispensationalism, secret rapture, etc… None of those are taught in Apostolic Tradition or Scripture. They actually contradict Scripture.
 
Last edited:
roseyelephant said:
  1. tradition over scripture…the Bible make it clear that the Bible is God’s word and He is the ultimate authority.
  2. I also see NO evidence of purgatory.
  3. The belief of a poetic Genesis also goes against what all scholars see, as it is clearly not symbolism and is referenced by Jesus may times as history.
  4. The Bible also CLEARLY states that’s salvation is by faith alone and good works will follow, but do not determine salvation (explain Jesus saving the man during his crucifixion, for ex.).
  5. And why add books to the bible?
  6. Why believe in a literal communion?
  7. Why believe Peter is the rock when the verse just says “you are Peter”…not that Peter is the rock.
  8. And what is the biblical basis for all the praise of Mary???
Click to expand...
It would have been better to make a list of your questions.
 
Brittany said:
First of all, Jesus saving the man on the cross next to him was an extraordinary situation, and therefore what happened in this situation cannot be used to describe an ordinary situation. We are not all thieves dying on a cross next to the Son of God himself. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. The thief was unable to do good works, he was hanging on a cross.
Click to expand...
I may go as far as to say that his repentance and rebuke of the other thief were good works.
 
The very last verse in the Gospel of John and the last few of the Gospel of Matthew explain Sacred Tradition very well. Jesus never wrote anything but told the apostles to baptise and teach others all that he had taught the apostles themselves.
 
Not to add more to the OP’s plate (there’s a lot to chew on I know) but the Bible was not codified until the Council of Hippo at the end of the 300s. Until that point there was no “Bible”. There were only oral traditions and random books floating about.
 
What about Ephesians 2:8-10 regarding salvation? Thank you for all your answers.😁
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top