Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

[guanophore]

You still have dodge 1 Timothy 3:15 The Church is the Pillar and Bulward of Truth.

Why don’t you define the church before I try to answer you.

Racing, 2nd will have no trouble dodging this. He simply redefines “church” according to something that will accomodate his doctirne. Here goes:

   We have a different definition and understanding of the word church.  I believe in the catholic church as in the remnant chosen by grace from all generations through redemptive history. Therefore, the remnant inside the Catholic Church is only part of the overall remnant in the body of Christ.

You see, the Father’s taught that the Church founded by Christ was One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic. All 2nd has to do is dispense with these historic four marks of the true Church, plug in his revised definition, and voila! He has no trouble then saying that the “true” church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

This is the same method he uses to claim that Paul was a Calvanist, or that the Scriptures agree with Calvin, or that the Pope agrees with Luther and Calvin, etc, etc.

 

[guanophore]

If you think that the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament, who gave us the Old Testament?

The Church formally adopted the Alexandrian Septuagint, because that was the collection of books used by Jesus and the Apostles.

I don’t understand your post. The Catholic Catechism defines the table of contents of Sacred Scripture.

The modern catechism repeats what was promulgated at the Catholic Council in 382. Prior to that, there were as many as 400 written works claiming to be “scripture”. There were apocryphal gospels and letters, and some genuine documents such as the Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Epistles of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas that were being read in the Churches. After that date, nothing was permitted to be read during liturgy except the canonized books. That canon was an infallible creation of the Church, guided by the HS. The book that you claim is the final authority was itself defined by another authority, which you hold is deficient.

Catholics do need to read their bible. They need to read them according to the Sacred Tradition that created it.

When you guys are ready to discuss the actual contents of the Bible, please let me know.

There is no need for that, 2nd. If and when you get ready to discuss TULIP, or anything else you think is “biblical doctrine”, I am sure you will pluck up your courage, and go over there to Apologetics, and start a thread where it belongs (sacred scripture). So long as you bury these threads over here in Non-Catholic it will be clear that it is not a serious invitation.

 

[benidict]

This is a good example of one of the reasoning errors that emanates from the Reformation. The construction “this and not” that is black and white thinking. On the contrary, most of the time it is both.

Sacred scriptures are from God, and are given through the Church. and you are in error. Mary was the very first Catholic, from the time the angel Gabriel came to her. Peter, James, and all the Apostles were Catholic.

Of course they were not from your perspective! that is why we keep telling you that you have inherited a perspective that departs from the Apsostolic perspective!

This is good. You may be able to one day accept that God was able to preserve that deposit as He promised.

I agree that this was the original intent of the Reformers. Unfortunately, they did not understand that the doctrine of the faith did not need to be reformed. there was nothing wrong with it. It was the men responsible for it that were in need of Reform. Men are always in need of Reform. When they started to reform the doctrine, they inadvertantly departed from what the Apostles believed and taught. This separation and division has continued and multiplied to the current day.

No, those who are in unity with Jesus will never rejoice in the separation and division within His Body.

Is that your goal here, 2nd? Do you believe that, if you can get Catholics to “search the scriptures” with you, that we will all convert to Calvanism?

Catholics have already received what God has revealed to mankind - Himself! It is the scriptures that testify and bear witness to Him.

This is wise, actually. Given the lack of familiarity that many have with the Scripture, they are in a very vulnerable position, and can be easily led astray by the ignorant who twist them to their own destruction. I can testify. I was one of them!
2nd Adam;5846894:

Remember the OP, and the Catholic Article encouraging Catholics to discuss the Scriptures with your seperated brothers. ;)

"If a Catholic truly does know Scripture, he also needs to demonstrate that in conversation: “Walk the walk,” don’t just “talk the talk.”

Like Pope Benedict’s “if” this one is also very important. Those Catholics who are not well catechized in their faith can fall quickly into error and heresies such as the TULIP.

well spoken brother! ill leave 2nd adam to you! your alot more articulate than i am. also the more i search my scriptures the more i see catholicism taught. use to be a calvinist myself so im well familiar with the errors found in it. also most of protestantism does not agree with calvin or luther.

 

[Jimmy_B]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

The Bible-reading habits of Catholics lag far behind those of Evangelical Protestants…

Hello** 2nd Adam**,

I read your entire first post…too much to post here…

I see that you are Catholic and I appreciate what you are saying here. However, I think you’re wrong and I mean this in the kindest way.

For example, of the over one billion Catholics world wide, in the 2500 different dioceses, how many do you actually know?.. What percentage?

Are you excluding college, theological and seminary requirements for priests, deacons, nuns and so on? That’s a lot of Catholics right there, isn’t it? They all read the Bible, don’t they?

What about all those Catholic members of the Knights of Columbus, Opus Dei and other Catholic groups and Catholic Societies…you are not implying that those Catholics don’t read or know their Bibles? I don’t think you are…

You know as a Catholic that the Bible is read during every Mass in a Catholic Church.

All of the observant Catholics that I know, do read and know their Bibles.

To see Catholics learning about those verses and books in the Bible, all one has to do, is attend a Catholic Mass; centered on Christ, the Eucharist and Holy Scripture… and they’ll see how important the Bible is in Catholicism.

I also know that as a Catholic, that you are familiar with CCD, First Communion classes, Confirmation classes, RCIA, Catholic retreats, Catholic schools and Catholic Universities and all of the other learning opportunities available for Catholics…where, Catholics actually read and learn about the Bible. Many Protestants are not aware of this.

I’m sure that you also may know, that If a Catholic attends Mass every Sunday, for three years, nearly the entire bible is read aloud to them…it is read to them in one year, if they attend Mass every day.

Can most non-Catholic Christians attend a church service every day, in their denomination?

I agree that everyone should read their Bible and know understand it in context. I also believe that most non-Catholic Protestants take bible verses out of context and tend to sum up their beliefs, using a handful of Bible verses. (General speaking…not every non-Catholic Christian)

Protestant, non-Catholic Christian services - read a verse or two aloud, take out of context and then talk forever about a single verse and “what it means”…

(General speaking…does not apply to every denomination of non-Catholic Christianity -36,000)

Catholic Mass- read portions of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Psalms, and the Gospels at every Mass…then given a homily (sermon), in context, about those verses read at that Mass…Pray the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed at every Mass… also pray and sing prayers taken from the Bible, and based on Bible verses and so on… receive Holy Communion at every Mass…

I hope those reading this thread, take the time to learn more about practicing Catholics and about Catholicism.

Your thoughts?

 

[nsper7]

I don’t think 2nd Adam is Catholic Jimmy. Just letting you know.

That’s a distortion my brother. Historic Protestants share common interpertations with the Catholic Faith in most of the major doctrines of the orthodox Christian Faith. We even share the same early church creeds too.

What is a ‘Historic Protestant’? Remember, very early on in the Protestant Reformation (I prefer “Deformation”), disagreements sprung up between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, not to mention the birth of Anglicanism of over in England, which had little use for Luther. It was not much later you had the Radical Reformation (i.e. Anabaptists). So, who exactly are these ‘Historic Protestants’? About the only thing all Protestants can agree on is that the Catholic Church has it wrong.

Also, the fact that Protestants have similar doctrines to Catholics on a lot of issues just means the Reformers were not original enough and so they took Catholic doctrine and transposed it. Regardless of how much Catholics and Protestants may “share”, Protestants still posses doctrine from Non-Catholic sources. Just remember, humans and apes share ~96% of the same genes, but that 4% makes a big difference.

The major division really is about our understanding of justification.

No, the main division is about obedience. Catholics are obedient to the Pope and the Church while Protestants are not obedient to the Church, but to their own whims and ideas.

A Catholic who is properly prepared can easily go head-to-head with a Protestant exegete…

As this thread and numerous other ones are proving.

I have found that many many Catholics fear going through the Scriptures with Protestants.

I think a lot of Catholics just don’t give a hoot. With all this ecumenism flying around, a lot of Catholics may feel like, “You go you’re way, I’ll go my way” and they just don’t see the need. Also, it is very tiring and trying to play this ‘pick apart the Scriptures with a Protestant’ game. And it seems like often, very little changes: I mean, I have yet to hear a solid argument that proves to me that I should replace my newfound Catholic faith with someone’s brand of Protestantism.

When you guys are ready to discuss the actual contents of the Bible, please let me know.

Since you are starting the debate, it is incumbent upon you to show why Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium, which were seen as authoritative for ~1,500 years before Martin Luther was even the proverbial in his father’s eye, should be rejected in favor of a Luther’s Sola Scriptura.

Remember, Catholics see three authoritative sources:

1. Sacred Tradition
2. Sacred Magesterium
3. Sacred Scripture

When Protestants reduce the argument to one of the three sources, Sacred Scripture, then of course they maybe able to ‘win’ the argument since they are setting a boundary that a Catholic cannot agree to or accept. In truth, even Protestants rarely accept this boundary of Sola Scriptura because they invariably to their “tradition” (i.e. Calvin, Luther, etc.).

 

[StillWondering]

According to the Catholic Catechism, here is the Catholic cannon. When you are ready to discuss the actual contents in Sacred Scripture, please let me know.

IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

Your quote states"by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discern which writings are included in the list of the sacred books". Earlier you stated that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not claim that the Scriptures came from Sacred Tradition. But that’s what you just quoted the CCC saying. Did you missed your contradiction?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I don’t think 2nd Adam is Catholic Jimmy. Just letting you know…/quote]Oh, ok, thank you nsper. I assumed that he was, because of this quote of his, in his first post (below).

*“For non-Catholics to respect us, they have to see us criticizing ourselves and not closing ranks and pretending that we are above all the errors with which everyone else struggles.” *

 

[Jimmy_B]

I don’t think 2nd Adam is Catholic Jimmy. Just letting you know…

Oh, ok, thank you nsper. I assumed that he was, because of this quote of his, in his first post (below).

**“For non-Catholics to respect us, they have to see us criticizing ourselves and not closing ranks and pretending that we are above all the errors with which everyone else struggles.” **

- 2nd Adam

BTW, I thought that rest of your post was outstanding!

 

[2nd_Adam]

The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Sacred Scripture reveals and complements the Sacred Tradition. there are no conflicts.

I have to disagree. The Scirptures (OT and NT) were written for the elect, remnant, Christians, chosen ones. The word Catholic is not even found in the Bible. All Scripture is God-breathed and not just the NT.

Perhaps you are unaware of just how many divisions exist in Christendom?

Therer is only two divisions in spiritual reality. Each person is either still united to Adam, or has moved from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light and is united to the 2nd Adam (Christ).

No, 2nd. If we do progress to the discussion of TULIP, I think you will find that the differences are much broader.

Predestination is very broad within the Catholic Church. Most Catholcs are very pelagius in thier personal views.

No, 2nd. the Catholic church has always taught justification by faith. what Pope Benedict has written is what the Church has always believed and taught.

That’s great news!

The declaration of righteousness occurs because we have actually been MADE righteous before God. The Apostles did not teach that God “doctors the books” by crediting accounts with assets that do not really exist.

Try Romans chapter 3.

Yes, the strength of the Catholic faith resides in the whole gospel. We have not sliced out part of it, and abrogated it into a “not from God” pile.

The Apostles woould disagree with you as recorded in the Scriptures. Actually, much of the Catholic faith is not really good news (gospel) when you think about it.

If I did not enjoy debating the Scriptures with Protestants, I would not be here.

I am amazed that you would use this scripture to support Calvanism. It is one of the strongest refutations against OSAS.

It is this deficient understanding of the Church that prevents you from receiving the whole gospel.

I’ve posted this same passage to Catholics.

Eph 1:17-23
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The Church is the recipient of the exceeding greatness of His power, according to the working of His great might. God has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body. The Church is the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

What you have done is decapitated the Church, to defend the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. To say that the church is imperfect you must decaptitate her, and expel her Soul, which is the HS. The reason the church is infallible are these divine elements of her, not the sinful men attached to her.

Of course we understand each other that our definition of the church is mutually exclusive of each other. Actually, the Catholic Church agrees with me in regards to the remnant which goes way beyond Catholic Church members. . I think the Catholic Church goes beyond my view of the remnant invisible church, since the Catholic Church includes other non-Christian religions as a way to Heaven such as Islam and Judaism. Did you see the thread about the struggling Catholic and the Catholic position on Islam? If a Cathoic believes that the Catholic Church is infallible, to be a good Catholic is simply to believe whatever the Catholc Church claims to be true. Therefore, there is really no great motivation for Catholics to read their Bibles as exhorted by the Catholic who wrote the paper on the OP. It’s a modifed form of the dark ages in my view. I’ve been to a Catholic Men’s fellowship and saw that dilemma and tension found in Catholic men. One group were acting too Protestant by freely reading their NIV Bibles outside the guidance of the church. The other Catholic group wanted the Catholic Men to be catechized instead of freely reading the Bible. It’s the same on this thread since most on here really have no intentions of exploring the Scriptures with me. If a Christian has a higher view of Sacred Scripture than Sacred Tradition, then that Chrisitan will always struggle in being a Catholic Christian. That is quite the history of Catholic Christianity… and will always be that way. For me, the Sacred Scriptures is the Word of God; thus authorative and sufficent since God the Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Let’s start discussing core biblical doctrine according to the Scriptures. When was Abraham declared righteous? We can study Romans chapters 3 and 4 as well as James chapter 2.

:yup::juggle:

 

[2nd_Adam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsper7
I don’t think 2nd Adam is Catholic Jimmy. Just letting you know…

Oh, ok, thank you nsper. I assumed that he was, because of this quote of his, in his first post (below).

BTW, I thought that rest of your post was outstanding!

By the grace of God alone, I am catholic!

The Apostles’ Creed

(as usually recited today)
The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles’ Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.

---

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The word Catholic is not even found in the Bible.

Actually you are wrong. Acts 9:31:

“h men oun ekklhsia kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto”

The red part actually translates to Catholic Church.

ekklhsia kaq olhV thV = Church Catholic… Or Catholic Church.

If a Cathoic believes that the Catholic Church is infallible, to be a good Catholic is simply to believe whatever the Catholc Church claims to be true.

Wow, such a slap in the face 2nd Adam. Tell me, is being condescending a fruit of Calvinism? How about being a “good” Catholic = growing in righteousness? Or growing in the love of our Lord?

Therefore, there is really no great motivation for Catholics to read their Bibles as exhorted by the Catholic who wrote the paper on the OP.

Why do you need to be motivated to read your scriptures 2nd Adam? Are you “struggling” as a Christian that much that you can’t open a Bible and read it without anyone forcing you to?

It’s the same on this thread since most on here really have no intentions of exploring the Scriptures with me.

Of course not because you have ripped the Scriptures out of the very traditions they were intended to be read in. I would rather “explore the Scriptures” with the successors of the Apostles.

If a Christian has a higher view of Sacred Scripture than Sacred Tradition, then that Chrisitan will always struggle in being a Catholic Christian.

And yet you yourself already have a higher view of tradition then the Scriptures since (and you freely admitted this in another thread) you went to out side sources (tradition) to determine for you what even makes up the “scriptures” in the first place (canon). Does this mean you are struggling with being a “good” Christian?

From another thread:
2nd Adam:

The Protestant Canon of Scripture is my favorite Traditions of the catholic church.

For me, the Sacred Scriptures is the Word of God; thus authorative and sufficent since God the Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures.

Sufficient? Was it sufficient to determine the canon of the Bible?.. :nope:

God bless

 

[spoiltvictorian]

It’s been my experience that Catholics and protestant denominations closest to Catholicism know what the Bible says better than others thanks to the better educations the pastors have, the regular reading schedule and the habits of the liturgy that let the mind focus on the content instead of the form.

Also, I don’t believe Catholics actually read their Bibles less often. One recent anecdote that confirms this for me was a “Ten Commandments challenge” my brother, a Reformed Baptist, participated in with his youth group. They went to a park and asked people if they could name the Ten Commandments. I asked him if anybody could. He said only a group of Catholic ladies were able to name them out of all the people questioned. Q.E.D.

 

[Jason_1977]

Protestants have a hard time taking Catholics seriously wiith postings like this. In addition, there really isn’t much discussion about the actual contents of the Bible. I wonder why? Consider the thread tiitle.

dude, I have YET to take you seriously…

 

[Jason_1977]

When you guys are ready to discuss the actual contents of the Bible, please let me know.

what contents do you want to discuss? I’m ready & waitin…

 

[Jason_1977]

If you think that the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament, who gave us the Old Testament?

dude, everyone knows the OT is was in Hebrew for a reason…:coffeeread:

 

[tmac1956]

Let’s start discussing core biblical doctrine according to the Scriptures. When was Abraham declared righteous? We can study Romans chapters 3 and 4 as well as James chapter 2.

:yup::juggle:

Why do Calvanists gravitate to Romans virtually to the exclusion of the rest of scripture?

 

[guanophore]

well spoken brother! ill leave 2nd adam to you! your alot more articulate than i am. also the more i search my scriptures the more i see catholicism taught. use to be a calvinist myself so im well familiar with the errors found in it. also most of protestantism does not agree with calvin or luther.

No, not a bit! Please keep an eye out, because 2nd may get serious about this discussion, and then we can have at it. You will know he is serious when he opens one of these threads over in Apologetics. Until that happens, it is all just a smokescreen.

 

[guanophore]

I see that you are Catholic and I appreciate what you are saying here. However, I think you’re wrong and I mean this in the kindest way. …You know as a Catholic that the Bible is read during every Mass in a Catholic Church. …I also know that as a Catholic, that you are familiar with CCD, First Communion classes, Confirmation classes, RCIA, Catholic retreats, Catholic schools and Catholic Universities and all of the other learning opportunities available for Catholics…where, Catholics actually read and learn about the Bible. Many Protestants are not aware of this. I hope those reading this thread, take the time to learn more about practicing Catholics and about Catholicism.

You have misunderstood, Jimmy B. Although 2nd has claimed to be “catholic” he means he knows He belongs to the One Church founded by Christ. However, he has had none of these experiences you assume. I am not sure he has ever been to a Mass. He is a Reformed Evangelical (Calvanis). I do think he has learned more about the Catholic faith, even though he seems to be here primarily in order to make converts. He is much more open minded than most folks that come here from his tradition.

 

[benidict]

Of course we understand each other that our definition of the church is mutually exclusive of each other. Actually, the Catholic Church agrees with me in regards to the remnant which goes way beyond Catholic Church members. . I think the Catholic Church goes beyond my view of the remnant invisible church, since the Catholic Church includes other non-Christian religions as a way to Heaven such as Islam and Judaism. Did you see the thread about the struggling Catholic and the Catholic position on Islam? If a Cathoic believes that the Catholic Church is infallible, to be a good Catholic is simply to believe whatever the Catholc Church claims to be true. Therefore, there is really no great motivation for Catholics to read their Bibles as exhorted by the Catholic who wrote the paper on the OP. It’s a modifed form of the dark ages in my view. I’ve been to a Catholic Men’s fellowship and saw that dilemma and tension found in Catholic men. One group were acting too Protestant by freely reading their NIV Bibles outside the guidance of the church. The other Catholic group wanted the Catholic Men to be catechized instead of freely reading the Bible. It’s the same on this thread since most on here really have no intentions of exploring the Scriptures with me. If a Christian has a higher view of Sacred Scripture than Sacred Tradition, then that Chrisitan will always struggle in being a Catholic Christian. That is quite the history of Catholic Christianity… and will always be that way. For me, the Sacred Scriptures is the Word of God; thus authorative and sufficent since God the Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures.

hi adam. i have been researching the scriptures with you, and all you respond with is philosophy. so i must come to the conclusion that yes, you are reading the word of God in the light of calvins teachings, and not that of Christ or his Church. so therefor calvin is your authourity. so to you calvin is a prophet and the institutes of calvin are real. sound familiar? another group claims this about their founder and his writings. you are of the same spirit apparently. i think we shall call it, the cult of calvin. been nice chatting with ya.
when You are ready to research scripture let me know. or we could discuss the life of calvin. that would be fun. shall we talk about the people he disagreed with that he had put to death? or maybe his anti semitism:shrug:have a good one