Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

[Jehoshua]

Note that only protestants follow Sola Scriptura. All non-protestant churches accept the validity of sacred tradition and the oral law.

---

Apostolic succession per se is obviously not recorded in scripture directly due to the date of the writing of the scriptures involved. Most of the writers were martyred, before succession could be recorded in scripture. John was last, and he generally wrote on topics unrelated to Church management and heirarchy.

We however do believe that apostolic succesion amongst other things is pointed out in the “On this rock i will build my church” event, of which no doubt you are aware (being on a catholic forum.). As here Christ is clearly passing his earthly authority on to peter (but thats another debate so don;t start one on Papal primacy or Peter).

 

[Poetess_Kera]

How do you interpret these verses? I’m curious.

John 6:53-55 (King James Version)

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

 

[Canto]

Do your best to come before winter. Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers. - 2 Timothy 4:21

How do you know it was not Eubulus, Pudens, Claudia, Luke, Lydia or any of the others recorded in Scripture?

Recorded in scripture as what, sorry don’t understand your question, one of those days.

 

[benidict]

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. For their part, Evangelicals are usually ignorant of Church history, at least those nearly fifteen centuries before Martin Luther came along. It’s a sad fact of human nature that people tend to pit things against each other that don’t need to be opposed logically (or biblically). It should be both/and, not either/or. Catholics ought to do more Bible reading, and Evangelicals ought to read more Church history. We can learn from each other…

Protestants often find it difficult to reconcile Catholics’ lack of Bible reading with our claims to possess the fullness of Christian truth. Any viewpoint that is self-confident and healthy needs to engage criticism openly and honestly, no matter what the forum is. Protestants do that all the time. They write whole books about problems in their ranks. It is a sign of health and vigor…

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. This truth is obvious, and outsiders see it already, so we have to deal with it frankly. I’m not advocating a neglect of anything else in the Catholic spiritual or liturgical life. I’m maintaining only that too many Catholics neglect or try to minimize or de-emphasize the Bible…

If a Catholic truly does know Scripture, he also needs to demonstrate that in conversation: “Walk the walk,” don’t just “talk the talk.” The more we show that Bible and Catholicism are not contradictory terms, the more we appeal to Protestants with the truth of our overall message. A Catholic who is properly prepared can easily go head-to-head with a Protestant exegete…

---

Dave Armstrong, webmaster of Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (www.biblicalcatholic.com), is the author of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003). He writes from Detroit, Michigan, where he lives with his wife, Judy, and their four children.

I have personally found that the Catholics that I have had the privilege to discuss Christianity with in general… handle Scripture very weak and anemic. Scripture interprets Scripture, or we need to consider all of Scripture before we come to a conclusion on a particular doctrine. You can’t debate something and just say the Catholic Chruch believes this or that; therefore it is true.

Here is your chance to sharpen your iron with a sola scritpura Christian Brother. However, we need to discuss a doctrine within all that is written in the Scriptures about a particular topic. We cannot be cafeteria Christians, ignoring parts of what is written to fit a preconceived idea, and expect to find the truth. We also cannot debate biblical doctrine by stating our personal views and opinions apart from Scripture proof. If you believe something, support it with Scripture in its proper context within clear biblical doctrine. I agree with this article from Catholic Answers in the sense of the lack of biblical knowledge of most Catholics that you meet. Do you want to sharpen your skills in the Scirptures? Of course, we need to debate the more essential issues like the gospel. But we can also discuss issues of Calvinisim if you’d like… if you stay within the Scriptures.

protetantism is cafeteria christianity. the particular denomination no matter which one it is, usually has one point it emphasizes at the expense of the others. calvinism? please! id be happy to debate calvinism with you. which part of tulip would you like to start with. or we can debate infant baptism or the eucharist. you decide. former protestant myself so if you wanna roll,then lets do it.

 

[benidict]

Do you realize how condescending and arrogant you sound, even if that is not your intent? You posted the link to the Pope’s General Audience entitled “The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith” and assume that 1) we don’t know what our own Pope (or Church, for that matter) has been saying about things all along and 2) that you, not being brought up Catholic and having far far less instruction in Catholic doctrine than any of us that you would understand it better than we do? (You don’t, by the way.)

All you’re going to do if you keep going in this direction is to offend a lot of people, along with giving them a slight chuckle when they read what you think the Pope is saying. You’re doing all of this while trying to give us pointers on how to better argue with Protestants?

God bless you sister:hug3:

 

[Kalos]

How do you interpret these verses? I’m curious.

John 6:53-55 (King James Version)

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

I see that no one has answered your question yet so I’ll give it a go.

To interpret this passage or any other i must look at the whole context or i will have an isogesis and not an exogesis.
In comparing scripture with scripture i note that v. 40 has a parallel promise in it that is the same as that in v. 54.
Let’s examine it Kera
The two promises in v. 54 are: “eternal life” and “I will raise him up at the last day”.

From V. 40 we have “everlasting life” and “I will raise him up at the last day”.

The same!
But now we find that the conditions to receive the promises are different.

V. 54 has two conditions: “eateth my flesh” and “drinketh my blood”

V. 40 has different conditions: “seeth the Son” and “believeth on Him”

So should we conclude that there are two different ways to be saved? One for Catholics and one for Protestants?
So, seriously, how can this be resolved? I think you will agree that the best way is to consider that one verse must be literal and the other is figurative. But which? I’m sure that you see v.54 as literal. This still leaves difficulties with the context of scripture. In the preveious chapter we have another “verily,verily”, statement that connects eternal life with belief. (v. 24) In fact, hundreds of verses in the NT connect belief in Christ with eternal life.
That is why i see v.54 as figurative and v.40 as literal. It reconciles with all other scripture.

In fact, the subject of ch. 6 and the point that Jesus is trying to make to the crowd is that He is the Son of God and equal with God. This is why they seek to kill him in ch.7:1. It was not a capital offence to offer your finger to eat (although they might want to commit you) but you could be killed for blasphemy.

Well, that’s my interpretation.

 

[jatkins29]

I’m a little confused as to why Protestants believe we Catholics don’t read our Bibles as much as they do. My wife goes to a WEEKLY Bible study at our Parish where she goes into great depth into the scripture and I am about to start one for men that meets once a month. Coming into the Catholic Church as a convert from the Baptist church, I can tell you I have read more scripture now than I ever did as a Baptist.

 

[AwGusTeen]

I’m a little confused as to why Protestants believe we Catholics don’t read our Bibles as much as they do. My wife goes to a WEEKLY Bible study at our Parish where she goes into great depth into the scripture and I am about to start one for men that meets once a month. Coming into the Catholic Church as a convert from the Baptist church, I can tell you I have read more scripture now than I ever did as a Baptist.

I’ve had the same experience.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Please educate me on the Catholic Faith. If the last apostle died with the apostles recorded in Scripture, how can there be apostolic succession? If I go to the Catholic Catechism, isn’t Sacred Scripture known as the Holy Bible considered to be the greatest form of revelation given to us?

The apostles appointed successors to carry on the message of Jesus.

From Clement, who knew Peter and Paul and was the third pope:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this,** they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…**For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

More relevant quotes:

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

 

[2nd_Adam]

I’m a little confused as to why Protestants believe we Catholics don’t read our Bibles as much as they do. My wife goes to a WEEKLY Bible study at our Parish where she goes into great depth into the scripture and I am about to start one for men that meets once a month. Coming into the Catholic Church as a convert from the Baptist church, I can tell you I have read more scripture now than I ever did as a Baptist.

If you go to the first post (OP), you will see a link to a Catholic article that is posted on Catholic Answers, stating that Catholics need to read their Bibles. Therefore, it is not Protestants who are making that statement. It is a Catholic who wrote that article. Since it is on Catholic Answers, then they must approve of the contents of that article of

Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!.

---

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. For their part, Evangelicals are usually ignorant of Church history, at least those nearly fifteen centuries before Martin Luther came along. It’s a sad fact of human nature that people tend to pit things against each other that don’t need to be opposed logically (or biblically). It should be both/and, not either/or. Catholics ought to do more Bible reading, and Evangelicals ought to read more Church history. We can learn from each other…

Protestants often find it difficult to reconcile Catholics’ lack of Bible reading with our claims to possess the fullness of Christian truth. Any viewpoint that is self-confident and healthy needs to engage criticism openly and honestly, no matter what the forum is. Protestants do that all the time. They write whole books about problems in their ranks. It is a sign of health and vigor…

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. This truth is obvious, and outsiders see it already, so we have to deal with it frankly. I’m not advocating a neglect of anything else in the Catholic spiritual or liturgical life. I’m maintaining only that too many Catholics neglect or try to minimize or de-emphasize the Bible…

If a Catholic truly does know Scripture, he also needs to demonstrate that in conversation: “Walk the walk,” don’t just “talk the talk.” The more we show that Bible and Catholicism are not contradictory terms, the more we appeal to Protestants with the truth of our overall message. A Catholic who is properly prepared can easily go head-to-head with a Protestant exegete…

---

Dave Armstrong, webmaster of Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (www.biblicalcatholic.com), is the author of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003). He writes from Detroit, Michigan, where he lives with his wife, Judy, and their four children.

 

[2nd_Adam]

protetantism is cafeteria christianity. the particular denomination no matter which one it is, usually has one point it emphasizes at the expense of the others. calvinism? please! id be happy to debate calvinism with you. which part of tulip would you like to start with. or we can debate infant baptism or the eucharist. you decide. former protestant myself so if you wanna roll,then lets do it.

I would enjoy discussing and debating Calvinism with you. Please start a thread and let the fun begin. It will be a motivation for you to read your Bible to try to refute Calvinism with Scripture proofs!

 

[2nd_Adam]

I’ve had the same experience.

I once went to a Men’s Catholic fellowship. One of the leaders invited me to it,knowing that I was an Evangelical. The leaders were very much orthodox Catholics. They rebuked the Catholic men who freely read the Scriptures outside of Catholic understanding. Many of the Catholic men were reading the NIV (Protestant translation), similar to many Evangelical men in the neighborhood. There was a struggle within that Parish with Catholic men who read the Bible freely like Evangelicals and the conservative Catholics who read the Scriptures within the Catholic Catechism conclusions. The Priest eventually elimated the Catholic Bible study, and encouaged catechizing instead. Therefore, Catholics can read the Bible in two ways. I found that experience to be very insightful. I personally find that many of the Cathoic brothers and sisters on Catholic Answers are posting isolated verses outside of the proper context of the acutal Bible book… changing the meaning of the text. In case you might not realize this, chapters and verses were added much later and are not considered to be inspired.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The apostles appointed successors to carry on the message of Jesus.

From Clement, who knew Peter and Paul and was the third pope:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this,** they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…**For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

More relevant quotes:

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

To make sure I understand official Catholic theology, Apostolic Succession is not a succession of new Apostles, but rather a succession of new church leaders that are not Apostles, correct? To follow the line of successors, we would have to rely on extra-biblical revelation to determine that, correct?

 

[pismopal]

Non Catholics “read” the Bible using the “spectacles” of their own faith tradition and this is why …sometimes…reading doesn’t help explore the possibility that one’s faith tradition is erroneous. No matter how much a non Catholic reads John:6…he is not likely to take what Christ said literally… if he did he would cease to be non Catholic. If everyone in the world would “read” the Bible ceaslessly…the articles of our Catholic faith would not change one iota…that is comforting to me…how about you?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Non Catholics “read” the Bible using the “spectacles” of their own faith tradition and this is why …sometimes…reading doesn’t help explore the possibility that one’s faith tradition is erroneous. No matter how much a non Catholic reads John:6…he is not likely to take what Christ said literally… if he did he would cease to be non Catholic. If everyone in the world would “read” the Bible ceaslessly…the articles of our Catholic faith would not change one iota…that is comforting to me…how about you?

I think this is true for all Christians, including Catholic and Orthodox Christians too. We all know in part, and do not read the Scriptures without personal bias. You come to the Bible with Catholic preconceived notions. I come to the Bible with Calvinistic glasses. We all see dimly. If you think about it, God the Holy Spirit illuminates truth to us through opening up the Scriptures to us. So, in the flesh without the Spirit, we are not able to understand the Scriptures correctly. The Catholic Church does change all the time, even though she does not admit it. New confessions and catechisms, and pronouncements are added all the time. I am a staunch Calvinist Christian posting two Catholic links on my signature which I consider to be highly profitable for all Christians. Therefore, something has changed. Did you struggle with the teaching of justification by faith as a Catholic?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

To make sure I understand official Catholic theology, Apostolic Succession is not a succession of new Apostles, but rather a succession of new church leaders that are not Apostles, correct? To follow the line of successors, we would have to rely on extra-biblical revelation to determine that, correct?

Right.

Our Church is not led by the apostles, but by their successors.

We can follow the line of succession all the way back to Jesus. It intersects with biblical teaching but it extends from that time until today.

Each Bishop has had hand laids upon him by an earlier Bishop. These succession can be traced from head to hand all the way back to the bible:

Acts 6
The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

1 Tim 4
14
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.

1 John 4
6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Right.

Our Church is not led by the apostles, but by their successors.

We can follow the line of succession all the way back to Jesus. It intersects with biblical teaching but it extends from that time until today.

Each Bishop has had hand laids upon him by an earlier Bishop. These succession can be traced from head to hand all the way back to the bible:

Acts 6
The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

1 Tim 4
14
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.

1 John 4
6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Thanks for the the verification of my understanding. But we cannot validate the line of successors within Sacred Scripture. I assume there is a dispute of successors with the East and the West Churches, correct? Is it correct to say that the Orthodox Churches do not agree that the Popes of the Catholic Church is the right successor? The East is not in communion with Pope Benedict XV1 as being the correct successor, correct? I’ve spoken to several Orthodox Christians who tell me that the Orthodox Church is the One True Church.

 

[bookgirl32]

Hello bookgirl32.

I noticed, as earlier mentioned, that you were offended by 2nd Adam’s comments. That a non-catholic,

I didn’t say this.

not educated in catholic doctrine

I did say this.

would criticize catholics and their knowledge(or lack thereof).

I did not say this. Criticize all you want. Don’t claim to understand the actual teaching (when you do not) better than an educated Catholic (who, being familiar with the teaching, woul have an advantage in understanding the leader of that teaching). Actually, don’t claim that that teaching teaches something different than what it actually does. You don’t have to agree with it, just be honest about what it actually says. I’m not disagreeing with the actual writers of those articles. I’m calling 2nd Adam to task over misinterpreting what those writers are saying as meaning that Catholics don’t understand the Bible at all, and therefore don’t understand the authority of the Catholic Church.

I have observed, on this forum, a similiar if not identical complaint. Coming from the Jews directed towards Christians.

Jews tell Christians what they believe on this forum? Or they disagree with Christians on this forum? These are two different things.

 

[bookgirl32]

Please educate me on the Catholic Faith. If the last apostle died with the apostles recorded in Scripture, how can there be apostolic succession? If I go to the Catholic Catechism, isn’t Sacred Scripture known as the Holy Bible considered to be the greatest form of revelation given to us?

Not by the CAtholic Church it isn’t. It is considered to be part of the whole of *all *of revelation, as revealed to the Church in the deposit of faith at Pentecost. See? You don’t understand all of Catholic doctrine.

 

[bookgirl32]

Why is it called apostolic succession if their are no additional apostles after those recorded in Scripture?

The completely revealed truth that they held is passed down in the succession. The “being an apostle” is not. Apostolic succession is not “people keep becoming an apostle.”