Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

[bookgirl32]

But you do agree that none of what you stated can be verified in the Scriptures, correct?

Can any of what he said be contradicted by the scriptures? Do any of the scriptures say that the truth given to the apostles CANNOT be passed down?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Can any of what he said be contradicted by the scriptures? Do any of the scriptures say that the truth given to the apostles CANNOT be passed down?

Why would your extra-biblical claims be any more valid than the Mormon extra-biblical claims? Anything is possible that does not contradict Scirpture. But we do not have divine inspired God-breathed revelation to validate claims outside of Scripture.

 

[bookgirl32]

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.

Not all Protestants think that. 2nd Adam just found some articles concerning Catholics being familiar with the Bible (NOT the teachings of the Bible, which is a different thing), completely misinterpreted it, and used it to say that those Catholic writers are really more in agreement with him as a Protestant, and since they say that none of us are familiar with the Bible (they didnt’ really say that) that he’s right, the Catholic writers are in agreement with him, and we don’t know it.

 

[2nd_Adam]

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.

Yes, but Holy Scripture is considered superior revelation from above than other forms of sacred Traditon (oral and written). Is this a correct understanding according to the Magestrium?

 

[bookgirl32]

In case you might not realize this, chapters and verses were added much later and are not considered to be inspired.

But the inclusion of books within the Bible, and the exclusion of books not in the Bible, is considered to be inspired, right?

 

[bookgirl32]

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?

Yep. Would you like to show me where the Bible says we can’t?

 

[2nd_Adam]

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.”

I agree that special revelation from above has been passed down to all generations of redemptive history. The question is how does God pass down special revelation from generation to generation. My answer is through His written Word known as the Holy Bible.

 

[pismopal]

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?

I did go to the Bible with a personal bias and as you can see I chose to put aside that bias and consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church by actually reading it and shining the light of the supporting Bible verses on what is written. Certainly some expressions of Catholicism change in form and that isn’t even a contest but so what? What “pronouncement” are you referring to? The English dictionary has been rewritten several times to make it relevent to modern times but the language remains essentially the same… easilly recognizable as English. The changes in Vatican II were hard for some ( before my conversion) but it did not change the essence of our faith at all…just it’s expression and it was freely admitted… to address your accusation that the Church is not open. The Latin Mass…is this the change that you refer to? The change of language does not change the articles of our faith one bit.
I am not sure what you mean by “struggle with the teaching of justification by faith” as a Catholic. My only struggle in my study was with the fact that all of the objections that I had with the Church were simply erroneous or misunderstandings.

 

[bookgirl32]

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.

Can you provide specific examples?

 

[2nd_Adam]

But the inclusion of books within the Bible, and the exclusion of books not in the Bible, is considered to be inspired, right?

I think the cannon of Scripture being the Catholic cannon or Protestant cannon is an irrelevant topic when discerning our division as Christians. The Apocrypha books are inter-testaments books which do not support either side’s posiiton on essential doctrine. Many of the older Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha books in the back as beneficial sources to read.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Can you provide specific examples?

What is your view of justification by faith?

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes, but Holy Scripture is considered superior revelation from above than other forms of sacred Traditon (oral and written). Is this a correct understanding according to the Magestrium?

No, it’s not. And guess what, the Bible doesn’t claim it either. I challenge you to show me where it explicitly (not implicitly by your own personal interpretation) states that it is the only, or the superior, form of revelation.

 

[bookgirl32]

What is your view of justification by faith?

2nd Adam, if you are going to misinterpret Benedict, again, go back to the other thread. Second of all, Benedict’s general audience would not be considered speaking ex cathedra, so even if he was “changing” it (which he’s not), he wouldn’t do it there.

 

[bookgirl32]

I think the cannon of Scripture being the Catholic cannon or Protestant cannon is an irrelevant topic when discerning our division as Christians. The Apocrypha books are inter-testaments books which do not support either side’s posiiton on essential doctrine. Many of the older Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha books in the back as beneficial sources to read.

Nice dodge. This isn’t what I’m talking about. Take the Bible minus the deutero-canonicals. Do you consider the inclusion of those books in the Bible to be inspired?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Nice dodge. This isn’t what I’m talking about. Take the Bible minus the deutero-canonicals. Do you consider the inclusion of those books in the Bible to be inspired?

I’m Protestant with a Protestant cannon. However, if we are going to get back to the thread topic of discussing Christian doctrine according to the Scriptures, I don’t mind using a Catholic cannon or a Protestant cannon. It’s no big deal on my end.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Yep. Would you like to show me where the Bible says we can’t?

You can believe the way that you want sister. However, it does not mean other Christians will accept extra-biblical revelation in the same way that you do.

 

[2nd_Adam]

No, it’s not. And guess what, the Bible doesn’t claim it either. I challenge you to show me where it explicitly (not implicitly by your own personal interpretation) states that it is the only, or the superior, form of revelation.

I don’t think your posting is in-line with official Catholic teaching. Can other Catholics give me the official Catholic position in regards to Scripture being superior Sacred Tradition as compared to other forms of Sacred Tradition (oral and written)?

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam;5839331:

No. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of apostolic succession in the Orthodox Churches.

That is not correct. The Orthodox Church does not deny the Pope’s legitimacy as the successor of Peter, but they differ on the implications of this succession.

Thanks for the education. I’ll leave the division between the Catholics and Orthodox within yourselves.

 

[bookgirl32]

I’m Protestant with a Protestant cannon. However, if we are going to get back to the thread topic of discussing Christian doctrine according to the Scriptures, I don’t mind using a Catholic cannon or a Protestant cannon. It’s no big deal on my end.

Okay, so is the canon, Protestant or CAtholic, inspired? I would think that the canon is on topic since it is, in fact, the compilation of the scriptures themselves. Is the compilation fo the sciptures inspired? Can we say that it is divinely inspired fact that the books that make up the Bible are the books that are supposed to make up the Bible? It’s a yes or no question.