Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

[guanophore]

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?

This is correct. If you look in Acts, no one after that time was able to meet the qualifications of an Apostle.

To follow the line of successors, we would have to rely on extra-biblical revelation to determine that, correct?

No. The ability to follow the lines of the bishops from the Apostles is not a matter of “revelation” but of history.

What we glean from extrabiblical revelation is the development of doctrine (the definition of the Trinity, for example) and the canonization of scripture.

 

[Canto]

You don’t want to take the Catholic challenge as stated by the Catholic article in debating with Protestants in the Scriptures, correct? The door is open to debate our differences in regards to justification by faith within a forensic justification, or penal substitution. Or, we can debate Calvinism through the Scriptures too. The strength of confessional Protestantism is the Scriptures. The strength of the Catholic Faith is Sacred Tradition, but not Sacred Scripture alone.

Catholic don’t rely on scripture alone because it is unbiblical

If the Catholic Church had not come up with the canon at the Council of Rome in 382 AD you would have no scripture for to debate us with

There are often high power debates between Catholic and Protestant apologists, and the Catholics always seem to kick you know what, but maybe I’m biased

Here are some examples of debates

Like a virgin?
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/marysaints/svend-heos1.htm

Working for the Man
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/justification/engwer-answers.htm

 

[guanophore]

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 think you are misunderstanding what changes, and what does not. Disciplines can change, devotional practices, pastoral practices, and our understanding of doctrine can develop. But the once for all deposit of faith given to the church is immutable (unchanging). This deposit includes sacred scripture, and sacred Tradition. these things cannot change, because their source and maintenance is in God, who changes not.

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?

Yes, something has changed, but it is not the Divine Deposit of faith. It is the manner in which we communicate with one another, and how we are to understand what the Apostles taught in our day and age. this is the duty of the Magesterium.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for the the verification of my understanding.  But we cannot validate the line of successors within Sacred Scripture.

No. Neither can we validate which books belong in the sacred scripture from the sacred scripture. That is one reason we say that Sola Scriptura is a false assumption. It has to assume the canon, which comes from extrabiblical revelation.

I assume there is a dispute of successors with the East and the West Churches, correct?

No.

Is it correct to say that the Orthodox Churches do not agree that the Popes of the Catholic Church is the right successor?

No, that would not be correct. The Orthodox have always accepted that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.

The East is not in communion with Pope Benedict XV1 as being the correct successor, correct?

False. This issues related to the schism do not include this.

I've spoken to several Orthodox Christians who tell me that the Orthodox Church is the One True Church.

It seems like you are having a really hard time staying on your own topic, in your own thread!

 

[guanophore]

Why would your extra-biblical claims be any more valid than the Mormon extra-biblical claims?

Only those revelations of God that are protected by the HS against error are more valid than “claims”.

Anything is possible that does not contradict Scirpture. p

While I don’t agree with this statement, I do understand the point you are trying to make.

But we do not have divine inspired God-breathed revelation to validate claims outside of Scripture.

Well, you don’t because you don’t accept that the Church is God breathed. You see, catholics notice that Jesus “breathed upon them” (the church) and gave them the HS. It is His breath, and the power of the HS that makes the church infallible.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Jesus is considered the superior revelation, far above any other forms of revelation One of the major flaws of the Sola Scriptura doctrine is replacing the Person of Christ with the Holy Writings. People have literally made idols out of their bibles.

 

[Daedelus76]

I consider myself at the moment a “high church” catholic/orthodox Christian (Anglican), but the whole “sola scriptura” idea is potentially full of epistemological problems. Texts never interpret themselves, but are only meaningful within a given context. If anything, this is the lesson of postmodernism, something many Protestants absolutely need to take to heart. I cringe every time I hear somebody say “But the Bible says…”. That’s ONLY true within a certain context. Outside of an authentic context that is based in a tradition, your can make the Bible say lots of crazy stuff and that’s why many intellectuals in Protestant countries have problems taking Christianity seriously, because many Christian groups misrepresent what the Bible can, and cannot do.

There are some exceptions: Anglican bishop N.T. Wright (himself in the Evangelical/Broad Church camp) is a good example though of an Evangelical scholar who has taken a fresh look at “what the Bible really says”, especially in an historical context (and not one based in medieval Latin anti-semitism, like Martin Luther), and actually alot of the conclusions he came to, are very close to the Orthodox/Catholic views of salvation, eschatology, and the role of the Church in the world. Of course, this hasn’t won him many fans among Reformed Evangelicals.

Traditionally in Christianity, layman approached the Scriptures to look for inspiration, not theology or creedal type beliefs, which were found within the contexnt of the Church or their faith community. It was only when people in the later Reformation started trying to figure out “what the Bible really says” that you started getting thousands of different Protestant sects, each one with their own unique take on “Truth”.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, this is certainly one Source of His revelation to us. However, since the names of the books that belong in there are not contained in there, you have no reason to trust that as such a source, since it does not testify of itself.

 

[guanophore]

I think the cannon of Scripture being the Catholic cannon or Protestant cannon is an irrelevant topic when discerning our division as Christians.

Well, you would be wrong on that point, 2nd. I say this because it lies at the root of what we are discussing here, which is divine revelation. Catholics believe that God gave his HS to the Church, and promised to lead that Church into all truth. If Catholics are wrong, then you have no basis for a bible at all. If catholics are right, then it is inappropriate to remove books from the collection used by Jesus and the Apostles.

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.

The books that were removed at the Reformation are not “apocryphal”. The proper name for them is Deuterocanonical. On the contrary, they were taken out BECAUSE they support Catholicism too much!

There is no agreement on what constitutes 'essential doctrine."

Catholics espouse what the Apostles taught as ‘essential’. Since the time of the reformation, every Tom, Dick, and Harry have made up their own list of essentials.

 

[guanophore]

What is your view of justification by faith?

I gotta hand it to you, 2nd. I think you have set the record for diversions to a thread by OP.

 

[racing59]

From an outsiders view I can see how the title on this thread can lead people to believe Catholics don’t read Scripture outside of Mass on Sunday. I know this to be false,many Catholics do. Second I would like to add that reading this whole thread 2nd Adam never answer once to the question of 1 Timothy 3;15 “The Church is the balkward and Pillar of Truth”, I’m intrested in a response to that. I’m a Christian, not a Calvanist or any other. I don’t consider my self a Protestant,because I do not object to any Christian Faith(Catholic or other wise). Solo Scriptora is the Bible alone,but I too study Early Fathers and many other works. Catholics have facts on their side you can not argue that the Church came after the Bible. The Church was first and many documents written by the disciples of the Apostles we know as the Gospels were lost.We do not have the original manuscrips, that is fact Therfore the Catholic argument for Oral Tradition has validity, and the Council of Bishops,put the NT together. These are facts we Christians can not deny.The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky, it was put together by men inspired by God.Many of it’s writtings were handed down by Oral Tradition for 300 years till it was put into a book.

 

[Jehoshua]

Which is why protestantism is irrational on the sola scriptura point. Its in clear contradiction to logic and fact. It astounds me as to why any protestant cant see past the fallacy and see the truthful and logical facts professed by the Catholic Church.

 

[StillWondering]

Sacred Scripture is not part of Sacred Tradition according to the Catholic Catechism.

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

If you value Sacred Tradition as much as Sacred Scripture, please give me sources and references of Sacred Tradition that you are familar with. I bet you will have troubles finding Sacred Tradition that you know of. I’ll time you. It’s 10:23 PM Pacific Time.

It might be interesting for you to know that the deposit of faith is what we call Sacred Tradition. This includes the news about Christ’s teachings, Christ is resurrected, the “breaking of the bread” which is another name for the Eucharistic celebration, apostolic authority, male priestly calling, the laying of hands on clergy elect which is the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit which is the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Before 40AD, do you know of any gospels haven already been written? If not, what did people talk about between 30AD to 40AD? I would guess they were talking about the teachings of Christ and the other things listed above. This oral tradition and the Sacrament is part of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Stephen168]

dont worry stephen. paul did teach what the other apostles taught. and it was not calvinism.

I don’t know anything about Calvinism but from what I’ve heard so far I would agree. It is called Calvinism after a John Calvin a 16th century protestant. If it had started with Paul it would be called Paulism.

When I asked 2nd Adam about this he couldn’t answer the question with a simple yes or no. When someone dodges the simplest question, they have no credibility as someone capable of honest discourse or they have no argument.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Make Your Calling and Election Sure

St Peter says make every effort - we have the free will not to make every effort

**The Apostle John tells us that we were not saved by our own free will. **

Obviously it is God who save us, but if we don’t walk in his ways we can’t expect to get into heaven.

I agree with you that we are to make our calling and election sure through pressing on, and straning ahead through the grace of God, and the power of the Spirit …

Straining Toward the Goal

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. - Paul

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me -.1 Corinthians 15:10

 

[2nd_Adam]

No. Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of God’s revelation to mankind. Scripture reflects this revelation, as does the Church.

I agree with this statement with modifications. Jesus Christ is the Apex of God’s revelaton to mankind. However, God reveals the person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf through special revelation knoown as Sacred Scripture. The Church can reflect Jesus Christ… but impefectly and inferior to Sacred Scripture.

 

[2nd_Adam]

From an outsiders view I can see how the title on this thread can lead people to believe Catholics don’t read Scripture outside of Mass on Sunday. I know this to be false,many Catholics do. Second I would like to add that reading this whole thread 2nd Adam never answer once to the question of 1 Timothy 3;15 “The Church is the balkward and Pillar of Truth”, I’m intrested in a response to that. I’m a Christian, not a Calvanist or any other. I don’t consider my self a Protestant,because I do not object to any Christian Faith(Catholic or other wise). Solo Scriptora is the Bible alone,but I too study Early Fathers and many other works. Catholics have facts on their side you can not argue that the Church came after the Bible. The Church was first and many documents written by the disciples of the Apostles we know as the Gospels were lost.We do not have the original manuscrips, that is fact Therfore the Catholic argument for Oral Tradition has validity, and the Council of Bishops,put the NT together. These are facts we Christians can not deny.The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky, it was put together by men inspired by God.Many of it’s writtings were handed down by Oral Tradition for 300 years till it was put into a book.

This thread is not from an outsider’s view. The article exhorting Catholics to read their Bibles is from a Catholic which is posted on Catholic Forums. I’m glad you are Christian first and Catholic second. 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.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Catholic don’t rely on scripture alone because it is unbiblical

If the Catholic Church had not come up with the canon at the Council of Rome in 382 AD you would have no scripture for to debate us with

There are often high power debates between Catholic and Protestant apologists, and the Catholics always seem to kick you know what, but maybe I’m biased

Here are some examples of debates

Like a virgin?
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/marysaints/svend-heos1.htm

Working for the Man
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/justification/engwer-answers.htm

The Sacred Scriptures is from God and not the Catholic Church. This is also written in the Catholic Catechsim under sacred Scripture. Just because a Catholic claims something is Catholic does not make it Catholic. Peter, Mary, and James were not Catholic from my perspective.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think you are misunderstanding what changes, and what does not. Disciplines can change, devotional practices, pastoral practices, and our understanding of doctrine can develop. But the once for all deposit of faith given to the church is immutable (unchanging). This deposit includes sacred scripture, and sacred Tradition. these things cannot change, because their source and maintenance is in God, who changes not.

Yes, something has changed, but it is not the Divine Deposit of faith. It is the manner in which we communicate with one another, and how we are to understand what the Apostles taught in our day and age. this is the duty of the Magesterium.

I agree that the Faith was Onced for all delieved to the Saints (Jude 3), and the Divine Deposit of Faith does not change. The Reformation was the recovery of the gospel of justification by faith. It sure seems by what I have read, the recovery was successful even in the Catholic Church. I have two Catholic Articles confirming justification by faith. Therefore, Catholics should thank the Lord on Reformation Day!

 

[2nd_Adam]

I consider myself at the moment a “high church” catholic/orthodox Christian (Anglican), but the whole “sola scriptura” idea is potentially full of epistemological problems. Texts never interpret themselves, but are only meaningful within a given context. If anything, this is the lesson of postmodernism, something many Protestants absolutely need to take to heart. I cringe every time I hear somebody say “But the Bible says…”. That’s ONLY true within a certain context. Outside of an authentic context that is based in a tradition, your can make the Bible say lots of crazy stuff and that’s why many intellectuals in Protestant countries have problems taking Christianity seriously, because many Christian groups misrepresent what the Bible can, and cannot do.

There are some exceptions: Anglican bishop N.T. Wright (himself in the Evangelical/Broad Church camp) is a good example though of an Evangelical scholar who has taken a fresh look at “what the Bible really says”, especially in an historical context (and not one based in medieval Latin anti-semitism, like Martin Luther), and actually alot of the conclusions he came to, are very close to the Orthodox/Catholic views of salvation, eschatology, and the role of the Church in the world. Of course, this hasn’t won him many fans among Reformed Evangelicals.

Traditionally in Christianity, layman approached the Scriptures to look for inspiration, not theology or creedal type beliefs, which were found within the contexnt of the Church or their faith community. It was only when people in the later Reformation started trying to figure out “what the Bible really says” that you started getting thousands of different Protestant sects, each one with their own unique take on “Truth”.

Since you are Anglican, I wanted to post that the historic 39 Articles of Faith defining historic Anglicans is a great confessional which I can embrace! You will find that the 39 Articles of Faith to be staunchly Protestant with much Calvinism in it!