Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

[robsully]

Hello CHESTERTONRULES.
Thank you for your response. Could the “fullness of truth” be defined as the New Testament, and the interpretation of it?

 

[bookgirl32]

Hello CHESTERTONRULES.
Thank you for your response. Could the “fullness of truth” be defined as the New Testament, and the interpretation of it?

The Old and New Testament would be part of the fullness of the truth.

 

[2nd_Adam]

In your own words what is the “good news” that Catholics may not be aware of?

Do you agree with this statement?

Saint Paul’s summary of the gospel: “The just (justified, saved) shall live [have eternal life] by faith [in Christ]” (Rom 1: 17)

 

[2nd_Adam]

This is the point I was going to bring up.

When you find out that your perceptions of Catholicism and your far-reaching generalizations are untrue, I’m sure you’ll be using a different tone on this forum. Please remember that Jesus wants us to be humble.

Please note that this thread is about a Catholic work found on Catholic Answers. It is an article from Catholic Answers stating that **“Catholics need to read their Bibles!” ** Therefore, if you some of you are upset about the thread topic, then please take it up with Catholic Answers for posting the Catholic paper exhorting Catholics to read their Bibles. :yup:

 

[2nd_Adam]

That you are twisting to serve your own purposes. I’ve already quoted you from the exact same articles sections you conveniently ignored that call Sola Scriptura a total failure. This isn’t about debating Catholic vs. Protestant doctrine. This is about you purposefully misinterpreting Catholic authors.

Why do Catholics get upset when I post Catholic works form the Pope, College Professor, and another Catholic paper posted on Catholic Answers? I have always posted the links in their complete context.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Absolutely.

The better you know your bible, the more Catholic you will be!

I agree that Scripture will grow a Christian closer to God, so what Christian truth would you like to discuss and debate in light of Scripture?

IN BRIEF

134 All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642: cf. ibid. 2, 9: PL 176, 642-643).

135 “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hello CHESTERTONRULES.
Thank you for your response. Could the “fullness of truth” be defined as the New Testament, and the interpretation of it?

It could, I suppose, but I don’t think that would be complete.

I don’t think all that Jesus taught is in the New Testament.

For example:

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

The record of what he taught them over these 40 days is not explicit in the New Testament. 40 days is a long time.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It could, I suppose, but I don’t think that would be complete.

I don’t think all that Jesus taught is in the New Testament.

For example:

Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

The record of what he taught them over these 40 days is not explicit in the New Testament. 40 days is a long time.

We agree that Scripture tells us that all that Jesus did has not been recorded. It is intentional.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John

However, I believe the Catholic Church agrees with Protestants that Sacred Scripture is superior than any other Catholic sacred tradition. I believe you also posted that revelation is closed with the cannon of Scripture, correct?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

We agree that Scripture tells us that all that Jesus did has not been recorded. It is intentional.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John

However, I believe the Catholic Church agrees with Protestants that Sacred Scripture is superior than any other Catholic sacred tradition. I believe you also posted that revelation is closed with the cannon of Scripture, correct?

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The Canon of scripture was not determined for over 200 years after that time.

Jesus didn’t write a word of the New Testament, but he did start a Church.

His Church preserved his teachings as scripture and tradition. We need both to understand the revelation of God.

 

[StrawberryJam]

We agree that Scripture tells us that all that Jesus did has not been recorded. It is intentional.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John

However, I believe the Catholic Church agrees with Protestants that Sacred Scripture is superior than any other Catholic sacred tradition. I believe you also posted that revelation is closed with the cannon of Scripture, correct?

I was told it is a three legged stool. If one leg was longer than the other 2, what kind of stool would it really be anyway?

 

[robsully]

Hello bookgirl32.

Thank you for responding.

I noticed, as earlier mentioned, that you were offended by 2nd Adam’s comments. That a non-catholic, not educated in catholic doctrine( as defined as the interputation"fullness of truth" of the new and old testaments) would criticize catholics and their knowledge(or lack thereof).

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

Not a criticism, just an observation

 

[2nd_Adam]

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The Canon of scripture was not determined for over 200 years after that time.

Jesus didn’t write a word of the New Testament, but he did start a Church.

His Church preserved his teachings as scripture and tradition. We need both to understand the revelation of God.

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?

 

[Jehoshua]

Apostolic succession is a doctrine held by all of the non-protestant christian churches including even the nestorians.

Basically the doctrine states that a true “church” instead of an “ecclesial community” has organically developed from the historical apostolic church. In this sense the bishops of the churches with apostolic succesion have had their authority passed to them from their predessors continued all the way back to the original apostles. This is not unique to St Peter and is also valid for other apostles, from which churches like the thomasian christians in India claim descent (The apostle Thomas ofc). An ecclesial community however has not got valid connection to the historical apostolic church, and developed a priori without a pre-existing connection to the historical original church of the apostles. In this sense protestants don;t have apostolic succesion and therefore aren;t true churches instead they are ecclesial communities.

Summarily its the passing down of authority from the apostles to their succeeding bishops over history and into the present day. This is something that is considered a mark of a true church, which protestants lack. Therefore the ecclesial community status.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Apostolic succession is a doctrine held by all of the non-protestant christian churches including even the nestorians.

Basically the doctrine states that a true “church” instead of an “ecclesial community” has organically developed from the historical apostolic church. In this sense the bishops of the churches with apostolic succesion have had their authority passed to them from their predessors continued all the way back to the original apostles. This is not unique to St Peter and is also valid for other apostles, from which churches like the thomasian christians in India claim descent (The apostle Thomas ofc). An ecclesial community however has not got valid connection to the historical apostolic church, and developed a priori without a pre-existing connection to the historical original church of the apostles. In this sense protestants don;t have apostolic succesion and therefore aren;t true churches instead they are ecclesial communities.

Summarily its the passing down of authority from the apostles to their succeeding bishops over history and into the present day. This is something that is considered a mark of a true church, which protestants lack. Therefore the ecclesial community status.

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

 

[Jehoshua]

because the succession originates in the apostles and therefore Christ himself.

 

[2nd_Adam]

because the succession originates in the apostles and therefore Christ himself.

Okay, so after the original Apostles including the one who replaced Judas in the book of Acts, there are no other Apostles. There are many different church leaders that are elders, bishops, deacons, etc throughout the various churches. So, how do we know through the Scriptures who succeeded the Apostles? Or, is the Scriptures silent in regards to who was suppose to succeed the last Apostle? Who was the last Apostle alive anyways?

 

[Canto]

Okay, so after the original Apostles including the one who replaced Judas in the book of Acts, there are no other Apostles. There are many different church leaders that are elders, bishops, deacons, etc throughout the various churches. So, how do we know through the Scriptures who succeeded the Apostles? Or, is the Scriptures silent in regards to who was suppose to succeed the last Apostle? Who was the last Apostle alive anyways?

Apostolic sucession occurs when someone dies (or retires). When the NT writers died, then sucession took place, as they were dead, they obviously could not record the sucession in the NT.

Peter an Aposlte was the Bishop of Rome and he was replaced by Linus for example who became the 2nd Bishop of Rome, then was Anacletus, then Clement all the way to Bendict XVI, the current Bishop of Rome.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Apostolic sucession occurs when someone dies (or retires). When the NT writers died, then sucession took place, as they were dead, they obviously could not record the sucession in the NT.

Peter an Aposlte was the Bishop of Rome and he was replaced by Linus for example who became the 2nd Bishop of Rome, then was Anacletus, then Clement all the way to Bendict XVI, the current Bishop of Rome.

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

 

[Canto]

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

Clement for example was Bishop of Rome after the Bible had been written so obviously it could not be included. But the Scriptures most certaintly show apostolic succsesion.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Apostolic sucession occurs when someone dies (or retires). When the NT writers died, then sucession took place, as they were dead, they obviously could not record the sucession in the NT.

Peter an Aposlte was the Bishop of Rome and he was replaced by Linus for example who became the 2nd Bishop of Rome, then was Anacletus, then Clement all the way to Bendict XVI, the current Bishop of Rome.

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?