Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!

[bookgirl32]

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.

And . . . you couldn’t do what i asked you to, could you?

 

[bookgirl32]

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)?

It is in line with Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not hold with either Sola Scripture OR Prima Scriptura, which is what you are posting about above. Sacred Sripture and Sacred TRadition are equal within official Catholic Dogma. Other CAtholics please have at it.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It is in line with Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not hold with either Sola Scripture OR Prima Scriptura, which is what you are posting about above. Sacred Sripture and Sacred TRadition are equal within official Catholic Dogma. Other CAtholics please have at it.

That’s not what I am saying. Lets give other Catholics a chance to validate or refute what I am saying in regards to various Sacred Tradition. I believe within Sacred Oral and Written Tradition, Holy Scripture is defined as being superior sacred tradition as compared to other sacred tradition. I believe Scripture is considered God-breathed as Sacred Tradition, but other forms of Sacred Tradition is not considered God-breathed.

 

[bookgirl32]

That’s not what I am saying. Lets give other Catholics a chance to validate or refute what I am saying in regards to various Sacred Tradition. I believe within Sacred Oral and Written Tradition, Holy Scripture is defined as being superior sacred tradition as compared to other sacred tradition. I believe Scripture is considered God-breathed as Sacred Tradition, but other forms of Sacred Tradition is not considered God-breathed.

That’s fine if you believe it, the CAtholic Church does not. Other Catholics educated in their faith will say the same thing as I did.

 

[rivera01]

Exactly. Not one is superior to the other, they are equal, this is why you were given the example of a 3 legged stool. 1 leg is sacred scripture, another is sacred tradition, and the last is the magisteruim. You cant have one with out the other, this is what protestantism has been doing for the last 500 years.

 

[StillWondering]

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?

The Catholic Church would not agree, in my personal Catholic understand, that Sacred Scripture is superior than any other Catholic Sacred Tradition. The reason for this is because the Sacred Scripture as we know it today came from Sacred Tradition (as an offspring of Sacred Tradition). Unlike any static image one chooses to imagine, the foundation of the Church is a dynamic yet retaining all fullness till the end of time.

How could sometime be full and dynamically changing? Well God is certainly full. In addition, he is immutable as deep thinking Christians will agree. Nevertheless he is dynamic to us in the sense that there is always more to know about God because God is eternally greater than us in an infinite magnitude of comparison.

This is how I explain the foundation of the Church to my friends: imagine God giving the world this gigantic book, it’s so large it takes billions of people to hold it up. Within this book are the Sacred Scriptures. Within this book are the teachings of the Magisterium through time. Within this book are all of the mystical experiences of the Saints and personal revelations of individuals. It’s vast and incomprehensible by any human unless they are graced by God to fully understand. Well it contains the fullness of God’s teachings for us. It is not Christ literally in the sense that if we are to know all of Christ, we would know all of God and this is a contradiction. For if we can understand it fully, it is not God who is eternally greater than us in an infinite magnitude of comparison.

Okay, so the fullness of truth for us humans to understand over time is this book and it is not Christ in its’ entirety. It is the teachings of Christ. Now over the years we need to read the book over and over and glen more and more from it. A very simple example to understand is if I hand you an intro quantum dynamics book, it will most likely take you many readings to fully understand it at the point that you can write a brand new book in your own words accurately. So Sacred Tradition gives us the tools to slift through this mega-book. Essentially Sacred Tradition is the index, table of contents, appendix, instruction manual on how to get the most out of this book, as well as statements of Truths used as a foundation for all thought understood from this book. Sacred Scriptures are chapters found in this book. The Magisterium acts as the voice, spirit, and measuring device that one builds from the tools found in Sacred Tradition (i.e. metric of truth).

That should be a pretty thorough answer to your assertion and should demonstrate that Sacred Scripture is not considered superior to the other parts of the foundation of fullness of truth given to the Church whom Christ has founded 2000 years ago.

 

[robsully]

Hello bookgirl32

Thank you for your response. My last post, as I wrote, was an observation. Before noting the observation I asked a series of questions to get a footing of your side of the debate. Then based my observation on the responses to my queries.

I could quote what the questions were and what the responses were but a) it probably won’t change anything b) you probably have better things to do than read a lengthy off-topic post. c) I am really too lazy.

But after re-reading the posts I still feel the observation is valid.

Do Jews say what they believe on this forum? yes. Do Jews disagree with Christians on the forum? yes.

 

[Carlan]

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.

Hello bookgirl, I caught Adam’s drift early in September when he started his thread, ‘Eucharist,please help me understand’. I Believed at the time he was sincere in wanting to understand our faith.Now after posting almost 1400 hundred posts in just a couple of months time he is still playing his game. Having lots of fun wasting our time and actualy his own , I believe he must have close to 20 threads off and running since he came to CA. I am wonder ing if he is trying for some kind of record.Carlan

 

[elvisman]

That’s not what I am saying. Lets give other Catholics a chance to validate or refute what I am saying in regards to various Sacred Tradition. I believe within Sacred Oral and Written Tradition, Holy Scripture is defined as being superior sacred tradition as compared to other sacred tradition. I believe Scripture is considered God-breathed as Sacred Tradition, but other forms of Sacred Tradition is not considered God-breathed.

You’re absolutely, positively DEAD wrong.
**Please show me where Scripture itself says that Scripture is above all tradition. **You see - the Bible itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth - NOT the Bible.

1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Aible also puts sacred Tradition on PAR with Scripture - not beneath it:
2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

 

[Poetess_Kera]

You’re absolutely, positively DEAD wrong.
Please show me where Scripture itself says that Scripture is above all tradition. You see - the Bible itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth - NOT the Bible.

1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Aible also puts sacred Tradition on PAR with Scripture - not beneath it:
2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

Well said!!

 

[Stephen168]

Catholic doctrine is the fullness of truth as revealed to man through Christ and the apostles passed down for nearly 2000 years.
robsully;5837132:

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.

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

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.

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:

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?

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.

Ok, to summarize:

Catholic doctrine is the fullness of truth as revealed to man through Christ and the apostles passed down for nearly 2000 years.

Through Apostolic succession from Peter in Rome, Mark in Alexandria, Andrew in Constantinople, James in Jerusalem, Peter in Antioch, to Bishop after Bishop as the Church spread around the world to my Bishop.

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

Chestertonrules, I think you did give him an education on how the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth; great job!!

 

[Canto]

Scripture is part of tradition
Written tradtion and oral tradtion both need to be held onto
The Bible does not put one above the other
The Bible does not say to ingnore oral tradtion

Extra Biblical revelation includes for example the canon of Scripture! How can Scripture be above tradtion if tradtion gave us the canon? Without tradtion there would be no Bible.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Scripture is part of tradition
Written tradtion and oral tradtion both need to be held onto
The Bible does not put one above the other
The Bible does not say to ingnore oral tradtion

Extra Biblical revelation includes for example the canon of Scripture! How can Scripture be above tradtion if tradtion gave us the canon? Without tradtion there would be no Bible.

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.

Protestants and Catholic agree that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God and is God-breathed. Do Catholics believe that Sacred Tradition is God-Breathed and the Word of God just like Sacred Scripture? Does the Catholic Church really see Sacred Tradition to be equal wih Sacred Scripture?

 

[Canto]

Holy Scripture is God-breathed, or is the Word of God which cannot change. Check out how Sacred Tradition changes, which means that it is not God-breathed.

Tradtion (in the sense of unchanging doctrine as opposed to changing disciplines or customs) constitues part of the revealed truth of God. We cannot as Christians cast it aside or diminish it in any way, shape or form. It cannot change, and just as Scripture is guarded by the Spirit so too is Tradtion (in the doctrinal sense). In fact, the Scriptures are part of Tradition.

Tradtion gave us the Bible! No Tradtion = No Bible.

The Church could exist and did exist without the Bible, it is but part of the depoist of faith and the Scriptures never tell us to rely on it alone and cast aside the Tradtion handed down or the Magesterium for that matter…

 

[2nd_Adam]

Tradtion (in the sense of unchanging doctrine as opposed to changing disciplines or customs) constitues part of the revealed truth of God. We cannot as Christians cast it aside or diminish it in any way, shape or form. It cannot change, and just as Scripture is guarded by the Spirit so too is Tradtion (in the doctrinal sense). In fact, the Scriptures are part of Tradition.

Tradtion gave us the Bible! No Tradtion = No Bible.

The Church could exist and did exist without the Bible, it is but part of the depoist of faith and the Scriptures never tell us to rely on it alone and cast aside the Tradtion handed down or the Magesterium for that matter…

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.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
**
Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!**
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…

I would agree that most Catholics (present company excepted) are rather anemic when it comes to exegesis. I’be been a Catholic since moments from my birth. But it has only been in the last ten years that I’ve found the desire to study and read the scriptures outside of mass. That said, however, having gone to mass for many years, I found that I was not starting at square one. Many of the scripture passages that are emphasized in apologetics work were very familiar to me, even though I had never read the bible from cover to cover, never poured through the CCC or Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, or even hopped on Dr. McGee’s bible bus. Nor had I generally read the scriptures with an eye toward distinguishing Catholic doctrines from Protestant beliefs - having only limited use of the bible for devotional reading on rare occasions. It does take a conscious effort to study the bible in a way that prepares you to defend the faith from those who also wield the scriptures against the Church.

That being said, however, in my experience I was not starting at square one when I decided to enter the field of apologetics. Rather, my mass attendance went a great deal towards familiarizing me with the scriptures - as they have been understood from the time of the early Church.

So, while I am willing to concede that Catholics will always benefit from more study time with the Bible, I would also humbly suggest that many of our separated brethren would do well to attend mass more often, if they want to understand the history of their faith… what they left behind and the common history we share as christians.

Peace,
Robert

 

[2nd_Adam]

I have read many posts stating that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. The CC tells us that God gave us the Bible because it is God-breathed. Can someone please post to let me know if Sacred Tradition is considered to be God-breathed too just like Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture is also known as special revelation. Is Sacred Tradition considered revelation too?

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

 

[2nd_Adam]

I would agree that most Catholics (present company excepted) are rather anemic when it comes to exegesis. I’be been a Catholic since moments from my birth. It has only been in the last ten years that I’ve found the desire to study and read the scriptures outside of mass. However, having gone to mass for many years, I found that I was not starting at square one. Many of the scriptures were familiar to me, even though I had never read the bible from cover to cover, or hoped on Dr. McGee’s bible bus. Nor had I read the scriptures with an eye toward distinguishing Catholic doctrines from Protestant beliefs. It does take a conscious effort to study the bible in a way that prepares you to defend the faith. However, in my experience I was not starting at square one when I decided to enter the field of apologetics. Rather, my mass attendance went a great deal towards familiarizing me with the scriptures.

Peace,
Robert

Since you entered the filed of apologetics, are you ready to discuss a Christian doctrine with a Protestant using the Scriptures? Let’s discuss and debate the gospel according to the Word of God, or maybe the biblical doctrine of justification as revealed by God in His written revelation known as Sacred Scripture? After-all, this thread is really about a Protestant challenge, debating Christian doctrine according to Sacred Scripture.

 

[Jason_1977]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
**
Catholics neeed to read their Bibles!**

---

This is awesome coming from a guy I just told that there’s more than one version of the bible, & the NIV has a comma & KJV, NAB, DRV dont have commas in Phil. 2:12-13. You also belive in a Gospel According to Paul, instead of the gopsel being preached by Paul,
"For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; yea woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel."—1 Corinthians 9:16

WAIT< was that scripture? Not bad for a catholic eh? Dude, my kung fu is strong w. the scripture, it only makes sense to learn the word once understanding John 1:1. I agree many catholics are not bible saavy, they know more catechism than they do scripture. Many things they know & recite & dont realize it’s in scripture. I know, I’ve spoken to a few. Some casually say things like, well, I’m not the swiftest guy when it comes to the bible, or some people say “there might be a little dust on my bible” like the country song goes, but then, I wasn’t always catholic. I also live in south carolina & there are tons of baptists & fundaMENTALists down here & if I am to have any credibility in explaining my faith, or justifying how I choose to practice my faith, catechisis only works in telling other catholics why they should do things thus… scripture is universal. It is also important to know scripture because when a baptist tells you works dont get into heaven & paul released us from doing works as opposed to really reading Galatians 2 & Romans 3, you see we’re liberated from the LAW, not works, (James 2:14-26, Titus 3:8-11)
There’s some more scripture for ya buddy!
You take out words from an excerpt of the teachings of the pope & make this twisted statement about faith alone being true based on Luther when he said nothing of the kind & never intended to convey the message, he actually was saying that Faith alone is true if it isnt against acts of love & charity, which would be works, and it wouldnt just be faith, which is an ingenius oxymoron.

Like I said before, what you’re doing here is serving YOUR agenda, not Gods. You seek to discredit. You can claim catholics need to read their bibles…I can nail an entire congregation of episcopalians to the wall based on scripture discussion. I know. I didnt learn a scrap of scripture for 30 years being episcopalian. I have read 3/4 of the bible in the span of 2 years. Not to swift to be sure, I am reading slowly & prayerfully, as the Word SHOULD be read.
Make sure what you do is for the glory of God. Think to yourself, would God be pleased with what I’m doing? Would he be pleased w. how I’m spreading his message? I;'m no saint to be sure, but you definitely have a target & it seems you’re trying all the angles in search of a weak point to exploit. Try welcoming Jesus into your heart & observe other catholics who know what they’re talking about. I avoid the goofball ones like the plague. Every village has them. If one protestant says something off the wall, I’m not going to say, howcome protestants say & do this & that? If you judge a group based on 1 or 2 people, then you’re a pea-wit. Take it as it comes, man to man, person by person. I can target protestants all day long if I wanted to. I can be just as nasty & as questions that encourage & inspire the cyclical behavior that keeps the flame of anti-catholicism burning bright.
Whatever you feed, you give life to. You’re breeding & cultivating hatred & disdain. Nothing of what you’re doing or saying in any of the chats I’ve seen you in are geared toward bringing people together. I pity you. I remember what it felt like to have hate in my heart. I’ve learned it’s a waste of energy. I’m going to continue to pray for you.
I’ll say this for you, you don’t make it easy for people to take you seriously. :coffeeread:

 

[Jason_1977]

Since you entered the filed of apologetics, are you ready to discuss a Christian doctrine with a Protestant using the Scriptures? Let’s discuss and debate the gospel according to the Word of God, or maybe the biblical doctrine of justification as revealed by God in His written revelation known as Sacred Scripture? After-all, this thread is really about a Protestant challenge, debating Christian doctrine according to Sacred Scripture.

by the way, your sliced & diced Eisegesis quote of Benedict XVI is a riot, & it’s also funny you leave the link up for all to see, & discover the truth of what the Bishop of Rome really said. It’s like weaving a web of lies but you make it so the light of the truth still shines through. It’s kinda self-contradictory. The pope said, faith alone is true if it isnt against acts of love & charity.

Also, why do you seek to debate the gospel, when it was meant to be heard, learned & spread? Debating the Gospel? It’s like sucker punching my father. You can debate DOCTRINE, but I would never discredit the Gospel of Jesus Christ by seeking to debate it. Helping others to understand it or answer questions, maybe, but debating the Gospel? That is something that a believer & a NON believer would do. Amongst the fellowship of believers, I think it’s crass.