Do Non-Catholics Worship the Bible?

[MarianKnight]

You’re asking an enormous question, which is “why did the Reformation occur?”

If “sola scriptura – the Bible alone” is the “answer” what is the question? Well, the biggest question was and still is, “Does the Catholic Church offer the correct interpretation of the Bible, or, does the Bible (somehow) explain itself?” So, their answer is, the Bible alone.

This contradicts – what? – the Bible.

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

As this verse says, the pillar and ground of the truth → is the “Church” not the Bible (as essential and important as that is).

You’re correct, but the protestants usually say that man’s interpretation can be flawed and thus no earthly organization has the power to declare what the Bible means. That logic is flawed because we interpet everything we read, that’s how our minds comprehend. It also totally discounts the influence of the Holy Spirit.

We believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in interpretting the scriptures. As I said a few posts above, you have to have a certain amount of faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants don’t have that faith, so what else beside the Bible do they have to guide their theology? I know growing up all we had was the Bible and our pastor. Well and my mom, but that’s another story.

 

[MarianKnight]

You’re asking an enormous question, which is “why did the Reformation occur?”

If “sola scriptura – the Bible alone” is the “answer” what is the question? Well, the biggest question was and still is, “Does the Catholic Church offer the correct interpretation of the Bible, or, does the Bible (somehow) explain itself?” So, their answer is, the Bible alone.

This contradicts – what? – the Bible.

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

As this verse says, the pillar and ground of the truth → is the “Church” not the Bible (as essential and important as that is).

You’re correct, but the protestants usually say that man’s interpretation can be flawed and thus no earthly organization has the power to declare what the Bible means. That logic is flawed because we interpet everything we read, that’s how our minds comprehend. It also totally discounts the influence of the Holy Spirit.

We believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in interpretting the scriptures. As I said a few posts above, you have to have a certain amount of faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants don’t have that faith, so what else beside the Bible do they have to guide their theology? I know growing up all we had was the Bible and our pastor. Well and my mom, but that’s another story.

 

[ClamDigger]

Except that here there is sexual intercourse involved. However forced it may be, there is a loss of innocence. That transcends the physical nature of her virginity, if your interpretation of what virginity means the innocence from carnal relations.

That’s what I was saying. The statement that she is a virgin both before and after the birth apply mostly to the fact that she was virginal (spiritually as well as physically) because she abstained from any sort of sexual relations. However, saying that she is a virgin in giving birth implies that Christ was not born in a purely natural way, but was somehow miraculously born in a way to prevent the rupture of Mary’s hymen. We can all agree that the Blessed Mother was most likely never presumed to have been having sexual relations while giving birth to Christ, so there would be no reason for the Church to define her as virginal in the actual process of giving birth unless she was clarifying that her physical virginity (which holds no bearing on her spiritual innocence) was not tarnished by the physical process of birth giving. Her spiritual innocence is completely covered by the pre-partu and post-partu parts of the dogma, but her continuance of clinical virginity is covered by the in-partu part of the dogma. I hope that makes sense.

See, this why I joined these forums. I had never read this passage, and I’ve never heard anyone use in when referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’ve been meaning to read some of St Thomas Aquinas’s writings, now I have even more reason to do so.

Yes, he is a great beacon of light to the Church.

There again though, we started this by discussing the differences between Protestant and Catholic views on the bible. To most Protestant denominations, their theology IS based solely on scripture. If you don’t believe the Church has any right to declare theological dogma int he first place, then there’s nothing heretical about it. Along those same lines, the whole point is that they DO believe the Council of Toledo is wrong.

Except for that the Bible says that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the Truth”, and not the Bible. Oh how Sola Scriptura so blatantly contradicts what it means to defend.

I think at this point, I should be clear that I agree with you fully on all the points above. I have however found this discuss very enlightening.

I have as well!

 

[Utmost]

And that’s why we’re here in this thread, discussing how Protestants and Catholics differ in their interpretation of Mary.

A lot of it is symantics and tone. It is the difference between brushing off a question and saying it is how it is, deal with it, and honestly saying it is one of the things we have to take on faith. I know it may seem like splitting hairs, but to someone joining the church and unsure if this is right for them, it makes a huge difference.

There’s faith in God and faith in the Church. When I went into RCIA I had no issues with my faith in God. Faith in the Church was something I hadn’t yet gained.That was one of the reasons I was there afterall.

In all this discussion of Mary and interpretations…

What is the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 1:25 (especially the word *til *or until)?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I was talking with my sister about this yesterday, actually! She’s Lutheran, but comes with me to Mass occasionally, and always comments on how short the sermons are. It’s a bit of a relief, sometimes, I guess. My thoughts: What else do they have, for God to be there with them? Catholics can “skim” over the readings because the high point of our service is the Eucharist. Jesus is there, with us in the Mass, but Protestants (mostly) don’t believe that about Communion, so of course they would hold the Word of God in high esteem. It’s the entirety of revelation for them.

/Former Lutheran

I don’t think your characterization would be at all true for most Lutherans, but perhaps a Lutheran will chime in.

This thread is a perfect illustration of the great number of misconceptions about various Protestant groups that are promulgated (and arguably, facilitated) by this site.

Just to give one illustration, there have been many posts on this site about sola scriptura, usually seriously distorting the idea, or grossly generalizing about the concept to score some ideological point. Even when one takes the time to carefully walk someone through where the idea came from historically, what it actually is, and the great variety of ways it functions within Protestant circles (even citing articles from This Rock for support) the next week there will be another post from the exact same poster advocating the exact same positions.

I wonder whether people here are really interested in answers. Or are they simply interested in a convenient platform for ridiculing other people’s religious beliefs in order to feel superior?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

 

[Alix1912]

I don’t think your characterization would be at all true for most Lutherans, but perhaps a Lutheran will chime in.

This thread is a perfect illustration of the great number of misconceptions about various Protestant groups that are promulgated (and arguably, facilitated) by this site.

Just to give one illustration, there have been many posts on this site about sola scriptura, usually seriously distorting the idea, or grossly generalizing about the concept to score some ideological point. Even when one takes the time to carefully walk someone through where the idea came from historically, what it actually is, and the great variety of ways it functions within Protestant circles (even citing articles from This Rock for support) the next week there will be another post from the exact same poster advocating the exact same positions.

I wonder whether people here are really interested in answers. Or are they simply interested in a convenient platform for ridiculing other people’s religious beliefs in order to feel superior?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

I did chime in with the post below…

I often find the homily at my husband’s church shot and lacking. I would never say that communion, which Lutheran’s also believe is the body and blood of Christ, is not the important part of the service, but I love my Pastor’s at my Lutheran Church because I learn and grow each Sunday listening to their great sermons. I think a lot of Catholic Priests fall back on the “eucharist is the most important part” and forget that the homily can be a powerful tool for instruction and spiritual nourishment.

I sometimes think the same thing about actually wanting answers versus just wanting to feel superior. I think that is the case for some, but in a lot of cases it’s just a situation of poor knowledge about the differences that exist between protestant denominations.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I did chime in with the post below…

Thanks; sorry I missed your comment.

 

[Timonator348]

I often find the homily at my husband’s church shot and lacking. I would never say that communion, which Lutheran’s also believe is the body and blood of Christ, is not the important part of the service, but I love my Pastor’s at my Lutheran Church because I learn and grow each Sunday listening to their great sermons. I think a lot of Catholic Priests fall back on the “eucharist is the most important part” and forget that the homily can be a powerful tool for instruction and spiritual nourishment.

It’s good to love your pastor but unfortunately I think people focus too much on going to Church for the pastor and to be entertained as opposed to going for Christ. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian worship and has been traditionally because it IS Jesus! At mass we receive the word of God as written in Sacred Scripture and the Word made Flesh in the Eucharist. Things like this ultimately lead us away from Christ through relativism and trying to be “cool” by the world’s standards.

 

[Alix1912]

It’s good to love your pastor but unfortunately I think people focus too much on going to Church for the pastor and to be entertained as opposed to going for Christ. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian worship and has been traditionally because it IS Jesus! At mass we receive the word of God as written in Sacred Scripture and the Word made Flesh in the Eucharist. Things like this ultimately lead us away from Christ through relativism and trying to be “cool” by the world’s standards.

I NEVER said that the host was not the most important part of the service. Reading God’s word is also important which is why an Old Testament, New Testament, and Gospel reading are included in every service at our church. I’m just saying that the sermon/homily is also an important tool for teaching and communicating God’s word to his people. I think this gets lost in some Catholic Churchs because the priest falls back on the Eucharist being the most important part. It is the most important piece, but that thought should not cause a pastor or priest to neglect other meaningful and important parts of the service. A poor homily/sermon doesn’t make a service useless or unimportant, but it does represent a missed opportunity to better instruct your congregation about the teaching and word of God.

Just because I like my Pastor’s sermons doesn’t mean that I am going to leave if he has an off day (unless he is teaching false teachings). It doesn’t lessen the importance of communion, it just means that I like being able to have the opportunity each Sunday to learn more and delve deeper into the word of God.

 

[Nicea325]

I think they worship God and the Bible is God’s word. There is also a larger connection between God and his Word (John 1:1).

No offense my brother in Christ,but when you say: The Bible IS God’s word,the impression can be taken as though the Bible is God Himself. The Bible contains God’s Word,but IS not God. I have heard many Fundamentalist tell me the Bible IS God’s Word or is God,thus it is the final say. Sorry,but that is idolatry.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t mean to be contrary, I’m just proving a point. Everything is open to interpretation. The problem is that sometimes we get caught up in the note by note interpretation of a subject rather than looking at why the issue is important. Then we start trying to interpret things the way that best fits the outcome we desire, rather than the truth which is revealed through prayerful meditation.

Indeed everything in life is open to interpretation,but in the end of the day,the church guided by the HS determines the final interpretation-take it or leave it. Did the church waiver for the Arians with the Trinity? Did not matter if the Arians rejected it after the council,it was settled and ratified.Either Jesus promised the Truth to His church or it was all a big scam?

 

[Nicea325]

You’re correct, but the protestants usually say that man’s interpretation can be flawed and thus no earthly organization has the power to declare what the Bible means. That logic is flawed because we interpet everything we read, that’s how our minds comprehend. It also totally discounts the influence of the Holy Spirit.

We believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in interpretting the scriptures. As I said a few posts above, you have to have a certain amount of faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants don’t have that faith, so what else beside the Bible do they have to guide their theology? I know growing up all we had was the Bible and our pastor. Well and my mom, but that’s another story.

And that is the precise problem with Protestanism: interpretation. If Protestants claim man’ interpretation can be flawed and no erathly organization has the power to declare what the Bible means-then WHO or WHAT does have the power? Did Jesus truly leave us in the dark and left it to fallible people to decide what it means at the individual level? Really?

Far from the truth, the answer is easy…the Church as scripture states. Problem I have encountered by many Protestants is their faulty belief of what the church means and it is role. Many Protestants look at the church just like any other institution, which is merely FALLIBLE.At times many Protestants pit scripture against the Church and have an either/or dichotomy.Both scripture and church are important and go hand-in-hand. If it is not the church,then Jesus lied about promising the Holy Spirit to guide it into ALL truth over time,not instantly.

 

[ClamDigger]

In all this discussion of Mary and interpretations…

What is the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 1:25 (especially the word *til *or until)?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

To get a good understanding of the word “until” (eos) in New Testament Greek, let’s look at the following two passages:

“And he knew her not till (eos) she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” --Matthew 1.25

“But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting, until (eos) his enemies be made his footstool.” – Hebrews 10.12-13

“Until” (eos) in Greek makes no implication about what happened (will happen) after the time period in question. We have no direct translation of the word in English, therefore it is translated in the imperfect form of “until”.
Obviously, Jesus will still sit at the right hand of God after his enemies are made his footstool, because the word in question (eos) is only used to imply what will happen up to a certain point in time without guessing what will happen afterwards. It is the same with Mary’s virginity in Matthew 1.25. The word is used in Matthew to clarify that Joseph definitely was not the father of Jesus without implying his later conduct (or lack thereof) with Mary. It implies nothing about what will happen or did happen afterward, only what happened before.
If one draws from Matthew 1.25 that Mary did not remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, they must also draw from Ephesians 10.12-13 that Jesus will not sit at the right hand of God the Father forever.

 

[Timonator348]

My point in creating this thread was to illustrate how ridiculous it is to claim idolatry when Catholics pray in front of a statute like when Protestants pray with a Bible pressed to their forehead.

 

[StevenFrancis]

No Christian. Catholic or not, should be worshipping any item or thing. And no person or entity apart from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Period. The bible is a thing, (the book anyway). Yes, its contents are a printed representation in book form of the words of God, but THE WORD of God is Jesus Christ Himself. See John 1. No representation, image, book, beads, statue, candle, etc. should ever be “worshipped”. I don’t believe that fundamentalists, or any bible Christians worship the bible any more than any Catholic worships the statuettes of Jesus or Mary in our Churches.

We do all revere and have love and thanks for the contents of the bible. It contains a great deal of the documentation we have about the ongoing relationship of God and man. Our covenants, our history, our prophets, our laws, our ideas, liturgy and of course the four Gospels of the life, work, passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God. Deep reverence is given to the biblical contents by all the Christians I know, whether Catholic, or our brothers and sisters who are still on their way to Rome.

None of us are idoloters, (that I’m aware of anyway).

Peace,

Steven