Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[happy_88]

Pork n pie

I am due in late March. Thanks for the prayers.
My point of view is that the main problem is not following the bible. If we look at it from both sides, the church or the bible, both say we should be open to life, but most do not follow church or bible on this.
Yes,this actually is a good example of tradition. What became a statement of letting our concience decide when to have children on the grounds of charity, has morphed into new brides being counselled into going on the pill. Wives are now expected to be on contraception most of their lives on the few exeptions of wanting a baby. So only in a few years in time it has morphed.Most honest and genuine christians don’t even know that this was a taboo thing just a few generations ago.
So I feel that tradition is untrustworthy in this case,and tradtion can make us read the bible in a different light once it becomes a reality in our minds. Try to bring up this topic to a protestant…it is like talking tradition or papal infallacy to a Catholic

 

[englishredrose]

English - so why did contraception change from being immoral to moral on or about 1930 in mainstream protestantism? Specific to the post subject, did the interpretation of the bible change or is there a tradition of men that made it so or something else?

I haven’t a clue and I have no real desire to make God into a Political Subject

Thankfully my life is* suddenly* too interesting to worry about if man changed intrepetations of the Bible - that was hiccup, er written by Men wasn’t it ? or if Man changed, played about with traditions or something else… and traditions were created in the first place by Men weren’t they and all the rest of the slippery slope arguments that many like to weave themselves into and then can’t get out of their own tangled up web.

So if you want to believe we changed the rules to suit ourselves then fine if that keeps you happy. But leave us in peace and we will leave you in peace, attack us and you’ll be attacked back because thats the sad way we want to live.

You can pick hole every decision made via Church of England and declare how it so wrong in Catholicism if you so desire but at the end of it - it be you who is tired and frustrated and angry that we are not turning Catholic etc because you have highlighted how wrong we are but still insist on going that way because you are the one not in peace where as I am in peace to leave such slippery slope arguments where they belong, the village duck pond Hope you find peace and happiness friend and get someone who will answer the question how you want them to answer it.
Peace and hope you feel happy soon

 

[happy_88]

I do think if we approach this topic from a cold rigid legalistic veiwpoint then we have miised the point of it all. This is an issue of the heart and should be handled this way. We are not all carbon copies of each other and many people have very unique situations.a friend of mine had to use contracetion in order to go on some experimental drug, she was sad about this and reluctantly udes FAM and condoms, she definatly gets it! For me at this point of life it would be soley for vanity and money…lifestyle.

 

[Porknpie]

I haven’t a clue and I have no real desire to make God into a Political Subject

Thankfully my life is* suddenly* too interesting to worry about if man changed intrepetations of the Bible - that was hiccup, er written by Men wasn’t it ? or if Man changed, played about with traditions or something else… and traditions were created in the first place by Men weren’t they and all the rest of the slippery slope arguments that many like to weave themselves into and then can’t get out of their own tangled up web.

So if you want to believe we changed the rules to suit ourselves then fine if that keeps you happy. But leave us in peace and we will leave you in peace, attack us and you’ll be attacked back because thats the sad way we want to live.

You can pick hole every decision made via Church of England and declare how it so wrong in Catholicism if you so desire but at the end of it - it be you who is tired and frustrated and angry that we are not turning Catholic etc because you have highlighted how wrong we are but still insist on going that way because you are the one not in peace where as I am in peace to leave such slippery slope arguments where they belong, the village duck pond Hope you find peace and happiness friend and get someone who will answer the question how you want them to answer it.
Peace and hope you feel happy soon

English, God isn’t a political subject and neither is contraception, let alone abortion. They are issues that bring to light that there is an objective truth and the question is as a Christian, do you have a desire to seek the truth or not? The pill acts to prevent pregnancy in three ways, the third being it acts as an abortificient or in other words, it kills the human life. No politics here, just life and death. Do Catholics on this post believe that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus on St. Peter? Certainly. Do Catholics believe that the church on Faith and Morals can not teach in error? Yes, definitely, and contraception is good example. Other faiths too believe contraception is immoral which in my own words is “good for them”. That’s a measure holiness and unity that we need as Christians. Finally, not to pick, but I’m quite happy today. At peace and feel no agitation toward you.

 

[Porknpie]

Pork n pie

I am due in late March. Thanks for the prayers.
My point of view is that the main problem is not following the bible. If we look at it from both sides, the church or the bible, both say we should be open to life, but most do not follow church or bible on this.
Yes,this actually is a good example of tradition. What became a statement of letting our concience decide when to have children on the grounds of charity, has morphed into new brides being counselled into going on the pill. Wives are now expected to be on contraception most of their lives on the few exeptions of wanting a baby. So only in a few years in time it has morphed.Most honest and genuine christians don’t even know that this was a taboo thing just a few generations ago.
So I feel that tradition is untrustworthy in this case,and tradtion can make us read the bible in a different light once it becomes a reality in our minds. Try to bring up this topic to a protestant…it is like talking tradition or papal infallacy to a Catholic

Happy,

I think we agree that contraception has been immoral throughout Christianity until 1930 and now is morally permissable in some but not all Protestant churches. Many protestants that I personally know (although some on this post know the history) do not know that the reformation leaders were very anti-contraception and anti-abortion. So here we have a man-made tradition (for a variety of reasons that you note previously) built upon reformers that created their own man made theology. My sense is that Calvin and Luther would be shocked at the acceptance of contraception today. Below are quotes in their words as examples:

Martin Luther:

How great, therefore, the wickedness of human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill, and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! (LW 4:304, Commentary on Genesis 25)

John Calvin:

The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. The impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses’ mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race. If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen, in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth. (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis 38:8-10)

As a Catholic, we hold that Jesus built his church upon St. Peter, to teach infallibly on faith and morals until the end of time. Teaching that contraception was and still is immoral is one example of his keeping his promise. March is a wonderful month for having a baby…

 

[stewstew03]

I haven’t a clue and I have no real desire to make God into a Political Subject

Thankfully my life is* suddenly* too interesting to worry about if man changed intrepetations of the Bible - that was hiccup, er written by Men wasn’t it ? or if Man changed, played about with traditions or something else… and traditions were created in the first place by Men weren’t they and all the rest of the slippery slope arguments that many like to weave themselves into and then can’t get out of their own tangled up web.

So if you want to believe we changed the rules to suit ourselves then fine if that keeps you happy. But leave us in peace and we will leave you in peace, attack us and you’ll be attacked back because thats the sad way we want to live.

You can pick hole every decision made via Church of England and declare how it so wrong in Catholicism if you so desire but at the end of it - it be you who is tired and frustrated and angry that we are not turning Catholic etc because you have highlighted how wrong we are but still insist on going that way because you are the one not in peace where as I am in peace to leave such slippery slope arguments where they belong, the village duck pond Hope you find peace and happiness friend and get someone who will answer the question how you want them to answer it.
Peace and hope you feel happy soon

Miss Rose,

It seems you took the liberty to insert yourself into a discussion between Porknpie (“PNP”) and Happy 88, so I think I’ll do the same.

First, the claim that anyone is “making God into a Political Subject” is nonsensical. The question PNP asked relates to the moral issue of contraception. Certainly you can identify the difference between a moral issue and a political issue, eh mate?

Secondly, if you “don’t have a clue” about the issue being discussed, then please save the empty chatter about how “interesting” your life is, and how miserable we Catholics are, for another discussion forum. If you truly desire that we find “peace and happiness” then you might oblige us by returning to the aforementioned “interesting life” and allow the rest of us to commiserate on CAF.

Thanks!

 

[stewstew03]

Happy,

I think we agree that contraception has been immoral throughout Christianity until 1930 and now is morally permissable in some but not all Protestant churches. Many protestants that I personally know (although some on this post know the history) do not know that the reformation leaders were very anti-contraception and anti-abortion. So here we have a man-made tradition (for a variety of reasons that you note previously) built upon reformers that created their own man made theology. My sense is that Calvin and Luther would be shocked at the acceptance of contraception today. Below are quotes in their words as examples:

Martin Luther:

John Calvin:

As a Catholic, we hold that Jesus built his church upon St. Peter, to teach infallibly on faith and morals until the end of time. Teaching that contraception was and still is immoral is one example of his keeping his promise. March is a wonderful month for having a baby…

Southern Baptist Convention (1934)

“The Southern Baptist Convention hereby expresses its disapproval of the Hastings Bill, now pending in the Congress of the United States, the purpose of which is to make possible and provide for the dissemination of information concerning contraceptives and birth control; whatever the intent and motive of such proposal we cannot but believe that such legislation would be vicious in character and would prove seriously detrimental to the morals of our nation.”

Source: sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=285

 

[Porknpie]

Southern Baptist Convention (1934)

“The Southern Baptist Convention hereby expresses its disapproval of the Hastings Bill, now pending in the Congress of the United States, the purpose of which is to make possible and provide for the dissemination of information concerning contraceptives and birth control; whatever the intent and motive of such proposal we cannot but believe that such legislation would be vicious in character and would prove seriously detrimental to the morals of our nation.”

Source: sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=285

Stew - I didn’t know that about Southern Baptists. Thanks for the post. Below is some information on the SDAs.

From SDA Church Official Statements | Adventist.org

1. Appropriate methods of birth control. Moral decision making about the choice and use of the various birth control agents must stem from an understanding of their probable effects on physical and emotional health, the manner in which the various agents operate, and the financial expenditure involved. A variety of methods of birth control–including barrier methods, spermicides, and sterilization–prevent conception and are morally acceptable.

What’s really interesting is that they say:

A number of moral issues must be considered. Christians who ultimately must make their own personal choices on these issues must be informed in order to make sound decisions based on biblical principles

Obviously the “based on biblical principles” has a lens from their own tradition…a tradition that in their church run hospitals allows for elective abortion. If abortion is OK, then what is the big deal about contraception?

 

[happy_88]

Hey guys take it easy on English Rose, she is a very moderate, nice person from what I have read from her posts and is a committed Christian.
The issue at hand is a rather complicated one, for myself I don’t care what Luther or Calvin wrote other than there was a historical and bible basis.
There is clear evidence in the bible how marriage is to be carried out. I know many places in the bible where it is pretty clear. I have showed many people in my sphere of influence what the bible says and they are astonished.
We should not look at it as “carrying our cross” or anything close to that.
A good outlook on this is found in the Song of Solomon, the book is all about desire,love,passion…and is written in a background of fertility sanctioned by God.There are many interpretations of this like: the relation between God and Israel and later the relationship between God and the church. This could be a huge topic, but lets just stick to the main and the plain.
It is a book written in a clear illustration of what a marriage should look like…the wife is uninhibited and pleasure is throughout, but the imagery of fertility is just as illustrated as the pleasure. Some might not catch the imagery of this…for example, the Author refers " I will climb the palm tree" this is how farmers even today fertilize the palm tree…they climb one and collect the pollen and climb an adjacent tree to fertilize it. (This is only one of many illustrations)
Most people focus on the cold legalistic verses, but SOS does fill in a void most needed in the Bible.
If we take away the fertility aspect of marriage then the bibles reason for condemning homosexuality crumbles along with it. There is so much info in the Bible on this subject
The problem with this is the fact we can read our way into a literal trap like the Pharisees found themselves in… for example the sabbath was interpreted very cold with no exceptions to the law.
I can only judge my own situation in regards to this, as we are not all carbon copies of each other there is a plethora of possibilities out there…mental illness,disease…etc.,
The type of birth control or contraception is really the big issue and when and what situation is it moral?
As I read the Anglican decree of 1930 it in itself is not bad, but it gave no answers and left a lot of questions… followed by a Protestant silence on the subject.

my ramblings…

 

[Porknpie]

The problem with this is the fact **we **can read our way into a literal trap like the Pharisees found themselves in… for example the sabbath was interpreted very cold with no exceptions to the law.
I can only judge my own situation in regards to this, as we are not all carbon copies of each other there is a plethora of possibilities out there…mental illness,disease…etc.,
The type of birth control or contraception is really the big issue and when and what situation is it moral?
As I read the Anglican decree of 1930 it in itself is not bad, but it gave no answers and left a lot of questions… followed by a Protestant silence on the subject.

my ramblings…

Happy,

I don’t mean to turn this into a contraception dialogue as there are other posts on catholic.com that can address this most thoroughly. Scripture and tradition is clear that contraception has been condemned universally up to 1930. There is no context where it bends to moral one moment and immoral the next. That’s reading into the bible an understanding that does not exist. It’s also a “we” or “I” protestant viewpoint where the bible can be self interpreted by each reader. Each person is their own authority to interpret scripture. Sola scriptura. This self interpretation usually has a beginning point of a predefined belief and man-made tradition. The Catholic view is God is Truth, the truth does not change and that the church, established by Jesus upon St. Peter is incapable of error in faith and morals. The church is the authority established by Christ to interpret the bible. It can not be you nor I nor anyone else. This is a Catholic website so I’m trying my best to give you a Catholic answer.

On the other poster, EnglishRose. I reread her post and my post. If she’s on this website I assume she is here to learn more about Catholicism and in some way she is seeking the truth as God has revealed it. Contraception is not a political subject, Catholics hold it to be a moral one. No one is trying to convert her but we’re trying to convey what the church teaches and the Holy Spirit takes it from there.

Ok, that’s my ramblings for the day.

 

[CopticChristian]

Pork n pie

I am due in late March. Thanks for the prayers.
My point of view is that the main problem is not following the bible. If we look at it from both sides, the church or the bible, both say we should be open to life, but most do not follow church or bible on this.
Yes,this actually is a good example of tradition. **What became a statement of letting our concience **decide when to have children on the grounds of charity, has morphed into new brides being counselled into going on the pill. Wives are now expected to be on contraception most of their lives on the few exeptions of wanting a baby. So only in a few years in time it has morphed.Most honest and genuine christians don’t even know that this was a taboo thing just a few generations ago.
**So I feel that tradition is untrustworthy **in this case,and tradtion can make us read the bible in a different light once it becomes a reality in our minds. Try to bring up this topic to a protestant…it is like talking tradition or **papal infallacy **to a Catholic

Happy,

You point out the Protestant dilema. The Bible or the Church? This is Protestant thought.

The Catholic Paradigm is not the Bible or the Church but The Bible and The Church. It is both and…

Your understanding of Tradition is not clear and your mention of this example illustrates your lack of understanding.

You do not understand Papal infallibility calling it “infallacy”.

You are teaching. You have been teaching. Sadly what you teach is only what you believe and not what is taught by the Church or The Bible.

Porknpie has given it a good effort and in the last post says this…

Post 256
Happy,

I don’t mean to turn this into a contraception dialogue as there are other posts on catholic.com that can address this most thoroughly.

This is a Catholic website so I’m trying my best to give you a Catholic answer.

The Bible teaches this. How do you understand your teaching, in particular on a Catholic Answer forum website, based on the following statements from the Bible you read.

1 Tim. 2: 11. Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission: 12. for I do not allow a woman to teach or to be assuming over the man; but let her remain in stillness.
“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (1Timothy 2:15).

Now there are examples of teaching and correction in unison but not alone…

But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

While you promote the “The Bible or The Church” and you say that Protestants do not follow the Bible alone, the Bible never teaches to follow the Bible alone. How do you propose to justify this notion of “The Bible or The Church” when following teachings when the Bible does not teach to follow the Bible or the The Church…The Bible says…

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So the Bible is not the Pillar and foundation of truth…you propose that error is due to not following the Bible and the Bible says that the Church is where truth is found. How do you reconcile that?

8Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The Bible says that through the Church, not the Bible, that the manifold wisdom of God is made known. How do you reconcile that?

15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

You are speaking of those that sin not following the Bible and you are teaching wrongly that it is because people are not following the Bible. The Bible is not the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is not where the manifold wisdom of God is known and you propose following our conscience. The Bible teaches none of that. If you propose that someone is wrong and sinning The Bible says take it to The Church. How do you reconcile that?

I suggest you heed what I and others have said and stick to the topic of Do you and other Protestants follow the Bible alone.

Your thoughts are in severe error and I suggest you rethink what it is you are trying to teach. There are others viewing this site and it is not just you and someone on this thread.

 

[stewstew03]

Stew - I didn’t know that about Southern Baptists. Thanks for the post. Below is some information on the SDAs.

Was the SBC applying biblical principles THEN or NOW? Same question can be asked vis-a-vis the issue of slavery…

Obviously the “based on biblical principles” has a lens from their own tradition…a tradition that in their church run hospitals allows for elective abortion. If abortion is OK, then what is the big deal about contraception?

This shows two things:

(1) Sola Scriptura is an empty “doctrine.”

(2) The SDA has supplanted the Word of God as a rule of faith and practice.

 

[DA1973]

Why, when Catholics are challenged about apostolic succession, what kind of rock Peter is, their interpretation of the Eucharist, the intervention of the Saints, the virginity of Mary and a host of other topics about which Christians disagree, they make recourse to the Bible to support their positions? I hear this on Catholic Radio all the time.

Didn’t the Church Fathers also do this?

Can the Catholic hierarchy in any given era, vote out some interpretation or other, like the psychiatrists vote mental illnesses up and down?

You’re confusing us simple Christians out here.

 

[pablope]

Why, when Catholics are challenged about apostolic succession, what kind of rock Peter is, their interpretation of the Eucharist, the intervention of the Saints, the virginity of Mary and a host of other topics about which Christians disagree, they make recourse to the Bible to support their positions? I hear this on Catholic Radio all the time.

Well…let me ask first…do you know how the Bible came about?

Well, the Bible was produced and written by Catholics, for Catholics…which are the original Christians. The Bible reflects the teachings of the CC. The CC came first, ahead of the Bible.

Protestantism did not appear till Luther started the movement and the splitting of the Church around 1521.

Didn’t the Church Fathers also do this?

 

[benjohnson]

Why, when Catholics are challenged about apostolic succession, … Christians disagree, they make recourse to the Bible to support their positions?

Because our Catholic friends are trying to be persuasive. It’s good form and rather clever to try to use the language of your ‘opponent.’

 

[Porknpie]

Because our Catholic friends are trying to be persuasive. It’s good form and rather clever to try to use the language of your ‘opponent.’

Ben,

The bible is the language of my opponent?

my answer) No Christian on this post is an opponent. That misrepresents why any Catholic is here. I even say this of other Christians who do not believe Catholics are saved. Regarding “clever”… IMHO, you are confusing the word “clever” with “well catechised”. There are some very well catechised Catholics who post here. This is true and this is good for anyone coming to this website to learn more about the Catholic faith.

Why do Catholics use the bible?

my answer) It’s our book to begin with … and it is infallible and “profitable for teaching.” But Catholics use tradition as well, particularly the early church fathers who if you read them sound and are very Catholic in their words & thoughts.

 

[DA1973]

Well…let me ask first…do you know how the Bible came about?

 

[pablope]

Actually I did not…and I surmised correctly…you do not know the origin of the Bible.

You can’t use the Bible to defend the practices of the Catholic Church and then say that the Catholic Church is the origin of the Bible, which you say "produced"and “wrote” the Bible. Hmmm … that would be, what, circular reasoning?

It is not circular reasoning…it is a historical fact. The Bible came from the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles…and the teachings of the CC are “confirmed” in the Bible.The usual protestant practice is …to cite a particular passage xxxx…then intepret it…and say…this is what it means…and this is our doctrine.

Maybe I will let an ECF do the talking himself:

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

-St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies

Other Christians put the origin of the Bible with God. Which is why many Catholics turn to the Bible to support their beliefs and practices.

Okay…who did God use to put the Bible together? Why do you even believe it is the word of God?

Where does the Bible say it is the source of truth? And where did God say this is the table of contents of what should be in the Bible? Can you point to us Catholics here, the source where God handed down what should be in the Bible?

BTW, that’s fine with me, brothers and sisters! If you can make your case through the Bible, more power to you.

Why don’t you give it a try? Ask a question and ask for Biblical proof?

But pooh-poohing sola scriptura wears a might thin when Catholics keep appealing to the Bible in the defense of their beliefs.

Will you accept proofs aside form citing the Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

DA1973:

Why, when Catholics are challenged about apostolic succession, what kind of rock Peter is, their interpretation of the Eucharist, the intervention of the Saints, the virginity of Mary and a host of other topics about which Christians disagree, they make recourse to the Bible to support their positions? I hear this on Catholic Radio all the time.

Because scripture is merely a part of oral Traditions written down. Appealing to Scripture and Tradition and the Church is also used to defend teachings. No where does the Bible teach everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only.

Didn’t the Church Fathers also do this?

Yes when the opposition refused to listen and accept Apostolic Traditions and the Church. As a result, the church appealed to their scipture-only argument.

Can the Catholic hierarchy in any given era, vote out some interpretation or other, like the psychiatrists vote mental illnesses up and down

?

Come again?

You’re confusing us simple Christians out here.

 

[JonNC]

Ben,

The bible is the language of my opponent?

my answer) No Christian on this post is an opponent. That misrepresents why any Catholic is here. I even say this of other Christians who do not believe Catholics are saved. Regarding “clever”… IMHO, you are confusing the word “clever” with “well catechised”. There are some very well catechised Catholics who post here. This is true and this is good for anyone coming to this website to learn more about the Catholic faith.

Why do Catholics use the bible?

my answer) It’s our book to begin with … and it is infallible and “profitable for teaching.” But Catholics use tradition as well, particularly the early church fathers who if you read them sound and are very Catholic in their words & thoughts.

Pork,
I think you misunderstand Ben’s point. By not referring to Tradition, which some protestants would reject out of hand, and relying on scripture, Catholics position themselves on a ground that protestants can’t reject with the response, " where is that in the Bible?".

At least, that’s the way I read it. I don’t think he was trying to say that Catholics don’t use the Bible any other time.

Jon