Do we get everything from the Bible

[mark_a]

Hated is such a strong word. How bout disagreeable?

Ok. Please excuse the kneejerk reaction. I was raised in the south.

 

[Even_So]

Hi all. Thanks for not being too hard on me this time.

Yes, many Protestants go only to the bible-and then often proceed to disagree with each other on its meaning.

As with any religion’s writings/traditions.

There is no teaching of the Catholic Church that is not explicitly or implicitly in the bible.

The problem is that most Protestants don’t understand that Traditions were being taught before the new testament was assembled and written. Especially the most hated (among Protestants) traditions about the Blessed Mother and the papacy.

So:

• Get the Catholic Answers app.
• Use the filter to find “forum for Non-Catholics”
• Listen to shows by Tim Staples, Steve Ray, and Jimmy Akin and branch out from there.

And read:

• “Behold Your Mother” by Tim Staples
• “Upon This Rock” By Steve Ray

Problem solved!

If only it were that easy.

 

[fhansen]

As with any religion’s writings/traditions.

But in this case their (Protestant’s) very beliefs depend on it. In the case of Catholicism the Church has been handed revelation from the beginning; Catholic doctrine is determined from that rather than private/personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But in this case their (Protestant’s) very beliefs depend on it. In the case of Catholicism the Church has been handed revelation from the beginning; Catholic doctrine is determined from that rather than private/personal interpretation of Scripture.

Right.but here…

rather than private/personal interpretation of Scripture

Which in itself is hypocrisy of double standards. How does one privately interpret verse by an assembly of say a dozen or so verses to present a summary of comprehended understanding and THEN don’t admit its “opinion” but in fact assume the same role they reject of authority to interpret scripture. So it neglects divine revelation handed down while making itself the authority of the public revelation of Christ handed down by applying private revelation. And while infallibly claiming the Church is in error.

I can’t see it any other way, perhaps I’m missing something? Aside from terminology and perhaps denial its the same paradigm in the final analysis. Basic double standard, look at Luke alone and the hypostatic union.

.

 

[fhansen]

Right.but here…

Which in itself is hypocrisy of double standards. How does one privately interpret verse by an assembly of say a dozen or so verses to present a summary of comprehended understanding and THEN don’t admit its “opinion” but in fact assume the same role they reject of authority to interpret scripture. So it neglects divine revelation handed down while making itself the authority of the public revelation of Christ handed down by applying private revelation. And while infallibly claiming the Church is in error.

I can’t see it any other way, perhaps I’m missing something? Aside from terminology and perhaps denial its the same paradigm in the final analysis. Basic double standard, look at Luke alone and the hypostatic union.

.

The revelation that the Church originally received was not private, but public, as its put. This is what Jesus revealed during His earthly sojourn with us, by all He said and did. The Church which He established was witness to this event, to Him. So when we talk about the Church and her understanding of revelation, it’s like talking about someone who’s “been there”, who’s experienced it. Like a person who knows New York City because they’ve lived there all their lives vs someone who’s picked up a travel guide and read about it.

As examples, the Church’s teaching and practices regarding baptismal regeneration or the Real Presence weren’t arrived at by assembling a bunch of bible scholars who proceeded to come up with the most highly probable doctrines. Instead, those beliefs and practices were simply the way the Church, both east and west, has always and everywhere done it. No private revelation necessary either, even as the Church has always considered herself to be guided, as it does become necessary, by the Holy Spirit since her beginnings.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The revelation that the Church originally received was not private, but public, as its put. This is what Jesus revealed during His earthly sojourn with us, by all He said and did. The Church which He established was witness to this event, to Him. So when we talk about the Church and her understanding of revelation, it’s like talking about someone who’s “been there”, who’s experienced it. Like a person who knows New York City because they’ve lived there all their lives vs someone who’s picked up a travel guide and read about it.

Agree’d but outside of Catholicism is the point…

So it neglects divine revelation handed down while making itself the authority of the public revelation of Christ handed down (scripture) by applying private revelation to scripture in further elaboration and contradiction to the above paradigm we agree on. And while infallibly claiming the Church is in error. Basic double standard, look at Luke alone and the hypostatic union.

 

[fhansen]

Agree’d but outside of Catholicism is the point…

So it neglects divine revelation handed down while making itself the authority of the public revelation of Christ handed down (scripture) by applying private revelation to scripture in further elaboration and contradiction to the above paradigm we agree on. And while infallibly claiming the Church is in error. Basic double standard, look at Luke alone and the hypostatic union.

Ok, so you were aiming that at non-Catholic practices then?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do we get everything from the Bible

Think about this from Luthers perspective with Marion Doctrines. Admittedly this is a terrible article. however, it makes the general point, when one insists they are right in regards to public revelation then they uphold their own private revelation or there is nothing more than an opinion and a contradiction in either case of what we consider Gods Divine revelation. In fact infallible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Marian_theology#cite_note-17

Obviously Luther didn’t fall far from the tree, but this imho is simply further error of his error.

 

[slh3016]

If only it were that easy.

Oh, but it is, my friend. It is.

Listen, read, and pray with an open mind and heart. There comes a point when it all just “clicks” and you begin to see and focus on the image that is hidden in the stereogram. It often takes a while to refocus from what seems obvious but then suddenly, you will see the image that has been hidden and your eyes can never focus back to what you originally thought the image was. It’s impossible. The hidden image is the Catholic Church, the Church Jesus founded.

If you’re a Seinfeld fan, think of the episode with Elaine and Mr. Pitt

Once you begin to see that the teachings of the ancient church are the glue that holds the entire OT and NT together to form one cohesive picture of salvation history, you’ll be amazed at the beauty of the painting and God’s marvelous brushstrokes.

Sorry for all the metaphors

 

[mark_a]

Hey mark. I think so to and in order the issue you propose stems from one point, the Nature of Christ thus the hypostatic union-Incarnation in which Christ first is the par excellence of this in relation to Divine and human thus full of grace, Mary though completely human is closest to the hypostatic union in maternity as her ascent or yes is the secondary cause of the Incarnation thus hypostatic union of the divine/human nature of Christ.

So in perspective your conviction of the Lord is a hypostatic union of yourself and the Lord thus God becomes man so you can become “like God”, in which case you or Mary in a like manner share in the hypostatic union. However, yours is realized by divine revelation thus conviction by the Holy Spirit, this is true also with Mary, nevertheless the difference is Marys is realized by participation in maternity.

This also happens in like manner in the sacrament of the Church, real presence, however with Mary this happened in reality as the Mother of the Lord-Jesus Christ.

The issues in comprehension stem from this point which bible only proposes at this point any theories such as Pauls sin theology which doesn’t apply to God, thats His law for man, not for himself to be applied to it or subjected to it. Mans issue is sin not God who is full of grace. Christ came to redeem man of the paradigm of ignorance by man which is sin thus a fracture of the paradigm of “full of grace” or perfectly graced thus a state of sanctifying grace. Mary was sanctified thus full of grace as the author of Grace was born of Mary thus the Incarnation of the Word. Its a secondary response of the convicted soul which ultimately leads the soul to divinization in a like manner which is represented in Jesus Christ. So the trinity is also further comprehended by this understanding so in a like manner both Trinity and Incarnation are revealed to the Church which is Christ, and why Mary is Mother of the Church.

Needless to say I agree and a good deal with the posts above.

I can see that you are further along in your Maryology than I am!

 

[mark_a]

If only it were that easy.

Gee, I hope the op realized that my “problem solved!” statement was tongue-in-cheek.

I gotta remember to use those smilies more often! :banghead:

 

[eddie_too]

from where or whom did we get the bible?

the bible came from somewhere. it did not create itself.

you would think that whoever gave us or created the bible would be a superior source of the Gospel than the bible is.

 

[Ignatius]

I was having a conversation with a person who said that the Church added certain teachings that were not in the Scriptures and created by men within the Church. I
Was I correct in saying this or does the Church base teaching only on the Bible?

Actually, the New Testament was the result of Sacred Tradition. The New Testament Scriptures hadn’t been started to be written down until around A.D. 60. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was on Earth in the flesh. So several generations passed with only what was handed on by The Church before any of The New Testament Scriptures were written. IOW, The Church came first, The New Testament Scriptures came through The Church in the form, first of Sacred Tradition, then later were written down. Men wrote the Sacred Scriptures of The New Testament, these men were Mathew, Mark, Luke,John,St.Paul,James and the rest.

Here’s some Research for you to do: How did Jesus teach that His teachings should be propagated? Did He say to use the 27 books of the New Testament?