J
JJHIII
Guest
If the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and knows the sacred traditions and commandments of God, then do we even really need the Bible? 
Just curious,
JJ
Just curious,
JJ
- Status
W
WMM
Guest
***Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition are inseparable and complete one another. Each sheds light upon the other. The Bible is the Word of God transmitted to us in the words of human authors.If the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and knows the sacred traditions and commandments of God, then do we even really need the Bible?
Just curious,
JJ
The words in the Bible are inspired by God, although not every word in the Bible is from God.
The Bible has a human nature, by virtue of the words of the human authors and also a divine nature, by virtue of the Word of God contained therein.
This is much like the Word of God, our Lord Jesus. Both human and divine.***
F
Fidelis
Guest
Why would God reveal it to us, inspiring human authors to put it down in writing, and lead his Church to proclaim it incessantly for 2000 years if we didn’t need it?If the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and knows the sacred traditions and commandments of God, then do we even really need the Bible?
Just curious,
JJ
J
JJHIII
Guest
That’s exactly it. Haha I was just wondering for what reasons we do need it
D
dnu
Guest
The Church grew for nearly 20 years before one letter of the New Testament was written down. So I would argue, no, we don’t “need” it as the faith seemed to be doing fine before it came along and endured just fine for nearly three and a half centuries before the bible tooks its modern form.
Just the ramblings of a burnt-out “Bible Christian” though
Just the ramblings of a burnt-out “Bible Christian” though
L
littlequestion
Guest
Both "pillar"and “bulwark” need a solid base on which to stand. They support the structure which shelters the true faith. The Bible is not the structure, nor is it the faith, nor is it the “pillar and bulwark”, but it is the solid base.
D
dnu
Guest
Weren’t the pillar nad bulward standing just fine for 20 years before the first word of the New Testament was ever penned?
Saying the Chuch can’t stand without the bible sounds like the old Baptist “Pastor” I used to listen to.
I
Ignatius
Guest
I’m not clear what your are saying. Are you saying you think the Bible is wrong when it says that The Church is the Pollar and bulwark of Truth?
J
JJHIII
Guest
Absolutely not! No no I’m just wondering why the Church needs scripture because she does hold the teachings and traditions handed on by the Apostles
-JJ
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
The Bible is part of the Church’s Sacred Tradition. It is the Catholic’s Church’s declaration that these particular writings are divinely inspired that gives the Bible any credence at all. There is nothing else backing it up but the Word of the Church.
To answer the OP’s question, we need to look at why the Church canonized the Bible. What does canonized mean anyway? It means to set something aside as sacred, holy, and only to be used for sacred and holy purposes. Prior to the canonisation of the Bible, many epistles and books abounded in the Early Church. These writings, along with the Old Testament and the Psalms were read during the Mass. Not all the churches had all the same writings. Some had letters of Paul, and a gospel or 2, others had a different collection of letters and gospels and other writings. There were more than 300 documents among all the churches, being read at Mass and being used to teach the faithful.
The Church decided that it was necessary to examine all of these documents and decide which were acceptable to be read at Mass, which contained erroneus teachings, like the Gospel of Thomas, and which, although containing correct teachings, did not meet other criteria, such as when and by whom it was written. The Letters of Clement I to the Corinthians come to mind as some of those profitable to be read but not accorded divinely inspired status, and so were excluded from use in the Liturgy and not canonized. Out of the 300 odd documents from which to choose, the Church declared only 27 to be divinely inspired and able to be read at Mass.
The New Testament was put together and canonized expressly for use in our divine worship. This is its purpose.
To answer the OP’s question, we need to look at why the Church canonized the Bible. What does canonized mean anyway? It means to set something aside as sacred, holy, and only to be used for sacred and holy purposes. Prior to the canonisation of the Bible, many epistles and books abounded in the Early Church. These writings, along with the Old Testament and the Psalms were read during the Mass. Not all the churches had all the same writings. Some had letters of Paul, and a gospel or 2, others had a different collection of letters and gospels and other writings. There were more than 300 documents among all the churches, being read at Mass and being used to teach the faithful.
The Church decided that it was necessary to examine all of these documents and decide which were acceptable to be read at Mass, which contained erroneus teachings, like the Gospel of Thomas, and which, although containing correct teachings, did not meet other criteria, such as when and by whom it was written. The Letters of Clement I to the Corinthians come to mind as some of those profitable to be read but not accorded divinely inspired status, and so were excluded from use in the Liturgy and not canonized. Out of the 300 odd documents from which to choose, the Church declared only 27 to be divinely inspired and able to be read at Mass.
The New Testament was put together and canonized expressly for use in our divine worship. This is its purpose.
L
LestWeForget
Guest
Hm…
2 Timothy 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”
Question: 1 Timothy 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…”
What did Paul mean when saying “Christ Jesus”, the Lord’s teachings?
Thank you.
K
kepha1
Guest
Canon 29 (I think) of the Synod of Hippo, 393 A.D., when the first complete list of the books of the bible was listed, begins by stating that these (73) books could be called divine writings to be read in the churches. The term “Bible Christian” would have been totally foriegn to the early Church, especially with 1% of the population being literate.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Sacred Scripture is essential. What the “Pillar and bulwork” supplies is correct understanding and interpretation of Scripture. Without this guidance we would be stuck with everyone “leaning to their own understanding” resulting in thousands and thousands of denominations, all with conflicting interpretations. That is why Jesus founded His Church, so that this wouldn’t happen.
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
“Protestant…untill college”
What are you after college? You may want to update the spelling on “until”, not “untill”…
MS
Romans 8:28
PS The reason for the Scripture is to point the way to Jesus, which is the way of salvation. Nothing any tradition of men can do. Don’t get me wrong, traditions can be good if the are tested against the word of God, but should be dismissed if they fail that litmus test.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
You have it backwards.
To determine which writings were inspired, Scripture was tested against Tradition, the Teaching of the Apostles.
If there was anything in a particular writing which contradicted Tradition, it was excluded from the Canon. Therefore, we can be sure that there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts any Teaching from Tradition.
Scripture is not the litmus test, especially if removed from the Church, whose writings they are, where they may be misinterpreted and are without the promise of Christ of the protection of the Holy Spirit to guard against error.
To determine which writings were inspired, Scripture was tested against Tradition, the Teaching of the Apostles.
If there was anything in a particular writing which contradicted Tradition, it was excluded from the Canon. Therefore, we can be sure that there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts any Teaching from Tradition.
Scripture is not the litmus test, especially if removed from the Church, whose writings they are, where they may be misinterpreted and are without the promise of Christ of the protection of the Holy Spirit to guard against error.
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Tell that to Moses, Abraham, Issac, Isaih, Daniel, and all the others. Tell it to Matthew, Luke, Mark, John etc. It is the Holy Spirit that moved men to decide the canon, not the other way around. Need proof, look at you own bible, you will see books that the Church itself contains error; yet we know god does not teach nor does His word contain error, but we know men who were not inspiried by the Holy Spirit do commit error.
Which came first, the Word of God or the Catholic Church? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. When it got physically written down and put into a nice collection called the bible has nothing to do with which existed first. I fGod can turn stones into worshippers he can inspire ment o chose the correct letters to form what we have as the Bible and that is precisely what He did. Where the extra books become part of Scripture officially as opposed to devotionals comes 1500 years later in response to accusations against the Chruch by the reformation.
MS
Romans 8:28
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That’s actually wrong.
The Bible as we have it today was much discussed and debated and it wasn’t by the Southern Baptists of today, though some of them will try to assert that they were the early church, but the New Testament and the authentic writings of the early church prove that to be wishful thinking at best.
Here’s an excellent example that shows my point. The Eucharist IS Scriptural
As for the Deuterocanonical books, they are listed in the writings of the early church that discerned by the Holy Spirit and canonized them.
Contrary to what MS has said, the Church had always accepted the DCs as scripture and the only reason that the Council of Trent addressed the issue was because Luther and others errantly attacked their cannonicity. Even the original 1611 edition of the King James Bible contains them to this day.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
As to the OP’s question…“Do we need the Bible?”
Certainly! It is part of the deposit of faith for all Christians.
Could we get along without it? I suppose so. There have been believers who have been cut off from the Bible and have been able to cope and maintain their faith, but from all I have read it was very hard.
A lot of people take the Bible for granted which is a real shame. I am constantly amazed at the way the Holy Spirit will call to mind verses and passages of scripture just in the course of my day. I’ve read the Bible (all 73 books of it) several times and it’s an ongoing devotion for me that really helps my daily life. Could I get along without it? I guess…Would I want to? No thanks.
M
Mike_Dye
Guest
The Catholic Church has a threefold deposit of faith. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. All are necessary, You mention that we have the Commandments. Where do you think we get the commandments from? The first part of the Bible existed well before Jesus ever came to us in the Incarnation. It is the Old Testament. After Jesus Ascended the Church functioned quite well by following the directives of the Apostles and disciples that knew Jesus personally and were awaiting His immediate return, when Jesus didn’t return immediately and The Original Apostles and early followers were starting to die it was deemed prudent to start writing down the story from those that lived day to day with Jesus, along with Paul’s and others letters.If the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and knows the sacred traditions and commandments of God, then do we even really need the Bible?
Just curious,
JJ
So yes we need the bible!
B
Benadam
Guest
The bible is not the primary expression of the Word of God on earth.
Think of what is documented on the pages we think of as the words that flow from God’s mouth.
It records what the members of the Church remember. Every last word and expression is produced from what a member of the Church remembers. So we call the memory of the Church the Word of God. The Word of God is a product of human memory yet so many have come to imagine that it comes directly from the mind of God.
No the bible is not the primary expression of the Word of God on earth. It is a testimony of what is remembered and we continue to preserve, remember and develope understanding of the Word of God. The Word of God on earth is primarily expressed through the corporeal organs of God’s choice. God points them out with signs so the Church knows with certainty that their bodies made the Word of God visible on earth.
No matter how substantially God may reveal the divine on earth when it is done we are left with a memory and faith. The bible preserves the memory of a time when there were still among us those who recieved their faith from Jesus and the faculties that remember Him were still alive and functioning. Once the organs that remembered Jesus Himself had all passed the Witness that we need to cling to had ended.
I believe that we value that witness too much to need it preserved in written form. I believe there would be some other way we guarantee the memory of Him is true if not written. I don’t believe our salvation hinges on the existence of the bible. Our salvation is offered to us through organic means. True then True now.
Think of what is documented on the pages we think of as the words that flow from God’s mouth.
It records what the members of the Church remember. Every last word and expression is produced from what a member of the Church remembers. So we call the memory of the Church the Word of God. The Word of God is a product of human memory yet so many have come to imagine that it comes directly from the mind of God.
No the bible is not the primary expression of the Word of God on earth. It is a testimony of what is remembered and we continue to preserve, remember and develope understanding of the Word of God. The Word of God on earth is primarily expressed through the corporeal organs of God’s choice. God points them out with signs so the Church knows with certainty that their bodies made the Word of God visible on earth.
No matter how substantially God may reveal the divine on earth when it is done we are left with a memory and faith. The bible preserves the memory of a time when there were still among us those who recieved their faith from Jesus and the faculties that remember Him were still alive and functioning. Once the organs that remembered Jesus Himself had all passed the Witness that we need to cling to had ended.
I believe that we value that witness too much to need it preserved in written form. I believe there would be some other way we guarantee the memory of Him is true if not written. I don’t believe our salvation hinges on the existence of the bible. Our salvation is offered to us through organic means. True then True now.
- Status