How could the Bible contradict Tradition and the Magesterium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter workinprogress
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

workinprogress

Guest
Some caller-in was saying on a radio talk-show (I shouldn’t listen to those shows because it encourages interrupting) that the Bible refutes Catholicism. Some say our Church is an un-asked-for-by-Jesus-man-made-church by Peter, Paul, or middle ages people. Some say ours is a cult–just a really big one. As for the first case, more could be said about that (and about anything else I will write on this or any other post), but let’s say Buddhism and Islam as well as non-Catholic faiths are breaking up and can’t agree on big things (something the Holy Spirit would not do since He would never leave Christ’s Church into error and the gates of hell would not prevail against it). Also Peter was checking up on the visible churches being run by bishops–all of which he and his apostles established under his supreme leadership–and it’s in the Bible.
In the hypothetical case our church was man-made, why would the Christians at that time, before the Bible’s books were written (the New Testament ones, then) and composed (all the books) , be able to defend the Church by oral tradition (and the scriptures, not yet codified)–only to later include books that contradict all they had passed down by oral tradition from Christ’s time? They would have been tossed out. Man-made religions, much less cults, don’t usually allow such freedom of dissent from the religion’s fundamental beliefs–definitely not in a book that would be made to contain fundamental beliefs of their religion as well as that which would unravel those theories. If new info. that would unravel their teachings came from heaven, they would usually blow it off because it doesn’t fit. Besides, oral traditions in religions and secular info has a way of losing all the details if not written down.
Yes, we did have scriptures during that time, but it was not determined they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If not for the Holy Spirit, we may have had factions arguing about whose Gospel was historically accurate. Protestants have no trouble staying together over the 4 chronologically at odds Gospels, but I have heard more often liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics saying the writings on homosexuality in other books of the Bible as being moot because Christ says nothing about it in the Gospels! Or, I’ll hear that St. Paul hijacked the Church and took it into the direction Christ never intended. These beliefs are so bizarre as to make the Sola Scriptura look Biblical.
I think we Christians can all agree that the Holy Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit as infallible. If man could screw that up, why did Protestants not, from the beginning of the Reformation, go into the books that the Church rejected and make Bibles for each denomination based on the books they liked in the order they like?

Just some thoughts
 
Your thoughts are indeed thought-provoking, but would require many thousands of words to answer. Please consider DeFide’s suggestion and open some of these thoughts in their own threads so they can be dealt with in a more focused manner.

DeFide - GREAT CheatSheet per your signature!
 
work(name removed by moderator)rogress:
How could the Bible contradict Tradition and the Magesterium?
Click to expand...
It won’t, it Can’t! The Catholic Church existed long before the Bible as we know it today and several dozen years before the first word of the NT was even written.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Whoa. I’m about to leave, but may I suggest limiting your post to a single topic, and to use some white space. It makes things easier to read.

:twocents:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/biblecheatsheet.html
Click to expand...
True. Paragraphs are a blessing. I read about two sentences of the original post, and then had to stop. My eyes and brain were beginning to hurt.

I never understand why people don’t separate their posts into paragraphs, and instead have this one, long, winding post. It’s the equivalent to someone talking non-stop, without a breath.

And that’s my :twocents: !

Aunt Martha
 
**Although someone already said it, it bears repeating. There is nothing in Sacred Traditin that contradicts the Bible. Nothing. **

DeFide,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I had a “cheat sheat” I got from This Rock but lost it:crying:

I have had the worst time trying to find Scripture that I know is there but searching both books of Timothy because you can’t remember if it was 1 or 2 Timothy…

Thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you, Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

God Bless,
Maria
 
Scripture cannot contradict Tradition and Tradition cannot contradict Scripture!

THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC TRADITION! SCRIPTURE CAME FROM TRADITION!

Everything the bible teaches comes from Apostolic Tradition! There was no bible (as we know it) before the 4th century! Everything the faithful knew came to them through word of mouth, the letters of the Apostles (which would later become the New Testament) and the Old Testament. Do you honestly think that that’s all the letters that were ever written by the Apostles - the ones in the bible. There must’ve been more, right? Paul made 3 journeys around the known world at the time! Can’t we safely assume there were more writtings? There were many problems in the early church, where are all the letters to all the regions, explaining and correcting? They were probably lost or destroyed. We know what was taught becasue of Tradition, what was passed down to us from these churches by the Apostles is still believed in those churches today. None of it contradicts what was taught in the other churches.
 
**95 **“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/95.htm
 
The Bible cannot “contradict.” It’s a book.

However, someone’s individual interpretation of the Bible can contradict (or support) nearly any doctrine you care to cite (or invent).
 
Sorry about the spacing issue, but I’m pretty sure I put in paragraphs. Sometimes I have had trouble with e-mail and newsgroup programs messing with that. I think I even had to put in spaces in between paragraphs because this forum melded paragraphs (though I thank God and the moderators for offering this service and dealing with us when we get carried away for our good and that of others).

What books are approved of by the Church that were not considered public revelation–not inspired by the Holy Spirit but not theologically wrong? For example, the name of Mary’s parents were not in the Bible. What other non-Biblical Biblical-like books from those times are safe to read? Thanks!
 
work(name removed by moderator)rogress:
What books are approved of by the Church that were not considered public revelation–not inspired by the Holy Spirit but not theologically wrong? For example, the name of Mary’s parents were not in the Bible. What other non-Biblical Biblical-like books from those times are safe to read? Thanks!
Click to expand...
At one time, the Church widely used something called an Imprimatur, which was an official approval that a book did not contain doctrinal errors. The system was hardly foolproof – an imprimatur was strictly the opinion of one Bishop, who may have not (and probably did not) read the book very closely (maybe he just skimmed it). In more recent years (since the 50s), the imprimatur was so seriously abused (it seemed that Playboy magazine could get one) that it has been largely abandoned (though it’s still around).

If you have a book before 1955 or so with an Imprimatur then it’s probably OK. Otherwise you must use your judgment (or maybe post in the forum – maybe someone has read it and can offer a review).
Code: 
     The example you cite of ancient writings (the names of Mary’s parents) comes from the *Protevangelion*, claimed to have been written by James the Less. This work is very ancient, and was regarded and quoted by many Early Church Fathers. The fact that it was not included in the Canon of Scripture does not make it a “bad” book – it may be considered pious Christian legend (and by “legend” I don’t mean to imply that it’s not true – but it may not be - we just don't know for sure, since the Church has not rendered judgement).
The *Protevangelion *and many other early Christian pious writings can be found compiled into a single volume in a book called The Lost Books of the Bible (which is a horrible name, since the books were neither lost nor Biblical). This also includes *1Clement *and Hermas, which were serious contenders for inclusion in the Canon. The book is available on Amazon for ten bucks (cheaper used). It includes a forward for each writing that describes potential problems with the writing.

There are many “bad” early Church writings - notably Gnostic (Nag Hammandi) writings such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas. But these Gnostic writings are not included in the Lost Books (although it does include some HIGHLY doubtful early Christian writings, such as First and Second Infancy).
 
The Protoevangelium is very interesting. There are one or two things in it that probably didn’t happen - the incident with the midwives is thought to be a later addition, and the story itself may well be “historical fiction” if such a thing existed back then - but it does provide us with written evidence of what they believed about Mary in the time of the Early Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top