D
How many pages from the Bible do you use or need to use to support your beliefs?
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Can you show me a verse in your Bible that says we are to use the Bible only?
The Catholic Church does not use tradition “over” God’s word. It is used “with” God’s word.
Keep in mind, that before the Bible was compiled, it was passed down by oral “tradition”. The same goes for the various practices.
Do you have an alternative “history” that you would like to share with everyone?
I’m not sure how you can think that the Catholic church has ignored or rejected early Christianity. Let’s see, the Church has been the guardian of the scriptures for how long? Who was the first Pope? etc. etc.
Please do a little more research.
G
guanophore
Guest
None of the Teachings of the Catholic Church are dependent upon Scripture. They were delivered whole and entire to the Apostles before a word of the NT was ever written.
One of the Teachings is that holy scripture is not to be separated from the Word of God that was delivered to the Church. The written word is to be understood together with the preached word. I don’t know of any bible verses that explicity state “do not separate the scripture from the faith of the persons who produced it”.
Since none of the Sacred Traditions contradict the Scripture, but all are complemented by it, I would not begin a study of Truth that cannot be confirmed by Truth. The Word of God delivered to the saints, and the word of God delivered into writing have the same Source.
One of the Sacred Traditions is the table of contents of the Scripture. The Church knows what books belong to the canon because it has been revealed by God that they do, but there is no list within the Scriptures of what books should be considered scripture.
Yes, but the Church Militant cannot stray either, because she is ensouled by the HS, who does not err. Individuals who fall into sin separate themselves from the Soul of the Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
You may not realize this, dave, since this may be your first exposure to the truth about your family history, but all the writers of the NT were Catholic. There is One Church mentioned in the NT, and it was Catholic too.
The Church does not “use traditions over God’s word”. This is not possible. The Sacred Tradition IS the Word of God that was delivered to the Church. It comes from the same Source as the Written Word of God. that was produced from that Sacred Tradition The whole NT is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradititon.
Have you ever read the early church fathers, Dave?
He was asking about things like the word Trinity, which was coined by the Church, but not found in the NT.
Catholics don’t worship Mary, Dave. Mary is a creature. The worship of any created thing is considered idolatry.
However, we see the honor of Mary the Mother of God in Scripture, just like we do all these other things, except that priests choose not to marry.
You see, we understand what is written in scripture differently because we read scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
dave,At the Church I attend we study the whole bible. We study different parts of the old and new testament over time at bible study and Sunday school. The thing is we only study the bible. The question is not what parts of the bible to use but, to only use the bible in your defense and do not to use the edicts of man that supersede the bible as the Catholic Church does. Jesus condemned that.
I still have hopes that you will respond, when I comment on your posts.
You said at your Church you only study the Bible and not the “edicts of man.”
By what means do you interpret of the Bible?
I ask this because, if your Sunday School Teacher or your Minister is reading Bible passages, and then telling you what Scripture means; you are no longer studying the Bible, only. Every time even one word of commentary is spoken or written, you have left the “Scripture only” model. Someone is telling you what to believe about the Bible.
So, the real question is, to whom do you listen?
I remain hopeful that you will respond and engage in discussion.
Respectfully,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Jon,
As I said in my last post, I remain hopeful that davec66 will engage in discussion.
You are right in saying that it is best to find answers about Catholicism from Catholics, etc. There are so many doctrines and practices of the CC that are seriously misunderstood. Sadly, much of this misunderstanding is perpetuated from the pulpits of some Protestant Churches.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Wow, JimmyB, you’re quoting me. I feel almost famous.
Anna
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
The church using traditions over God’s Word? And you believing everything must be said in the Bible is a man-made tradition. You owning a Bible is a man-made tradition. The fact thousands of different churches exist with conflicting teachings are all man-made and ALL over God’s Word.
Where does God teach we are only to follow the Bible? That is a man-made tradition.
Yes and the writers of the NT belonged to a catholic (universal) church teaching the same beliefs,not contradictory ones which run circles with Protestanism,Evangelicals,Fundamentalist,etc,etc.
The church using traditions over God’s Word? And you believing everything must be said in the Bible is a man-made tradition. You owning a Bible is a man-made tradition. The fact thousands of different churches exist with conflicting teachings are all man-made and ALL over God’s Word.
Where does God teach we are only to follow the Bible? That is a man-made tradition.
Nope You have ignored it because you more than likely follow a man-made church,which has no authority from Christ or the Apostles to be founded Did Jesus found your church? The Apostles? Nope!
Which one are you fabricating up?
May I have your autograph, Anna?Wow, JimmyB, you’re quoting me. I feel almost famous.
Anna
Jon
As dave’s account is under review, I’m not sure he can respond. But you make a good point here. This is why sola scriptura, properly understood, does not, cannot exclude teachers and teachings, councils and creeds. Sola scriptura is simply the practice of holding these things accountable to scripture, the final norm.
Jon
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Wow, JimmyB, you’re quoting me. I feel almost famous.
Anna
Very funny Jon.May I have your autograph, Anna?
Jon
I like seeing your sense of humor. It suits you.Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Jon,
I really hope davec66 is able to come back and engage in serious discussion. I’ve seen a number of Protestants crash and burn within a few days of joining; primarily because they ignore forum rules, especially regarding charitable posting. It’s sad because there is much to learn here from people with different views. I had a bit of an attitude, when I first joined the forums. It was duly adjusted.
Sola Scriptura is a complicated issue, since people can’t really agree on a definition. It means different things to different people. Through disagreement Solo Scriptura was born.
It was here on CAF that I was able to understand the inescapable role of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture. Huge ah-ha moment, and one of many.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Jon, I just got back to the thread. Sorry to be tardy in answering. I second Guanophore’s answer, and I add this for your consideration:
- The criteria the Catholic Church used in selecting the canon of the New Testament:
- Was the writing by an Apostle or a direct disciple of an Apostle?
- Was the writing proclaimed at the Church’s liturgy?
- Was the writing accepted as Scripture by all the local Churches?
- Did the writing reflect the teaching of the Church and comport with the already accepted writings?
Since the Catholic Church decided which ‘books’ to include in the collection of writings she identified as Scripture and named the New Testament, it is ludicrous to think she would have included any writings that did not reflect her teachings. That’s why it is absurd for Protestants to accuse the Church of teaching “unbiblical” doctrines." It’s their interpretation that’s wrong.
- Did Christ intended His Church to die with the Apostles? His promise to be with the Apostles and their successors “to the comsummation of the age” meant until the end of time (as the KJV translated those words). Christ confirmed this by sending the Holy Spirit to remain with the Church’s leaders FOREVER (Jn 14:16:17, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15).
- The ancient Catholic and Orthodox Churches both validly claim Apostolic Succession of their clergy. The Church was undivided for the first thousand years of Christianity.
G
guanophore
Guest
But Scripture does not say of itself it is “the final norm”. On the contrary, it clearly states that the Church founded by Christ is the final arbitor.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Orthodox and Catholics hold very different beliefs about the significance of Apostolic Succession. As I’m reading and studying the book entitled, “The Primacy of Peter,” I am very surprised to learn about such serious disagreement, between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, regarding exactly what the “primacy” of Peter means. I’m not saying this to argue which position is right, just to point out that the views are very different.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I feel honored that you’re posting on one of my threads…Wow, JimmyB, you’re quoting me. I feel almost famous.
Anna
Would you then say that the final arbiter, the Church, cannot contradict scripture?
Jon
- Status