Is this anti-Catholic?

[Peacefulwishes]

Hi all, I joined a CBS group a couple of months ago mainly so that I could get my two young children involved in it (I don’t even know where to begin to teach the kids about God, our parish offers nothing for young ones and the CBS childrens program really appealed to me.) Of course doing a bible study appeals to me too, since I really haven’t done any in-depth reading into it. I’m a convert to Catholicism, only 2 years new.

Up until this week, the weekly studies have seemed fine. But this weeks study has left me feeling uneasy as if they are implicating Catholicism is untrue. This weeks study is on Colossians 2:8-23. The main verse studied is Colossians 2:8 (NIV) “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” For reference, my NAB (Catholic edition) bible states this verse as “See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.”

Here are some questions in this week’s study:

“Read all Romans 14. Make a list of the principles that should guide us in dealing with Christians who have traditions and convictions that differ from our own.”

“For further study: Many people today are becoming involved in angel worship. Read Exodus 20:3-4; Hebrews 1:4-14. Summarize the biblical teaching about angels given in these verses.”

“What is the great danger that may result from overemphasizing the importance or position of angels?”

At the end of the weekly lesson there is a commentary. In it, it says this: “Human traditions are deceptive because they have no absolutes to guide them.” … “With the passing of time, popular human philosophies come and go. They are empty, shallow, hollow. And they are also temporary; they are “in” and then “out” of favor. Only biblical truth is eternal; it does not change. The truth of Scripture has been found to be adequate and timeless in every culture to which it has been taken. It is the only dependable source of information about God and salvation.”

Am I being paranoid or am I right to think that my group of ladies are going to automatically think “Catholics!” when they read this, especially about angels (even though we do not worship them, a lot of non catholics seem to think so) and then that last part in the commentary basically proclaiming Sola Scriptura. Am I right to be alarmed? Or is it in my head?

 

[Tannhauser]

At the end of the weekly lesson there is a commentary. In it, it says this: “Human traditions are deceptive because they have no absolutes to guide them.” … "With the passing of time, popular human philosophies come and go. They are empty, shallow, hollow. And they are also temporary; they are “in” and then “out” of favor.

Well I think this is rubbish. I don’t believe that the tradition of Capitalism or Democracy assert any moral absolute, but they work: to suggest they are empty and shallow is just ill-informed and smacks of poor education on the subject.

Only biblical truth is eternal; it does not change. The truth of Scripture has been found to be adequate and timeless in every culture to which it has been taken. It is the only dependable source of information about God and salvation."

Am I being paranoid or am I right to think that my group of ladies are going to automatically think “Catholics!” when they read this, especially about angels (even though we do not worship them, a lot of non catholics seem to think so) and then that last part in the commentary basically proclaiming Sola Scriptura. Am I right to be alarmed? Or is it in my head?

The truth of scripture has been found to be adequate in every culture? Erm… including Muslim and Jewish cultures? This is nonsense. I don’t say that Scripture is not adequate, but to assert that it has been found to be adequate is farcical.

It is the only dependable source of information about God and salvation: erm, this is massively anti-Catholic. Catholicism teaches, insofar as I am aware, that Scripture, Tradition, and the Church all communicate God’s salvation: indeed the Church speaks of itself as the visible presence of Christ on Earth.

We don’t worship angels or saints: that would be idolatry. We praise them and entreat them and I would even say venerate in some cases, but only because through that veneration we look to Christ. “My soul doth magify the Lord” Mary said: and she perfectly expressed why we venerate the saints etcetera, because* through * them, and their lives, we are able to examine and adore Christ in a deeper, greater manner.

To be honest I would consider finding another group (if that’s possible)… because unconsciously they are going to be teaching anti-Catholic stuff… which might not be helpful ultimately. If you do stay, I would probably buy a Catechism and just check stuff out for reference.

This is my opinion at least - another poster might provide better advice and be able to clarify or correct anything that I have said that is incorrect.

God bless.

 

[johnr55]

We should keep in mind, first, that there are NO original manuscripts from Biblical books, and of course, so many of them had oral tradition first. Second, Biblical translations, whether into English, Latin, whatever, can and often do have an editorial slant on them. Why? So much from Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc., doesn’t translate literally, just as today’s languages don’t. As a Protestant (Presbyterian) for decades, I have all of the major and some of the minor translations of the Protestant Bible. They absolutely don’t all ‘read’ the same in what might seem clear passages. When I was Presbyterian, I preferred the New American Standard over certainly the NIV. Why? More literal, and the most accurate Protestant translation by far. Doesn’t read well aloud, but fantastic for study.

No one ever could claim absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures as we know them, because we don’t have the originals. I do believe that at least most of the translations we know today were done in a spirit of Christianity, if not the Holy Spirit.

The NAB isn’t a pretty translation at all, but it is indeed accurate. I still routinely compare my daily readings between it, the Catholic edition RSV and the NASB. Just be aware that the NIV, ever since Zondervan sponsored and introduced it, has always had a certain amount of slant and liberty taken with the Horst-Westcott and Nestle-Aland codices.

 

[1ke]

Hi all, I joined a CBS group a couple of months ago mainly so that I could get my two young children involved in it (I don’t even know where to begin to teach the kids about God, our parish offers nothing for young ones and the CBS childrens program really appealed to me.) Of course doing a bible study appeals to me too, since I really haven’t done any in-depth reading into it. I’m a convert to Catholicism, only 2 years new.

I’m not sure what a CBS (is that christian bible study?) is or what your children do there.

But, Catholic Churches offer religious education to school age children, so yours must be under school age. At that age, you can teach them prayers, read them bible and saint stories, and watch programs for kids on EWTN if you get that channel.

I suggest getting some resources from www.catholicchild.com They have games, videos, books, children’s bibles, etc. Teach them the Our Father, the Hail Mary, the Glory Be, and teach them meal prayer, bedtime prayer, and introduce them to the Saints.

Personally I would not do a non-Catholic bible study. It never ends well. I suggest you start one in your parish if you don’t already have one-- use a structured bible study such as Saint Ignatius Bible Study, Jeff Cavins Bible Timeline (video based), or Little Rock Scripture Study. You don’t have to have all the answers, you just have to be willing to organize it. See if your parish will purchase some materials. If not, go with just a book based bible study like St. Ignatius, on your own.

 

[ignatius777]

Hi all, I joined a CBS group a couple of months ago mainly so that I could get my two young children involved in it (I don’t even know where to begin to teach the kids about God, our parish offers nothing for young ones and the CBS childrens program really appealed to me.) Of course doing a bible study appeals to me too, since I really haven’t done any in-depth reading into it. I’m a convert to Catholicism, only 2 years new.

Up until this week, the weekly studies have seemed fine. But this weeks study has left me feeling uneasy as if they are implicating Catholicism is untrue. This weeks study is on Colossians 2:8-23. The main verse studied is Colossians 2:8 (NIV) “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” For reference, my NAB (Catholic edition) bible states this verse as “See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.”

Here are some questions in this week’s study:

“Read all Romans 14. Make a list of the principles that should guide us in dealing with Christians who have traditions and convictions that differ from our own.”

“For further study: Many people today are becoming involved in angel worship. Read Exodus 20:3-4; Hebrews 1:4-14. Summarize the biblical teaching about angels given in these verses.”

“What is the great danger that may result from overemphasizing the importance or position of angels?”

At the end of the weekly lesson there is a commentary. In it, it says this: “Human traditions are deceptive because they have no absolutes to guide them.” … “With the passing of time, popular human philosophies come and go. They are empty, shallow, hollow. And they are also temporary; they are “in” and then “out” of favor. Only biblical truth is eternal; it does not change. The truth of Scripture has been found to be adequate and timeless in every culture to which it has been taken. It is the only dependable source of information about God and salvation.”

Am I being paranoid or am I right to think that my group of ladies are going to automatically think “Catholics!” when they read this, especially about angels (even though we do not worship them, a lot of non catholics seem to think so) and then that last part in the commentary basically proclaiming Sola Scriptura. Am I right to be alarmed? Or is it in my head?

This group may not be anti catholic but it sure doesnt sound pro catholic. With so many good catholic programs available there is no need to be exposed to these questions.

 

[Tannhauser]

We should keep in mind, first, that there are NO original manuscripts from Biblical books, and of course, so many of them had oral tradition first. Second, Biblical translations, whether into English, Latin, whatever, can and often do have an editorial slant on them. Why? So much from Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc., doesn’t translate literally, just as today’s languages don’t.

No one ever could claim absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures as we know them, because we don’t have the originals. I do believe that at least most of the translations we know today were done in a spirit of Christianity, if not the Holy Spirit.

Is this true? We don’t have any of the original copies, only the translations?

How can the Catholic Church claim indefectibility then if it’s position rests upon a copy of a supposed original?? I mean, what if there are no originals? What if the original is actually substantially different and certain aspects of what we understand, like (and, I don’t believe this, but I’m just saying it to play Devil’s Advocate) Christ’s Divinity was an editorial addition??? Please help!

 

[david_friol_1]

Hi all, I joined a CBS group a couple of months ago mainly so that I could get my two young children involved in it (I don’t even know where to begin to teach the kids about God, our parish offers nothing for young ones and the CBS childrens program really appealed to me.) Of course doing a bible study appeals to me too, since I really haven’t done any in-depth reading into it. I’m a convert to Catholicism, only 2 years new.

Up until this week, the weekly studies have seemed fine. But this weeks study has left me feeling uneasy as if they are implicating Catholicism is untrue. This weeks study is on Colossians 2:8-23. The main verse studied is Colossians 2:8 (NIV) “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” For reference, my NAB (Catholic edition) bible states this verse as “See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.”

Here are some questions in this week’s study:

“Read all Romans 14. Make a list of the principles that should guide us in dealing with Christians who have traditions and convictions that differ from our own.”

“For further study: Many people today are becoming involved in angel worship. Read Exodus 20:3-4; Hebrews 1:4-14. Summarize the biblical teaching about angels given in these verses.”

“What is the great danger that may result from overemphasizing the importance or position of angels?”

At the end of the weekly lesson there is a commentary. In it, it says this: “Human traditions are deceptive because they have no absolutes to guide them.” … “With the passing of time, popular human philosophies come and go. They are empty, shallow, hollow. And they are also temporary; they are “in” and then “out” of favor. Only biblical truth is eternal; it does not change. The truth of Scripture has been found to be adequate and timeless in every culture to which it has been taken. It is the only dependable source of information about God and salvation.”

Am I being paranoid or am I right to think that my group of ladies are going to automatically think “Catholics!” when they read this, especially about angels (even though we do not worship them, a lot of non catholics seem to think so) and then that last part in the commentary basically proclaiming Sola Scriptura. Am I right to be alarmed? Or is it in my head?

It doesn’t sound like they are interested in teaching with the Church.
My wife and I were in one of those Catholic Bible Studies programs, we made it to the third year before I became tired of the anti-Catholic feel to the class, and my many discussions with the priest and the lady who told me things like: Mary is not our mother, she is not the “woman” of Revelation ch 12, the pope is not the head of the church etc. My wife was becoming confused and after each class I would have to try and sort it all out
Now we use “The Great Adventure Bible Series” at home. It is great and it is fully Catholic

 

[ignatius777]

Is this true? We don’t have any of the original copies, only the translations?

How can the Catholic Church claim indefectibility then if it’s position rests upon a copy of a supposed original?? I mean, what if there are no originals? What if the original is actually substantially different and certain aspects of what we understand, like (and, I don’t believe this, but I’m just saying it to play Devil’s Advocate) Christ’s Divinity was an editorial addition??? Please help!

We believe as the bible tell us that Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth. If you want to argue that the whole bible may be inaccurate then you question the very existence of Jesus in which case anything after that is useless to discuss. BUT if you believe Jesus lived and died for us and that He cant teach errors then He was true to His word and sent the Spirit to guide the church in the way of the truth.

 

[TimothyH]

CBS? Catholic Bible Study?

The fact that the study uses the NIV should be a tip-off that it is probably a Protestant study which has been poorly adapted for Catholicism.

The statement that scripture being the only dependable source of information about God and salvation is further evidence of Bible alone Protestantism.

Dump it fast. You are better off getting an Ignatius Study Bible and just reading it yourself.

-Tim-

 

[CalCatholic]

I agree with 1ke, see if you have a Bible Study group at your parish and attend that.

 

[1ke]

Is this true? We don’t have any of the original copies, only the translations?

How can the Catholic Church claim indefectibility then if it’s position rests upon a copy of a supposed original?? I mean, what if there are no originals? What if the original is actually substantially different and certain aspects of what we understand, like (and, I don’t believe this, but I’m just saying it to play Devil’s Advocate) Christ’s Divinity was an editorial addition??? Please help!

Well, since the Church does not rely solely on Scripture but also on Sacred Tradition, we’re fine.

 

[CalCatholic]

Is this true? We don’t have any of the original copies, only the translations?

How can the Catholic Church claim indefectibility then if it’s position rests upon a copy of a supposed original?? I mean, what if there are no originals? What if the original is actually substantially different and certain aspects of what we understand, like (and, I don’t believe this, but I’m just saying it to play Devil’s Advocate) Christ’s Divinity was an editorial addition??? Please help!

The Catholic Church teaches the Gospel through Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition."'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." “Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the Apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the Apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of Truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (CCC 81)

The copies of the Scriptures that have been preserved through the centuries remain consistent with the Holy Tradition that has been passed down to us through the Church (for nearly two thousand years). The Bible is a book of the Church.

 

[po18guy]

The danger in joining all non-Catholic bible study groups is that they believe in sola scriptura, or “bible alone”. They have nothing but the human ego to guide them through their interpretation. As such, their teaching, except in the most obvious and clear examples, cannot be trusted to be true to the intent of the original writer. Jesus did not found His Church on the bible, but on Apostles. The bible came centuries later.

When they speak of “only biblical truth”, what they are telling you is what the bible means to them personally. They can easily be, and often are simply wrong about many interpretations. The bible itself (2 Peter 1:20) condemns private interpretation. The bible itself also tell us that it is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others). The bible tells us that scripture needs authoritative interpretation for it to be properly understood (Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:27-35).

Anyone who teaches or conducts a bible study must either have the authority, or be guided by authority in order to avoid teaching error. Remember that the evil one quoted scripture to our Lord while tempting Him.

From what you have described, this group supports a particular denomination, or at least the 500 year-old man-made tradition of sola scriptura, which is precisely what they warn you against!

I would bail.

 

[Ceil-1]

It sounds too sophisticated for children. If it is supposed to be designed for that age group, they do not know what they are doing, and I would not continue. Either way, I would discontinue it, and look for something else. Or, better yet, form your own.

 

[Tannhauser]

The danger in joining all non-Catholic bible study groups is that they believe in sola scriptura, or “bible alone”. They have nothing but the human ego to guide them through their interpretation. As such, their teaching, except in the most obvious and clear examples, cannot be trusted to be true to the intent of the original writer. Jesus did not found His Church on the bible, but on Apostles. The bible came centuries later.

When they speak of “only biblical truth”, what they are telling you is what the bible means to them personally. They can easily be, and often are simply wrong about many interpretations. The bible itself (2 Peter 1:20) condemns private interpretation. The bible itself also tell us that it is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others). The bible tells us that scripture needs authoritative interpretation for it to be properly understood (Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:27-35).

Anyone who teaches or conducts a bible study must either have the authority, or be guided by authority in order to avoid teaching error. Remember that the evil one quoted scripture to our Lord while tempting Him.

From what you have described, this group supports a particular denomination, or at least the 500 year-old man-made tradition of sola scriptura, which is precisely what they warn you against!

I would bail.

This is a really, really good response!

One comment though: are you, as a private person, not committing the same fallacy you have noted, by taking Scripture and using it to justify a belief and faith in the Catholic Church… when another person would surely take those passages you quote, and use them to defend another position??

If only the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is qualified to use Scripture and interpret it, then why have you seen fit to give numerous examples of Scripture in a private capacity??

I am not being provocative; and I really like your answer… I am just wondering how you respond to that criticism, as I am sure others might make it also.

 

[Nita]

Is this true? We don’t have any of the original copies, only the translations?

How can the Catholic Church claim indefectibility then if it’s position rests upon a copy of a supposed original?? I mean, what if there are no originals? What if the original is actually substantially different and certain aspects of what we understand, like (and, I don’t believe this, but I’m just saying it to play Devil’s Advocate) Christ’s Divinity was an editorial addition??? Please help!

Yes, it’s true; we no longer have the original written records. But, you see, even those original written NT gospels and epistles were only written “copies” of what the apostles preached. Jesus never wrote a single word to be handed down; He only spoke. And before ascending to heaven He commanded the apostles to “preach”, not to “write”.

 

[po18guy]

Is this true? We don’t have any of the original copies, only the translations?

Matthew, for example, was written in Aramaic. The OT was written in Hebrew and almost all of the NT in Greek. All of the originals are long gone, so someone or something outside of scripture must be guiding us. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to His Apostles, and they received Him at Pentecost. They were protected from teaching error, and they have passed all of their authority on to their successors.

How can the Catholic Church claim indefectibility then if it’s position rests upon a copy of a supposed original?? I mean, what if there are no originals? What if the original is actually substantially different and certain aspects of what we understand, like (and, I don’t believe this, but I’m just saying it to play Devil’s Advocate) Christ’s Divinity was an editorial addition??? Please help!

The guidance by one Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, far exceeds the accuracy of scripture (by itself), since words on paper are easily misunderstood. The Holy Spirit is God Himself guiding the Church. If the Catholic Church does not have inerrancy in teaching, how on earth can any other group, which has even less, claim inerrancy? Other faith communities all claim the leading of the Holy Spirit, and all of them disagree. How is this possible?

Some of them are mislead, some are plain wrong, and some may be lying. No matter the cause, I will not follow them, no matter how convincing or soothing their words may be.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[Peacefulwishes]

Thank you for the replies! To clarify a couple of things to some, CBS = Community Bible Study, an “inter-denominational” bible study supposedly open to all Christians. But really I’m thinking they mean Protestant Christians. I told them I was Catholic when I joined and apparently that’s OK but honestly I think I’m the ONLY one there, and it’s a rather large group. We meet at a Presbyterian church. The study questions I quoted are from my bible study group for adult women. My children go to a sunday-school type program where they sing songs, do arts and crafts and play. The childrens program teaches about Jesus and his life, and what God is, though, which is why I like it. The problem I’m having is with the adult study group portion and its apparent Protestant slant.

My own parish has a bible study group, but it doesn’t have a childrens program so I can’t go. And besides, one of the things that really appealed to me at CBS was the childrens program… my kids LOVE going.

 

[ignatius777]

Thank you for the replies! To clarify a couple of things to some, CBS = Community Bible Study, an “inter-denominational” bible study supposedly open to all Christians. But really I’m thinking they mean Protestant Christians. I told them I was Catholic when I joined and apparently that’s OK but honestly I think I’m the ONLY one there, and it’s a rather large group. We meet at a Presbyterian church. The study questions I quoted are from my bible study group for adult women. My children go to a sunday-school type program where they sing songs, do arts and crafts and play. The childrens program teaches about Jesus and his life, and what God is, though, which is why I like it. The problem I’m having is with the adult study group portion and its apparent Protestant slant.

My own parish has a bible study group, but it doesn’t have a childrens program so I can’t go. And besides, one of the things that really appealed to me at CBS was the childrens program… my kids LOVE going.

Yes they do mean protestant christians. Start a children’s program at your own parish.

 

[po18guy]

This is a really, really good response!

One comment though: are you, as a private person, not committing the same fallacy you have noted, by taking Scripture and using it to justify a belief and faith in the Catholic Church… when another person would surely take those passages you quote, and use them to defend another position??

If only the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is qualified to use Scripture and interpret it, then why have you seen fit to give numerous examples of Scripture in a private capacity??

I am not being provocative; and I really like your answer… I am just wondering how you respond to that criticism, as I am sure others might make it also.

Good thinking and a good question. All scripture must be interpreted in the light of God’s revealed truth. The chosen method for this revelation is via the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, whose early members walked with Christ. Certain of those Apostles, and a select few of those whom they taught, later wrote the New Testament. I make nothing of myself, except that I am a product of Catholic teaching, and employ the verses only in the context of their plain meaning.

The problem begins when we lack obedience and allow ourselves to be lead by our egos. I strive to submit to the authority of the Church in all matters - a reflection of Jesus’ words in Luke 9:23 “If a man would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, then come, follow me”. Thus, we must do two separate things before we follow Christ. First is most difficult - the denial of the self, with its desires and prefences. The second is almost as much trouble: the taking up of our cross, our burden, which includes our tendency to veer away from our Savior.

Back to the verses I quoted: Their plain meaning is to be taken just as it was offered by the original writers. Mind you, prophecy is something entirely different, and the church simply must be relied upon for interpretation in that area - Saint Peter wrote specifically of that in 2 Peter 1:20.

As example, there are as many interpretations of the Apocalypse (Revelation) as there are heads contemplating it. Only one, however, is entirely accurate. Spirits wait to lead us astray, and many have already done so, as evidenced by the divisions in Christendom.