M
Miriam1947
Guest
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931018499/briastool-20/
The Catholic Bible Concordance for the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) [Hardcover]
- Status
The Catholic Bible Concordance for the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) [Hardcover]
O
Okinell
Guest
Useful does not mean exclusivity. Secondly, Christ/God/Holy Spirit gave use “The Church” and as time progressed and oral tradition became a written tradition and the library of the Church began to form. I think a great many CC’s and non CC’s forget all too often that most people of the early centuries of the Church could not read or write and the way that one could “pass on” our stories of Christ, etc. was only orally. Paper was very expensive along with many other writing implements. What has always been a quandary for me even during most of my life even as an Anglican/Episcopalian was that the Scriptures of Christianity were canonized by THE ONLY CHURCH AT THE TIME, the Roman Catholic Church. It was through the wisdom of our Church Fathers and the authority of the Church as enlightened by the Holy Spirit, that this was possible. If you really delve into the early history of the Church and the study Luther’s 95 theses (and the 5 Solas) during that time in Europe you will plainly see that the real issue here was political because the ruling kings, princes, and aristocracy had gotten tire of being ultimately controlled by the Church, the Pope, and its Bishops. Politically, you could not disengage oneself from the the Pope and the Church’s ruling authority in order to achieve political/state autonomy without divorcing yourself from the Church. The sad part is that only thing you have left is the “manual”, so to speak, i.e., The Holy Scriptures/Bible. The tragedy here is that they threw the baby out with the bath water. So for hundreds of years now all of Protestant Christianity has been struggling to find its way as it has had to reinvent the “wheel”. For some reason Protestantism puts more faith and sustenance into a local minister/preacher, who is just one individual, scholar, not a scholar, perhaps even not ordained, or trained to any degree, rather than read the great writings of the Fathers and great scholars of Christ’s true church that he charged to Peter. Isn’t interesting how some of the most stalwart Protestant churches are now embracing our concept of Lent. Reflecting on self assessments, fasting, and recommitting oneself to the ultimate source the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Perhaps with the “arm” Pope Benedict has outstretched to some of the Protestant churches to rejoin Christ’s faithful, with God’s Grace, will find their way back home.
P
PastorVW
Guest
You won’t find such a passage. It doesn’t exist. Furthermore, as a Wesleyan (theologically) that is not what I believe. Here’s what we believe:
- The ultimate authority is God’s Word - the written Word, inspired and written within one generation of Christ, by or under the supervision of the Apostles. It is logical to believe that following:
b) I also believe that any major doctrines not essential to salvation would also be addressed in its’ pages.
c) This does not mean that all truth, or even all Christian truth is found in its’ pages.
d) It does mean that any doctrine taught in the Church cannot be contradicted by the Bible.
- Tradition is also useful and instructive, as the collective wisdom of the church. I have often told my parishioners that if no one has discovered a doctrine in the Bible in 2,000 years of looking it isn’t really there! What Christians have taught and believed over the years is important. This is why I DO NOT believe in a “pre-tribulation rapture”. Tradition must be subject to Scripture.
- Logic and reason are also important - but they must also be subject to Scripture. Hence, we believe in the Trinity because the Bible teaches it - even though we cannot understand it.
- Finally we do believe in experience. We put a great deal of stock in “testimonies” - but all experiences must be tested by Scripture, Tradition and Reason (logic).
I hope this helps!
N
Nicea325
Guest
Nicely explained by a Methodist pastor. Blessings my brother in Christ. Oh pastor…one quick question on the Methodist church? Is it true that the Methodist Church here in America is basically the merging of two denominations during the 1960’s?
Correct me if I am off-the-wall?
P
Publisher
Guest
I’m not the Methodist pastor…but the United Methodist Church is a uniting of the “United Brethren Church” and “Methodist Church”.
Peace to you friend.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Thanks! So it is true? Do you know when the uniting happened?
P
Publisher
Guest
I believe in the mid 1960’s.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Thanks! Before I was even born.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Why just the written word? The Church existed and flourished for nearly 400 years before the books you currently find in your Bible were proclaimed and canonized as the word of God. The New Testament is only that part of Sacred Tradition that was committed to writing. There is nothing in the Bible that supports the claim that the ultimate authority is the written word. It certainly wasn’t at the time the books were written. The ultimate authority was the Tradition of the Apostles.
Again, why? Were the early Christians lacking the essentials to salvation? They didn’t have the Bible, at least not the New Testament.
Again, according to your own standards, this is not a biblical belief.
Agreed.
Agreed.
With all due respect, actually the books which were canonized as Sacred Scripture were subject to Sacred Tradition. That is the standard by which they were chosen. There were many writings to consider. Many were full of truth and very beautiful. Many contained heretical notions. A council of Catholic bishops decided which to accept and which to reject based upon whether or not they measured up to the deposit of faith given to the Church by the Apostles; the truth that the Church held in its teachings and liturgies; in its very life. The writings accepted as Scritpure certainly were around long before they were canonized and were used by the Church in its liturgy, but, as there was no printing press, they were sparse and were not found in all places in which the Church had spread. Sacred Tradition, however, did follow the Church wherever it was found.
The word “Trinity” never appears in Scriptrure, and this is an excellent example of looking at Scripture through the eyes of Sacred Tradition. The concept of the Trinity is certainly found in Scritpture, but whether any one person would find that on their own without having first been told is questionable.
God bless and welcome to CAF. Its always nice to have a different perspective. Hope I have not been too obtuse.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
A lot of Catholics seem to say “Sola Scripture isn’t in the Bible”. Well, if Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church’s claims, what else would they consider is an infallible authority besides the Bible?
Scripture doesn’t need to say that it is the only infallible authority, as Protestants just don’t think anything else is infallible. It isn’t that Sola Scripture is the only means of authority, it’s just that nothing else is infallible, therefore, beliefs should only be based on Scripture.
Scripture doesn’t need to say that it is the only infallible authority, as Protestants just don’t think anything else is infallible. It isn’t that Sola Scripture is the only means of authority, it’s just that nothing else is infallible, therefore, beliefs should only be based on Scripture.
P
PastorVW
Guest
No, you are not. The United Methodist Church was formed by a merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical United Brethren.
However, I am ordained in the Free Methodist Church. I am now disabled/retired and now serve in a formally independent church that recently became a Covenant Church. (With the knowledge and support of my superintendent - who fills the role of a Catholic Bishop we do not have a church in this area.)
Within the Wesleyan “camp” the Free Methodist Church, along with the Nazarene Church and several other small allied denominations have remained “conservative” theologically speaking. While there are a few conservative United Methodist conferences (think Diocese), most are extremely theologically liberal. As a result, those of us in the more conservative Wesleyan groups have much more in common with our Catholic brothers and sisters.
T
Tokyo_Pat
Guest
“Yes, Catholics do know Sacred Scripture. It is taught and read every time we gather together to celebrate Mass. For those of us of Eastern tradition, Scripture comprises many of the most essential elements of the Liturgy, as well. Priests do not proclaim apostolic letters, encyclicals and the like during Mass - they proclaim the Good News!”
In the Latin (“Roman”) Rite, too, the Mass (“Liturgy”) is comprised of a lot of scripture, too.
Bible-literate protestants who come to a Mass are sometimes shocked by how much of the Bible is read. The greetings between the priest and parishioners are usually the greetings from the epistles for one example.
In the Latin (“Roman”) Rite, too, the Mass (“Liturgy”) is comprised of a lot of scripture, too.
Bible-literate protestants who come to a Mass are sometimes shocked by how much of the Bible is read. The greetings between the priest and parishioners are usually the greetings from the epistles for one example.
F
FutureCatholic1
Guest
read 4 or 5 pages of this thread and havnt seen an answer to the original question were is solo or sola scriptura found in the bible
S
SteveVH
Guest
The answer to your first question is that Protestants have no other authority and therefore are obligated, even forced to hold scripture as their only authority since they reject the authority of the Catholic Church and have no authority of their own. Their churches grew out of various interpretations of the scriptures. The Bible, however, did not give us the Catholic Church, rather the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. It preceded the Bible by nearly 400 years.
As to your second comment, the word “infallible” cannot be applied to any writing. The inspired nature of Sacred Scripture guarantees its truth, not its correct interpretation, as is evidenced by the many and varied interpretations present among Christian denominations today. It requires, as its compliment, an infallible authority to correctly interpret its true meaning.
R
ricks1948
Guest
I didn’t read all answer posts, so forgive me if has already been brought up, the printed Bible did not come about until around the 1400s or so when the printing press was invented, I know there were monks who made copies by hand, so in other words it would not have been avalible to most of the public, and for hundreds of years most people could not read. And it took hundreds of years for its books to be collected and finalized. IMHO I do not think our Lord Jesus established a Church that could only be read by a few for that long, IMHO we need tradition and teaching (CCC) also,
P
PastorVW
Guest
Hi Steve, thanks for making me feel welcome!
I’ll need to take you points one at a time.
The Christians who were alive at the time the books and letters were written knew which book were authentic and this was passed down to later generations. Pastors need to know what books were authoritative. People died protecting copies of the New Testament - they wanted to know what books were worth dying for.
Why was the Cannon established at all? It was established because false books had begun to circulate and were being used to promote false doctrine. The Church as a whole was not surprised when the Canon was proclaimed because it contained the books already widely held to be authoritative,
First, we have to remember that in the Jewish tradition, Scripture was the ultimate authority. Jesus modeled this by constantly quoting them. The Apostles quoted the Old Testament in their writings. None of the Apostles need to be taught anything about the role of Scripture. They already regarded Scripture as the ultimate authority. Jesus has not taught them differently.
With that in mind, consider this verse:
(2 Pet 3:16 NIV) He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Here the Apostle Peter calls the letters of the Apostle Paul “Scripture”, placing them in the same category as the 39 Books of the Old Testament. Significantly, he mentions it in passing, as if it were something his readers already knew full well.
Clearly, the early Church considered the writings of the Apostles to be authoritative Scripture.
I’ll need to take you points one at a time.
I think the flaw in your reasoning is this: Just because the Cannon of Scripture had not been established and proclaimed by a council, that does not prove that Scripture did not exist. It clearly did. The Church Fathers quoted from it (as soon as the 2nd Century), we have copies of the New Testament from the 200s and it was even translated into other languages.
The Christians who were alive at the time the books and letters were written knew which book were authentic and this was passed down to later generations. Pastors need to know what books were authoritative. People died protecting copies of the New Testament - they wanted to know what books were worth dying for.
Why was the Cannon established at all? It was established because false books had begun to circulate and were being used to promote false doctrine. The Church as a whole was not surprised when the Canon was proclaimed because it contained the books already widely held to be authoritative,
Exactly. We agree that Christ promised to guide the Apostles into all truth. The question is why did the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, choose to commit this information to writing? The obvious answer is that this information needed to be accurately preserved for future generations. This means that there was other information that they chose not to record in this way. Why? The most obvious answer is that it was not as important.
Well, actually I believe it was.
First, we have to remember that in the Jewish tradition, Scripture was the ultimate authority. Jesus modeled this by constantly quoting them. The Apostles quoted the Old Testament in their writings. None of the Apostles need to be taught anything about the role of Scripture. They already regarded Scripture as the ultimate authority. Jesus has not taught them differently.
With that in mind, consider this verse:
(2 Pet 3:16 NIV) He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Here the Apostle Peter calls the letters of the Apostle Paul “Scripture”, placing them in the same category as the 39 Books of the Old Testament. Significantly, he mentions it in passing, as if it were something his readers already knew full well.
Clearly, the early Church considered the writings of the Apostles to be authoritative Scripture.
Yes, and I believe they were faithful to commit it to the Scriptures.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Pastor Vince,
I can appreciate your attempt to present a straightforward approach to how we got the Bible, but I think you are already aware of several problems with it:
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 23:2-3[/BIBLEDRB]
I can appreciate your attempt to present a straightforward approach to how we got the Bible, but I think you are already aware of several problems with it:
The trouble is that all of these copies were incomplete and none of them contained the exact canon; some had extra books and others were missing some. The oldest copy of the complete New Testament we have is the one in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is from the 300s AD, a hundred years later than what you stated. And even that one has significant variations from the actual inspired text.
The reality is that until the Council of Hippo in the 390s, each church had its own canon of what Scripture was inspired. While I’m sure there were many Christian martyrs who died for the Scriptures, the Gnostics also died en masse for their uninspired books. It was the Catholic Church that settled the debate…
…as you admit.
St. Paul didn’t think so.
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]
It was not. If it was, there would be no division between the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, et al., and Jesus would not have said things like this:
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 23:2-3[/BIBLEDRB]
This ignores the fact that Paul had not written a word of his epistles when he went about preaching the non-yet-written Gospels.
P
PastorVW
Guest
OK first a brief note to Cat Herder (great screen name BTW!) - I am not ignoring you, I just need to answer one post at a time so I don’t get confused
First, granted the first generation of Christians had access to the direct teaching of the Apostles - but we know it was not long before this became impractical. That’s why we have many of the Epistles. Add to this the fact that the Church was under persecution, and the need to record the teachings of Christ and the Apostles in written form.
Second, the Christian Scriptures were written very quickly after the founding of the Church - most within 30-35 years of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension. With the exception of John, the only way to extend that period is to argue that the listed authors did not write the books.
Third, even before the Gospels were written written accounts of Christ’s life and teaching were circulating. Without getting into the whole issue of how the Gospels came to be - if Matthew, Mark and Luke were written prior to 65AD, then the source materials were probably circulating for some time prior to this - probably with the knowledge of the Apostles.
Finally, I think we can all agree that the period immediately following the founding of the Church is not the place to look for normative experiences. These early Christians experienced many things differently than Christians did even 50 years later. For instance, we do not have large numbers of people speaking foreign languages the have never learned in order to communicate the Gospel. We also do nat have any living Apostles - unless I misunderstand Catholic doctrine even the Pope is not considered an Apostle. It is logical and reasonable to expect that prior to the writing of the Scriptures the essentials of the Faith would have been communicated directly by the Apostles.
To come at this from another angle, just as I would find it almost impossible to accept a doctrine that no one had discovered in 2,000 years of looking and that no Christians had ever held - I also find it impossible to accept a doctrine as essential to salvation or of critical importance that cannot be found somewhere in the Scriptures.
Agreed.
Agreed.
OK, it’s good that we agree on some things
Actually, I am sure we agree on a great many things!
I think the question is based upon a faulty premise. My original statement was not that the ONLY place the doctrines essential to Salvation could be found is the Bible. It is that it is completely reasonable to expect that the ESSENTIAL doctrines - the core of Christian beliefs - will be found in the Scriptures.
First, granted the first generation of Christians had access to the direct teaching of the Apostles - but we know it was not long before this became impractical. That’s why we have many of the Epistles. Add to this the fact that the Church was under persecution, and the need to record the teachings of Christ and the Apostles in written form.
Second, the Christian Scriptures were written very quickly after the founding of the Church - most within 30-35 years of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension. With the exception of John, the only way to extend that period is to argue that the listed authors did not write the books.
Third, even before the Gospels were written written accounts of Christ’s life and teaching were circulating. Without getting into the whole issue of how the Gospels came to be - if Matthew, Mark and Luke were written prior to 65AD, then the source materials were probably circulating for some time prior to this - probably with the knowledge of the Apostles.
Finally, I think we can all agree that the period immediately following the founding of the Church is not the place to look for normative experiences. These early Christians experienced many things differently than Christians did even 50 years later. For instance, we do not have large numbers of people speaking foreign languages the have never learned in order to communicate the Gospel. We also do nat have any living Apostles - unless I misunderstand Catholic doctrine even the Pope is not considered an Apostle. It is logical and reasonable to expect that prior to the writing of the Scriptures the essentials of the Faith would have been communicated directly by the Apostles.
Perhaps not, but it is a logical one. To believe that the Apostles (and the Holy Spirit) would be so negligent as to leave out of the New Testament essential or major doctrines is something my faith in Christ simply cannot accept.
To come at this from another angle, just as I would find it almost impossible to accept a doctrine that no one had discovered in 2,000 years of looking and that no Christians had ever held - I also find it impossible to accept a doctrine as essential to salvation or of critical importance that cannot be found somewhere in the Scriptures.
Code:
[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9020685#post9020685)
*c) This does not mean that all truth, or even all Christian truth is found in its' pages.*
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by **PastorVW** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9020685#post9020685)
*d) It does mean that any doctrine taught in the Church cannot be contradicted by the Bible.*OK, it’s good that we agree on some things
Actually, I am sure we agree on a great many things!
P
PastorVW
Guest
Your history is basically accurate - but just a couple of points:
Yes, this was before printing and yes there were not as many copies of the Scriptures as we are blessed with today. Never the less, the fact that the New Testament ws written in “common Greek” insured that in most if not all churches someone - perhaps a merchant, perhaps an official - could read it. Greek was the “second language” for much of the Roman Empire in first few centuries of the Church, and of course it was eventually translated into Latin by Jerome.
Second, how did the Bishops know what the Apostles had taught? It was not as if the books of the New Testament showed up out of the blue in the 300s AD and all the Bishops had to go on in reaching a decision was oral and written “traditions” with no connection to the books that were being evaluated. These Godly men knew which books were authentic beyond absolutely, positively any question and they started there. To be accepted, there had to be strong evidence that the book was authentic, inspired and consistent with the books that were in no way in question. They had spent years studying the Books in question AND they had access to tradition.
OK, with those points taken care of, consider this illustration. I watch someone I know to be an expert in farming write a long article on the best way to rotate corps. When he is done, he asks me to sign a statement to the effect that he wrote the article on the day in question. I don’t know the first thing about farming - but I do not have to be an authority on farming to be an authority on who wrote the article.
In the same way, the fact that we accept the witness of the early Christians (who were after all there) as to which books were written by Apostles and therefore inspired - tradition if you will - this does not require us to accept that tradition is of equal value as the documents it validates.
Of course whole books - if not libraries - have been written on the Trinity and how the Church eventually adopted the doctrine. That said, I think that the reason it took the Church so long to accept the Trinity was lack of faith. After all, if I remember my Church history correctly, the concept had been around for about 200 years. However, it required us to admit that we cannot really understand the nature of God and that we just need to accept all that God says about Himself in His Word as true. All of the other views wanted to place the nature of God in a small enough package to fit inside our brains. Once we admit that any God we can totally understand someone probably made up, the Trinity is obvious. Speaking as someone who has studied and loves Theology, I have to say that I think the problem is that Theologians were trying to solve a problem that really wasn’t there.
Thanks for the welcome. I just wish I had more time to spend here. BTW, I love St Francis. My email signature includes this quote - which is something every Evangelical preacher needs to remember: “Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.”
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Patience.
St. Monica prayed 25? 15? years for her son who became St. Augustin ,…
What can you do but had … patience…?
another example. St. Igantius of Loyola who conquered St. Francis of Xavier.
- Status