NonCatholics: Are you able to know it's Scripture from reading a text?

[spedteacherita]

1. Well, it was you who asserted that the CC teaches things which the Apostles and Christ didn’t teach…so it would appear that the onus is actually on you, no?
2. You might find it helpful to read JDKelley, who is a Protestant historian. He describes Sacred Tradition as "Sacred Tradition which unerringly interprets the deposit of Catholic faith, then this Tradition is “embedded in all the organs of [the Church’s] institutional life” ( Early Christian Doctrines, pg 47-48). "
3. That’s exactly what He did, Rita! He did “set up a perfect vessel for the time He was developing His incarnate form”! That vessel is the Immaculate Virgin Mary.

1. If the CC has the information and facts where these teachings come from then why would they not want to share them with others?
2. I will check him out if I can find him and/or afford him to see what he says
3. The logic of the CC is that it had to be an Immaculate Conception - where do we find that info taught by Jesus and/or the Apostles? I’m not convinced of this or the other Marian Doctrines…but this thread isn’t about this topic.

Christ’s peace to you!

Rita

 

[Kay_Cee]

I have actually proposed that here. No one has actually taken me up on it, though.

And the thing is…some Protestant folks here seem to be suggesting that the authority to determine what’s Scripture and what’s not lies in their own person.

Thus, they could read a particular text, and decide for themselves whether it’s truly theopneustos or not.

I find this paradigm to be astonishing.

Absolutely astonishing.

Perhaps it isn’t so astonishing when we realize how many people decide for themselves which scripture not to follow–even when they admit the scripture is right there.

How many Protestant churches don’t follow Christ’s words about divorce? Several years ago I read a post on another forum in which a Protestant women agreed that Jesus had said that those who remarry after divorce commit adultery, yet she justified it to herself by saying that Jesus was loving so surely He would understand that in her case she shouldn’t have to live her life without love.

So I guess if you can decide for yourself which scriptures to follow and which to ignore, it’s not that much of a leap to deciding for yourself what actually is scripture.

 

[benjohnson]

If we had a room in which there were all the books of the bible in individual volumes that are believed by most orthodox churches, and two hundred works of a similar nature of near eastern religious significance and then the gnostic gospels and early church fathers, would we say with any certainty we could determine the books without some sort of prior knowledge of Christianity or the idea of a bible in the first place?

I certainly agree that my mind would fail at the task of discernment - knowing myself, I’d know I model God in my own image and would cast aside any difficult teaching.

We should be thankfully that we have received the body of scripture from God in the way He has given it.

 

[spedteacherita]

I certainly agree that my mind would fail at the task of discernment - knowing myself, I’d know I model God in my own image and would cast aside any difficult teaching.

We should be thankfully that we have received the body of scripture from God in the way He has given it.

Amen, Ben!

 

[PRmerger]

Most Bible scholars believe that the different gospels in the New Testament came out of different early Christian communities that had slightly different views. It’s pretty plain, at least to me, that the Gospel of Matthew, for example, did not come out of the same Christian milieu as the Gospel of John. This does not look like one unified Catholic church with one unified set of teachings and one unified way of looking at Jesus in the first century.

Well, since your communion uses the same gospels as my Church does, your last sentence (in bold) applies to you as well.

Are you aware that you have just posed an objection to yourself here?

 

[PRmerger]

You shouldn’t get too many Lutherans disputing this teaching as a pious belief… what you will find are Lutheran who don’t think that accepting this teaching will effect salvation as proscribed by the Pope Pious IX in 1854.

Catholicism doesn’t divide things into: “what affects our salvation” and “what doesn’t affect our salvation but is still good to endorse”.

It’s like a lover asking his beloved, “What kinds of things will get me kicked out of your good graces?”

As Mark Shea says: “What’s the bare minimum of obedience to Christ I can get away with and still be saved?” are fundamentally wrong-headed, like the guy who asks just exactly how far he can go with the secretary before it’s really precisely, technically, exactly, you know, adultery."

 

[PRmerger]

As long as we’re clear, then. The teachings of the truly ecumenical councils are authoritative, whether or not we use the term charism of infallibility.

Jon

I’m not sure why ecumenical councils have been brought up.

The councils that determined the canon were local councils, not ecumenical ones.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh that’s easy… if there’s a bunch of thees and thous then it must be God-breathed.

If the King’s english was good enough for Jesus then it’s good enough for me.

(Runs away and hides)

 

[PRmerger]

1. If the CC has the information and facts where these teachings come from then why would they not want to share them with others?

Ummm…they have shared them, Rita.

The kerygma has been shared by the CC for 2000 years!

1. The logic of the CC is that it had to be an Immaculate Conception

No. Not that it “had to be”, but rather that it was “fitting” for Mary to be a Pure Vessel for the Eternal Godhead.

Don’t you think so, Rita? Don’t you think that the vessel which so intimately cradled and nourished the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most incomprehensible and ineffable Incarnation of the Numinous would be…pure and undefiled?

• where do we find that info taught by Jesus and/or the Apostles?

In the 2000 year tradition of the CC.

 

[spedteacherita]

Ummm…they have shared them, Rita.

The kerygma has been shared by the CC for 2000 years!

No. Not that it “had to be”, but rather that it was “fitting” for Mary to be a Pure Vessel for the Eternal Godhead.

Don’t you think so, Rita? Don’t you think that the vessel which so intimately cradled and nourished the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most incomprehensible and ineffable Incarnation of the Numinous would be…pure and undefiled?

In the 2000 year tradition of the CC.

You’re talking circles around my poor brain, PR! Where will I find the Kerygma that has been shared by the CC for 2000 years?

As far as Mary “fitting” to be the Pure Vessel I have no problem with that but what I have found regarding that was that it was “logical” that it was so. So, to my mind, to carry out that logic the Immaculate Conception was developed - I maintain that we don’t have to have the Immaculate Conception because God (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) does not need to make Mary perfect and sinless to carry our Lord.

Where did the Catholic Church find this teaching?

You are making me smile thru this !!

God bless,

Rita

 

[benjohnson]

Catholicism doesn’t divide things into: “what affects our salvation” and “what doesn’t affect our salvation but is still good to endorse”.

It’s like a lover asking his beloved, “What kinds of things will get me kicked out of your good graces?”

Isn’t that the difference between mortal and venial sin? That’s how I understood the Catholic understating on the levels of our sinful nature - that some sins can be quantified as to remove ourselves from God’s grace.

I was sort of beating around the bush - the Papal Bull regarding the Immaculate Conception has some rather strong language in that it would appear that those that disagree are at least in a pickle if not in danger losing their salvation:

“Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”

Not exactly sure how to parse that today, but an 1800’s church member would certainly not be in the mood to disagree after reading that!

 

[PRmerger]

You’re talking circles around my poor brain, PR! Where will I find the Kerygma that has been shared by the CC for 2000 years?

You will find it in the life of the CC, Rita. In our liturgies, in our teachings, and, of course, in our Catechism, which is the sure norm for teaching the faith.

It is the life of the Church, lived.

Now, if you are asking for a full written compendium of this kerygma, that would be like asking for a full written compendium of your life in an easy-to-read, bullet-formed format Rita!

That would be impossible to do, right?

IOW: read what itsjustdave1988 wrote:

According to Protestant historian JND Kelly, “in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in itscompleteness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.” (ibid.).

If you would like a summary of the Catholic faith, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a sure norm. Nonetheless, its difficult to thoroughly learn what is embedded in the life of the Catholic Church, unless you take a leap into that life.

For a more comprehensive study, consider a study of the decrees and teachings within the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See), published by the Vatican. Another useful compendium is found in Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. I also recommend William Jurgen’s three volume work, Faith of the Early Fathers. Each gives an authoritative understanding of Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition since the 1st century.

However, Christians don’t embed their living Tradition solely in books. We instead live and preach the faith. God could have just given us an updated and more comprehensive Bible. He didn’t. Instead, he gave us a living Son, the Christ, as well as a helper, the Holy Spirit. The body of Christ remains living today, entrusted with handing on the same deposit of faith, expounded upon with the help of the Holy Spirit, so that the “pillar and foundation of truth” is equipped to re-present the deposit of faith in the context of contemporary life.

In the final analysis, you should understand that Sacred Tradition is a “living” tradition.—
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4575767&postcount=46

 

[PRmerger]

As far as Mary “fitting” to be the Pure Vessel I have no problem with that but what I have found regarding that was that it was “logical” that it was so. So, to my mind, to carry out that logic the Immaculate Conception was developed - I maintain that we don’t have to have the Immaculate Conception because God (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) does not need to make Mary perfect and sinless to carry our Lord.

You are correct. God didn’t NEED TO make Mary sinless.

It was simply FITTING that she was.

Where did the Catholic Church find this teaching?

She didn’t find it at all. She received it. From Christ Himself.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t that the difference between mortal and venial sin? That’s how I understood the Catholic understating on the levels of our sinful nature - that some sins can be quantified as to remove ourselves from God’s grace.

Yes, this is a good point.

But you will note that we do not have a list of venial sins nor a list of mortal sins.

Why?

Well, one reason is because it would be exactly like my example: a boyfriend saying, “Give me the list of things that will get me kicked out of the relationship”.

That would be the exact wrong thing for any lover to demand, right?

So, again, to reiterate: we don’t look at things as “what we need to do to be saved” and “everything else”.

Why? Because no lover asks that. Or, if he does, it shows that he clearly doesn’t get it.