Not Convinced.....

[pablope]

Yeah, I wasn’t trying to start a chicken and egg issue, it’s just that my Priest specifically taught us that we would not have the Church without the Bible to tell us how to run it. Granted, the Bible the original Church leaders had was the living Christ, tradition, plus written word…but without the teaching there would be no Church. Since that information came from a Priest, I’m still uncomfortable saying that the Church came up with the Bible…it may be the protestant in me, but I know that if it’s bothering me when it’s worded like that it has to be a problem for practicing protestants.

History of the Bible video:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

 

[joandarc2008]

Yeah, I wasn’t trying to start a chicken and egg issue, it’s just that my Priest specifically taught us that we would not have the Church without the Bible to tell us how to run it. Granted, the Bible the original Church leaders had was the living Christ, tradition, plus written word…but without the teaching there would be no Church. Since that information came from a Priest, I’m still uncomfortable saying that the Church came up with the Bible…it may be the protestant in me, but I know that if it’s bothering me when it’s worded like that it has to be a problem for practicing protestants.

Not to throw in any more confusion but it does clear things up if you think about it this way: the first and only priest (as it is HIm that actually consecrates the Eucharist) is/was Jesus Christ and the first Liturgy of the Eucharist was the Last Supper. After that was tradition by word of mouth as you have stated and then as they realized that Christ had not yet returned they canonized the Bible.

 

[Apryl]

Since that information came from a Priest, I’m still uncomfortable saying that the Church came up with the Bible…it may be the protestant in me, but I know that if it’s bothering me when it’s worded like that it has to be a problem for practicing protestants.

Not only are priests human, but sometimes, people misunderstand their statements.

The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around.

But the Church could never CONTRADICT the Bible.

 

[Genesius]

Apryl, I think what Being Brave is saying…and correct me if I’m wrong…is that the oral tradition, that is, the teachings that were handed down from Christ to the Apostles, some of which became Sacred Scripture…were necessary for the Church to exist. Christ’s intention was to found a Church BASED UPON teachings He handed down to the Apostles, etc. SOME of those teachings eventually became Scripture.

So, in a sense, one could say that the Church CAME from the tradition that eventually became Scripture, even though the CANON of the Bible came from the Church.

Okay…are you as confused as I am now…LOL.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Apostolic Succession is how we have Catholic Tradition

Are Catholic Tradition and scripture different?

and the Magisterium interprets scripture for us,

Where can I get a copy of the magisterium’s bible commentary?

 

[Linda_Marie]

I’m only on page 2 of the comments so I don’t know if anyone else asked this already…I could be reading it wrong, but I think the quote is saying that a Catholic belief is that the Church gave us the Bible, not that the Bible gave us the Church? Just want to make sure because my Priest made it very clear that without the Bible there would be no Church. The Word of God (Bible) did “give birth” to the church. The actual printed book came after the Church, but the information inside it existed in both oral tradition and written form before the Church, and it’s where we even learned how to have a church at all.

The reason this sticks out to me is that a Protestant friend of mine said that Catholics believe that the Bible isn’t as important as the Church hierarchy…that Catholics almost claim to have created and distributed the Bible. Catholics know that the two are inseparable but, there’s a misconception by Protestants that Catholics don’t view the Bible as important, and I think saying that the Bible came from the Church is harsh wording for a Protestant.

Very definitely, the Church gave us the Bible. The Bible did not give us the Church. The Church was born on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples in the Upper Room. The New Testament was not yet written.

Jesus taught us how to be a Church in the Oral Teaching which is called Tradition. The Bible, the written Word, came out of the Oral Teachings and has been confirmed by both Tradition and the Magisterium. This is how we know that the Gospel of Peter is not inspired, while the Gospel of John is. The vast majority of writings in existence at the time, many of which were being read at Mass in various churches, were excluded from the Bible.

Some were excluded because they contained heresy. How do we know? Because the Church determined that they contained teachings that conflicted with what had been taught by Christ and preserved by the Church.

Some were excluded because they were written too long after the Apostles. These did not contain heresy and were still useful for teaching but were not considered inspired. The letters of Clement to the Corinthians and the Didache are in this category.

The reason the Bible is called the Word of God is because the Catholic Church has declared it be so. Protestant churches took our scriptures to found their churches so their churches came from the Bible.

The Church rests on the tripod of the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium. All are equally essential to the Church.

 

[joandarc2008]

Are Catholic Tradition and scripture different?

No, when you study these Traditions, Councils, Encyclicals, etc. you will find footnotes right back to Scripture. The difference is that Catholics have 2000 years of interpretation and study to work with as Protestants have at best 500.

Where can I get a copy of the magisterium’s bible commentary?

Start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When you want to know where something came from check the footnote. The footnote will take you to Scripture, a Council, and Encyclical, etc. If it is a Council or Encyclical you will also find that footnoted - leading back to Scripture. Occasionally you will find the writings of an early Saint - most of these early Saints were direct disciples of the Apostles or were basing there writings again on Scripture.

 

[Being_Brave]

Apryl, I think what Being Brave is saying…and correct me if I’m wrong…is that the oral tradition, that is, the teachings that were handed down from Christ to the Apostles, some of which became Sacred Scripture…were necessary for the Church to exist. Christ’s intention was to found a Church BASED UPON teachings He handed down to the Apostles, etc. SOME of those teachings eventually became Scripture.

So, in a sense, one could say that the Church CAME from the tradition that eventually became Scripture, even though the CANON of the Bible came from the Church.

Okay…are you as confused as I am now…LOL.

That’s almost word for word how he explained it
…and I think you worded it in a way that helps me understand why the “Bible comes from the Church”…the Cannon came from the church…I get it. TY!!

 

[benidict]

Start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When you want to know where something came from check the footnote. The footnote will take you to Scripture, a Council, and Encyclical, etc. If it is a Council or Encyclical you will also find that footnoted - leading back to Scripture. Occasionally you will find the writings of an early Saint - most of these early Saints were direct disciples of the Apostles or were basing there writings again on Scripture.

hi joandarc. im pretty sure he already knows this… peace oh, one more thing. i love southern new hampshire. very pretty place.

 

[Genesius]

I think some of the confusion comes because some people don’t consider the different meanings behind the term “Word of God”. “Word of God” can mean:

1. The Written Word of God (Sacred Scripture)
2. The Oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition)
3. The Living Word of God (the Logos…Christ Himself)

When speaking of “The Word of God” I think we should clarify what we mean so people are not confused about the context, perhaps in the manner I use it in the list above?

Just a suggestion.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Are Catholic Tradition and scripture different?

No, when you study these Traditions, Councils, Encyclicals, etc. you will find footnotes right back to Scripture. The difference is that Catholics have 2000 years of interpretation and study to work with as Protestants have at best 500.

I’m not quite sure what “2000 years of interpretation and study” has to do with anything. If something was interpreted say 1500 years ago what would that benifit over something that was interpreted 500 years ago providing the interpretations are correct?

Where can I get a copy of the magisterium’s bible commentary?

So the catechism is a verse by verse commentary on the bible?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

But…the NT of the bible was not canonised until the late 4th century, she existed nearly four hundred years without the bible. The church made the bible and the bible did not give birth to the church, and they did well.

I always thought that the bible was the WORD OF GOD.

The Catholic church is NOT sola scriptura, and so we aren’t terribly impressed by what the bible does and does not say.

This is a very troublesome statement. Are you saying that there is something in the CC’s oral tradition that is not in scripture, but is necessary for our salvation? And if you are not saying that there is something in the oral tradition that is necessary for salvation that is not contained in scripture, aren’t you making this statement about your oral tradition also?

Everything is not contained in the pages of the bible in fact it says in the bible if everything Jesus said and did were written down, there would not be enough books in the world to contain it all. (pipper paraphrase, don’t have a bible in front of me right now, but that’s the gist). BTW CATHOLICS do not worship Mary, that is a myth.

Perhaps if you are convinced that sola scriptura (which is not taught in the bible it’self) is the way to go, you might stay Baptist.

Again, are you saying there is something in your oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained in scripture? If so what would that be?

 

[Genesius]

I’m not quite sure what “2000 years of interpretation and study” has to do with anything. If something was interpreted say 1500 years ago what would that benifit over something that was interpreted 500 years ago providing the interpretations are correct?

I think what the poster was driving at here was the valuable insights, and evolution of theology that comes over time, particularly from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who have been entrusted by Christ Himself with guarding both the Bible and the Christian faith from heresy, so that the Church He founded will prevail as He promised it would.

So the catechism is a verse by verse commentary on the bible?

No, but it’s probably the closest thing you will get to it. There are also Catholic reference Bibles that can be valuable such as the Ignatius Study Bible, etc.

I always thought that the bible was the WORD OF GOD.

Please refer to my previous post. Word of God has many implications. The Bible is just one. If you think the Word of God is only in the written form you are ignoring much of what the Bible says about the “Word of God”.

This is a very troublesome statement.

I am in total agreement with your above statement. The original poster definitely could have worded it differently, and by wording it the way they did grossly misrepresents the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is definitely impressed by what the Bible says. If it weren’t, she wouldn’t have been it’s guardian for over two millenium.

But again, there does have to be a central teaching authority to interpret it, particularly in those areas that aren’t as clear as others. Granted, much of the Bible is clear enough…pretty basic. However, there are problem passages that Protesants have interpreted various ways according to their many slants. Who’s to say whose interpretation is correct if not the very Church that wrote, compiled, and preserved it for over 2000 years?

Also, as someone else had mentioned, not everything is in the Bible. How do you know for instance not to run a red light? Is that in the Bible somewhere? What about abortion? Is that addressed somewhere in the Bible? Human cloning? None of these moral issues are directly addressed. How do we know if they are wrong or not unless we have a central teaching authority to guide us?

And, remember, even the Bible that we both regard so highly (I still won’t put anything on top of a Bible…something that was ingrained in me as a Baptist), was not always in written form. It was at one time oral teaching from that same central teaching authority. You see, it’s not either/or the Bible. It’s Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium all together working in unison…the whole deposit of faith…that’s at the heart of our Christian faith.

As the other poster said, if you cannot accept that; if believing that goes against your conscience, then stay Baptist and continue serving God in that capacity. I know some wonderful non-Catholic Christians, some men of the cloth, who continue doing wonderful works for the Lord. Just remember to always follow Christ and allow Him to do a good work in you, brother.

 

[Genesius]

Richard Kastner wrote: "Again, are you saying there is something in your oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained in scripture? If so what would that be? "

My Response: I’m assuming that you are expecting a simple pat answer. However, there is a lot involved in your question, and probably a lot of assumption in your interpretation of theological terms here.

For one thing, whether you realize it or not it’s not all just “our oral tradition”, but yours as well. The term “Trinity” for instance is found nowhere in the Bible, nor is the teaching explicitly found anywhere in the Bible, that the Trinity is basically three distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in one essence (God). It comes from oral tradition. However, it is a tradition that your Baptist brethren fully accept without question.

The other assumption is your concept of “salvation”. I’m sure you probably define salvation as a one time sinner’s prayer. But the Biblical, as well as Catholic view, is that it is a process that BEGINS with conversion (the sacrament of baptism and confirmation), continues with the sanctification process, and ends with glorification (we HAVE been saved when we established a relationship with God, we ARE being saved as we “…work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling”, and we WILL be saved when we are taken up on the last day in glorified bodies and He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead).

The “sancification” part of salvation; growing in Christ; growing in holiness, requires God’s graces. And there are many factors to consider in this aspect of salvation. The Church teaches that the Sacraments are the ordinary means by which God conveys these sanctifying graces (particularly Baptism, Confirmation, Rite of Reconciliation (Confession), Eucharist; but also Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony, and the Anointing of the Sick (or “Last Rites”).

However, although the Sacraments are the ORDINARY means by which God’s sanctifying graces can be given to the believer, they are by no means the ONLY way. This is what makes exception for non-Catholic Christians, who by invincible ignorance, are exempted from receiving the sacraments. Baptism and Holy Matrimony are both valid outside of the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church acknowledges that God’s graces extend out past His preferred will. You cannot put God in a box.

Hope that helps answer your question.

 

[ignatius777]

I’m not quite sure what “2000 years of interpretation and study” has to do with anything. If something was interpreted say 1500 years ago what would that benifit over something that was interpreted 500 years ago providing the interpretations are correct?

So the catechism is a verse by verse commentary on the bible?

Why dont you read it and find out what it actually says instead of guessing

 

[joandarc2008]

hi joandarc. im pretty sure he already knows this… peace oh, one more thing. i love southern new hampshire. very pretty place.

I’m sorry - I was just answering the question - my apologies - I also did time in Iraq. Just North of … but anyway keep safe - God bless. And yes as the above poster said I could have worded differently but I was addressing the actual question asked the poster - here is what the Church says is the purpose for the Catechism:

on the Catechism of the Catholic ChurchFidei Depositum

 

[TracyR]

God created Jesus by himself, there was no mother or wife involved. Mary is NOT divine, she is human. She has NO special influence on Christ WHATSOEVER. She is not omniscient or omnipresent, so how can she hear millions of prayers at once? ABSOLUTLEY NO ONE is above sin, except God. She is only a vessel (or an instrument, if you like) that helped bring Christ into the world in human form. She has ABSOLUTLEY NO influence in our salvation whatsoever. Jesus is the ONLY meditator between man and God. Period.

Why would you not want to honor a person who brought forth God’s son? What a wonderful honor that would be.
I guess its like this… mothers should be honored. That’s why we have Mother’s Day. If a mother is just a vessel then you might as well nix Mother’s Day that’s for sure. Because then we’re all just vessels, and being a mother to four daughters I really find offense to.

The angel Gabriel brought forth the message from God to Mary stating she was blessed and even Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth stated she was blessed:
Luke 1: 41-45
" When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting , the unborn baby inside her jumped, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. She cried out in a loud voice " Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”

So,. yes, Mary was blessed more than any women on earth with God’s son.
As for Mary being an influence on our salvation, she is not. Being a born again Christian who is born again each and every day by showing the love of Christ in our every day works is our salvation to God.
Mary is honored as the blessed woman who brought forth Jesus Christ to the world. What mother wouldn’t help her son? As we all know our loved ones aren’t dead but in Heaven waiting for all of us. Mary, nor the Saints are not dead. So why wouldn’t she hear our prayers as well?

 

[pablope]

Are Catholic Tradition and scripture different?

Where can I get a copy of the magisterium’s bible commentary?

Here is the link:
ignatius.com/Products/CategoryCenter.aspx?SearchTerm=catechism+of+the+catholic+church

If I recall, you have asked of this several times, but you have not gone to buy one. If you really are serious about reading it, the link has been provided.

 

[pablope]

I always thought that the bible was the WORD OF GOD.

This is a very troublesome statement. Are you saying that there is something in the CC’s oral tradition that is not in scripture, but is necessary for our salvation? And if you are not saying that there is something in the oral tradition that is necessary for salvation that is not contained in scripture, aren’t you making this statement about your oral tradition also?

Again, are you saying there is something in your oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained in scripture? If so what would that be?

Maybe you should be more definite with your query. What would you like to achieve and learn?

Would you like to be closer to Jesus, a relationship that will make you grow from what you get from merely reading the Bible? To grow in grace, that you would achieve a state from where you are now, in the primary state, to the unitive state, a more fulfilling state?

 

[Nicea325]

I always thought that the bible was the WORD OF GOD.

This is a very troublesome statement. Are you saying that there is something in the CC’s oral tradition that is not in scripture, but is necessary for our salvation? And if you are not saying that there is something in the oral tradition that is necessary for salvation that is not contained in scripture, aren’t you making this statement about your oral tradition also?

Again, are you saying there is something in your oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained in scripture? If so what would that be?

And Richard,what Bible did Abraham use,since you believe God’s Word is binded only to the Written Word. Richard,Christianity is NOT a book-only faith,but about the person: Jesus Christ. Have you forgotten that simple fact?