Protestant versus Catholic

[Padrej]

Hello Father,

My understanding of virgin has always been having had no intercourse with a man. Your’s seems to be that having once given birth, she was no longer a virgin. Could you please explain what you mean?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi Christine,
As you already know, I believe that the Holy Theotokos was ever virgin. However, what you state here is where I respectfully disagree with Catholic teaching. I don’t see how belief that she had other children negatively influences the salvation won for us by Christ.

One the other hand, I also don’t see how belief in her perpetual virginity is unscriptural.

Jon

Hi Jon-
Thanks for your response. The Catholic Church has always taught the the OT prefigures the New, using “types” or “pointing to.” I’m no theologian, so I’m not going to be able to get into the deeper syntaxes of Greek vs Aramaic vs Hebrew nuances. One cannot understand the OT without the NOT, and vice versa.

When Jesus said he “fulfilled the law” it means he became the new Adam, he fulfilled all that was taught in the OT.

I just finished a year-long Bible study by Jeff Cavins’ Great Adventure Series, the Bible Timeline, in which he connects all the dots.

That Mary may have other children, per se, does not, negate Christ’s the salvation won for us by Christ. However, in light of the Old Testament, it would be unscriptural that she would have had more children, that is, have relations with a man.

First of all, she was a consecrated virgin. (We get this from the Protoevengelium of James, which, while not inspired, does state historical fact).

• Since Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, only priests are allowed to enter 2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
• Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

I repeat only what I studied in the Catholic Church and what Bible studies I have taken show me. These are not conclusions I necessarily understand or have come to on my own.

At some point, having embraced the Catholic Church, I accept all her Teachings. I cannot claim to have the intellectual capacity to delve into these issues by myself. I believe this is the big leap Protestants have to make, accepting the Authority of 2,000 years of the Teachings of the Church. Many Protestants keep re-inventing the wheel. Catholics are guilty of this too (changing “he” to “God” in liturgical prayer, etc.)

This is not to say I “blindly” accept her Teachings. I study. But I don’t have the expertise to delve into the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic documents. In fact, I am often amused by Fundamentals who argue over Petra and Petros, as though they have a working knowledge of Koine Greek!

If you are really interested in why the Church Teaches what she does, this website is very helpful.

scripturecatholic.com

Welcome to ScriptureCatholic.com, one of the most comprehensive Catholic apologetics websites on the internet. ScriptureCatholic.com provides over 2,000 Scripture citations from the Old and New Testament that explain and defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. This site also provides hundreds of excerpts from the writings of the early Church Fathers (1st through 8th centuries). These writings explain the Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture and demonstrate that the early Church was unequivocally Catholic. Through the study of Scripture and the Church Fathers, we see that, not only is the Catholic faith biblical, Catholicism is Bible Christianity par excellence.

While Fundamental Protestants seem to focus on what is necessary for Salvation, Catholics focus on the whole of Scripture to support God’s Holy plan for our Salvation. It can be heady.

Having said the above, my mantra is little old ladies going to early morning mass with their rosaries and holy cards, are the profound witnesses to the mysteries of our beautiful Catholic faith.

More so than any wordy intellectual.

Blessings to you Jon, Padrej, and others here who challenge me to delve further into my faith.

It’s the week-end, so I apologize if I do not respond in a more timely fashion.

 

[JonNC]

=Padrej;7027175]

Quote:
My understanding of virgin has always been having had no intercourse with a man. Your’s seems to be that having once given birth, she was no longer a virgin. Could you please explain what you mean?

I will try to keep this G rated. When I was in high school there was a couple that fooled around in the backseat and he never penetrated her, He did produce a child because of the “actions” in the back seat. When the child was born she was no longer a virgin as the child had to go through the birth canal and there was no more hymen.

Well, PG-13 anyway. lol

NOW, I can understand if Mary was chaste and Joseph was after the birth, but that IS NOT clearly spelled out in scripture. The wording of scripture in this area is clear that he had no relations with her until she gave birth, this indicates there were relations after. If Jesus had half brothers from the union of Mary and Joseph it does not change the salvation story one iota.

On this I agree, that it doesn’t change the truth of salvation, and scripture is not explicit, and I think you and I agree, as a result, the belief is adiaphoron. Of course, the “until” part can be understood in the same way as “the man quit smoking at age 50, and did not have another cigarrette “until” he died”.

At the Passover, when the first borns of the Egyptians died, is it your understanding that if a family only had one child (son), that child was not killed? IOW, is it your understanding that first born is a term to differentiate between him and younger siblings, or a title, regardless of the existence of other siblings?

The Book of Exodus says that the firstborn of EVERYTHING in the house of Egypt was killed, including the animals. Did the Egyptians continue as a race? Of course they did they did not remain virgins or chaste because the civilization lived for centuries.
The point I think that everyone is making is that the perpetual virginity of Mary is one of Holy Tradition and not one based solely on Scripture. Can I live with this tradition? Yes.

Yes. My point is that “first born” does not necessarily mean that there are, or will be, other children. Just trying to look at this from all angles.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[guanophore]

Where and when did GOD or Jesus say that for my salvation I must believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

If you look at the Great Comission, Jesus instructed the Apostles to teach ALL of His commandments, and in Acts, Luke testifies that they were teaching ALL that he DID and TAUGHT.

This is not limited to the NT, which was not formed until 382 years later. Don’t you think the Apostles would know if Jesus had more kids? Honestly. Why would people who lived 2000 years after the facts know more than they did?

We are not at liberty to start slicing up the ONE FAITH that was ONCE FOR ALL deposited to the Church. We are not authorized to determine which parts of it are relevant to salvation. Jesus gave one message, and the Apostles transmitted that ONE message. All of it goes together, perhaps in ways we may not know or understand until we pass through the pearly gates.

 

[guanophore]

No you are reading more into what I said, or simply not understanding:

You have to believe it is GOD’s Word. It is through the Holy Bible that GOD teaches us Truths that we need to know.

Where does it say in the Bible that you have to believe that it is God’s Word, and that we have to believe that it is in order to be saved?

Where in the Bible does it say that everything we need to know for our salvation is contained in it?
schaick;7021274:

Not sure what the point would be if you didn’t believe it was GOD’s inspired Word.- I quess you would be a muslim, atheist, etc.?

Do you go to a history book to find out how to have a relationship with GOD? No you go to HIS manuel.

You have to believe the Truths that are in the Bible.

How did people get saved before the Bible was formed in AD 382?

The Bible is not a “manual”, another concept that you will not find in it’s pages, along with the other errors of Sola Scriptura.

Jesus did not commit a Bible to the Apostles when He sent them to reach all nations with salvation. He put His word in the Church, and those that were saved received the Word of God from the Church, where it continues to exist infallibly. Not sure why you believe God cannot preserve His Word whereever He decides to deposit it.

You must not believe that His Word accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent.

 

[KathleenGee]

Padrej,

Mary however, was perpetual virgin…the imagery I shared about the virgin birth…and the Catholic belief that she did not lose her virginity, can be compared as to when Jesus passed through the door in His Resurrected state to the Apostles. At birth, He was and always is True God and True Man…anything possible with God.

As Firstborn of all man, Christ is the New Adam, the New Man we are all called to deny that of ourselves and to allow the new life of Christ to enter into our beings…Passing and entering, renewing…through the Holy Spirit.

So in Christ through Mary we also are regenerated as new sons and daughters.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus is the founder of the church. The church was not founded on Pentecost.

Well, Fisher, there are so many strange ideas and misunderstandings in your post it is hard to know where to begin.

Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room after His resurrection. He breathed upon them, and said “receive the HS”. This is only the second time it is recorded in Scripture that God breathed the breath of life into a Body. The first was Adam, and this time, the Body of His Church. Some say the Church was born in the blood and water that flowed from His side on the cross.

The reason the Church could not be founded prior to this was because He had not defeated the last enemy, which was death. After He rose, He instructed the Apostles to go to Jerusalem, and wait for the HS On Pentecost, the HS entered the Church, and became the Soul of the Church, just as Jesus is the Bridegroom of the Church.

The Bible says in Acts 2 that they added to the church those that were saved. You cannot add to something that is not there.

This is true.

I do not know how long the church was there, but it was there before Matthew 18, where it speaks of taking something to the church.

Jesus gave a lot of instructions, the meaning of which did not become clear until later. He taught that those who did not eat His body,a nd drink His blood would not have life in them, but He did not reveal what this meant until the last supper.

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Matthew 10:1

Do you think this is the foundation of the Church? Certainly 11 of these, and most of the 70 he sent out were part of the foundation of the Church.

Whenever the church was started, it was started with a called-out assembly. The first place in the Bible where I find such a statement is in Matthew 10:1

Yes, the called out assembly describes the Church, as does the word “Catholic”. These are marks of the the Church He founded. The “called out assembly” was to be Holy. The other marks of the true Church are that it is One, and it is Apostolic.

I feel the church was started here or before here. I know it was started some time in the personal ministry of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the foundation of the church.

It would be more correct to say that He is the Cornerstone. The foundation is made up of the Apostles and Prophets.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

The rock he was speaking about was not the Peter. The church was not built on the Peter. The church was built on the foundation of Jesus. Jesus was the rock being referred to, not Peter. The word Peter means little pebble. The word rock means a strong. big rock. They are not the same word. Peter was a little pebble, but the rock is Jesus.

This is a common misunderstanding among those who have been separated from the Teachings of the Apostles. If you check your Scripture, you will see that God never renames a person without good reason. It was not for nothing that He changed the name of Simon bar Jonah to Peter (Rock). He was called by the name of “Rock” for the rest of his life.

There is also not a dichotomy here, as you seem to suppose. Jesus is The Rock,a nd He grafted Peter into His own Rockness, making Peter part of the foundation of the Church of which He is the Cornerstone. The two are not separated, so Jesus built the Church on the foundation of Peter, Peter’s faith, and Himself. All of them are “rocks”.

Jesus attended it, and sang and preached in it.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will! sing praise unto thee. Hebrews 2:9-12

We see here that Jesus went to church. He was quoting from an Old Testament prophesy by saying that He would declare God’s name in the church. Luke 4 says that it was Jesus custom to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath Day. He was in a habit of going.

Since the Church had not yet been given the Breath of Life that came from Christ after His resurrection this reference to “church” is not how you conceive of a modern Church.

Jesus attended synagogue because He was a faithful Jew, not so much because it was a “habit”. It was customary for faithful Jews to gather on the sabbath. The scriputre passage quoted in Hebrews is a reference to giving a faithful witness to the called out ones. The Church was not a “place” that He entered and sang or preached. He conducted these activities at synagogue, and out in the open.

 

[guanophore]

When He went to the cross all the things attached to the synagogue were nailed to the cross with Him. In the place of the synagogue He gave us the local church.

I think this is just a lack of understanding of history on your part. Jesus did not abolish “all things attached to the synagogue”. If this were true, the Apostles would not have continued to attend synagogue, and the Church would not have lifted the Liturgy from there. There is nothing inherintly wrong with synagogue, that it needed to be put to death.

Jesus preached in the church. I am not talking necessarily about a church building. They may have met under a tree, in a barn, or in a house, as they often did in the Bible. But, the fact remains that Jesus went to church and preached in the church. Jesus also said that He was going to sing God’s praises in the church.

This is a strange way to think about what Jesus was doing, but I cannot see that it necessarily is contradictory to the Apostolic Faith. The Apostles taught that the Church was not yet formed until after His resurrection, which is why they never described His activities this way. However, if it helps your faith to think of it that way, I dont believe it is harmful.

Did Jesus need to go to church? Absolutely. The Bible says He emptied himself of deity and became a man. He did what He did, not as God, but as man. Otherwise, He could not have been our pattern. Jesus needed to go to church because He was a man. It was not to keep Him from sinning, but for encouragement and fellowship, the same reasons we need to go to church.

No, Fisher, Jesus did not need to go to Church. He chose to fellowship with those He had called into His service. Your concept of “church” is deficient, which is why you don’t grasp the meaning and need for people to go. However, I do agree that it can provide encouragement and fellowship.

Jesus must have the preeminence in every organization of the church.

Except that there is only One Church…

I believe that songs about Jesus should be sung in the church, rather than the high-brow anthems that are used in so many circles today.

I am not sure what a “high -brow anthem” is, but are you saying there are none of them about Jesus?

Jesus is the head of the church.

And he is the head of the body, the church … Colossians 1:18a

Jesus is the head of the body. The church is the body of Christ. The word head is similar to the President of a business. It means that it is his body in the sense of ownership or control, not in the sense of being a physical body. The word head means authority. He is the authority of the church. He is the head of the church like the owner of a store is the head of that store. The church is a body of people that belongs to him.

Thank you for posting your study on the nature of the Church, Fisher. I hope that you will continue to study these things about Church, so that one day you can be in full communion with the Church founded by Christ.

 

[Padrej]

This is a common misunderstanding among those who have been separated from the Teachings of the Apostles. If you check your Scripture, you will see that God never renames a person without good reason. It was not for nothing that He changed the name of Simon bar Jonah to Peter (Rock). He was called by the name of “Rock” for the rest of his life.

There is also not a dichotomy here, as you seem to suppose. Jesus is The Rock,a nd He grafted Peter into His own Rockness, making Peter part of the foundation of the Church of which He is the Cornerstone. The two are not separated, so Jesus built the Church on the foundation of Peter, Peter’s faith, and Himself. All of them are “rocks”.

.

Friendly Point of correction, When Peter slipped back into his old ways Jesus addressed him as Simon. Take for instance in the restoration of Peter by the seashore, Jesus reverts back to calling Peter, “Simon, son of John” see John 21; so he would NOT have been called Peter for the rest of his life only at certain times.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think people applying Sola Scriptura are really missing the second piece – how Scripture was lived out in the New Covenant…this is the Church…and Tradition is the way that Jesus – the Living Word of God…Made Flesh…and not a clay tablet or a book …made our lives anew.

Remember, Moses threw down the clay tablets that God fingered His commandments…when he saw the Law broken with the Golden Calf…and the Jewish people not even having entered the Promised Land…so until the time of Christ, they were trying to fulfill the Law that was already broken and only restored in a living Person…the Son of God.

The Apostles kept hidden in the Upper Room in fear and tears, unable to go out. There were many others in the room with them including Christ’s mother Mary. Forty days after Christ’s death…being ‘lost’ as the Jews were for 40 years – but this time without the presence of Christ and His spirit…the Holy Spirit came…Tongues of fire appeared not only over the Apostles, but Mary and all the followers present.

It was the Holy Spirit Who began the Church…giving the Apostles the anointing and deep confirmation of Christ’s Spirit with them…and their followers…representing we the Church of today. The Apostles were no longer afraid or limited by lack of language…and were given the commission to go and spread the Good News, establish churches…

At ordinary Resurrection Sunday Mass…every Sunday…is considered the greatest feastday in the Catholic Church. Because we partake in the Resurrected Lord and His power over death and sin…every Sunday…through the Holy Spirit…united with Him as the only pleasing sacrifice to the Father.

It is the Holy Spirit that gives the Church its ‘four squares’ …its marks…in order…One…Holy…Catholic…Apostolic.

So the Word of God and its fulfillment and bond with Christ’s Church…how the Word of God is understood and lived out through the transmission of faith from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ witnessed by his apostles…that we hear and live out…along with the witness of universal/Catholic Christians handed down through the ages…and whose integrity of witness is also protected and preserved by the Holy Spirit.

When the pope speaks infallibly…he is speaking in conformity to the tradition of faith that has always been here…tradition you can say is a certain way of looking at things, understanding them, and living them out…so when he speaks as such…it totally resonates through the Holy Spirit deep within us – universally all over the world – that this teaching of faith and morals is true…

Furthermore…it has always been the tradition of believers from the beginning that Mary’s passing from this earth was extraordinary…and taken to Jesus.

 

[schaick]

Where does it say in the Bible that you have to believe that it is God’s Word, and that we have to believe that it is in order to be saved?

Where in the Bible does it say that everything we need to know for our salvation is contained in it?

Why believe it contains information for your salvation if it isn’t GOD’s Word? Not to be confused with GOD’s WORD. On another thread I have really confused some people.

How did people get saved before the Bible was formed in AD 382?

We had the Gospel then circulating as books to the different churches. Paul and early Church Fathers referenced Gospel.

The Bible is not a “manual”, another concept that you will not find in it’s pages, along with the other errors of Sola Scriptura.

So Catholics believe that the Holy Bible is not a guide on how to have a good relationship with GOD?

Not a guide on how the heirachy of the Church Jesus built on the foundation of the Apostles whith HE HIMSELF as chief cornerstone should look?

Not a guide on the how and why of the Eucharist?

WHY does GOD have to say this is my Word please follow it?

That is why I am not Catholic.

Jesus did not commit a Bible to the Apostles when He sent them to reach all nations with salvation. He put His word in the Church, and those that were saved received the Word of God from the Church, where it continues to exist infallibly. Not sure why you believe God cannot preserve His Word whereever He decides to deposit it.

The Holy Spirit did move the Apostles/Disciples to record the information we need for our salvation.

Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1
1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

You must not believe that His Word accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent.

What? Are you talking Jesus - GOD’s WORD or are you talking Bible -GOD’s Word?**

 

[bluelake]

the TOTAL embracing of Catholic dogmas and doctrines specifically (but certainly not limited to), belief in the real presence, belief in the validity of Mass, belief in praying through saints, belief in the primacy of the pope as the successor of St. Peter, belief in Apostolic Tradition, the belief that the sola scriptura and sola fides doctrines are against the One True Faith, [Catholics feel free to add your favorite doctrines here]

Hi eddie,
I believe in the Real Presence.
In the Lutheran Church which I attend, we receive both the body and the blood which is present in the Eucharist. .(LCMS)
I agree, that most Protestants churches do not follow Holy Communion as they should. (My opinion) However, I do not judge their devotion to the Lord or their salvation. God does this with love and patience.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Brandon72]

Padrej,

Mary however, was perpetual virgin…the imagery I shared about the virgin birth…and the Catholic belief that she did not lose her virginity, can be compared as to when Jesus passed through the door in His Resurrected state to the Apostles. At birth, He was and always is True God and True Man…anything possible with God.

As Firstborn of all man, Christ is the New Adam, the New Man we are all called to deny that of ourselves and to allow the new life of Christ to enter into our beings…Passing and entering, renewing…through the Holy Spirit.

So in Christ through Mary we also are regenerated as new sons and daughters.

Kathleen, could you please be so kind and explain what you mean by in Christ through Mary we also are regenerated? I’m confused on what Mary has to do with regeneration?

Thank you

 

[Cranmer2010]

the perpetual virginity of Mary is not optional to believe…

Then how it can it be that there are those Catholics who do not adhere to this teaching of the church but yet have not been excommunicated and even moreso still receive communion. How can this be viewed apart from Protestant churches who have these same dissenters on other issues??

 

[Cranmer2010]

Jon here is a HUGE thing. For a true Catholic to become a Protestant would be Impossible for ONE thing in general. The Eucharist. Speaking for myself and I believe many Catholic’s we could NEVER give up the Eucharist.

The main thing you have to realize the RCC Centers around one thing. The Eucharist. Without it there would be no Church.

Just my:twocents:

I know that you do not believe that the Real Presence exists in Protestant churches, but I am here to attest to God’s Glory that it does. I could never give up the Eucharist either.

 

[schaick]

Hi eddie,
I believe in the Real Presence.
In the Lutheran Church which I attend, we receive both the body and the blood which is present in the Eucharist. .(LCMS)
I agree, that most Protestants churches do not follow Holy Communion as they should. (My opinion) However, I do not judge their devotion to the Lord or their salvation. God does this with love and patience.

God bless,
bluelake

I also believe in the Real presence as a non-catholic and know for a fact that there are Catholics out there that do not believe in the Real Presence. I was told most from this one specific congregation, but of course there are probably no statistics on this.

What I wonder - if a Catholic does not believe in the Real Presence does he worship the Eucharist with the congregation when Catholics worship it during Mass? Does this present a problem?

 

[Cranmer2010]

If the perpetual virginity of Mary IS true, can you explain how a woman can give birth to a child through the birth canal and after this is again a virgin? And do not say with God nothing is impossible.
Anther key word here is the words about Mary, “Brought forth her FIRSTBORN son.” How can you have a FIRST born if there are no other siblings? IF she was a perpetual virgin why wouldn’t the scriptures say “only begotten.”

I believe that Catholics must truly admit that the Scriptures overwhelm their notion to say that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that she had no other children besides Jesus. Scripture never gives the idea that Joseph and Mary had anything other than a normal marriage.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Why believe it contains information for your salvation if it isn’t GOD’s Word? Not to be confused with GOD’s WORD. On another thread I have really confused some people.

We had the Gospel then circulating as books to the different churches. Paul and early Church Fathers referenced Gospel.

So Catholics believe that the Holy Bible is not a guide on how to have a good relationship with GOD?

Not a guide on how the heirachy of the Church Jesus built on the foundation of the Apostles whith HE HIMSELF as chief cornerstone should look?

Not a guide on the how and why of the Eucharist?

WHY does GOD have to say this is my Word please follow it?

That is why I am not Catholic.

The Holy Spirit did move the Apostles/Disciples to record the information we need for our salvation.

Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

Luke 1**
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1
1In my former booisk, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

What? Are you talking Jesus - GOD’s WORD or are you talking Bible -GOD’s Word?

Notice how often Jesus himself quoted Scripture. He did it when preaching and he also did it when he refuted Satan. It is truly God’s word and we have it today unchanged after 2000 years. The writings were compiled by the Early Church, but those who put the words on paper had an intimate relationship with God and it gives me comfort to know that to be in the word is to be growing and progressing in my faith.

 

[guanophore]

Then how it can it be that there are those Catholics who do not adhere to this teaching of the church but yet have not been excommunicated and even moreso still receive communion. How can this be viewed apart from Protestant churches who have these same dissenters on other issues??

They have excommunicated themselves by such acts. Once the Teachings of the Church have been rejected, if one receives the Sacrament, they do so at their own peril, and eat and drink condemnation upon themselves.

What do you want? Public floggings?

 

[guanophore]

Why believe it contains information for your salvation if it isn’t GOD’s Word?

One would not, but you are avoiding the question. Where in it does it say it is God’s Word, and that it must be believed in order for someone to be saved?

And along those lines, do you believe that no one was saved before it was written?

 Not to be confused with GOD's WORD.  On another thread I have really confused some people.

Have you ever considered that you are the one who might be confused?

We had the Gospel then circulating as books to the different churches. Paul and early Church Fathers referenced Gospel.

Most of Paul’s letters were written before the four “memoirs of the Apostles” that we know of as the four Gospels. When Paul referenced the Gospel, he was talking about what was preserved in Catholic Sacred Tradition - the kerygma, or the preached Word of God.

So Catholics believe that the Holy Bible is not a guide on how to have a good relationship with GOD?

No. Catholics find the Holy Scriptures profitable in learning how to be in right relationship with God. It was never intended to be a comprehensive “guide” or “manual” of the Christian life. This is the role of the Church, founded by Christ. The Bible is a product of the Church.

  Not a guide on how the heirachy of the Church Jesus built on the foundation of the Apostles whith HE HIMSELF as chief cornerstone should look?

No, this was established by the Apostles under the guidance of the HS. The NT reflects the shape of the Church, but is not the source of it. Jesus is the Source.

That is why, when the NT is taken out of it’s context (the Catholic Church) the meaning of the text is lost. The Church did not come from the Bible, but the Bible from the Church. It cannot be properly understood unless one reads it from the perspective of those who wrote it, which is Catholic.

Not a guide on the how and why of the Eucharist?

When the Scriptures are read through the lens of the Catholic Sacred Tradition that produced them, of course. When the writings are separated from the faith that produced them, the meaning is lost, and the reader wanders away into various heresies and misunderstandings.

WHY does GOD have to say this is my Word please follow it?

You are still dodging the question, schaick. How do you know that the books you call “the Bible” are really God’s Word? Most of the books don’t claim this for themselves.

That is why I am not Catholic.

You are not Catholic because you did not realize that the Bible is a Catholic book? I am sorry, I am confused. You seem like someone who values the Bible a great deal. It seems that you would also value the Church that produced it.

The Holy Spirit did move the Apostles/Disciples to record the information we need for our salvation.

The Scriptures are sufficient to lead one to Christ, and therefore, to His One Body, the Church, through which He has provided all those things necessary for our salvation.

Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15

My beloved brother. Your error in this matter will be cleared up with just a little scripture study. When you study the history of your faith, it will become clear that Paul wrote as many a two decades before the Gospels were written. Paul, like all the early Christians, learned the gospel through Catholic Sacred Tradition, by which the NT was produced.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

The scriptures referenced here are the Septuagint, the Alexandrian Old Testament, which was used by Paul. He learned the Gospel from the Apostolic kerygma, and personal divine revelation. He did not read it from Matt. Mk. Lk. or John.

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**
**

This reference is also from the Septuagint.