QUIT SAYING THIS! - 3 Common Catholic Statements I Can't Stand

[Guardian]

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them. There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down, eventually. Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God while Sacred Tradition is the word of God, or rather, the meaning of the Scripture and other things, which takes discernment to decipher from the Magisterium. But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

Rebuttal: What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter? The argument is a fallacy. The reason the Church exists and is useful is not because it is purely infallible, but because it has the capability to confront people that state heresy. When someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible will not yell out, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!” The Church, on the other hand, can and does.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them. There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

No, God did not give us the Bible. God inspired the men who wrote the books that, when compiled, make up what we call the Bible. Inspiration also doesn’t mean that God just made the authors of the Bible write word for word what He was saying (that was only the prophets), because if that was the case why would Paul have questioned whether he baptized anyone else after Stephanos’ family?

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down, eventually. Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God while Sacred Tradition is the word of God, or rather, the meaning of the Scripture and other things, which takes discernment to decipher from the Magisterium. But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Show me your evidence to prove that all Tradition was written down. I’m willing to bet that you have no evidence whatsoever to back up that assertion.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

Rebuttal: What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter? The argument is a fallacy. The reason the Church exists and is useful is not because it is purely infallible, but because it has the capability to confront people that state heresy. When someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible will not yell out, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!” The Church, on the other hand, can and does.

If the Church is not “purely infallible”, then the Church does not have the authority that you say it does, to confront heresy. If the Church is not infallible, then that means that the Church could be wrong when confronting heresy. Your argument is the one that is the fallacy. Where are you getting your evidence from? It seems like you’re just posting your opinions and then telling everyone else that they are wrong.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them. There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down, eventually. Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God while Sacred Tradition is the word of God, or rather, the meaning of the Scripture and other things, which takes discernment to decipher from the Magisterium. But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

Rebuttal: What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter? The argument is a fallacy. The reason the Church exists and is useful is not because it is purely infallible, but because it has the capability to confront people that state heresy. When someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible will not yell out, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!” The Church, on the other hand, can and does.

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Well this is true. The Catholic didn’t give us the Scriptures directly or write Paul’s letters for him. But it did create the “book” we call the Bible and it determined just what writings should be included with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Scripture wasn’t oral, if it was Scripture then it was written. There is no such thing as “Oral Scripture”.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them. There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down, eventually. Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God while Sacred Tradition is the word of God, or rather, the meaning of the Scripture and other things, which takes discernment to decipher from the Magisterium. But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

Rebuttal: What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter? The argument is a fallacy. The reason the Church exists and is useful is not because it is purely infallible, but because it has the capability to confront people that state heresy. When someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible will not yell out, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!” The Church, on the other hand, can and does.

Hi,
Your catholic so Im not sure what you are trying to talk about here.

 

[Guardian]

No, God did not give us the Bible. God inspired the men who wrote the books that, when compiled, make up what we call the Bible. Inspiration also doesn’t mean that God just made the authors of the Bible write word for word what He was saying (that was only the prophets), because if that was the case why would Paul have questioned whether he baptized anyone else after Stephanos’ family?

So the Bible is the words of men? Don’t think so. It is God-breathed, “theopneustos.” 2 Timothy 3:16. Also, no Scripture came about by one’s own interpretation, meaning in one sense that the Scriptures were not the mere words of men, but of the Spirit. 1 Peter 1:20. Thirdly, God’s Word (which includes Scripture), is and was forever settled long before the Church ever came about. Psalm 119:89.

Show me your evidence to prove that all Tradition was written down. I’m willing to bet that you have no evidence whatsoever to back up that assertion.

I’m not making the claim here, you are. The burden of proof is on you. Tell me one Sacred Tradition that is not written anywhere?

If the Church is not “purely infallible”, then the Church does not have the authority that you say it does, to confront heresy. If the Church is not infallible, then that means that the Church could be wrong when confronting heresy. Your argument is the one that is the fallacy. Where are you getting your evidence from? It seems like you’re just posting your opinions and then telling everyone else that they are wrong.

I did not say the Church was not infallible. It definitely is. What I said, as I rebutted that particular claim mentioned above, is that the Church having the characteristic of infallibility in isolation, is somewhat pointless.

 

[Liberian]

Guardian,

Regarding your second statement, something that I mention as being in Tradition but not Scripture is the fact that the bread at the Last Supper was made from wheat and not barley. There is more to Tradition than simply the precursor to or the interpretation of the Bible.

Regarding your third statement, you have already given a good answer. When the Church yells out “Hey, that’s not what I meant,” you can be sure that it is right.

• Liberian

 

[Guardian]

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Scripture wasn’t oral, if it was Scripture then it was written. There is no such thing as “Oral Scripture”.

I agree, as should be clarified. The teachings and truth and events of the Scripture, were orally passed down prior to being written down.

 

[Guardian]

Guardian,

Regarding your second statement, something that I mention as being in Tradition but not Scripture is the fact that the bread at the Last Supper was made from wheat and not barley. There is more to Tradition than simply the precursor to or the interpretation of the Bible.

I agree 100%, Sacred Tradition is not limited to the context and meaning of Scripture, which is why I stated, “other things.”

 

[Guardian]

Hi,
Your catholic so Im not sure what you are trying to talk about here.

What does me being Catholic have to do with anything? These are common objections I have to standard statements made by Catholics.

 

[batteddy]

No, I agree mainly with Gaurdian. And I think you’ll find me very orthodox.

The statements are over-simplifications that Catholics often say, and they annoy me too. They are cookie-cutter answers for people who don’t (or don’t want to) understand the more nuanced ripples of the teachings on Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Tradition is not just “those oral things passed down but never written”. Obviously, Tradition has been written down, while Scripture was for a time not written down (the stories of Jesus, etc).

Statement 1 is definitely often used falsely or simplistically. “The Church gave us the Bible” (while that phrasing CAN be interpretted validly) is often interpretted invalidly. People act as if Scripture was just, you know, an act of Magisterium or something. But it wasn’t like that. Scripture wasn’t just a declaration on Public Revelation…it IS Public Revelation in one of its raw forms. It is a gift to the Church, not an act of the Church itself. It sorta came “from the Church” but only inasmuch as Jesus came from the Church. The Church definitely is the living authority which gives us the Bible and Jesus…but its not as if the Church made Jesus of the Bible of her own initiative in a similar way to magisterial decrees. Jesus was certainly born into the pre-Church (Israel) but this was a gift, not something “done by” Israel. Certainly (the New Testament especially) was written by inspired authors who were members of the Church…but they were not all bishops writing under magisterial authority, anymore than Mary was a Levite. Inspiration is an entirely different mode than ecclesiastical authority.

Statement 2 acts as if Tradition was just stuff which could have been put in the Bible, but just didnt get written in that form. But that’s simplistic. Scripture and Tradition are actually two different MODES of revelation and teaching entirely. Scripture is stories, it is the record of salvation history. Whereas Tradition is the actual deposit of faith itself. Scripture never sets out a “list” of dogmas because that is not the point. Scripture is a narrative of God’s encounter with man. It supports (or at least doesn’t contradict) things in Tradition, but Scripture and Tradition by their nature have two largely different forms of subjects. Tradition has been written down (jn lists of dogma, the rites of the sacraments, theological declarations) but that doesn’t make the writing scripture, because Tradition is by it’s nature not in the written words themselves, but in the Idea or Teaching behind it, whereas scripture (whether written down yet or not) are stories that by their nature are a specific narrative in an inspired, authorized form.

Statement 3 is also bad. Not that it’s untrue, but because then people say, obviously, “well, but then who’s to interpret the Church?” because there are ways to interpret the magisterium in different ways as much as the bible. The statement is sort of close to true, but is often used simplistically without subtlety or sophistication. The importance of Magisterium is not just to “interpret scripture” for several reasons: ONE, because Scripture is not the “source” of dogma. That existed before (and influenced) scripture. Scripture supports (or at least doesn’t contradict) dogma. But it is not like a big pile we must sift through in order to find truth. Some truth perhaps could be found that way, but it’s unnecessary. Truth in a distilled, non-story form is already available to the magisterium via Tradition. The importance of Magisterium is that it is a living authority that perhaps can more effectively answer objections, fight heresy, and preserve the deposit of faith beyond just symbols on a page (which alone are just dead matter that someday could be entirely understandable if the language is forgotten).

 

[jimmy]

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them. There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

James, the bishop of Jerusalem was the author of James as well as God. Therefore it was given by him to the people. This is an act of the Church. Although it was written by God, it was also written by the man James.

**

Statement 2:

“Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ. They also both got written down, eventually. Scripture differentiates itself from Sacred Tradition because Scripture is the words of God while Sacred Tradition is the word of God, or rather, the meaning of the Scripture and other things, which takes discernment to decipher from the Magisterium. But saying that Sacred Tradition is purely oral is ridiculous.

Sacred tradition is both oral and written. It contains all the teaching of the Church, whether oral or written. It is perfectly fine to defend it by saying the apostles taught oral tradition since this would completely destroy the idea of sola scriptura. If the apostles taught orally that means that it was not meant to be all written down.**

 

[jimmy]

So the Bible is the words of men? Don’t think so. It is God-breathed, “theopneustos.” 2 Timothy 3:16. Also, no Scripture came about by one’s own interpretation, meaning in one sense that the Scriptures were not the mere words of men, but of the Spirit. 1 Peter 1:20. Thirdly, God’s Word (which includes Scripture), is and was forever settled long before the Church ever came about. Psalm 119:89.

Yes, it is the words of men. It is both those of men and of God. According to the Church, God did not force the authors of the scriptures to write what He wanted. The authors wrote what they fealt like writing but it also happened to be exactly what God wanted. So it is written both by men and by God. Gods Word does not include the scripture. The scripture is relative to the Word, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[bones_IV]

If you don’t think the Church is infallible then why has the Church condemned birth control, abortion, homosexuality when the other Protestant denominations have caved in.

 

[Church_Militant]

Get over it…The fact that you might disagree, (if those are your arguments) in no way makes them less factual.

The truth is that the counter arguments that you state are not facts. They are the wishful thinking of post reformation step children.

If they don’t like it then they need to come up with something conclusively substantive to refute it.

They’ve had about 500 years to do so without success. SSDD

You’d think they’d’ve figured it out since then…but I guess not.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[batteddy]

He never said he didnt think the Church was infallible, but that plea to authority (without a deeper philosophical justification) was a simplistic apologetic argument.

 

[Guardian]

Get over it…The fact that you might disagree, (if those are your arguments) in no way makes them less factual.

The truth is that the counter arguments that you state are not facts. They are the wishful thinking of post reformation step children.

If they don’t like it then they need to come up with something conclusively substantive to refute it.

They’ve had about 500 years to do so without success. SSDD

You’d think they’d’ve figured it out since then…but I guess not.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

I’m not sure what you think my objective is, Church Militant. I’m a hardcore Catholic, I am not a post reformation step-child. Reread my statements in context.

The reason why I object to these statements is because they are somewhat misguiding as they do not lay out the complete context of the truth, and leads people to wrong ideas. In fact, it throws up strawmen for Prots to bash down. As batteddy stated, they are cookie-cutter Catholic apologetic statements that only work on ignorant Protestants.

I guess the crux of the issue is when people say these statements out of context and in isolation, like one-liners. Ridiculous.

 

[jemfinch]

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Rebuttal: No, God gave us the Bible. Catholics picked which books were inspired and preserved them.

Catholics (like Peter and Paul and James) wrote it as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So in a sense, at least, Catholics did give us the Bible

In another sense, even, the Bible was given to us by the Catholic Church. You might argue that Scripture was not given to us by the Catholic Church, and I’d probably agree. But the Bible is a collection of books of Scripture which comprise one whole; a whole that wouldn’t exist if not for the canonization performed by the Catholic Church.

There is not one thing in the Bible that Catholics came up with, as the Bible is the very words of God given to men under the inspiration of the Spirit.

If so, then why does God use such widely varying grammar and vocabulary, from the earthy words of diction of Peter to the strict grammar of Luke to the thoroughly Jewish and educated grammar of Paul?

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

Rebuttal: I can’t stand when people try to justify Sacred Tradition by simply implying that there was oral tradition in addition to written Scriptures (2 Thess 2:15). This demotes Sacred Tradition. The fact is, both Scripture and Tradition were mostly oral decades after Christ.

As noted by a previous poster, it’s not Scripture if it’s oral. Scripture has always been written. Tradition hasn’t.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

Rebuttal: What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter? The argument is a fallacy.

No, it definitely isn’t. The Church’s infallible interpreter is the Church herself. As long a she is the Church, she will be able and ready to interpret herself. A book can never be self-interpreting because there’s no living body, no living voice to explain it. But a person can be self-interpreting, because as long as there’s misunderstanding, she can explain herself; and so it is with the Bride of Christ.

The reason the Church exists and is useful is not because it is purely infallible,

Oh no, that’s the very reason the Church is useful.

but because it has the capability to confront people that state heresy.

The Church couldn’t do that if she weren’t infallible.

When someone misinterprets the Bible, the Bible will not yell out, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!” The Church, on the other hand, can and does.

And she requires the charism of infallibility in order to do that. Why should I listen to a Church that’s fallible just like me?

So the Bible is the words of men? Don’t think so. It is God-breathed, “theopneustos.” 2 Timothy 3:16.

God certainly gave breath to it, but it reached our ears by the lips of men (or our eyes by the hands of men, as the case may be).

Thirdly, God’s Word (which includes Scripture), is and was forever settled long before the Church ever came about. Psalm 119:89.

God’s Word, before all is, is Jesus Christ, who is eternal. If you intend to argue that the words of Scripture we have today were fixed from before time, I can’t argue with that; God does have all the foreknowledge He needs to know what words would be written in our Bibles. But if you intend to argue that man had no hand in those words, I must argue: because the men through whose hands we received Holy Scripture had a free will, just as Mary could have refused to bear God’s Word in her womb.

I’m not making the claim here, you are. The burden of proof is on you. Tell me one Sacred Tradition that is not written anywhere?

I can tell you plenty that aren’t explicitly in Holy Scripture.

Jeremy

 

[happygal]

Statement 1: “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

Well i can understand why you can’t stand Catholic saying that, however why should you gets a nerve about this, i myself as a protestant never bother with such comments, becoz i know bible is from God and it is the Holy Spirit who inspired those who wrote it, thus is a treasure/gift given to all Christ believers and not only the Catholic.

Statement 2: “Sacred Tradition is divine oral tradition which accompanied the Scriptures.”

It depend how we understand from Catholic doctrine, we practise what Catholic practise in term of tradition ritural, like fasting, our version of sacraments, we serve our tithe…etc…Well oral teaching can comes from God directly to us, our private revelation this is not inside the bible. The revelation that God’s given to our chuches, the direction that he wanted us to move on…etc…Oral teaching never stop till days, because God is always teaching us, our church are teaching us everyday, how and what we should do as a Christian. I am proud to say that being a protestant, God have given us his vision to us to be more ardent is winning soul, planting more of his kingdom in untouch area, sending us as missionary worker to help other brethen brothers and sisters, involve as individual to helps the needy. What is more then serving God with our heart then to understand a whole tonnes of doctrine yet do nothing right.

Statement 3: “What good is an inerrant Bible without an infallible Church interpretting it?”

I’m not sure about this statement, but to my understanding all Catholic believes that only their Priest/Pope have the right to interpret the bible, the rest are interpreting it in a wrong way, so i ask myself do i really wanted to be bother by such statement!! Of course no!!!

Pple from this forum are most devoted then those that i ever came across. Talking to most of my Catholic frez in my country, i have gathered the facts that, they don’t even know the doctrine well despite going to RC for many many yrs and hearing the entire bible scripture all over and over again. Ask what is the foundation being a Christian Catholic, all they can shared were just be obedient to God’s commandments which all of us were called to follow, others primary role being a Christian Catholic is I DON’T KNOW, heard about ECF never, read CCC never read…

I can always remembered those shocking looks i have from all the Catholic members during my RCIA, when i shared with them about ECF …etc …i guess they themselves as a Catholic does not even know being a protestant can be more ardent in finding out more about Catholicisim then they do. All i can say they are church driven and not self driven…The primay objective for me to go for RCIA is to learn more about Catholicism and in time can help to renew some of my Catholic’s frez’s faith

 

[Rebecca_New]

Have you ever considered that the truth sometimes makes you mad if you do not agree with it?

 

[Michael_Francis]

I’m not sure what you think my objective is, Church Militant. I’m a hardcore Catholic, I am not a post reformation step-child. Reread my statements in context.

The reason why I object to these statements is because they are somewhat misguiding as they do not lay out the complete context of the truth, and leads people to wrong ideas. In fact, it throws up strawmen for Prots to bash down. As batteddy stated, they are cookie-cutter Catholic apologetic statements that only work on ignorant Protestants.

I guess the crux of the issue is when people say these statements out of context and in isolation, like one-liners. Ridiculous.

There should never be a one-liner response that calls itself apologetic. The essential statements are true, but (as you have well pointed out) they are about useless as stand alones.

You’ll never have seen me use them alone.
Pax tecum,