The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

I believe our friend, teancum79 is referring to Ephesians 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone . . .”

The role of “prophet” is extremely ambiguous in the New Testament. However, in Catholic understanding, Our Lady is one of those who carries the prophetic mantle along with John the Baptist (the last OT prophet), Zechariah and a handful of others.

To say the kingdom of god is founded on Apostles and prophets, to my mind, would chiefly mean the Prophets of Old who spoke of “the cornerstone.”

Since the coming of Christ, the role of prophet subsists mainly in that of the Bishop, whose privileged charism is for teaching & preaching the word of God.

Yes I see that you are correct.
The additional barrier exists of terminology.
Teancum79’s is speaking from the position of the LDS which looks at the same terms with different meanings.
I am not any great apologist, nor am I a Bible verse-slinger, but the debate has been somewhat useful even if it has been frustrating for me.

One thing that does concern me about it though is that the thread is getting somewhat off topic here. It appears that Teacums position on the Bible being Catholic is moot since he believes in the error of an early Church apostacy which would completely negate the validity of the Bible in the fisrt place.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The rock was revelation which at the time would go through Petter. And the gospel the LDS preach is the same as in days of Petter and Christ. Joseph Smith was simply asked to put things back in place and provide another whiteness of Christ divinity.

So, by your theology the Bible as canonized by the Church DOES contain error.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

So, by your theology the Bible as canonized by the Church DOES contain error.

Peace
James

The words of prophets are of value. Even with the imperfections of those who put the bible together. Kind of a baby bath water thing.

 

[JRKH]

The words of prophets are of value. Even with the imperfections of those who put the bible together. Kind of a baby bath water thing.

Let’s try again. Yes or No - Does the Bible contain error?

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Yes I see that you are correct.
The additional barrier exists of terminology.
Teancum79’s is speaking from the position of the LDS which looks at the same terms with different meanings.

Agreed. I am very much a beginner in understanding LDS teaching, but it does appear that they use terms without respect for their contextual meanng.

I am not any great apologist, nor am I a Bible verse-slinger, but the debate has been somewhat useful even if it has been frustrating for me.

You’re doing very well.

One thing that does concern me about it though is that the thread is getting somewhat off topic here. It appears that Teacums position on the Bible being Catholic is moot since he believes in the error of an early Church apostacy which would completely negate the validity of the Bible in the fisrt place.

Peace
James

But that is absolutely to the point of this thread. Teancum accepts a book as authoritative that did not exist as he now holds it in his hand until about 350 years AFTER the Church wrote the table of contents.

From his position it would be more consistent to say that the entire Christian enterprise is wrong (which, to my understandiing, was the position of the early LDS). Then they could say that the Bible is wrong and start from scratch. Makes a lot more sense than tryng to make a case that the Bible isn’t Catholic – 'cuz there ain’t no way on planet Earth that you CAN make that case. You don’t have to be “deep in history”; you only have to know that the canon was settled at Councils of the universal Church in the late 4th century. Since the Catholic Church has the paper trail right back to those councils and further, back to the Apostolic age, it’s a slam-dunk.

If you deny Trinitarian Christianity on the grounds of a great apostasy, you cannot invoke the New Testament in defense of your case because the New Testament had not been definitively assembled.

 

[teancum79]

Whiteness was that a Freudian slip?

To lazy to look carefully at the spell check sorry . Witness****

 

[wisdomseeker]

The idea that the Bible can’t be used or understood outside the Catholic church argument could be used by Jews to forbid Christians access to the OT. Whole Luther is not all that well liked in the church he had some points that many would see as valid (letting people read the entire Bible being high on the list). I’ve yet to see anything aside from catholic tradition that says the catholic have a monopoly on the words of Gods prophets from ancient times.

what makes anyone to think that they have the right to break away from that One Church and claim to be able to interpret the Bible on their own. that is contrary to the Word of God. it is so when Jesus stablished His Church. there is a reason why Jesus built One Church only, so people would not go around claiming what they are claiming now. you all claim to receive interpretation from the HS yet those interpretations are completely off from Jesus True Church. it is pride and arrogant for you to believe that the Church of Jesus got all wrong from the beginning untill you all protestants and mormons and others came along many centuries later and got it all right. now the Bible is interpreted correct by you all ACORDING TO your belief system. i am sorry, but you all live a lie and it is hard for you now to see reality. Jesus or the HS cannot go against His own Church. remember what Jesus said “a house divided will not stand.” i doubt very much that Jesus would destroy His own.

do you know what Trinity means? all Three agree in the same things, believe and teach the same things. They cannot dissagree in nothing, that is what it means to be One.

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… ***

 

[teancum79]

If the CC was behaving in accordance with the bible I think you’d not see so many church’s. I’ve still not seen anything to pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church. I’ve seen some interesting arguments that the Bible was written by and for the LDS faith. Granted most here would disagree, but simply claiming something does not make it so. And the spirit does not pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church, but it does that I should value and learn from the Bible.

 

[mercygate]

If the CC was behaving in accordance with the bible I think you’d not see so many church’s. I’ve still not seen anything to pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church. I’ve seen some interesting arguments that the Bible was written by and for the LDS faith. Granted most here would disagree, but simply claiming something does not make it so. And the spirit does not pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church, but it does that I should value and learn from the Bible.

No doubt Catholics could do a better job living out the Gospel in their personal lives. Point taken. But if you want a Church that looks like a church in the Bible, we’ve got it!

Man! Those Corinthians had more “unbiblical” behavior than you can shake a stick at. Ditto the church John is writing to in his third epistle. It seems that the Church “had peace” for about five minutes, and only in Judea and Samaria; the rest of the history was all about trouble: mixed marriages, neglected widows, incest, idolatry, circumcision/non-circumcision, eating kosher/eating with gentiles . . . Yup. If you want a “Bible” church, the Catholic Church is the place all right!

 

[Ronald_E]

If the CC was behaving in accordance with the bible I think you’d not see so many church’s. I’ve still not seen anything to pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church. I’ve seen some interesting arguments that the Bible was written by and for the LDS faith. Granted most here would disagree, but simply claiming something does not make it so. And the spirit does not pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church, but it does that I should value and learn from the Bible.

The CC acts in accordance with the bible. Some of its members do not just as some LDS members do not act in accordance with its teachings.
It is important to distinguish the faith from how its members practice the faith. It is very important to read history with an open mind.
It is also very important to understand how the mind is resistant to change even when presented with facts if the facts contradict core beliefs.
Mirror neurons hardwire the brain according to the influence of parents and other significant environmental influences. This begins before and continues after birth. This hardwiring creates expectations and gives us a sense of where we belong. It is reinforced with a protein that enhances emotional learning to ensure that what we learn is firmly in place. Unfortunately, by the time we are in our early 20’s this protein is no longer produced in massive quantities as it is in childhood. Thus, it is extremely difficult to understand and integrate new learning that is in opposition to what has developed our identity.
This is what Paul talks about in the battle between the flesh and the spirit.
It took the Holy Spirit to create a new me at the age of 58 to return to the Catholic Church after I had hated it for 40 years. It was nothing I read and it was nobody convincing me to return. The Holy Spirit opened my eyes and I knew this is home.
If you read what others have written here about the history of the Catholic Church and the bible and you immediately feel a resistance that is your emotional brain perceiving a threat to who you believe you are and what you believe.
If you feel that resistance please explore it and see if you can ignore the resistance and re-read these excellent posts.

 

[Protestant101]

The role of “prophet” is extremely ambiguous in the New Testament. However, in Catholic understanding, Our Lady is one of those who carries the prophetic mantle

Would the Roman Catholic Church Catechism support this claim about “Mary” having “the prophetic mantle?”

 

[JRKH]

If the CC was behaving in accordance with the bible I think you’d not see so many church’s.

Actually in so far as actual splits from the Catholic Church goes (and speaking only to the western, church) there have been relatively few. Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and maybe just a very few more. What has accounted for the vast majority of the denominations today is splits among the protestant churches themselves.
The Catholic Church is a most Biblical Church. It comes from the fact that the Church has had nearly 2 millenia to study, and interpret the Bible in an organized and prayerful fashion. She tests any new ideas against Scripture, as well as Sacred Tradition and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, before putting forth an official position or teaching. This has allowed her provide a totally integrated set of teachings instead of the hodgepodge theologies of most Protestant denominations.

I’ve still not seen anything to pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church.

Blinders will do that.
Seriously, we will continue to put forth the proofs as long as you wish to come here and listen. Sooner or later I am confident that you will begin seeing the truth of our arguments. I believe that Is why the Holy Spirit led you here.

I’ve seen some interesting arguments that the Bible was written by and for the LDS faith.

Feel free to post appropriate links or arguments to support this.

Granted most here would disagree, but simply claiming something does not make it so.

LDS is certainly a proof of that to me based on your reluctance to offer any more than your opinion.
I still am waiting for an answer to my question about whether you believe the Bible contains errors. Also I would like to see you post anything from an authoritative source to support your positions here.
You continually deny our actual, historical evidence, and treat them as though they are on the same level as your personal and unsupported claims.

And the spirit does not pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church,

Give the Spirit Time. He will.

but it does that I should value and learn from the Bible.

Great Start.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Would the Roman Catholic Church Catechism support this claim about “Mary” having “the prophetic mantle?”

I don’t have a paragraph reference to that from the CCC. But Mary declares: “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed!” Even people who think of Mary as nothing more than a fast food container, to be used and then discarded, would have to say that in bearing the Son of God in her flesh, she has been called “blessed” by all generations of Christians. In the rest of the Magnificat, she says that the mercy of the mighty one “is on them that fear him throughout all generations.” Even to say of the Lord, “Holy is His Name” is a prophetic utterance – since prophecy is declaring the truth of God more than it is a matter of fortune telling. Later, Our Lady takes prophetic action in behalf of the divine plan by knowing “the hour” of her Son and precipitating the miracle at Cana. Who would deny the prophetic implications of her instruction to the servants: “Do whatever he tells you?” Later, she is at the center of the room when the Holy Spirit comes rushing on the Church in tongues of flame. Remember: the disciples are “together in constant prayer with Mary his mother.”

So yes. Clearly, in her “fiat” Our Lady both utters a prophetic word and exercises a prophetic mission. I have come across the reference to Mary as a prophet from time to time in devotional reading but cannot remember just where.

 

[Protestant101]

I don’t have a paragraph reference to that from the CCC. But Mary declares: “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed!” Even people who think of Mary as nothing more than a fast food container, to be used and then discarded, would have to say that in bearing the Son of God in her flesh, she has been called “blessed” by all generations of Christians.

So yes. Clearly, in her “fiat” Our Lady both utters a prophetic word and exercises a prophetic mission. I have come across the reference to Mary as a prophet from time to time in devotional reading but cannot remember just where.

Hmmm, that doesn’t really seem like a “prophecy” for in Luke 1:28 the angel had previously told Mary that she was “blessed,” and Elizabeth, in vs. 42 told Mary she was 'blessed," so with Mary repeating this AFTER being told twice, it cannot be seen as a true prophecy.

There are many others in the Bible called “blessed,” even way back in Gen.30:13, where Leah said she was called “blessed.”

The Catholic “interpretation” of the Bible is the only thing that is Catholic; and Roman Catholic at that, but the Bible certainly is neither. The Bible itself declares that the Scriptures were in existence well before a Roman Catholic Church was on the scene.

 

[Lilyflower]

If the CC was behaving in accordance with the bible I think you’d not see so many church’s. I’ve still not seen anything to pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church. I’ve seen some interesting arguments that the Bible was written by and for the LDS faith. Granted most here would disagree, but simply claiming something does not make it so. And the spirit does not pursuade me that the CC is Christ’s church, but it does that I should value and learn from the Bible.

Everything in nature is a diversity. Why not also the Christian Faith? Folk are moved by the Spirit within their own respective culture. Is that a bad thing?

Education tells us that we change in the light of our own learning. The CC teaches and the Bible affirms that Christ promised that we would continue to learn truths long after He had left us.

I am convinced that ‘the many churches’ are by no means all that will be. I am sure that 100,000 years from now, there will be not dozens but millions of different churches.

I guess Islam is also a church, so too some New Age Movements that believe in Christ.

The Bible however attests to Christ founding ONE Church!

You aare right 'anyone can claim anything and most do But only two Communities can trace their roots back to The Way: Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

The LDS faith is not more than 1500 years old. So how could they have written the Bible? That is a silly thing to say.

If the Spirit is leading you then that is all that matters, providing you have discerned that it is the Holy Spirit that is leading you!

I think that the Bible goes hand in hand with the Catechism. Both support each other. The Bible is but one book of many the Chuch has produced to guide the faithful.

In 2000 years time folk will no doubt be questioning and doubting whether your church existed in 2000 AD.

 

[Lilyflower]

What I fail to understand is how folk cannot identify CC with The Way when their roots clearly go back that far.

Early CC accounts mirror much later events. So much so that the CC is transparent in any age. Whether we are talking about 9 years ago, 90 years, 900 or 1900 years ago.

Take for example: Jesus’ disciple John, who later became bishop of the church at Ephesus. His student Polycarp who became bishop of Smyrna, and a student of his, in turn, was Irenaeus of Lyons. Modern Bishopric appointments mirror these early appointments. The centerpiece in all of their writings, regardless of age was Jesus the Christ the Messiah.

The story of Justin Martyr. Born of pagan parents around A.D.100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee), As a native of the Holy Land, Justin mentions sites associated with Jesus, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born, and even details Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, who made farm implements.

Justin had to have been around pretty early to have information about the kinds of artefacts Jesus made with His father Joseph. What other Church can tell me that but Her who was around in the very beginning?

All New Age Christians [less than 200 years old] know the Name of Jesus.The Name however, is a modern English translation. It is not however His Holy Name. Most Christians do not even know how to pronounce much less so spell His Name. But She knows who knew Him in the very beginning.

That is a consolation for those who are offended by others who utter His name as a swear word. They are in fact not even pronouncing the Name of Christ so Christians need not be offended.

So for your definitive proof, what are you expecting? Some mighty cosmic event? visual images of Angels ascending and descending? To attest the validity of the CC, ‘Are you looking for a sign?’ Jesus said ‘it is a godless generation that is looking for a sign’ Mt 12:39

 

[JRKH]

Hmmm, that doesn’t really seem like a “prophecy” for in Luke 1:28 the angel had previously told Mary that she was “blessed,” and Elizabeth, in vs. 42 told Mary she was 'blessed," so with Mary repeating this AFTER being told twice, it cannot be seen as a true prophecy.

There are many others in the Bible called “blessed,” even way back in Gen.30:13, where Leah said she was called “blessed.”

The Catholic “interpretation” of the Bible is the only thing that is Catholic; and Roman Catholic at that, but the Bible certainly is neither. The Bible itself declares that the Scriptures were in existence well before a Roman Catholic Church was on the scene.

So this one doesn’t quite fit your idea of prophesy. What about the other items mercy posted?

It constantly amazes me that some people will take a much longer post and lift specific points out for counter argument without any acknowlegement that the post was cut short, or that the poster being quoted may have made valid points in their post. It strikes me as being deliberately argumentative just for the sake of argument, as well as being intellectually dishonest for passing over valid points without acknowledgement.

I am saying this, not to Protestant101 in particular, but to all of us here. Most all of us are guilty of it to a one degree or another.
If we cut up another person’s post let’s try to acknowledge that it was done. (I try to put the term (snip) in the quoted post to show where I shortened it.) Also let’s acknowledge each others valid points when we see them.

Now back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Peace
James

 

[Ronald_E]

So this one doesn’t quite fit your idea of prophesy. What about the other items mercy posted?

It constantly amazes me that some people will take a much longer post and lift specific points out for counter argument without any acknowlegement that the post was cut short, or that the poster being quoted may have made valid points in their post. It strikes me as being deliberately argumentative just for the sake of argument, as well as being intellectually dishonest for passing over valid points without acknowledgement.

I am saying this, not to Protestant101 in particular, but to all of us here. Most all of us are guilty of it to a one degree or another.
If we cut up another person’s post let’s try to acknowledge that it was done. (I try to put the term (snip) in the quoted post to show where I shortened it.) Also let’s acknowledge each others valid points when we see them.

Now back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Peace
James

James, that seems to be the nature of interpretation of the Bible to support one’s conditioned belief. However, that is also the nature of the mind which is to prevent congnitive dissonance which is the process of the mind’s attempt to prevent confusion or disharmony when faced with conflicting beliefs or feelings.
The mind creates the reality to fit with core beliefs that it has established as the foundation of identity.
The Holy Spirit is the only one who can change that.
Your posts are excellent in their thoroughness.

 

[guanophore]

Does anyone really believe that nothing got messed up either on accident or on purpose?

Granted the Catholic church did get a lot of stuff together, but I’d still give the credit for the Bible to the prophets and apostles.

No, I don’t believe the HS messes up, or makes “accidents”. The HS worked through Catholics to pen the Holy Writings, then worked through Catholics to preserve and copy them. The illuminated Catholics to discern which of the 400+ documents floating around with claims of divine inspiration belonged in the NT. This is the same HS that dwelt in the original authors, and the same HS that presently guides the bishops today who are in the same succession of the Apostles and their disicples. that wrote the NT.

I’m going to be blunt sorry if that offends

I don’t believe that the line has been unbroken. I know that such is the claim of the church, but I don’t buy it. While I admire a lot of good things done by the Catholic church and believe that most of its leader have been and are good people trying to do good things I don’t believe that it was set up by Christ. That church ceased to be an organized body after the death of the apostles.

Being blunt is not a problem. It is only required here that we do so with courtesy. It is ok that you don;t “buy” apostolic succession. It is not for sale! This is the way Jesus set up the Church, and this is how it has been operating since Pentecost. I am interested, though, to see your evidence for the assertion that the Church ceased to be an organized body after the death of the Apostles. Because, if that is the case, then the book you call the Word of God has no authenticity!

The lack of a uniform recognized leadership resulted in confusion. The catholic church must be given credit for bringing order to that confusion and for preserving much of what we now call the Bible,but the Bible persuades me that the Catholic church is not the church Christ established despite the attempt to be close to it.

What you are basically doing is calling Jesus a Liar, and the HS the author of confusion. You are saying that Jesus did not keep his promise to remain with them until the end of the age (or maybe He is not a liar but a weakling?). He was unable or unwilling to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against His Church. You are asserting that the HS does not have the power to lead fallible men into all Truth.

 

[guanophore]

The whole premise of the title of this thread is put forth by your statement here. I should like to disprove some of the claims you have just stated.

The Old Testament Bible already existed before the Church even came into existence, so that part of the R. Catholic claim to be the producer of the Bible is false.

Certainly Holy Writings existed, but not a canon. In fact, in Apostolic times, there was bitter controversy about which OT books were inspired. We can see this by how Paul stirred up the Sanhedrin claiming he was on trial for believing in the resurrection. The sadducees accepted only the five books of the Torah, where the Pharisees accepted the Septuagint. Some Jewish groups accepted the law and the prophets, other the psalms as well.

The book of Acts even demonstrates how all that was necessary for the Holy Spirit to bring a soul into the Body of Christ, was the simple gospel of Jesus combined with just a bit of the truth of OT Scripture. The Holy Spirit used the Ethiopian eunuch’s reading of (Isaiah 53), along with Philip’s simple explanation of how Jesus Christ was the Lamb brought to sacrifice for our sins, to bring the eunuch to becoming one of the Beloved in Christ. There was no need for the eunuch to read the New Testament at that point.

This is a good commentary on how the Apostolic Teaching was whole and entire prior to the creation of the NT.

He was saved and part of the Church. He may have never read any more of the New Testament for all we know. It was sufficient for him and the Holy Spirit would make the eunuch’s further search into any further Scripture sufficient. Jesus studied the Old Testament Scripture and used it perfectly to preach the gospel.

Yes, but Jesus used the Septuagint, which has been rejected as scripture by modern day Protestants, who chose the Pharasaic canon instead. (too “Catholic” otherwise)

The Holy Spirit was the Writer and Producer of the Word of God. It is presumptuous to claim that as anyone else’s role. The use of church members responding to the Spirit’s call to do the actual physical writing, collecting, “testing”, and protecting of God’s Word does not give anyone or any church the right to then claim authorship or even the production of what is God’s work. God did not need us to do His work, even if He chose to have His servants do it that way. The Roman Catholic claim seems to be the same as a plagiarist secretary or scribe that would sign his own name to what the Author wrote. God is the Author and Producer and Protector of His own Word. God does not want anyone adding to His Word either. He said so. Amen.

He used Catholics to write the books. God does not want the Word subtracted from either, however, we see that this is what the Reformers did.